In defence of Discernment Bloggers
By Michael Anthony – 31 December 2009
Those WWW-D’s
In my subjective viewpoint – the mark of a balanced discernment site is that it will always have an underlying objective; a warning of the times we are living in. Discernment is not only about exposing error and false teaching; it is also about discerning the times, a very scriptural term and very scriptural advice. The escalation of unsound doctrines is a vivid, biblical sign of the times.
It is the local Pastor’s job to warn and protect the flock from wolves that seek to derail Christians who are not grounded enough. Many Pastors have my sympathy; they are just too weighed down with other ministerial duties to know about everything going on out there. The sheer volume of new and emerging heresies alone makes it impossible for any one person or ministry to keep up. Besides, many heresies – when receiving wide enough condemnation to be refuted – just reinvent themselves and come back under the radar into the church, repackaged if you will. The dynamics of growing discernment ministries are purely a counterbalance against the increasing apostasy.
Many scholars saw Christian liberalism as a bigger threat than all the cults, evolution and secular humanism put together. Guess what? It’s come back, this time with elements of Christian mysticism, and alluring philosophies. Some heresies are so chameleon and so progressive that what you learn at seminary alone may not suffice. Discernment is not really a ministry; it’s more of an accessory to ministry, things that the ‘Christian Daily Mail’ does not report on.
There is a criticism – a protest, if you will – that discernment websites are accountable to no one but themselves. It depends on the context and what they mean by ‘accountable’, of course. On the one hand this is a self-refuting argument; calling out those that are perverting the simplicity of the Gospel to accountability of God’s word is by the same definition making oneself accountable to the word of God. On the other hand, to whom exactly should discernment ministries be accountable to? Should we institutionalize all these type of ministries under one banner and make them all sign some relevant decree? What happens if that institution itself becomes corrupt, then what? And if discernment ministries were accountable to an institution would false teachers take heed when warned? Of course not, it’s a dishonest criticism to begin with
I am not necessarily making a defence of all websites that deal with Christian discernment issues; there is quite a mixed bag out there. Standards must be measured by the very biblical standards they are professing to uphold, which is simply ‘are the discernment ministries themselves rightly dividing the word of truth’? But I have gotten ahead of myself here, there is only one Spirit of Truth and that is the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour is the Truth. Everything else is peripheral.
The avalanche of error and false teaching in modern Christianity is only the symptom. Knowledge begins with a reverent fear of the Lord; as that departs you have proportional levels of disregard for the authority of scripture. The inevitable consequence is twisting scripture to conform to one’s ideals and man’s wickedness. If you torture scripture long enough it will confess. We could simplify this and put error into two categories; those that are truly saved but have been taught some error and those whose error is a reflection of their rebellion to God. I suppose we could break it down to many more categories but that should suffice, the point is that discernment ministries are really targeting the former.
To Damn or not to Damn
There is error, major error and heresies. Categorize these however you wish, the bible speaks of damnable heresies. Of course, not all error is damnable but every error begat more error, which has consequences. If a doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ was not divine then that is simply a different jesus and most likely a different gospel. But false teachers are more subtle than that – one teaching refers to Jesus losing his divinity only on the cross and ‘being born again’ after he died. This is not the biblical jesus. Damnable? The implications of believing such biblical distortions are certainly not trivial. Pause and think about that.
Heresy Hunters
This term Heresy Hunter has been around quite a while. With it come all kinds of other ridicule such as ‘fault-finding ministry. It does not help having the fringe element out there – who between them – claims that just about everybody is a false teacher (the likes of John Mac Arthur caught in that wide net). All you have to do is google and type the name of any fairly well-known preacher and the words ‘false’ or ‘heresy’ and voila! They will convince that anyone, even Charles Spurgeon (if you probably look hard enough) is a false prophet, teacher, whatever…it gets much harder when quotes are taken out of context and things that the person said are pure speculation. The joys of free speech.
Brian Mclaren typifies the disdain against discernment sites:
I have never understood how these so called apologists can publicly criticize other ministers who obviously have the call of God on their life. I feel tremendous guilt if I say just one mean, petty remark about a fallen minister, not to mention the spiritual ones. Yet these heresy-hunters continue day-after-day criticizing God’s anointed–and publicly–without feeling one ounce of guilt or remorse over the destruction they cause in the body of Christ.
This one paragraph is full of contradictions. Firstly, if you are a blood-washed, born again child of God you are anointed, there is no monopoly on the anointing. If someone publically teaches error then error should be exposed publically. Sorry, discernment groups don’t do spin or damage control. If false teachers are the ones seducing the flock and causing them to err how is it possible that they would be the ones causing destruction? How does anyone take Brian’s accusations seriously when he himself does not believe in a literal second coming of Jesus Christ, has problems with the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the cross, and a literal hell. He denies the Genesis account of the fall of man. But we are the ones causing destruction…oh boy.
The phrase ‘the Second Coming of Christ’ never actually appears in the Bible. Whether or not the doctrine to which the phrase refers deserves rethinking, a popular abuse of it certainly needs to be named and rejected. –- [Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 144]
My reply to this gentle, friendly uncle figure is; ‘in the quietest water swims the ugliest fish’.
Discernment Ministries – charity, but not really tax deductable.
On a personal note, discernment has really sharpened my knowledge of God’s word – I have had to go back and reassert the biblical absolutes and reassert what I really believe. That is the upside; the downside is that this has cost me quite a few friendships. You warn a friend about a certain book they are reading and you question a friend’s new views on doctrine or some of these new ‘experiences’. Next minute you are being ignored and get less and less XMAS card every year.
It must also be asked, what do any discernment type ministries have to gain? It certainly cannot financial; go to a Christian bookstore and see how many books deal with false teaching, hardly any. No one is going to pay a dime to be told that they could be deceived; besides, critiquing error is a very laborious task and requires hours of research.
Another common accusation is that those that expose error are ‘dividing the brethren’. This is a false dichotomy to begin with. Besides, if ministries are upholding the truth there is nothing to fear from scrutiny. Discernment ministries, you will notice are not really concerned over ‘should women wear hats to church’ or ‘must you be baptised to be saved’ debates, they normally expose doctrines that will either derail Christians or keep them others from true, biblical salvation. What divides is the truth, that’s what Jesus said. Unity in the Holy Spirit is for people that are united in the truth; how can anyone possibly be united with those that are not walking in the truth?
Discernment Syndrome
Spare a thought for those doing discernment work. It is a thankless task that attracts all sorts of nasty rebuttals. There is also what I call a discernment syndrome where one can see error in just about anyone but himself. There is always this danger…
To become immune to a disease you take just enough of it to allow your body to create an antibody. Yet, when all we see is error, error, error everyday – it takes it toll. It is easy to become so engrossed in the falsehoods that you become very distrustful, even of people that mean well. You get to a point that you just don’t really care, why warn the majority of ungrateful people that take pot shots at you for warning them? The truth is that there are always those (few) that thank you for showing them the errors they were in.
Does that make discernment people infallible? Absolutely not. In fact it makes one very aware how easily one is deceived, it adds a new awareness to prayer which is simply ‘Lord, open my eyes, if I relied on my intellect alone I would be totally deluded…’
[DTW note: No one is infallible. Every born again Christian is a sinner saved by Grace who still sins (small things that is) and then begs for forgiveness to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I keep myself in constant check by listening to the Holy Spirit as to what I need to write about and also discern the information that I read as well while sift though the good and the bad. I am accountable to God at all times as He is my Heavenly Father and He too will judge me in the end. The entire point of a Discernment website is to help people get out of unsavoury teachings and back onto the path that Jesus Christ the Son of God laid out for them. Not the other way around. Hence I take this all very seriously.]
Humourless Satirists?
No really, the counter-discernment site groups out there are not gifted with humour. They have other gifts, not this one.
Apologetics
Let me just reuse a piece from http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR192.htm, it is an excellent article if you wish to read further.
A too often prevailing attitude seen in the religious world and even in the Lord’s church is that of doctrinal indifference. “So what if they teach thus and so, what does it really matter?” is the statement often made to express this doctrinal tolerance. The real question should be, “how would God have us view the matter of doctrine and does the truth really matter?” To answer this question and to establish what our thinking should be relative to matters doctrine, I introduce
Jude 3 “3: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
It is evident that the inspired Jude had intended to write a treatise unto these brethren about the “Common Salvation” but because of the presence of false teachers, he wrote this short epistle exhorting them to contend for the faith (see also verse four). No doubt, had Jude written on the common salvation, he would have pointed out that salvation is common to all in that salvation is available to all, both Jew and Gentile, male and female, Jn. 3: 16; Eph. 2: 16, 17; Gal. 3: 28). Doctrinal corruption can cause one to forfeit one’s salvation (Gal. 5: 1-4, Col. 2: 7-9). Hence the necessity for contending for the faith.
“…the faith.” Let us begin our study of Jude 3 by noticing “the faith” for which Christians are to contend. The term “faith” is used in essentially two senses, the personal, subjective faith of individuals and the gospel system (Rom. 14: 22, 23; Acts 13: 8). “The faith” (te pistei) very appropriately stands for the gospel system in view of the fact that the faith has the design and goal of producing personal faith in the individual (Rom. 10: 17, Jn. 20: 30, 31). Jude 3 is tantamount to Paul’s language, “…I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Phili. 1: 17). The gospel is more than just the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (these are the facts of the gospel, I Cor. 15: 1-4). The terms “the gospel” and “the faith” are used comprehensively to involve belief and consequent manner of life (cp. Gal. 2: 14).
Jude wrote, “earnestly contend for the faith.” These words describe and teach what the Christian is to do for the faith and how he is to do it. The Greek word rendered “earnestly contend” is epagonizomai. This compound word is very descriptive. Consider W. E. Vine’s comments concerning “earnestly conten “Epagonizomai: signifies ‘to contend about a thing, as a combatant’ (epi, ‘upon or about,’ intensive, agon, ‘a contest’), ‘to contend earnestly,’ Jude 1:3. The word ‘earnestly’ is added to convey the intensive force of the preposition” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
Some linguists point out that the primary physical action of “earnestly contend” was often applied to the skilled wrestler. His object was both defensive and offensive: to avoid being thrown and attempting to succeed in throwing his opponent. Involved in Jude’s spiritual use, there is definitely much energy and aggression in epagonizomai.
Such spiritual militancy is often witnessed on the part of the apostles. When it came to matters of truth, the apostles were very protective. Early Christians were not indifferent in doctrinal matters, they expressed great concern for the truth and disdain relative to error. Consider the following example of what Paul and Barnabas did when error was introduced at Antioch:
Acts 15 “1: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2: When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question”
Not only did Paul and Barnabas debate the teaching of these errorists, but also they traveled to Jerusalem in an effort to determine the origin of the false doctrine and to learn the extent of its acceptance in the church at Jerusalem. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they continued to discuss and debate the doctrine some of the brethren who had come from Jerusalem had taught (Acts 15: 4-12). Paul and Barnabas were determined that the matter be exhausted and that resolve be reached as to the truth regarding the spurious teaching (vs. 13-30). Paul and Barnabas were doing precisely what Jude commanded, they were “contending for the faith.”
Why “earnestly contend for the faith?” We have briefly explored the language used by Jude in the command (it is a command) to earnestly contend for the faith. We have seen the fervor and intensity involved. We have noticed two out of the many biblical examples of Christians who defended the truth and offensively attacked error. The question is why all the concern over truth and error?
Beloved, contrary to popular thinking the truth can be determined and is imperative (Jn. 8: 32). The Christian must abide in the “doctrine of Christ” in order to maintain a saved relationship with God (2 Jn. 9-11). Man is sanctified or set apart by the truth of God’s word (Jn. 17: 17). In order for man’s worship to be accepted by God, it must be rendered in “spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4: 24). The truth must not be distorted or perverted and to do so incurs the severe wrath of God (Rev. 22: 18, 19, Gal. 1: 6-9). Man must love and obey the truth in order to be saved (2 Thes. 2: 10-12, Rom. 2: 6-9). Without the pristine gospel system, man can not enjoy faith (Rom. 10: 17).
We have noticed the apostle Paul’s defense of the truth. Let us now allow Paul himself to tell us why he was so protective of the gospel:
“4: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2).
As a result of dedicated men such as Paul who was willing to defend, debate, and stand for the truth against all error, we continue to have the truth in God’s word available to us today. Paul’s very style of preaching was dialectic, examining, and challenging. The writer of Acts frequently used a word to describe Paul’s manner in his preaching. It is the word “reasoned” (Acts 17: 2, 17, 18: 4, 19, 19: 8, 9, 20: 7, 24: 12). The Greek word is dialegomai. Dialegomai means to think different things with oneself then, with other persons, to converse.” Involved in dialegomai (what Paul did when he preached) is to form propositions or positions, often a false premise in contrast with the true, established premise. Hence, dialegomai is often translated “disputed” in the King James (a good rendering). Paul used the scriptures to form the truth, compared the truth as taught and established in God’s word with the view of the errorists, and then refuted their flawed teachings (see Acts 17: 1-3).
Notice what Jude said next, “which was once delivered unto the saints.” The advocates of latter day revelation maintain that all Jude is saying is that the faith was simply delivered. This deliverance was done on an occasion, but certainly there were to be additional deliveries,” they reason. Many modern day religions are founded on the belief of additional revelation, following the completion of the New Testament. They must believe such because their religion in name and practice is not found in the Scriptures. For instance, how could Mormonism exist if it depended on the New Testament? Mormonism must have the Book of Mormon. The same is true regarding the so called Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Islam, and Roman Catholicism (the list goes on and on).
Beloved, “once delivered” in Jude three does not mean simply something that was done one time. The word rendered once is the Greek hapax. Notice W. E. Vine’s definition of hapax:
“Hapax: denotes (a) ‘once, one time,’ 2 Cor. 11: 25; Heb. 9: 7, 26, 27; 12: 26, 27; in the phrase ‘once and again,’ lit., ‘once and twice,’ Phil. 4: 16; 1 Thess. 2: 18; (b) ‘once for all,’ of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition, Heb. 6: 4; 9: 28; 10: 2; 1 Pet. 3: 18; Jude 1: 3, RV, ‘once for all’ (AV, ‘once’); Jude 1: 5 (ditto); in some mss. 1 Pet. 3: 20 (so the AV)” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).
Observe the meaning Vine attaches to hapax (once) as used in Jude 3, “‘once for all,’ of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition.” The idea involved in hapax is not simply repetition, but the lack of all future occurrences because the first delivery was so complete that no additional deliverances are required. Hence, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many…” (“once” is again hapax, Heb. 9: 28).
Man urgently needs to cultivate an appreciation for the truth and then stand for that truth. The thinking that there are no absolutes but only shades of gray is diametrically opposed to scripture. The truth of God’s word has been compromised, politicized, and twisted in every imaginable way (see 2 Pet. 3: 16, Eph. 4: 14, 15). We must return to the aggressive gospel concerning which we read in the New Testament, the gospel that has the power to save (Rom. 1: 16).
—–
@ Michael Anthony
You’re so right about being greatful for people doing biblical discernment work. They are far and few inbetween and much needed in this day and age!
I have to agree with you on the inpact discernment has on a personal level. I have definitely managed to lose more than just a few friendships, but have gained the true Christ and Truth that has changed my life. It’s always an ongoing task though – using discernment everytime you read or listen to something and not keeping quiet when discovering another false doctrine, but having the courage to speak up and “earnestly contend for the faith.”.
Thank you for being another ‘dedicated man who is willing to defend, debate, and stand for the truth against all error’.
Michellé (André)
Dear Prophets, Priest and Poets
Can you please exercise that forgotten Christian virtue – it’s called honesty – when commenting. The CONTEXT was FALSE teachers complaining about discernment ‘type’ ministries/blogs being accountable to no one but themselves. The complaint being a dishonest complaint (or just diverting the attention away from their heresies) because discernment type blogs threaten to expose their blatant errors and warn those that are being misled and seduced by these teachers. It’s a really simple concept to grasp.
As for accountability I thought the article was pretty clear; the standard is ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’ with proper hermeneutical principles and most important; being led of the Holy Spirit. This means personal accountability is to God and his WORD. That was stated in the article, in plain language.
Yeah, I am submitted to my Pastor in my local church too. In fact I still take advice from my ex pastor from my old church. I am submitted to truly born again believers who give me biblical advice and even correct me when need be. In fact I have my group of Christian brethren that I trust and regularly call for a second opinion. But that is not and never was the point of this article…
…and whether you like it or not, discernment blogs are here to stay. So go debate the validity of these types of sites on your blog till you convince yourself we are the enemy. We already have a biblical mandate to expose error (see the whole latter half of the article – did you notice it?) so we don’t really need yours or anyone else’s approval. As for your opinion…we take the bible seriously. You? Not really, if you get the meaning.
So please answer me the question; to whom exactly must discernment bloggers be accountable to? Unfortunately you danced around that little bit of perplexing detail. Here is a little piece of irony for – by allowing people to post comments on an article is a form of accountability.
This website ‘Prophets, Priests and Poets is owned by Eugene – a guy who came here with some ‘Discernamentalist Mafia’ and gave me a hard time. He wrote his article “to account or not to account” though he has memory loss as to the things he said on my site, let alone that he was actually on my site commenting for a good few weeks.
At this stage a fake blog called discerningtheworld 3 had been set up and when I asked him if he agreed or disagreed to the content of the website (as it was just plain disgusting) and the fact that this ‘person/persons’ were using my name and going around commenting on others blogs. He refused point blankly to acknowledge that what these ‘acquintances’ of his had done was wrong.
For some unknown reason Emergents seem to think that born again Christians are stupid, illiterate and can’t remember what happened 1 day ago let along a few months ago. I’ve put this down to the spirit of blindness, because no one can be that naturally blind with blinkers on and all, to think that no one sees what they are upto.
Here are all the articles that Eugene commented on:
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/05/09/the-dominionist-faith-of-angus-buchan-faith-like-potatoes-2
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/07/04/love-casts-out-all-hell
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/05/16/what-does-an-encounter-mean-or-is-that-a-g12
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/06/19/the-positive-and-negative-of-a-one-world-religion
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/06/22/born-again-christians-are-now-compared-to-inquisitors-of-the-inquisitions
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/06/04/what-to-expect-in-the-last-days
http://discerningtheworld2.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/rob-bell-shane-hipps-peter-rollins-teaching-arts-and-crafts-no-never-cant-be
The name Prophets, Priests, Poets is also a rip off of Rob Bell, Shane Hipps and Peter Rollins,conference they had a while back called Poets, Prophets, Preachers. Again… oops, no one would notice. Not that that is important, just showing off my memory skills. lol
Makes sense.
Dude pulled a quote out of the article and proceeded to interrogate it, Chinese style. These guys cannot exegete scripture so I cannot expect them to exegete an article. [maybe they should practise on cereal boxes first]
Now I understand, dude had to bring in his telescopic strength glasses to find something that they can attack because the article metioned McLaren – of course the McLaren groupies would be upset.
This website ‘Prophets, Priests and Poets is owned by Eugene…
Really? PPP’s *newest* writer is also its owner? Better tell that to the guy who started the blog years before any of us even knew Eugene.
The name Prophets, Priests, Poets is also a rip off of Rob Bell, Shane Hipps and Peter Rollins,conference
The re-naming of the blog to PPP was a multi-week process involving much discussion from all the writers, during which none of the cited gentlemen was ever mentioned.
So did you discern this “rip off” theory?
So then blocking people from commenting because they refuse to agree with you would go against this brilliant piece of accountability?
Kyle
>> So then blocking people from commenting because they refuse to agree with you would go against this brilliant piece of accountability?
No Kyle, I only block people who cause trouble. Eugene was allowed to comment over 50 times. He expressed his beliefs. And you are doing so too.
FYI… Eugene is a writer at PPP.info, but not the “owner” (who would be me). It is a group blog with 10-15 writers from a number of denominational Christian backgrounds (Reformed, Independent, Restoration Movement, AoG, etc.) touching on multiple Christian topics, including (sometimes) the critique of the utter lack of Christian grace within the ODM (Online “Discernment” “Ministry”) movement – as opposed to professional discernment ministries (like Ravi Zacharias, etc.) – who make up the bulk of the “new Pharisee” movement…
Some of us generally hold to the TULIP of Calvinism, others (like myself) eschew systematic theology in favor of the “systemless” nature of the early church. Some of us are literal 6, 24-hour day Creationists, others of us believe in other Christian views of Creation (including ID). Some believe that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the best explanation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, others believe that Cristus Victor might be a better explanation. And while we may differ on the issues of secondary importance, all of us believe in the Gospel Christ preached, of the coming Kingdom of God, and in his death, burial and resurrection as the firstfruits of salvation.
“Owner”, “newest writer”…. honestly could not care. It’s what you PREACH that stays the same. Anti-Christian.
These guys deserve an award for selective reading. I wish they were as selective about heresy.
Chris L
>> Eugene is a writer at PPP.info, but not the “owner” (who would be me)
Great, pleased to meet you.
Sorry Eugene for mis-representing you as the owner. You still are an Emergent never the less and anti-Christian and you still wrote your little article like an innocent one. You failed to mention in your article all the stuff you said on this blog, and agreeing with the disgusting comments and views of Iggy and friends.
No need to apologise on his behalf Chris. I as a born again Christian understand that there will always be massive hatred toward those who warn about false teaching. Not saying you hate christian websites who preach the truth. But it’s clear you don’t like us either.
Actually Eugene, you need to write an article on EMERGING LOVE: “How to speak like a Christian and act the exact opposite.”
>> Some of us generally hold to the TULIP of Calvinism
Yeah, one foot in Roman Catholicism is what TULIP is, that is why the ‘NEW CALVINIST’ and Emergents get on so well. In fact I can see why Apostolic, WoF and AoG etc would all be happy to engage as all their little pathways lead back to Rome.
Anyhow, lovely to meet your blogs acquaintance, I’ll be sure to keep up to date on the latest movements.
Chris,
Let me get my head around this – you guys find ‘discernment ministries’ to be lacking grace…so instead of creating a more gracious form of discernment ministry which is really the purpose [of your great 'concerns' ?], you guys all put your heads together and came up with…wait…for… it…an anti-discernment ministries [type] ministry? (Part time for now, I understand)
So, let me get this straight – the collective spirituality of all you guys is not really about warning Christians about false teachers, dammnable heresies, seductive teachings, the enemy’s strategies and his wiles, warning against the great apostasy, sign of the times etc. No, your focus would be [not primarily, I understand] about whose turn it is to service the grace-meter?
Makes sense. Absolute sense. No, really, totally.
BTW, how does one become a ‘professional’ discernment ministry? Can we get paid for this? Deborah, we need to talk…
Very gracious name this ‘new pharisee movement’, creative too. You guys set such a wonderful example. I bet you if I probed just a wee bit deeper…
Michael
What you do is you create the PDM website and you register your name and all your details and then they contact you to meet at coffee bars like the one Peter Rollins uses. You pay a MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION *wink wink* If you really want to be professional you can pay the yearly subscription and get a 1.5% discount. It’s like going to ‘getorgained.com’: $25 and you can study to be a professional in all sorts of theology in 2 weeks.
Michael –
ODM’s are something we do comment on/confront from time to time, but that is not our primary focus. Also, I think anyone that calls a blog a “ministry” might have more than the usual helping of hubris. While we have grown from discussing our beliefs and our views on Christianity, and while (at least from the mail we’ve received) others have benefited from this as well, I would not consider that a “ministry”, but simply a community.
As for discernment, we’ve been pretty firm in denouncing Word/Faith teaching (which is prevalent here in the West) and Universalism – the two primary poles of actual heresy in the church today. Much of what you “expose” and call “emergent”, though (here and at similar blogs) is within the stream of orthodoxy, but not exactly in your particular vein of belief as it pertains to secondary matters. It would seem that you raise an awful lot of things as “anti-Christian” which are decidedly not so – and that is where grace lacks…
As for humor, you’ve apparently not hung around PPP.Info long enough…
There are a handful of reputable ministries (like the one I mentioned above) that specialize in exposing cultish and rank heresy within the church. They are run by guys who are accountable to independent boards, and (in several cases) have PhD-level staff with broad scholastic understanding in the traditions of the church to separate what is absolute from what is personal conviction from what is simply a matter of taste and/or tradition.
Typically, as well, they operate from a perspective that maintains a graceful demeanor that does not compromise, but also avoids gross castigation. What I see in this site and Deborah’s is an attempt to divide and separate sheep from sheep (primarily) rather than sheep from goats. Certainly you’re likely to tag a few actual goats along the way (like a stopped watch is correct twice a day), but if I remember the parable correctly, it is the King who ultimately does the separation of sheep/goats and wheat/tares, not the sheep, themselves…
In truth, it should be a matter of addressing specific beliefs (rather than individuals) and determining what is absolute truth vs. what is interpretation vs. what is preference. All too often (for instance, w/ Ken Silva’s site, which I’ve had the misfortune to have read a good deal), when you actually deal in beliefs w/o the conspiracy theories and guilt-by-association accusations, there’s not really all that much there there…
I’m not sure why the snideness is called for…
Here’s an example of a PDM that I consider reputable: [EDITED: url removed]
As far as I know, Dr. Zacharias has never been accused of being “emergent”…
Chris L
>> the two primary poles of actual heresy in the church today. Much of what you “expose” and call “emergent”, though (here and at similar blogs) is within the stream of orthodoxy, but not exactly in your particular vein of belief as it pertains to secondary matters.
secondary matters? since when is any false teaching lumped into categories of:
1) WoF – definitely MOST dangerous,
2) 5 Fold Ministry Revival types – dangerous guys those, but they didn’t make it to first place because they don’t have those televangelists which are just sooooooo wrong
3) Emergents – leave em for last, in fact don’t even bother, they are just another little ‘stream’ of false teaching creeping in. If they are ignored for long enough they can get right in there and change the world.
The scary thing is, WoF, NAR and EC all have the same agenda and your little streams lead into that big river called Rome.
>> It would seem that you raise an awful lot of things as “anti-Christian” which are decidedly not so – and that is where grace lacks…
What we deem as anti-Christian is done so in accordance with the Word of God thereby proving said person or teaching to be unbiblical. We don’t play pin the tail on the donkey here (that would lack grace).
Then we warn people to be careful, as we do not want them to get spiritualy hurt by being lied to with non biblical rubbish disguised as genuine Christianity. (that’s REAL love – warning that is, sticking your neck out and warning people)
We appear to lack grace (using your terminology) because we speak the gospel truth all the time and that makes people upset! And upset people always come along and make up names like, (unloving, and lack grace, etc) And then we get the ‘least-grace blog award’ because of it.
Actually where did I put that badge…anyhow. I am sure Discernamentalist Mafia will make me a new award. They love making me certificates and giving me awards.
Chris L
Snideness? Oh… gosh, I had no idea… Does Peter Rollins mean anything to you? Anyhow that comment was for Michael.
Chris L
>> What I see in this site and Deborah’s is an attempt to divide and separate sheep from sheep (primarily) rather than sheep from goats.
haha, no, you can’t separate sheep from sheep. A sheep is born again and the Holy Spirit will never come against Himself as he leads all sheep to the truth and nothing but the truth.
>> but if I remember the parable correctly, it is the King who ultimately does the separation of sheep/goats and wheat/tares, not the sheep, themselves…
If you read my blog you will see I say this often. I do not save people. God saves. But we are called to preach the gospel IN ALL IT’S TRUTH. any less is what separates the goats from the sheep.
>> for instance, w/ Ken Silva’s site, which I’ve had the misfortune to have read a good deal
I like Ken Silva he preaches some pretty good stuff and does not tippy toe around people. A spade is a spade and not a ornamental garden utensil for poking fun at weeds.
Anyhow the guilt by association thing is very easy to solve, you know that?
You just say, ‘I don’t agree with what that person preaches anymore, they used to bw ok, but now they are not, or they never were ok and are now worse’ Simple eh?
Let me use Ken Silva as an example (sorry Ken) if I were to find out that Ken stopped preaching the gospel truth, I will simply say, ‘I no longer support Ken Silva as he now preaches false teaching.’
But Emergents have a problem doing that because that goes against the Emergents law of love. Love everyone no matter what they do or say and that includes insulting Jesus Christ the Son of God. With the exception of born again Christians; you can hate us as long as you cover it up nicely, make us feel like there is grace and love and peace and happines and joy when there is not.
There are only 2 spirits Chris. The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error. both cant live in the same person at the same time. This is why you can’t be a Christian and delve into strange doctrines. Nope…can’t do that.
“Owner”, “newest writer”…. honestly could not care. “It’s what you PREACH that stays the same. Anti-Christian.
Well, at least you’re honest about the fact that you don’t care whether what you say/write is true.
[EDITED: I just finished the rest of the quoted sentence for you, I see you left that part out. Put it in bold. Now it makes more sense.]
Firstly, I have always considered a PHD to be a sign of insecurity.
You do realize that I have already written an article defending discernment type blogging and do not wish to repeat myself for obvious reasons. Serving other Christians is a ministry; I won’t split hairs over terminology. Judging by your recommended reading list I can only say that that are many things you might call secondary that I consider slow acting poison.
I disagree with your poetic analogy. You also cannot say of false teachers *nudge, nudge *wink, wink * you know who…here’s a hint etc. Paul named three false teachers by name. If a person that is being carelessly exposed is actually blameless it is we that will be shamed and face a harsh rebuke from the Lord. I personally have no desire to call evil what God has sanctified and set apart for his work. Only with a reverend fear of the Lord does one even begin to understand truth.
We judge only on what is being taught, based on biblical absolutes – our confidence is not on some superior intellect but on God’s Word and the simplicity of the Gospel. Standing for the defense of the Gospel is a biblical mandate.
I am open to any challenge on things I have written (in the context of false teaching) – if they are unbiblical then they must be biblically refuted. (preferably with articulate and thoughtful rebuttals). If I am proven to be wrong then I can only be wiser and more respectful to the person that corrects me (it would only be consistent with a love for the truth, right?). But philosophical arguments? Opinions of who qualifies to expose error? Meetings everybody’s expectations? Nah.
Let me give you some personal insight – apart from being caught up in silly debates – I have no pleasure in having to [sometimes] write about some teachers that are teachings things that in the very least will make many Christians lose their rewards. Why? Because once upon a time I was that teacher on that pulpit and it took many painful years to come to a realization that I taught some bad error. I wish now that someone had yanked me out of that pulpit and showed me from scripture where I was leading others astray…but I also know that I probably would not have accepted correction then. I was only teaching the same content as those teachers I almost idolized…
Today, different story; I have a very low view of man and a very high view of scripture.
It’s a Holy, penetrating, convicting and sacred Word that is proclaimed by saved sinners who are sometimes ungrateful, come short of a righteous standard and many times are ungracious.
As for the truth – to the repentant; joy – to the rebellious; anger, hatred…
There are no two opinions on the [fundamental] truth. There is one Spirit, one body, one hope. One Gospel. No variants or streams.
Brendt
You’re funny… I fixed your attempt at misquoting me there.
It makes no difference who owns the blog. It’s what is preached and taught there that remains the same – it’s unbiblical. If the owner did not like what was written because it would make people think he believed the same, then I am sure he would have it removed. Comprende? Glad you understand.
Deborah, don’t sell yourself short — you’re funny, too. You have a very funny definition of “misquoting”. I copied and pasted your exact quote. While the sentence that followed (which I did not quote) further clarifies your point, it does not nullify the fact that you stated unequivocally that you did not care that something you wrote was false.
Michael: I have always considered a PHD to be a sign of insecurity.
I have to agree. Albert Mohler, Wayne Grudem, Michael Horton, and D.A. Carson are four of the most insecure men I know.
(insert eye roll here)
Brendt
Look, Brendt ‘Emergent’ Walters. I have had discussions with probably close to 500 comments with your friends and you all say the same stuff over and over again. If you care to read the comments you will see I apologised to Chris L thinking Eugene was the owner. Did you not read that part or are you just wilfully ignoring it? Anyhow, not important…
Instead of wasting your time on trivial matters why don’t we find something of real importance to speak about like:
-If I (and others on this blog) are Christian and you are a Christian why then do you dislike us?
-If I (and others on this blog) are Christian and you are a Christian why then do we speak a different gospel?
-Do you consider your gospel the correct one and ours offensive?
-If the gospel that is spoken here offensive, please state exactly why
-If the gospel that you speak is correct, please state exactly why
Please write in point form. Makes it easier to read.
Both you and I know this is a useless exercise, some of this new breed of … converts are theologically trained. [many of the best seminaries have been hijacked by liberals and post modernists] There are baptized heathens who think biblical grace is being polite and compromising truth for the sake of unity.
I am still clueless as to what exactly they hope to achieve with their anti-discernment objective – other than to share a common grievance. They have the single most one-dimensional view of what the bible calls heresy. It must be self gratifying to know that you have got it all worked out…
It’s not necessarily the definition of the gospel, it’s these guy’s worldview. It is probably 180 degrees opposite to ours. You will also notice that they all normally dislike the same group of people. How interesting…
Same spirit, same thoughts, same objectives. Same worldview.
Think about that.
Michael
>> Both you and I know this is a useless exercise,
Actually no not really a completely useless exercise. I want Brendt to say it openly, loud and clear for everyone to hear. No fancy language, just say what he REALLY has been wanting to just come out and say all along. The bible is all about honesty, so let’s hear Brendt say what’s in his heart.
Re: the rest of your comment – totally agree especially “they all normally dislike the same group of people.”
I don’t know you in person to be able to say that I “like” or “dislike” you. What one writes is not the sum-total of the person. So, while I disagree with the content and tone of much of what is written on this site, that has nothing to do with whether or not I “like” or “dislike” you, as a person.
There are people I know and see frequently whom I do not “like” very much, and some of them are other Christians. As it is possible, I do my best to reconcile and to avoid creating discord. Even so, I am not perfect, and I’m sure I irritate as many (or more) than I am irritated by.
According to the Apostle Paul, the Gospel is summed up as:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
On this, I would say that we all believe the same Gospel.
However, I think that – reading your site – that you tend to over-generalize and attack groups of Christians (ex. “emergents”) without specifics as to what their “heresies” are, you tend to attack the people right along w/ the ideas, and you seem to be pretty quick to toss folks out of the kingdom.
Perhaps it is different in South Africa, but in the US, the term “emergents” has become – in ODM circles – a catch-all category that encompasses conservative and liberal churches alike who do not “tow the line” on each and every doctrinal point required by the “discerners” (of which Mr. Silva is a primary purveyor of this bit of fallacy). If you ask what “emergents” believe, you end up getting a list of things that many folks in “emerging” churches I know of in real life do not believe in the least.
I do not consider that the Gospel outlined above is offensive. I do consider the displayed hubristic attitude of condemnation offensive, though.
See above. The Good News is not about who’s in and who’s out – it is about what Christ has done for us, if we accept the gift he has freely given.
See above. The Gospel is quite simple – it is LIVING the Gospel that is difficult. Playing back-seat driver to someone who is trying to live it out just makes it all the much harder. It is reminiscent of the words of a first-century Rabbi who said of such folk: “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
That’s where our beliefs differ…
Chris L
Well thank you, you have answered all my questions just perfectly.
PS, which Christ are you speaking about? The one from the Bible or the one presented by the World that “What one writes is not the sum-total of the person”. So like you can write anti-Christian things but that’s ok, cos if they smile nice and look hip then there must be something nice deep down.
Let me tell you straight Chris. If you have the Holy Spirit abiding in you, you will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER preach anything that even remotely disgraces Jesus Christ in any way. You will NEVER EVER EVER EVER ENTERTAIN people who want to mock HIM and INSULT HIM by preaching man made lies and philosophies and other rubbish.
So what you gonna do about those who write worldly fleshly ungodly things on your poetic website? Or is the poetic thing just a metaphor and no one really has the truth, because the truth is what you make it out to be and everyone has the truth deep down inside them? So you can write anything as long as it sounds Christian, quote some verses here and there, throw in big words – great stuff, give them a free cuppa coffee at the first meeting.
There are 2 spirits. The spirit of truth and the spirit of error. You can’t have both. So yes, the gospel is about who’s in and who is out.
So, lets see:
-Do you believe in hell?
-Where do you see the world in 50 years time?
-Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian (this includes Catholics)?
-Do you believe that Eastern religions have something to offer Christianity?
-What exactly is you favourite reading material?
-Do you agree with Pantheism or Panentheism?
-What do you think about Israel and Palestine?
And if you don’t wanna answer all those, you can just answer the 3rd one about Catholics.
Oh the reference to me being a pharisee, come now… no riddle word games here, I don’t do metaphors. I love honesty, if you are gonna say it, say it, don’t hint. Hinting is just annoying.
Lastly…you said, “However, I think that – reading your site – that you tend to over-generalize and attack groups of Christians (ex. “emergents”) without specifics as to what their “heresies” are”
You got to be kidding me. How much more do I need to explain the specifics? If you chose to ignore them, then hey… what can I do? Nothing. And I think, you have not even read my blog. I read a LOT of yours last night. To 4am in the morning.
You can start with all the links I mentioned above where Eugene commented. They are pretty detailed with major specifics.
Please write in point form. Makes it easier to read.
Assuming the following is what you mean by ‘point form’, I agree whole-heartedly.
Brendt ‘Emergent’ Walters
Please tell me how you discerned that I am emergent.
If you care to read the comments you will see I apologised to Chris L…
I read the comments originally, and I even re-read them again, just to do due diligence to be sure that I didn’t miss something. Apparently, the internet is clogged, as I see neither an apology to Chris, nor a redaction of your statement that you don’t care that something you wrote was false. If such things actually exist, I apologize for not noting that.
If I (and others on this blog) are Christian and you are a Christian why then do you dislike us?
Please tell me how you discerned that I dislike you. I am incapable of answering that question until you reveal to me the contents of my own heart.
If I (and others on this blog) are Christian and you are a Christian why then do we speak a different gospel?
I will readily admit that part of my need for further sanctification is to stop loathing that phrase, as many have twisted Galatians 1:6-9 such that “different gospel” means “anything with which I do not agree”, thereby cheapening the actual gospel, putting it on the same level as issues of conscience such as those described in Romans 14.
Assuming that such is not the case here, please tell me how you discerned that I speak a “different gospel”. I am incapable of answering that question until you reveal to me the contents of my own heart.
Do you consider your gospel the correct one and ours offensive?
While I am not well-versed in exactly what you would consider to be “your gospel”, I would suspect that I do not find “your gospel” any more offensive than Jesus intended it to be.
I *do* object to the manner in which the truth is sometimes presented, but not the truth itself.
If the gospel that is spoken here offensive, please state exactly why
Again, I do not object to the truth, but the manner in which it is sometimes presented. You are muddling the two concepts.
If the gospel that you speak is correct, please state exactly why
I honestly find this request a bit puzzling, as (at least at the time of your request) I had yet to say anything here that is even remotely related to any gospel, whether true or false. Are there other sources of my speech and/or writing that you feel I need to clarify/defend?
My statements (prior to this comment) were to point out two incorrect statements of yours (the ownership of PPP and its naming) and follow-up thereunto. Yet, suddenly I seem to be eerily close to being a full-blown heretic in your eyes.
Self-edit: Well, having read Michael’s next comment, I see that (at least for him) I can drop the “eerily close”.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. What one writes might give you a picture of what they may be like if you know them “in real life” (i.e. you meet them, speak with them, etc.), but what one writes does not give you a full idea of personality, tone, piety, etc.
As to which Christ I’m speaking about, I am speaking of the first-century Rabbi who was sinless and became sin for all, so that we could accept the grace given by God. I also believe that following Christ is more than simple mental assent to a small set of beliefs, but also day-to-day actions (which cannot be observed through a web page).
I believe that once one has the Holy Spirit, that one may indeed still commit sin, and that one may be in error on any number of secondary matters – or that many secondary matters don’t have a “one-size-fits-all” answer, but rather that freedom in Christ has a huge set of responsibilities that should lead us to take the counsel of the Holy Spirit in every matter, and may allow some freedoms for some in certain situations, but not in others (see Paul of eating meat sacrificed to idols).
Up to this point, you’ve not given me any specific “lies” or “philosophies” to critique.
Perhaps you could give me an example, as none come to mind at the moment, apart from what comes from some commenters who like to toss people out of the kingdom over trifles (like one’s view of how God created the earth).
The site’s name came from one of the writers who noted that our articles tend to fit into 1) Scripture and direct commentary on scripture (“prophets”); 2) Application of Scripture and seeking God in one’s day-to-day activities (“priests”); and 3) Finding God expressed in a variety of art (“poets”).
I do not believe that “truth is what you make it out to be and everyone has the truth deep down inside them”, and I’ve ticked off a number of folks planting stakes in the ground on where the boundaries of truth lie.
Not at all. The Gospel is the good news to all of mankind who listens to it. It is about how to live, allowing God to take care of what comes after life. When you read Paul’s simple explanations of the Gospel (not all of the surrounding doctrine), it is not about who’s in or out – it is about what God has already done, and that we’re all “out” without it.
Yes.
It depends. If the final judgment occurs during that time, I see a renewed heavens and earth. If it has not come, I see that the world will continue on as it has – ebbing and flowing in terms of evil/good. I do not believe that 2010 is the most wicked the world has ever been, nor is it the least wicked it has ever been.
If you’re asking about eschatology, I am generally amillenial or partial-preterist, as I see too much wrong with the systematic premillenial dispensationalist theories (which were built in the late 1800′s).
I believe there are a number of incorrect doctrines within the Catholic tradition, but I believe there are some Christians within the Catholic church, and many to whom it is no more than a cultural identifier (who are ‘nominal Christians’).
If you are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church or Judaism, then yes, I believe they have some thoughts/practices that more resemble first century Christianity than does Western Christianity.
If you are referring to New Age, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. religions, then no.
Generally, I read material dealing with the historical and/or Hebrew roots of Christianity, although I do read some fiction (like Clancy, Tolkien, King, etc.) from time-to-time.
No.
Well, that’s a tricky one. I believe that God promised to maintain a remnant of His people, and that many of them are members of the diaspora, but some have collected in modern-day Israel. I do not believe that modern Israel should have carte blanche to do whatever it wants, as I do not believe it is identical to the Biblical state of Israel. At the same time, I believe that it has a right to exist, and that it has been generally responsible in its care for its antiquities (which have enriched modern Christianity).
I do not believe that it is intimately tied to end-times prophecy, as believed by many premillenial dispensationalists, but I am a firm supporter of the State of Israel, nonetheless.
“Hinting” (remez) was a primary component of Jesus’ ministry and teaching technique, and I try to follow it, as it seems to apply, as well. If you are convicted by my comment, then your actions may be Pharisaical. If not, then maybe not.
Well, first, the term “emergents” can mean so many things that it has almost become meaningless. When a term encompasses Brian MacLaren (who I generally disagree with), Dan Kimball and Mark Driscoll, then it’s not very specific.
But, to be a bit more specific, perhaps what I see the most in your site is a lack of charitable reading. For example – I am quite familiar with Louie Giglio, and a contemplative he is not. Your attacks on some of his articles border between the picayune and the bizarre – like the parsing and “translation” of his comments about Mount Ranier. And the tired practice of criticizing every work for what it doesn’t say (“no mention of the word ‘sin’ in the entire article!”) is as far from Christ-like charity as east is from west.
There is a difference between pointing out obvious error and being a nasty, prune-faced gossip.
Yes, Louie is more of a “touchy-feely” person than a number of Christian writers I know (which likely explains why his primary profession is songwriting and leading worship). The way each of experiences God through the Holy Spirit may be different, and dismissing someone else’s because it is different than yours – calling it “contemplative”, etc. – is not “discernment” – it is a decided LACK of discernment.
I know these questions were directed at Chris, but since you expressed to Michael a desire to know “what’s in [my] heart”, I’ll play along.
Do you believe in hell?
This question is a bit vague, as there are several words that Scripture uses that are translated as “hell” in English. However, I suspect that given the meaning that you are implying, my answer would be ‘yes’. Here’s what I believe/understand about Scripture’s various statements about hell:
Prior to Christ’s death and resurrection, the souls of all the dead (except those that God translated — Enoch and Elijah) went to hell, which consisted of two parts (as illustrated by Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus). One part was referred to as Abraham’s bosom and was a place of comfort for the elect. The other part was a place of suffering for the non-elect. At the time of His resurrection, Christ took the souls of the elect from Abraham’s bosom to heaven. The souls of all elect since then go to heaven upon death. It is not clear to me where the non-elect go, though it’s clearly not heaven.
There is also reference (mostly in Jesus’ teaching) to the lake of fire. This was created by God as a place for which were bound Satan and the other angels that rebelled. Although (as Scripture says) God wishes that none should perish, His holiness requires that the Fall also include many humans who are bound for the lake of fire as well. As I stated before, it’s not clear where the non-elect go these days, but seeing as how Revelation tells us that eventually death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire, that’s their ultimate destination.
I could probably go on, but does that answer your question?
Where do you see the world in 50 years time?
Whereas the last question was a bit vague, this one is very vague. The only definitive answer that I could give would be in regards to its astronomical location, and I suspect that is not what you mean. If you wish to clarify, I’ll try to respond more distinctly.
Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian (this includes Catholics)?
No.
Of course, I also don’t believe that Baptists, Presbyerians, Methodists, Lutherans, charismatics, or even non-denominational types like myself are Christians, either. There is not a denominational affiliation (or lack thereof) that determines someone’s salvation.
Some of the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic church (at least as I interpret them) stand in opposition to what I see as some of the key tenets of Christian faith. However, to equate what is written somewhere in Rome to what is believed by some guy in a pew in Arkansas is laughable at best.
Do you believe that Eastern religions have something to offer Christianity?
No.
But then, I don’t believe that any religion has anything to offer Christianity, as religion is man’s attempt to get to God, and that’s completely backwards from Christianity.
Here’s the larger issue with that question, though. Let’s assume that religion X (it can be from wherever you want) is in error. Since Satan is a created being (and therefore incapable of creation), any and all error in religion X is simply a distortion of the truth — that’s the most he can do.
Therefore, conversely, religion X *must* contain some truth (though probably badly distorted). To use a word of which you seem to be fond, a *discerning* believer will separate the truth from the error. Often, this truth will simply be redundant to what he already believes. But occasionally, cultural differences will cause him to see an aspect of the truth that he had not seen before. Obviously, if it is really truth, it will align with Scripture, but it may stand in contrast with his pre-conceived notions (which, obviously, are of much lesser authority).
There are, unfortunately, those who take some of the error with the truth. I would imagine that these are among those against whom you stand. Conversely, it is also error to hold God in such low esteem that one believes Him incapable of teaching you truth in manners with which you are not intimately familiar.
What exactly is you favourite reading material?
I don’t know that I have a favorite. What I read varies greatly.
As an example, though, the last two books I read and enjoyed were Timothy J Stoner’s “The God Who Smokes” (which refers to His passion — both in love and in anger at sin — not setting something on fire and putting it in your face) and Richard Doster’s “Safe at Home”, a novel that examined race relations in the 1950s in the rural southern United States, particularly through the medium and social construct of baseball.
For what it’s worth, the Stoner book was (at times) in strong disagreement with some people that would probably be identified as Emergent (and I mean that by their beliefs, not because someone noted that they are friends with self-identified Emergents and assumed they must be, too).
Do you agree with Pantheism or Panentheism?
Not in the slightest.
What do you think about Israel and Palestine?
Unlike most of the other questions, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel. But I’ll bite.
I personally believe that the current state of Israel (as acknowledged by the UN in 1948) is the Israel to which Scripture refers. I also recognize the fact that while this belief does not stand in any contrast to my interpretation of Scripture (otherwise, I’d have to abandon it), there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that definitively supports my view, either. As such, I have no qualms with those that believe differently.
Given my viewpoint, I personally see danger in “dividing the land” as various attempts at peace accords have attempted to do. However, as someone who knows Christian missionaries in Israel (who have an “insider” perspective), I also recognize that not all Israeli attempts to fight the Palestinians and/or their desires are proper (if for no other reason than that they are being performed by imperfect humans).
I could go on, but this is moreso political and (as I stated before) has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel.
(Which, in retrospect, makes me wonder why you bothered to ask.)
—————
If Chris decides to answer these questions, I’m certain that some will have similar answers and others will have different answers (with the variance being directly proportional to the proximity of the issue to “gospel-level” truth). As I’ve written before:
If I had to bet, I’d say that when we get to heaven, regarding the things that Chris and I disagree on, one of four things is going to happen:
We’ll find out that I was wrong.
We’ll find out that Chris was wrong.
We’ll find out that we both were wrong.
We’ll find out that we both were right, but our finite brains couldn’t grasp the paradox.
None of this affects the salvation of either of us.
Brendt en Chris L
Vanaf PPP die artikel “there’s hypocrisy there, revisited”:
Verduidelik nou ‘n bietjie in watter mate julle getrou was aan julle teologie van relevansie toe julle dit goed gedink het om vir Afrikane te kom preek? ‘n Klein verskilletjie in ons onderskeie kulture is dat ons president slegs skoling tot op Graad 5 ontvang het, getroud is met vyf vroue, twee verloofdes en negentien kinders het. Ek gebruik dit as voorbeeld, want dalk het julle hom sien dans op televisie of Youtube en dit sou ‘n duidelike leidraad gewees het dat dinge in Afrika anders gedoen word.
Die grootste verskil is in die gebruik van taal en woorde. Byvoorbeeld met die viering van ons polisiedag het duisende polisiemanne dronk op die straat gelê. Komm. Bheki Cele, nasionale polisiehoof, het dit egter duidelik gemaak die polisie sal hom nie steur aan kritiek oor die viering nie. “Enigeen wat ’n probleem het, kan gaan bars.” Wel, Suid-Afrikaners het geen probleem om sy reguit woorde te verstaan nie! Maar ons trap klei wanneer ons probeer verstaan wat presies in die kerk gesê word. Kom ek gee ‘n voorbeeld. Neef Chris L, jy het gesê:
Ek verstaan die woorde heel goed, maar wat beteken dit om die Evangelie te lewe? Die Here Jesus Christus se opdrag was tog om die Evangelie te verkondig. Hierdie nuwe lering bring duidelik verdeeldheid in die kerk en is nie die Christelike leer nie. Dit plaas ondraaglike laste op mense se skouers om die perfekte lewe te probeer lewe. En jou lewe, hoe moreel voorbeeldig dit ook al mag wees, kan niemand red nie.
Hoe nou? As ek vir iemand sê hy moet sy ondraaglike las van werke afgooi en glo in die Goeie Nuus dat Jesus Christus alles vir hom gedoen het, dan maak ek dit vir hom moeiliker? Ja nee, ons praat duidelik nie van dieselfde verlossing in Jesus Christus nie.
Wag ‘n bietjie basie. Dit is tog vals lering wat laste op mense laai. Chris L, miskien het jy nog nie Todd Wilken se artikel “Playing the Pharisee card” gelees nie. Ek raai jou aan om dit te doen en daarna jou beskuldiging Bybels te fundeer. In ons kultuur skrik ons nie vir koue pampoen nie.
Maar miskien het julle, teen julle teologie in, maar net nagelaat om ons kultuur in ag te neem en verstaan ek julle verkeerd. Maar ek is verbysterd om te lees wat my landsgenoot, Eugene gesê het:
Absoluut skokkend en anti-Christelik. En nie een van sy gespreksgenote het dit die moeite werd geag om hom te help nie! Dit lyk my in hierdie gesprek het woorde skielik die teenoorgestelde betekenis verwerf en dan is julle verbaas oor die reaksie daarop. Menere, dit is julle teologie dat almal deel van die gesprek moet wees, selfs die mense wat van julle verskil. Waarom is julle so verontwaardig as Christene julle anti-Christelike leer uitwys? Brendt het daar by julle geskryf:
In die konteks van sy skrywe lyk dit nie of hy na geloof verwys nie, maar na werke. Preek hy dat ‘n mens weggewys kan word as jou werke ‘that much’ te kort skiet? Dit is nie die Christelike geloof nie. Tog wil julle vir Afrikane kom preek. Nou ja, wees dan ten minste getrou aan julle relevansie teologie en preek op ‘n manier dat ons julle kan verstaan. Laat ek net byvoeg dat Afrikaners geen probleem het om die woorde van Amerikaanse Christene te verstaan nie, al praat hulle Brits. In hierdie dorland is hulle woorde soos manna uit die hemel vir ons. Mag die Here die VSA seën en beskerm ter wille van Sy getroue getuies daar.
Brendt
Vanaf PPP die artikel “there’s hypocrisy there, revisited”:
Brendt, jy het gesê:
Wys dan nou waar daar op hierdie webtuiste die ware Evangelie verwerp is ten gunste van persoonlike opinies los van die Woord. Verwar jy ons dalk met iemand anders of is dit weereens ‘n kwessie van dat jy jouself nie behoorlik van verwoord in ons kultuur nie?
mmm, ja Amanda, ek stem saam met jou laaste paragraaf. Dit kom my ook voor dat baie mense wat DTW “kritiseer”, dit doen nadat hulle al die ander sogenaamde en sommige egte “Discernment ministry” blogs/webwerwe ook gelees het. Soos ek dit verstaan word die webwerf onder bespreking PPP, ook maar meestal besoek en ondersteun deur mense wat “aanklank vind by mekaar”/ “dieselfde taal praat” (nie verwysend na bv Afrikaans as taal nie, maar “dieselfde voel” in hul binneste).
cecilia
Chris,
From the way you have answered the questions – although I have some doctrinal differences – you seem to have orhrodox [can I say fundamental?] Christian beliefs. But to me this is not really the point. Due to a lack of time I will not go into the term ‘emergent’ or one of the authors on your reading list (Rob Bell) just yet, these are quite a volatile topics. However…
Believe it or not; I have been giving thought to one of your comments. The danger with ‘discernment’ [Deborah and I do not necessarily agree on everything but are generally speaking, in the same camp] is throwing a net too wide and catching legit teachers with the bad. This is possible and has probably occured more times than any of us are aware. The flip side is that the nature of scrutinizing false teachings/teachers does not exactly make one many friends. I do not agree with your vision of a discernment ministry but do agree that the blogosphere can get carried away. I still don’t think you may have fully grasped the full extent of exactly how much error is out there and the extent of satan’s devices. The golden calf has been in the church for ions – Chrsitians are leaving the mainline church in droves. Sometimes the only place they get some affirmation that they are not going crazy and being too ‘judgemental’ is from reading similar experiences etc on the Internet.
As for Brendt he threw an (indirect) swipe at Albert Mohler, probably one of the most sound preachers I know. Does it not concern you [can i put you in the same bracket as Brendt?] that we seem to believe the same fundamentals but are in opposite camps? I see [can I call it emergent?] thought creeping in here: how do you ‘LIVE THE GOSPEL’? This is starting to get into social justice and the like. There is no such thing as living the gospel – there is such a thing as preaching the gospel and growing in sanctification which produces good works. It’s all these new terms that I totally disagree with, but I don’t have the time right now. I did not mean to take a random, selective quote out of context – just trying to illustrate a point.
Why would anyone respond to english statements with Afrikaans knowing that most of the comments are from Americans?
Cecilia
Ja. Ek het meer in gemeen met gelowiges in China as met die ontluikendes in Suid-Afrika.
Chris
Boere moedswilligheid. En om ‘n punt te maak. Die teologie van relevant wees, is ‘n onding. Dit het verwoesting gesaai in kerke reg deur Suid-Afrika. Kerk is nou nie meer ‘n plek vir gelowiges nie – dit sou selfsugtig wees – maar vir ongelowiges. Marknavorsing het mos gewys dat ongelowiges nie van kerk hou nie. Toe maak Rick Warren ‘n doelgerigte plan. Nou kla ongelowiges hulle soek ‘n geestelike ervaring en Lectio Devina is die nuwe plan. Hulle kan die teenwoordigheid van God ervaar en, soos Dries Cronje ons verseker, hulle kan selfs geskrifte uit hul eie geloofstradisie gebruik, nie net die Bybel nie.
Sê wie? Dit is mos doodeenvoudig nie waar nie. [Selfs al was dit waar, is hierdie webwerf nie 'n demokrasie of 'n Amerikaanse kolonie nie.] Die meeste kommentators hier is Suid-Afrikaners besorg oor wat plaaslik gebeur. Lees gerus die Kobus van Rensburg kommentare. Die meeste Amerikaners wat hier kommentaar lewer se missie is om DTW en haar gees van donkerheid te stop en so die Here te dien. Van PPP:
Volgens julle eie woorde kom julle hier as vyande en het nie die minste besorgdheid oor die skape wat geslaan en klippe gevoer word nie. Eugene Roberts, die Suid-Afrikaanse skrywer by julle, staan met beide voete in die nuwe spiritualiteitskamp van Mosaiek, e-kerk, Dries Cronje, Theo Geyser, Stephan Joubert, Willem Nicol, Trevor Hudson en hulle oorsese gaste onder andere Brian McLaren, Rob Bell en die geliefde Ron Martoia wat weereens op pad is na Suid-Afrika. Eugene is neutraal teenoor hierdie nuwe spiritualiteit nie en is besorg daaroor om DTW te stop.
Dit is om van Afrikaans te praat! Wat het in elk geval geword van die voordele van die verskeidenheid van kulture? Beskou hierdie gerus maar as my beskeie bydrae.
>>> chris, February 1st – “Why would anyone respond to english statements with Afrikaans knowing that most of the comments are from Americans?”
really? oh good, now I’ll rub up on my American English a bit… but seriously, the “leaders” putting forth the main criticism, are actually Afrikaans-speaking in South Africa; you’d be surprised just how many readers of this blog is actually Afrikaans-speaking and would love to see comments in Afrikaans every now and then…
like Amanda said: it’s a “Boer-thing”, a culture statement in my language! if I am Afrikaans and someone (who is actually Afrikaans(speaking)), criticize me in English, although I tend to understand it, for my own sake of mind, I would answer in Afrikaans.
don’t you have a dictionary on-line? and don’t worry, soon there will be a one-world-language…. Oh by the way, why don’t you ask the writer politely to put the comment to you in your preferred language? the other commentors actually follow through on the thread, so you should not loose any meaning of what was written in Afrikaans… but then on the PPP site most of the comments (on this same subject) is english, and they just looooove to chat about what is under discussion on the DTW blog!
sterkte!
cecilia
I believe that Amanda is illustrating how terribly silly it is to deliberately eschew relevance by speaking Africaans to an English audience.
Well done Amanda, well done.
Michael: As for Brendt he threw an (indirect) swipe at Albert Mohler…
Um, no, I didn’t. I admire Dr Mohler and the other 3 men I cited. I was illustrating the absurdity of your reference to a PHD being “a sign of insecurity.” I (mistakenly) thought that the wildly ludicrous nature of my statement would make its sarcasm self-evident.
Brendt,
Please accept my apologies, I misunderstood. I don’t get it, you like the same guys I do? This is getting confusing. Maybe there is a bigger misperception here than I thought.
[on the PHD/insecurity thing] The joys of using an industrial size brush…
Franky Gold
Die teologie van relevant wees behoort aan Brendt en nie aan my nie.
Brendt het ‘n uitstekende geleentheid om sy teologie prakties te demonstreer deur relevant te wees hier op ons voorstoep.
Hou jy jouself voor as voorbeeld van iemand wat relevant is in ander kulture? Miskien moet jy darem eers navorsing gedoen het oor die tweetaligheid van DTW se gehoor al dan nie. Het jy enige idee hoeveel amptelike landstale in hierdie geweste gebesig word? En taal is tog ‘n belangrike deel van ‘n kultuur, sou jy nie sê nie? En laat ek my tog maar herhaal. PPP se doelstelling lees soos volg:
Hulle kom dus hier as selfverklaarde vyande met die doel om te vernietig. En dit sou meer as sillie wees om jouself relevant te maak vir jou vyande. Dit sou verraad en selfmoord wees. Nee, dankie sê die gansie.
-Do you believe in hell?
-Where do you see the world in 50 years time?
-Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian (this includes Catholics)?
-Do you believe that Eastern religions have something to offer Christianity?
-What exactly is you favourite reading material?
-Do you agree with Pantheism or Panentheism?
-What do you think about Israel and Palestine?
i have been a writer at prophets-priests-poets since nearly the beginning, i’m not sure but i may have been the first to join after the original two started their first site.
in that frame let me asure you that all the contributors are borm-again christians even if we do not use that term very often.
as for the questions offered:
Q -Do you believe in hell?
A – yes
Q -Where do you see the world in 50 years time?
A – i have no idea
Q -Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian (this includes Catholics)?
A – i’m curious what the parenthetic is supposed to add… as chris l. said, i have a lot of theological issues with the roman church. that said, i cannot speak of the faith of individuals without fuller knowledge.
Q – Do you believe that Eastern religions have something to offer Christianity?
A – not as it applies to truth, no
Q – What exactly is you favourite reading material?
A – as others have said “favorite” is hard to say. i like c. s. lewis, n. t. wright, some rob bell (other stuff i find overly provocative). i like dan kimball, carson, moo, grudem, etc…
Q – Do you agree with Pantheism or Panentheism?
A – no to both entirely
Q – even though i hold th.m (master of theology in church history) from dallas theological seminary – i am no longer dispensational. therefore, i support a two-state solution. admitttedly, i sympathize with the majority of the palestinian population who find themselves caught in the middle. i particularly empathize with the palestinian christians since their plight has largly been ignored by american evangelicalism in their quest to support unbelieving israel.
michael, when you say of brendt – “I don’t get it, you like the same guys I do? This is getting confusing” – it illustrates the dangers of labeling and assuming.
though i have no fight with you. the idea of labeling someone then assuming you know their beliefs and heart based on that label is a common tactic of american odm’s.
and while we may disagree on the application of our faith, i hope this helps you see how we share that faith in common.
Michael: Please accept my apologies, I misunderstood.
No problem, bro.
I don’t get it, you like the same guys I do? This is getting confusing. Maybe there is a bigger misperception here than I thought.
Apparently, I do (like the same guys) and there is (misperception). And that’s part of my point. Although I had said nothing to indicate any theological bent whatsoever, I got slapped with the “emergent” label, simply for being friends with publicans and sinners.
You alluded to “an industrial size brush” regarding the PhD statement. That same brush seems to be applied to anyone who doesn’t agree with everything in this blog AND the way that it is presented.
In actuality, it’s not that confusing if you put down the brush (or ignore others using it). If “A” is criticized, and I say that the way that “A” was criticized was not right, that does not mean that I agree with or am a fan of “A”.
Brendt, Neil
Let me un-blur the lines a bit further if I may…
First reality -I would rather be divided by truth than united in error.
Second reality – God has put an uncorrupted, pure, Holy word in the hands of sinners [saved by Grace] to proclaim. So long as one stays anchored to the scriptural text and trembles at his Word [treating it with the awe and respect it deserves] the less likely one is to create error […and misrepresent God]. Proportionally, the less one fears God and the more human reasoning and intellect mixes with God’s Holy Word the more deceitful the teaching becomes. I start from that premise, which I believe is a correct one.
So, would you agree that exposing teachings that do not line up with scripture and correct biblical interpretation is actually a good work? A biblical mandate?
The flip side is that if we or any other ‘exposes’ a teacher or teaching that is not really in error one could be just as guilty of being a false teacher? But hang on.
Also then – if you try to derail a person/s exposing false teaching/teachers you in turn could be an obstacle to a good work, right? I understand that 1 Corinthians 13 kicks the human arrogance right out of us – if it is not done in love and with a proper motive it is worthless. [But then again some have redefined love and call outlining error ‘unloving’] I understand that not everything is always this clear cut…and I understand the Grace required.
…but I do also understand that ALL of us have crossed these lines, some just more often than others.
Chris L het gesê:
Dit is dan in hulle oorlogsverklaring! Van die PPP se eie sending bladsy:
Chris L het gesê:
Hier erken hy hoe moeilik dit is om die vals lering uit te leef, maar steeds verkondig PPP dat die een wat daardie laste wil afhaal, is die nuwe Fariseërs. Van PPP:
Brendt het gesê:
Gedog? Miskien moet Brendt gaan lees wat Brendt geskryf het oor die teologie van relevansie wat Brendt so verdedig. Sou hy geglo het in wat hy geskryf het, dan sal hy nie hier kom en dog nie.
Neil het gesê:
En behalwe dat die Eugene hierdie artikel van Michael by PPP beveg het en ‘n manier soek om diesulkes tot verantwoording te roep, sê PPP se eie sending bladsy:
Verder sê hy:
Allermins. Op hulle sending bladsy verkondig hulle Jesus die Wetgewer en nie Jesus die Verlosser nie. Daar is geen Evangelie nie. Hulle kreun onder die las van die Evangelie uitleef.
Hulle stel sistematies teologie gelyk aan die oorlewering van mense wat Jesus Christus verdoem het! Nee, ons deel nie dieselfde geloof nie. As ons het, dan sou hulle nie hier vir ons kom “bro” het terwyl hulle verkondig dat ons die gees van donkerte het nie. Hulle sou onder verpligting wees om gehoor te gee aan wat die Bybel sê:
Brendt het gesê:
Michael is nou sy broer?
Natuurlik nie. Moenie ‘n muggiejagter verwar met ‘n kameelslukker nie.
By dit alles pluk hulle feite uit die lug uit, wensdenkery sou ek sê. Ons leer by ons belese oorsese gaste. teen alle waarheid in, dat die meeste kommentators hier Amerikaners is en dat die gehoor Engels is, nieteenstaande die feit dat ek in duidelike Afrikaans geskryf het. Ek word verwyt dat ek nie by Brendt se teologie van relevant wees hou nie terwyl Brendt nie ‘n vinger lig om sy eie teologie eers te volg nie. Blykbaar dink hulle dat ons verplig is om die wit vlag te hys en die rooi tapyt moet uitrol bloot op grond van hulle oorlogsverklaring! Oor my dooie liggaam sal PPP ‘n kolonie by DTW kom vestig.
I know I’m banned from this site
[EDITED: Got that right. Now write it down, stick it on your fridge door so we wont keep having to remind you that it's true.]
i see that in my first post i messed up the Q & A format on the final entry… given just the A, but labeling it as Q. i assume what i meant is obvious.
Amanda,
what i meant by my “no fight with you” comment is that we have never addressed each other and i was not intending to pick a fight either. i simply intended to answer the questions posed as a contributor to ppp.
i agree that god has given us his word – and all the modifiers you use. i’m less agreeable regarding you comments about fear of god and human reasoning. not that i disagree outright, it’s just that the limitations of internet communication make it hard to know exactly what you mean.
i believe we should honor and respect and hold god in awe. i believe many americans treat god with way too much familiarity and casualness… this is indicative of the bumper stickers we display. that said, in christ i do not believe we need to fear him in the normal sense of the word. in christ he has made us sons, he calls us friend, his spirit indwells us. therefore our eternal state is secure and nothing can separate us from that love. this certainly does not give us license to treat god casually or with disrespect. i like how lewis described aslan – he’s not a tame lion, but he is good.
i believe that overly intellectualizing the faith was one of the great weaknesses of modernity. and conversely, it’s one of the correcting strengths of post-modernity. of course, both “systems” have their extremes and extremes in this sense should be avoided. many of those we argue with at ppp see things from an overly modernist point of view and it causes them to confuse cultural trappings with eternal truth. it is human intellect and reasoning – both gifts of god – that allow us to interpret and apply the word… with the illumination and empowering of the spirit, of course.
so, with these thoughts in mind i agree that reasoning and intelect can be enemies of the faith… on teh other hand they can be wonderful allies as well. they are tools, neutral in and of themselves, it’s how they are wielded that matters.
i will assume this was not rhetorical and that an answer was expected. i would say that exposing teachings that do not line up with scripture and correct biblical interpretation can be good work. it can also be a cancer on the body if the process becomes personal, sloppy, or if biblical truth is confused with cultural applications. for example, one of the odm’s we used to address regularly on ppp was less interested in addressing truth than they were about promoting a political agenda and spreading gossip. in the pursuit of pointing out other people’s error this odm twisted the obviously meanings of what people meant, partially quoted them to change the meaning of what they said, and other dishonest tactics. the motives were fine at one point, but the tactics were often far from christ-like.
your question about it being a biblical mandate is interesting. clearly believers are to judge those who teach against the scriptures. i’m not sure if that can be taken as a mandate to point out perceived false teachers in other churches on other continents or not. this is not to say it should not be done (assuming it’s done properly), but i;m not sure it falls under the “biblical mandate” category.
possibly. it think anyone should pause before they address the work of a brother or sister in christ. that said, i don’t think the purpose of ppp is to derail anyone. and at this point i can only speak for myself and those i am familiar.
whenever i address an odm, and i think this is true of the whole of ppp, it is not to derail as much as it it to correct false statements, or expose false tactics.
for example – were i to address anything specific here i would start with deborah’s dismissal of amillennialism “first and foremost because St Augustine who came up with this ridiculous idea in the first place was Roman Catholic.”
i am not amillennial. and there are plenty of biblical reasons to reject it. but comments like that create more confusion than clarity. roman catholicism evolved into the church it is over centuries and really became the church we are familiar with in the 7th century. calling augustine a roman catholic is historically inaccurate. saying he came up with the idea is as well. he may have championed it, but it’s not like he invented it. also, amillennialism does have a rapture – so saying it does not is also incorrect. this, therefore, shows how i might agree with the basic position of an exposer, but argue against the methods in which the exposing is done.
i hope than answeres the question. thanks for the interaction.
Michael is nou sy broer? – amanda.
i assume he meant “brother in christ”… since ultimately that’s our common bond.
wel, met sulke woorde soos “muggiejagter” en “kameelslukker” (waarvoor daar NIE Engelse woorde is nie!), sal hierdie besprekingslyn definitief nie lank aanhou as ons in Afrikaans kommentaar lewer nie, tensy die Afrikaanse bloggers dringend die lyne brand na Amerika toe met die vertaling elke keer, selfs dan sal hul nie die genoemde twee woorde reg deur kan gee nie!
so ‘n “vinger moet jêm kry”!
Dankie Amanda dat jy raakgesien het dat hulle mens aan die neus probeer lei met die besprekingspunt… ou taktiek …
cecilia
Michael,
Thank you for the thoughtful back-and-forth!
I’ll try to address this in a couple of ways to see if I can better communicate my meaning.
In the “social gospel” vs. “individual gospel” framework you’ve suggested, I’ve heard a quote which describes how these two actually compliment each other, rather than being vs. each other:
An individual gospel without a social gospel is a soul without a body and a social gospel without an individual gospel is a body without a soul. One is a ghost and the other a corpse.
The more I look into the first-century view of Christianity as something that came out of Judaism (i.e. that is grafted into the Olive tree, not a new tree of its own), I’ve come to appreciate that in the culture of Jesus and his disciples, you couldn’t simply mentally assent to a set of beliefs – the way you lived demonstrated what you believed and what you believed was demonstrated in the way you lived (neither came first, the both arrived or departed together). So – the Gospel – the “good news” about Jesus is not just about believing – it is about believing in such a way that it is evident in how you act. It is not a works-based righteousness, but a righteousness that is evident in the way you live. Or – put another way – “faith without works is dead”.
The separation of belief from action was a Greek concept (demonstrated in the modern view of “compartmentalizing” parts of our lives), but from a Hebrew perspective, they are so intimately intertwined that you cannot truly live as a Christian and have one without the other. If you do good works, but do not believe, then they are without purpose. If you believe, but your actions show no change from your old self, then do you really believe?
Amanda – my apologies, but I speak no Afrikaans, so I do not know how to respond to your questions/comments.
oh yes, Michael: you also saw through the tactics. it is a fact that if you can sow doubt, confusion sets in and “the enemy” is eliminated. by repetitively hammering on the same point, with the same word or thought-line, you actually use a form of mind-control (hypnosis), to change the line of thinking of the hearer (reader in this case). doubt (no matter on what scale) sets in, and the person being targeted, either give in or “agree to disagree” (oh, what a lousy term to use!). to agree to disagree, you fall in the grey area, and we all know what Scripture says about being neither hot nor cold? many would accept teachings of demons on the term to agree to disagree… it stems from the mindset not to offend other people …. love one another… which lead to the mindset that God made us all, so we are all His children…
but that’s another topic.
cecilia
Michael: First reality -I would rather be divided by truth than united in error.
And I would rather eat a bologna sandwich then be run over by a bus (i.e. you’re presenting a false — or at least — incomplete dichotomy).
Michael: Second reality – God has put…
I’m 99% sure that I agree with everything in that paragraph. BUT this pre-supposes a definition of “human reasoning and intellect” that can be quite malleable. And therein lies the rub. Far too many dismiss as “human reasoning and intellect” that which does not immediately fit their aesthetic. I’m not accusing you of this, but it is a very low view of God that assumes that one has a perfect handle on all of Scripture.
So, would you agree that exposing teachings that do not line up with scripture and correct biblical interpretation is actually a good work?
You may be hoping for a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but I can’t accommodate.
Actually, on second thought, I can — if the question is taken at face value, then yes.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of pre-suppositions that complicate the question. Two that leap to mind:
* Frequency/preponderance — Do you really think it’s necessary to have the number of exposers that we have out there? Or blogs that do nothing but present bad news? Although he stopped short of the actual word, Challies once wondered if such sites don’t become spiritually pornographic. Bank tellers, in order to spot counterfeits, don’t study counterfeits; they study the real thing.
* Labeling/over-generalization — I think we’ve seen a “good” example of labeling here, so I won’t go further on that. Nathanael was perhaps the first over-generalizer recorded in Scripture when he asked, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” When everything that a given (allegedly false) teacher says is dismissed, this speaks of a low view not of the teacher, but of God. And, unfortunately, this is not a strawman.
You (rightly) note that “exposing” a teacher who isn’t false makes the exposer a false teacher. However, the exposer could speak nothing but truth, and still undermine the truth. How am I supposed to take seriously something said by someone who slaps labels like a grocery store clerk with no foundation for the action? And if I’m less mature in the faith, I may assume that the “exposee” must be right, since the “exposer” is just being silly. The exposer has just further entrenched me in error.
if you try to derail a person/s exposing false teaching/teachers you in turn could be an obstacle to a good work, right?
Another question that, if taken at face value, I would agree with. But if (as I just noted) the exposer is further entrenching me in error, then the derailing becomes the good thing.
I understand that not everything is always this clear cut…
Then you stand, in my experience, in the minority of exposers. Significantly so.
Cecilia,
I’m not sure if you’re directing that at me, Brendt, or someone unspecific… So, you’ll have to forgive my response if it is unwanted.
1) “agreeing to disagree” – I believe that this is actually Biblical in some cases (like worship style) but not in others (like on the exclusivity of Jesus). [It is possible that this phrase has a different connotation in SA than in the USA, which might account for the difference in perception as well.] In some cases, there are disagreements on secondary matters in Scripture where the best thing for the Body is to “agree to disagree” – Eschatology (pre-mill vs. a-mill vs. post-mill), God-directed Creation (Literal 6-day vs. Historic Creationism vs. ID vs. Theistic Evolution), worship style (instrumental vs. A Capella vs. organs/piano vs. choir vs. rock instrumentation, etc.), congregational structure, denominationalism, systematic theology, etc.
2) The reference to “hot and cold” in Revelation (and the city of Laodicea) is not about “grey areas”, but actually about community effectiveness/usefulness. Having visited the dig at Laodicea and studied the first-century context, you had two nearby cities with Hot Springs (Heiropolis) or Mountain-cooled springs (Colossae), which were both famous for their water’s properties. Laodicea sat in the middle of the valley between them, and their water tasted horrible (minerals from the hot water depositing), was lukewarm, and plugged the pipes. The saying was that Laodicean water was “good for nothing”. This is the context of Jesus’ words to the church in Laodicea – people who had to deal with their awful water every day. (see here for fuller explanation).
The “problem” with Christianity vs. Judaism (for Jewish Christians) in Acts was that Christianity had far fewer rules (“freedom in Christ”), which allowed for many more gray areas (instead of being able to rely on Scriptural/traditional rules). This is why Paul urges that Christians not abuse their freedoms (like being able to eat meat w/o knowing if it was sacrificed to an idol, for instance) in a way to make others stumble.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not asking for folks to hold hands and sit around the campfire singing “God is love”. There are a number of places to pitch a flag on a “hill to die on” (Christ’s resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, for example), but there are also a lot of places that we plant flags which are not truly “hills to die on”… Where my criticism against ODM’s stems from is this erroneous “flag-planting”, accompanied by declaring that those who won’t bow to the illegitimate flags are “anti-Christian” or goats or whatever derogatory term happens to be available.
Chris, et al
Firstly, I don’t disagree with the definition you gave concerning the Gospel but there is more you may want to consider. But first,
Can I take two steps back to the original [counter] post on PPP – it was kind of implied that I was abdicating accountability on discernment issues. May I protest? This is not true, I am acutely aware that whenever anyone thinks he is beyond scrutiny or correction he is already deluded. […without the enemy’s assistance in this case]. Pride is blind.
One problem with the art writing is simply this; the tone is sometimes lost [unless you are Charles Dickens] and can easily be misunderstood. The motive is, for the most part, not evident.
Perhaps if you guys understood that in ODMs not everybody has an obsession with anything that looks suspicious. [Although I don’t negate there are those that seemingly are] In the article I called it ‘discernment syndrome’. I personally went through a stage where I was starting to become over critical of things I saw, even in my own church. It was not necessarily that I saw wrong in right but rather that I overlooked the fact that God cares for of his own, if they are truly his own he will call them out of the error they are in [eventually]. We, ourselves, that know better can only warn and make a case for the truth, it is still exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit to guide his own into all truth. Not for us to do the work of the Holy Spirit. I will always maintain and am resolute in this opinion – when in comes to discernment, prayer [over those that are in error] is the single most effective tool we have at our disposal.
I gather you and others are quite grounded in the fundamentals tenets of the Christian faith, on some doctrines we have differences, but nonetheless. If you dabble in post modernism it will not really affect you that much [you may not like the way I phrased this…], in fact you may find some of the new thought to be quite alluring and life impacting [this is a very subjective term]. So far so good [and up to here only]…Yet – introduce the same thought(s) to someone who has little grounding in scripture we have a very different proposition. They may actually believe that Jesus came to stick it to Caesar, a kind of revolutionary figure whose primary concern was feeding the poor and healing people. Not so, I don’t see this as the Gospel. [And I am not implying that anyone of this thread did, this is quite generic]
This is not taking away the compassion that Jesus Christ demonstrated – it’s the over emphasis on this aspect of his ministry that reduces the Gospel to an application [works] focussed program. People will die in their sins unless they fully understand their sinful condition [through the law] and the utter depravity of man. The only thing that pleases God is faith in his work on the cross for us. Good works is a fruit of repentance. Repentance only comes through a correct understanding of our need for salvation and through the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
I see a huge [correction – nuclear degree] danger in any ‘experienced based’ Christianity or any form of Christianity where we get to feel like we have done anything to earn brownie points. I see good works as the [new] ‘nature’ of a Christian; it’s who that person is. As opposed to trying to be like Jesus. Many have tried, all have failed.
This is where we get into definitions and re definitions – it’s a bit of a quagmire and ripe for misunderstandings.
I hope, in the least, that you may see that we cannot always sing kumbaya, hug each other and compliment each other. While we were doing that the enemy was devising new ways to subtly deceive and corrupt God’s word. And he is restless.
As for us.
We can become so engrossed in discernment that we forget that it’s really about a love of the truth… a truth God dislikes being tampered with and modified to adjust to the culture. The Word influences and changes the culture, not the other way round. You will see here that I am not into cultural relevance or new ways to do church, I am quite content with the old ways. We cannot scrutinize others and not accept scrutiny ourselves,it it works both ways – on that we should all agree
But I will leave you with this; there are many people that have thanked many an ODM (including this one) for exposing the errors and lies they had been entangled with. God works in mysterious ways…
Brendt
>>>And I would rather eat a bologna sandwich then be run over by a bus (i.e. you’re presenting a false — or at least — incomplete dichotomy).>>>
How can that be? The ‘I would rather be divided by truth than united in error’ is a construct of two very scriptural contexts (truth dividing is scriptural (Jesus said..) and a false unity is equallly scriptural, the common denominator here being the lie/error)
But otherwise, thank you for an intriguing response.
michael,
when i read the original post by eugene in which he sited this blog i did not take it as you. though he did not site me, so that could be the big difference. eugene quoted you and said “It sounds to me like the author is excusing himself and other “discerners” from being accountable to other Christians. Be that as it may, it raised a question with me…” – i don’t think the post was about you, or this site, as it was about the question it raised in his mind.
having interacted with you in this thread i find you willing to discuss and listen – thank you for that. ultimately, i do not know how a blog can be accountable, in that sense who are we at ppp accountable to? i think your willingness to interact with us is refreshing and accountable. not that you are accountable to us, but are willing to entertain ideas that may be disagreeable – just like we do at ppp.
michael,
at this point i expect to ruffle some feathers. you seem quite willing to discuss and give us the benefit of the doubt when we make claims about our faith. yet you have a contributor in deborah and commentors in amanda and cecelia who treat us as unbelievers. how do you balance comments such as yours which are engaging and thoughtful with others which are wild accusations (e.g. warren pocketing money from his church), historical silliness (e.g. augustine being roman catholic and making up amillennialism), unwarranted hostility (e.g. our being treated like enemies trying to found a colony on your site), and accusations of ulterior motives (e.g. we are repeating the same phrases as to control your minds)?
Brendt
>>>… Bank tellers, in order to spot counterfeits, don’t study counterfeits; they study the real thing.>>>
You will notice – and the whole paragraph as well as the last sentence was very astute btw – that many, many, way too many of the debates on this site originate from a lack of understanding of the real thing. And many, many, many [am I overdoing this?], many debates on this site land up in bible ping-pong. [I did do a dummies guide to interpreting scripture recently - I am in agreement with you on this one]
If all churches were using proper hermeneutics and doing expository type teaching there would be [almost] no need for any discernment. Unfortunately, there are actual deceivers out there whose wicked objectives and ambitions can only be met through scripture twisting, ‘this is very real. I still battle to convince people of the utter cold hearted cruelty some people have, the utter selfishness and utter greed some people have. Many just cannot grasp this. People just invent new ways of conning and misleading the sheep. From that perspective there is a need for…in the very least…watchmen.
Neil,
There is some history on this site; there have been some unpleasant interactions with – I think some of the guys that on PPP. I am not sure of all the details and it was before my time. I am also only a commenter here, this is Deborah’s site.
If you read through all those threads perhaps it would give a better insight. Maybe Amanda can fill you in.
thanks michael, i knew there were some issues between deborah and iggy, who used to comment at ppp, but i didn’t know of any unpleasantries with anyone from ppp.
chris – i appreciate your thoughts, yet for now, will not enter into a very long discussion about Revelation.
cecilia
cecilia
>>either give in or “agree to disagree” (oh, what a lousy term to use!). to agree to disagree, you fall in the grey area, and we all know what Scripture says about being neither hot nor cold? many would accept teachings of demons on the term to agree to disagree… it stems from the mindset not to offend other people …>>
In your defence, I could not help but think of this quote I read from A W Tozer : Man Dweling Place of God.
“It is a truism that people agree to disagree only about matters they consider unimportant. No man is tolerant when it concerns his life or the life of his child, and no one will agree to negotiate over any religious matter he considers vital to his eternal welfare. Imagine Moses agreeing to take part in a panel discussion with Israel over the golden calf; or Elijah engaging in a gentlemanly dialogue with the prophets of Baal. Or try to picture our Lord Jesus Christ seeking a meeting of minds with the Pharisees to iron out differences; or Athanasius trying to rise above his differences with Arius in order to achieve union on a higher level; or Luther crawling into the presence of the pope in the name of a broader Christian fellowship.”
Chris,
>>>There are a number of places to pitch a flag on a “hill to die on” (Christ’s resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, for example)>>>
In principle I agree with you but this whole deception thing in the church has long kicked up a gear. Here is the first paragraph of an article I wrote a while ago.
‘Next time a fellow Christian nods his head in agreement with you over a common Christian term it may surprise you to know that what that person understands of the term may be different to yours.’
http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/11/23/in-plain-words/#more-6926
You and I understand the non-negotiable doctrines to mean one thing; others are taught the same to mean something else (take allegory for example, non absolutes, etc). This is where the waters get really murky. Discernment anyone?
Elmarie,
it’s not so much an issue of “unimportance” as it is an issue of “not-as-importance.” we can, in no way, say we agree to disagree over a fundamental of the faith – such as those chris l. offered as examples – the exclusivity of christ for example. for these things define what it measn to be christian.
but issues of millennialism, for example, are not-as-importance… since they do not define what it means to be christian.
michael,
i read “in plain words” and i must say i generally agree. and i only say “generally” since i read it but once, and i like to give myself an out if i missed something. i’d even agree to go so far as to join you in eschewing the christian cliche’s you brought up – except – i see them more as a product of modernism than post-modernism. here in the states modernism devastated the gospel in many ways – ways you describe in the post.
Anyway, the one critique i have is you say “Now watch how Rob Bell defines holiness:…” then you give a link to someone else – not bell. i am not defending bell. but your link does not tell me how bell defines holiness – it tells me how dewaay thinks bell defines holiness. dewaay may be right, but you should have said something like “See how dewaay describes bell…” or linked directly to bell.
Neil
Check your mission statement again:
You are describing ravenous wolves and not brothers in Christ. And you have declared war against us. As Ingrid Schlueter, Ken Silva and Pastorboy can testify, your threat to do battle is not an idle one. You now state:
So your mission is to battle the ravenous wolves lightly, all the while taking care that you do not actually derail them?
Since it is legal for you to do such a thing, and not for us, why don’t you head over to your friend’s DTW 3 site and battle him lightly?
When walking past a Christian bookstore in SA I have to turn my eyes away not to look at a mass display of Joel Osteen, Joyce Myers, Rick Warren, TD Jakes, the Nooma series and I am sure they are clearing space for Brian McLaren’s new book. The latest hit export from USA to SA is Ron Martoia, due back here next week as advertised by Eugene’s e-church. South Africans are reading American books and they should be warned against the false teachers, local and from overseas.
Oh, that has been done before. Why don’t you go battle lightly against her dismissal of Kobus van Rensburg? Show some concern for your brothers and sisters and protect them from the damage DTW is doing to the body of Christ.
Neil, PPP has declared war against us and is calling us Pharisees. Very well. Just do not be surprised when you come here in the wake of Chad Holtz and Iggy if I remind readers of your goal to battle us. And do read Todd Wilken’s “Playing the Pharisee card”.
Chris L
Your ‘good news’ is not.
It’s okay. No answer required. I was mostly just pointing out Brendt’s hypocrisy and PPP’s declaration of war against us. And laughing at Chris [the other one].
Cecilia
Nou dat jy dit noem, ek dink nie daar is eers Afrikaanse woorde daarvoor nie. Maar aangesien daar teen ons gebattle word, glo ek elke bietjie verwarring wat gesaai word, help. Hoeveel keer dink jy gaan hulle voorgee dat hulle missie in onsigbare ink geskryf is?
Now, that’s a beautiful quote.
[Deleted - Admin]
Neil het gesê:
Wat ek vir Eugene geantwoord het. Hy kan vir Dr. Guillaume Smit gaan vra oor die inkorting van vryheid van spraak wat in Suid-Afrika geld.
Sien kommentaar nr. 4 en voer ‘n bietjie gesprek met Chad Holtz wat flink kommentaar lewer by PPP en ook op Eugene se artikel teen Michael.
Vanaf die PPP se missie bladsy:
Michael – You might want to read some of Charles H. Spurgeon’s diatribes written against the coming of modernism. Or earlier Christian diatribes against romanticism. The predominant thought-patterns of society continue to shift through the years, and while the Gospel remains constant, it is valued (and challenged by the enemy) in different ways. In our modernist society, we look at “truth” differently that previous views of “truth”, for instance. Modernism depends on truth being solid, logical and scientific. Early on, it mocked Christianity for believing that communion was the “blood of Christ”, when literally, it was grape juice/wine.
The setting of the Gospels in the first century was in a predominantly “eastern” (Hebrew/Near East – not New Age) culture where the pictures drawn by words describe certain truths. For example, the genealogy in Matthew 1 differs from that in Kings/Chronicles on a few minor points, because Matthew was following a genealogical practice in which the number of people in generations (and the ones specifically mentioned) matter, and he wanted there to be three sets of 14 generations.
Additionally, there are some colloquialisms blended into some of Jesus’ teachings (see Matthew 6:22-23 – where “good eye” is a colloquialism for generosity and “bad eye” is slang for stinginess), where the truth is just as much metaphor as it is logical definition.
So – to get back to my point – I am not afraid of post-modernism, because it is likely to be the predominant thought pattern of the coming decades. Where my concern lies is that the church’s reaction to it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that it maintains the Spirit of Truth within Scripture without spending a lot of wasted time/effort fighting against post-modernism, itself.
Part of what Jesus spoke against was the way of the kosmos – “the world”. In Greek, kosmos is about the systems which run the world (greed, power, survival of the fittest, etc.), not its cultural shifts and whims (i.e. entertainment forms).
As a number of first century scholars have noted, the modern church has put much of its effort on emphasizing faith in so much that it seems like it has forgotten the faith of Jesus – to where how we act and treat one another plays a distant second-fiddle to a set of tenants to which we must give mental assent.
Your explanation is very serial and “Western” in construct, and I think it misses some nuances of how it is lived out. Many theologians (including Calvinists like Tim Keller) read Jesus and Paul as viewing salvation as a gradual, parallel process, not a serial “step A leads to Step B leads to Step C”. There are many who have come to faith without needing to be confronted with the “utter depravity of man”. The view that the mind is somehow separated from one’s actions is quite new compared to the theology of the Bible, but yet many modern churches treat them as completely different, and see integrated views as teaching “works righteousness”, when they plainly do not.
I agree that we do not “earn brownie points” – our actions are a reflection of our thoughts, and our thoughts are reflected in our actions. When we truly repent, both thought and action are challenged and work together, not as separate entities.
I agree that we need to be on the look-out, but at the same time, our first reaction when hearing something different should not be to immediately pull out the big guns. Quite often, something different may not be something new or wrong. It may simply be something with which you are not familiar or a way you’ve not thought of it before, but which is quite old and within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Rob Bell often has this effect on folks, who recoil at some of his “new” techniques, which (in many cases) are simply ways the early church examined Scriptural teachings. Bell is not, nor has never been, a Calvinist (quite unashamedly so), which is why he draws a good deal of fire from them (and so often gets “broad-brushed” with other folks, like DeWaay, who “interpret” what Bell has said in ways he would not agree with (which is the definition of a “straw man argument”)).
Do you speak Latin, Greek and Hebrew, then? Do you greet all members of your church with a holy kiss?
“Doing church” (which I assume to mean the way in which we conduct corporate worship services) has changed with the culture for about 2000 years now. There are some elements which have remained (singing, preaching, fellowship), but the ways in which they are exercised often follows the normative principle, and not the regulative principle. Old songs may disappear while others remain, new ones may come along and be sung for decades or longer. Preaching style may change. Sermons in the early 1800′s tended to be measured in hours, not minutes, whereas sermons in the early church may have been 5-10 minutes long at most.
Being “relevant” is not a bad thing, if it means that you are still teaching, exhorting, singing and fellowshipping in the Spirit. Even if it looks different in Seattle than in Chicago than in London than in Johannesburg.
And there are many who have been wounded by some of them (see Ez 34), as well, for whom we’ve been thanked at PPP for defending. Shooting them all to let God sort them out is not an attitude of grace, and that is what is found in many ODM sites (like Ken Silva’s & Ingrid Schlueter’s).
We’ve not “declared war” against anyone. We’ve just been asking (rather consistently) that one group of Christians (ODM’s) stop shooting the wounded and the sheep that don’t look exactly like them.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were actually the group that was most theologically aligned with Jesus’ teaching – and many of Jesus’ followers came from the Pharisee movement. His harsh words about certain types of Pharisees was not to call them “ravenous wolves” but to call on them a sheep who should change their ways. (It might be helpful to read this background on Pharisees to get an understanding of what I’m talking about.)
I do not consider Ken and Ingrid to be “my enemies”, as in war. I see them as folks who are engaging in “friendly fire” activities who ought to stop it and find a different profession within the body.
Amanda: I was mostly just pointing out Brendt’s hypocrisy…
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, point it out to others, but whatever you do, don’t let him in on it.
amanda,
i have no fight with michael, if you look at the exchanges between us and him you will find that they have been – as between brothers. it is not our intent to declare war on anyone, i guess you can believe me or not – i cannot do anything more than make the plain statement.
we used to have a sub-title to the site, it read “addressing persecution from within.” now, granted, “persecution” is over stated, but the point is to address those within the church attacking those within the church. so, as chris l. said – it’s not like we view any believers as enemies.
we have declared was on no one. it is as simple as that, neither chad nor iggy are affiliated with, or a part of ppp. chad is a regualar commenter, but not part of the ppp team… as with iggy, though it has been a long time since he even commented there.
as we have said, iggy is not part of ppp and i do not know him well enough to call him friend or not. that said, on more than one occasion he was addressed at ppp. i do not know how many satire sites he has, and i don’t bother with them since they are satire. he thinks they are funny and make a point. i think they are too nasty. maybe he knows that, tough i doubt he really cares. point is, there is no association between his site and ours.
Neil, PPP has declared war against us and is calling us Pharisees. the mission statement speaks of the spirit of the pharisees, we have not called anyone a pharisee. maybe the difference is too nuanced, or looses something in translation.
i agree with ya on the tripe in bookstores – it’s probably worse over here since you only get our “best-sellers.” though i would argue that warren is not like the others on your list. never could understand the issue people have with him on a theological level – but that’s another story…
Elmarie, thank you!
off on a very busy 2 days – will read through comments on week-end and maybe comment…
cecilia
Chris L het gesê:
Nee, Jesus Christus het hulle nie skape genoem nie, maar
Uit Todd Wilken se “Playing the Pharisee card:
Chris L het gesê:
Neil het ons verseker:
Hou op en kry ‘n ander werk is nie ontsporing nie. Ja-nee. PPP se doelstelling:
Brendt preek vir ander:
Hy waarsku wat met Westerlinge gaan gebeur wat nie gehoor gee aan sy teologie van relevant wees in hul teiken kultuur nie:
Hy verroer nie ‘n vinger om relevant vir my kultuur te wees nie. Nou kla hy:
Hy verwag dus inderdaad dat die geteikendes in Afrika hulle “act together” moet kry. Ag, nee wat. Doen ‘n bietjie self moeite. Moenie van my verwag om geswore vyande tegemoet te kom deur hulle werk vir hulle te doen wanneer hulle hier kom ons te beveg nie. Hulle karakterisering van ons op hulle eie blad maak dit duidelik dat ek inderdaad nie Brendt se “bro” is nie.
Neil het gesê:
Hulle het dit klaar gedoen – verlede tyd. Vanaf PPP:
Neil sê verder:
Julle karakterisering van ons op julle bladsy maak dit baie duidelik dat ons onmoontlik nie gelowiges kan wees nie:
Neil het gesê:
Ek glo wel wat hulle sê. Hulle doelstelling is baie duidelik en ek het geen twyfel dat hulle elke woord bedoel nie:
“Plain” genoeg vir my.
Nie Iggy nie. Chad Holtz.
PPP se doel is:
Maar Chad Holtz word oorgesien?
O, glad nie. Behalwe vir hulle missie bladsy, het Chris L hier gesê:
Weereens genuanseerd. Maar waarom dit noem as jy nie bereid is om daardie insinuasie te verdedig nie? Todd Wilken maak dit duidelik op watter gronde die beskuldiging geldig is of nie. En het Chris L nie nou net geïnsinueer dat om ‘n Fariseër genoem te word, eintlik, amper ‘n kompliment is nie:
Neil het gesê:
Oeps!
Inderdaad.
Because it is mentioned so frequently, I just want to comment on the term: Agree to disagree, with the end purpose NOT TO MAKE THIS A POINT of discussion so as to take the focus off the original topic!
Most people on the net says it’s an excuse to stop that current discussion. But then there’s this interesting article, which I’m sure of that our learned friends (in America?) will have loads to comment to:
“There are many (other) doctrines which seem to divide Christianity and when many of them are discussed, the latest thing is to agree to disagree. Now why does this happen? Many times discussion and debate is curtailed because of the phony love gospel which has become well-entrenched in the churches. If someone brings a false teaching and that person is challenged, then the person bringing the challenge is normally criticized for having no love.
When someone blurts out an ATD it means they will no longer desire to see if they are incorrect on a given subject. They will continue to believe what they want to believe. They will reject all the truth they have been given to remain in their present belief. Spiritual growth is hindered by a settlement philosophy.
When someone uses an ATD, they are being spiritually smug in thinking they have stopped an argument or debate.
If I was to define ATD in one statement, it would be, “The avoidance of truth.” “
http://www.scionofzion.com/agree.htm
when you agree, there’s less to say. When you agree to disagree, you disagree but agree to it, with same effect.
It definitely is NOT about winning or loosing an exchange of words! (though some will try their best to do exactly that: “win the argument”, as if commenters are arguing). The “secret is” to bow out gracefully, especially if you could not or did not refute the central point of discussion.
Isn’t this equal to being “double-minded”? (and yes, I will “throw the Scripture in”, because it’s important) – Jam 1:8.
So many are reading one book after the other, many times (most times?) being influenced forever by “another man’s thoughts and understanding(s)”. and we disagree with others but want to defend our line of thinking and therefore quote another person’s words and thoughts; not stating and searching and quoting Scripture above all, because then we get called Bible bashers, or that we “throw in the Scripture” (etc.).
So for reference sake, when I bow out, it’s NOT because I’m caught out, or I don’t have something to say; it is because I’m not interested in discussing a point just to understand from another’s viewpoint, what point is being made and why; also if it will lead readers way off the original topic I will bow out; and yes, it means I’m disagreeing at that moment, on that point. And NO, please don’t read into this that I’m not open to discussion.
Cecilia
Thank you.
Cecilia
>>(though some will try their best to do exactly that: “win the argument”,>>
In your defence agian.
My impression on this blog is, it is about helping each other here. I have found it extremely helpful on many many issues. I can also not find any thing wrong with your articles.
I do find a woof… grrr , taking place from the outside though as I read. But again people don’t always like to hear the truth, it brings about to many hurtful feelings. People have fallen into a huge “goodnews only please comfort zone” in today’s society. People only want to hear good things and not bad. Evil is prevailing everywhere, even in our places of worship is not excluded. Discernment is very important today.
What is done on this blog is done to reach those who don’t know. If a person does not agree or cannot deliver possitive, honest input. Rather don’t say anything.
Deborah, Cecilia, Amanda, Thank you for your input on this blog. I know you are true honest people. Just to confirm I have never met any of you. It is something that one just know, when you are a Christian in search of the truth and use discenment as a gift from God. You make very sure who is trustworthy. Deceipt and deception is far and wide, we all know that.
Amanda,
you appear to be reacting to the missions statement as if it were written directly at you and/or this site. this is not the case, be that as it may, i have stated my position of not being an enemy at war.
as for chad holtz, if you were to look through the comments threads on the posts at ppp you would see he as been taken to task many times. there are many areas in which we disagree with him strongly.
as for warren, i’m no fan of a lot of his methods, but a look at his doctrinal statement shows he’s in line with the southern baptists… then again, maybe they are the problem.
anyway, thanks for the responses. it would have been nice to acknowledge our other commonalities – but at least we can acknowledge each other’s faith.
Deborah, I am assuming that my previous comment was deleted because of a particular word that I used — I apologize for that. Perhaps it was a cultural difference, to which I should have been more sensitive, especially given the fact that I work with folks around the world every day. Here in the States, the word that I used would probably only be employed by a 7-year-old, and (even from the strictest parent) would probably only garner a “Now, now, Billy — that’s not nice.” I was trying to inject a bit of levity, but it apparently backfired. Again, my apologies.
Michael: re: bologna sandwich — yeah, that was kinda weird, wasn’t it? ;-)
I really over-stated my case. My point was that there are more than the two options of either (1) being divided by truth or (2) being united in error. If there wasn’t, no church would have more than one congregant. And, I know that you weren’t implying otherwise. But there are other discerners that do just that.
Such people love Matthew 5:11, but conveniently forget the “falsely” and — even more importantly — the “for My sake” portions of the verse, thereby attributing any and all negative feedback as a sign that they are doing the right thing. But Peter notes in 1 Peter 2:20 that “suffering” may be our own fault; and if it is, we get no credit for enduring it. Worse still, such people actually revel in division, as though it were the case that the fewer people that have the “real” truth, the better off are those that do have it.
The more you write, it is clear to me that you are not one of those people.
i’ve always thought the phrase “agree to disagree” was abut comical, since the opposite is impossible. if you disagree with someone you disagree, whether you find the disagreement agreeable or not. in other words, you cannot “disagree to disagree.”
i have found the phrase used most often when 1) an argument has reached an impasse and there is no point in going on, or 2) when it becomes obvious that a disagreement on a secondary issue is becoming too much of an issue between brothers/sisters.
for example, chris l. and i disagree on areas of eschatology. and we have “agreed to disagree” because it is a secondary issue that does not define what it means to be christian. this would be an example of option 2.
chad holtz and i disagree on issues of salvation and universalism. these are primary issues that speak to the nature of what it means to be christian. we have argued the point to near exhaustion and moved on. and although we never actually “agreed to disagree” – we do (disagree that is) and there is nothing either of us can do about changing that fact. this would be an example of option 1.
i suppose i could claim that chad and/or chris l. were trying to avoid the truth… but i do not see the point in making that claim. i think they are wrong, we have hashed it out, we disagree.
cecilia, I’m not sure where you’re getting this “throw the Scripture in” thing. I do not recall any of the other commenters using that term, nor does a browser search of the comments contradict my memory. But that’s not all that significant.
What is significant is the irony of using nearly 500 words, plus reference to another person’s blog post, with one passing reference to Scripture, to make a point about (1) not relying on “men’s thoughts and understandings” but (2) relying on Scripture.
In seminary terms, this is known as eisegesis.
Cecilia – I agree that ATD can be a “cop out” if overused. Personally, I am willing to discuss most any topic – and to even change my mind (which guys from PPP will attest has happened) when I see I’m in the wrong.
Where I use ATD is: (1) When the other person(s) [or me, if I'm not behaving charitably] have lost any sense of charity in the discussion or have ratcheted up the rhetoric to a level far beyond what is appropriate; and (2) where the matter is clearly (at least in my own view) not a “hill to die on”.
For example: About every 3-4 months, one of our commenters at PPP makes belief in a literal, 6 24-hour day Creation a “hill to die on”. On the issue of the mode of Creation, my position is that “God created…” and that we cannot prove whether it was literal 6-days, 10,000 years or a million years. If forced to choose, I would probably choose a Historical Creation view which says that God created over a long period of time, and that Genesis 1 is not literal. Nevertheless, when this becomes a hill to die on, I will discuss it at length, but usually ATD in the end when he has declared anyone who is not a YEC to be anti-God compromisers, etc., etc. and is no longer discussing the actual issue.
A second example: Right now I’m passively ATD’ing with Amanda, since she knows I do not speak Afrikaans, yet responds to me (and Neil and Brendt) in a language I do not speak. It is not because I do not want to discuss with her, but that her actions have rendered the discussion impossible.
I would disagree, as in many cases I see ATD being used, it is not to “avoid truth”, but simply to avoid creating discord where “truth” may not be thoroughly “provable”. (See the Creation example above).
For example: I believe there is ample evidence that when John wrote his Apocalypse, it was directed to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor (which I have visited and studied) first and foremost (just as Paul’s letter to the Galatians was first and foremost a letter to the Galatians, etc.). As such, I believe that many items were things of which they already knew. For instance, in order to buy and sell in the Agora of Ephesus, one had to burn incense to Caesar as lord and accept his mark on their hand or upon their goods. This is historical fact. Even so, I am not willing to die on that hill with a believer who takes a dispensational view that people “taking the mark of the Beast” is prophecy yet to be fulfilled. The harm to the body over my desire to “be right”, when “being right” means expelling one from fellowship over secondary matters like this, outweighs the need to find “truth”, when in truth, we will not know this for sure until the final day. I am willing to discuss dispensationalism vs. partial-preterism at length, but not at the expense of doing great verbal harm to someone else.
Second example: Chad is a commenter on PPP with whom I have deep disagreements on numerous issues. One such issue is complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. I believe that Paul’s complementarian teachings are cross-cultural insofar as women counseling men is concerned. He has gone so far to the egalitarian view that he considers that I am “oppressing women” by taking the complementarian view. The rhetoric in that debate finally reached a point where I was no longer willing to discuss it because of the uncharitable comparisons being made. I understand how some churches have reached an egalitarian view – and I disagree with their hermeneutical interpretation (in some cases vehemently). Still, I do not find anywhere in Scripture that I would have permission to declare their church “antichrist” for taking such a view, because it is not a core tenet of the Gospel.
Not always. Perhaps, instead, it is in line with 2 Timothy 2 -
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”
Sometimes ATD is not truly an “end” to the discussion – but is rather “I’ve had enough for now, but this will likely come up again, but perhaps with different results next time”. I’ve seen this on PPP, where the third discussion on a topic (after two previous ATD’s) produces a better outcome than the previous attempts. It can be a “time out” that enables each party to maintain kindness and “gentle instruction”.
>>> Brendt Waters – February 3rd – “Perhaps it was a cultural difference”
common BW! you know what you wrote (not that normal commenters like me know what has been deleted!) but I suppose if it was A (one) word, it was name-calling? …. And then you come and take up space to try to justify yourself! …
>>> “I really over-stated my case.”
Glad to see you can admit that.
>>> “cecilia, I’m not sure where you’re getting this “throw the Scripture in” thing. I do not recall any of the other commenters using that term, nor does a browser search of the comments contradict my memory. But that’s not all that significant.” (c’s underlining)
So WHY do you mention this? – Just saying something to say something?
if I comment on something said on this site, I quote person and date. So yes it was said on another site some time ago and stored in my pc. And by the way, would you prefer that someone put something in their own words as if they’ve just thought it out, or that someone put a reference to the blog (article) so that the reader can go there themselves? Or should I have just mentioned the site so readers can go there themselves?
I’m actually not really putting this ‘question(s)’ to you so you must answer them. I’m sharing my thoughts. Which is what you like to draw out of people. So I’ll stop here.
I have learned, the moment someone starts to count words and put you in a box (eisegesis), they’re looking for another trend to take the discussion further, rather than backing up (out).
Eisegesis = personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas
I think commenters are allowed to have their own personal interpretation of a text (the topic under discussion), aren’t they?
So where lies the “problem” then? You’re saying I was using my own ideas and had a personal interpretation of the text which I asked a question about?
“Isn’t this equal to being “double-minded”? (and yes, I will “throw the Scripture in”, because it’s important) – Jam 1:8.”
So where did I gave my personal interpretation to this text Brendt?
>> Chris L gave a very graceful connective answer to my question and said: “Not always. Perhaps, instead, it is in line with 2 Timothy 2 –“
He actually touch a Scripture I wanted to use, but thought not to go on a side-line because I said in the beginning of my comment I don’t want to make it a point of discussion. Thank you Chris, I appreciate your input about this ATD, though in as much words (which I hope Brendt has started to count … much more than mine!), it comes down on more or less the same, with a little bit of eisegesis there… (I just couldn’t keep myself from saying this … not pointed at you at all CL).
So the longer this discussion is going on, the more everyone will learn to know exactly how to speak/write/react to a specific commenter (what words and nuances will fall right on the ear of) on this subject; to what aim then?
Maybe we should follow Chris L’s advice? “It can be a “time out” that enables each party to maintain kindness and “gentle instruction”.” – which in my eyes, is waiting on God to let His Holy Spirit instructs us and lead us into all truth through the Word of God, which will mean a little bit of search and research in and of Scripture. And in coming back try to make it more understandable to the “normal” readers what discernment websites are, their accountability, heresies, criticism against DWS and so on, and not trying to make others aware of the necessity of understanding our own believes? Just saying…
Late again, but it looks like a lot of fun.
Oh how he loves us…pitiful us.
I need to do an exercise, more so for my own sake. This balancing act was always going to be tricky; at the risk of over-categorizing, misplacing and misusing political terminology…
On the[centre] left we have a concern that ODMs have gotten out of control. Bulls in the china shop, these ODMs. I agree with some of the [I won’t say ‘interpretation’ for obvious reasons] methods of evaluating the overall discernment [let’s just call it] service, I just draw different conclusions than some of those offered here.
On the [centre] right – please allow a pseudo exegetical connotation – we have a church of Ephesus [Revelation 2:1-7]; they hate false teachers but run a constant risk of forsaking their first love [for Jesus Christ, the ultimate good Shepherd]. These could be called conservatives and defenders of the truth in a biblical sense but then again so could the previous category.
On the extreme right we have the Proverbs 6:19 crowd [false witness and those that sow discord amongst the brethren]. These guys are so far right they could be far left. This is the legalism crowd, all law, no Grace. Living in La[w]-La[w] land.
On the extreme left we have the universal church of tolerance, error and inclusivity. No truth, no absolutes, any criticism of their beliefs is labelled judgemental, unloving, intolerant. These are progressives, cultural Marxists, liberals. This is the all grace, love and peace, no Law, let’s change the world, feed all the poor, eliminate all disease, eliminate all discrimination crowd. Insert the pantheists and greener-than-thou dudes here.
Chris, et al
Finding harmony always runs the risk of falling too far left, creating unnecessary discord falls to the far right. I cannot but compare the political parallels – for every position you take there are [so to speak] three sides that disagree with you. It’s like Obama; the far left thinks he is not doing enough, the left thinks he is doing too much, the right are appalled at the direction he is taking the US. The further right? Loading up ammo, supplies, buying gold, expecting a total crash of the economy [hey, I could even fit here sometimes]. The far right? Up to their normal conspiracies – Zionist bankers controlling the world, they are poisoning our food, sublimely controlling our minds etc… [yeah, yeah I know, using those broad strokes again] you get the general picture.
What’s this got to do with anything? Perhaps nothing but I will draw a simple conclusion; when it comes to matters of discernment it’s not that crowd ‘lefties for jesus’ is necessarily teaching blatant error, it’s more a case of add another view and we are sinking further and further to the left, IOW it’s not necessarily what they teach – it’s where its leading to. If we have the ‘righties for biblical dominion’ crowd on the right thinking they can institute a theocracy and usher in Jesus into the white house (they hate jews so Jersualem is not an option) it’s not necessarily that this is just bad doctrine, it leads to other errors that lead to even more errors to fit into their preconceived objectives.
At what point on the slide [to the far left/right] do you warn these? Too close at the beginning and it would seems you are just paranoid and critical without a cause [much ado about nothing], too far down the road and it may be too late.
Another instance; you just know that an over emphasis on teaching about ‘God’s love’ is normally a cover for sexual perversions in ministry (far, so far left they think God is a she). On the far right the over emphasis on all the OT scriptures that condemn these sins breeds the Phelps-God-hates-fags crowd.
It’s really a huge battle of worldviews; a biblical worldview and a secular worldview. Left and Right. The honest balance.
Proverbs 16:11
Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making.
Proverbs 20:23
Diverse weights are an abomination to the LORD, And dishonest scales are not good.
Or am I just stating the obvious? And yes, I know, not everyone will agree with the analogies.
OK – messed up the block quote in the previous comment – sorry.
eisegesis = the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas. people are certainly allowed to have their own ideas. eisegesis is the act of putting those ideas “into” the text as oppossed to pulling meaning “out of” the text.
so yes, i would assume all are permitted their interpretations – eisegesis does not prohibit this.
Chris,
To avoid a misunderstanding, could you define your view of modernism and post-modernism? Do you think these are biblical worldviews? This is not a trick question and don’t suspect that I playing a game of cat and mouse. I am genuinely interested – I have studied both but again we run into this ‘thing’ of definitions.
michael,
that was a great summation and i think i agree. if i may apply it from my perspective it may give insight into how i/we see things such as this.
example one:
the current lead post is about the divorce of ray mccauley. clearly this is a guy who should not be in the leadership position of any ministry and the post is pretty neutral. i would say the post falls into the center right on your scale. however, shortly thereafter the comments take a decidedly hard right turn and get nasty. not say’n this is the blogs fault, just showing the difference. pointing out why a man is unfit for the ministry is one thing… mocking him and appearing to revel in his sin is quite another.
example two:
another post speaks of saddleback taking in 2.4 million at the end of the year. again, the post is rather centrist with the exception of the comment at the end about the church giving it back. but then, deborah, who i believe owns this site, takes things to what i would call the most extreme right and interjects the kind of accusations that we would oppose. in one sentence she claims that warren is 1) not a christian, 2) does not have to be honest, or decent, or caring, 3) and he can just pocket it and not think twice. c’mon.
the logistics of giving it back aside… no one would expect a church to do that. and why the denial of his salvation? how did he lie? how is he not caring? the whole point they need the money is for increased care. does she really believe he’s gonna pocket the rest? he does even take a salary.
anyway, i agree that there is a place for discernment. and we certainly never set out to oppose the whole concept. what we oppose is the confusion of principles over preferences and unfair tactics. what we oppose is what you label as the extreme right.
michael, would you mind if i address the question of “ism” definitions as well?
>>>what we oppose is what you label as the extreme right.>>>
Ok, so from the previous comment you are saying stick to the facts and leave out personal opinions? Let me confuse you further – what if the critique is coming from the far left?
And that’s what I oppose.
i believe you boiled my point down farther than i intended. stick to the fact – yes. leave out the personal opinions – no. just limit the opinions to the facts. there are plenty of arguments to have about modern methods with out interjecting unnecessary invectives. or, using the current example, there are plenty of things we could discuss regarding warren w/o making wildly ridiculous accusations or questioning his salvation.
it doesn’t change anything if it comes from the extreme left, you can still address the facts and keep the opinions civil. though when ppp critiques we do so from the center left (using your scale). we certainly would not espouse the tenants of your far left. though some of the tenets you list as far left are political/philosophical not theological/biblical and could be held by bible-believing born-again christians.
Chris L
Just to be clear. I was not talking to you. I was talking about you.
Neil
That we can. But it is not the same faith in the same god.
Off course not, but it certainly covers us, as it does Ingrid Schlueter, Ken Silva, DTW 2 but not 3, Thomas at Watch and Pray and presumably also Todd Wilken, Todd Friel and Chris Rosebrough. Your mission statement is perfectly clear:
Todd Wilken in “Playing the Pharisee card” clearly lays out why Jesus Christ condemned the Pharisees:
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their apostasy.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for softening the demands of the Law.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they abandoned God’s Word for the word of man.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
The Pharisees trusted their own obedience and moral progress.
Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees had nothing to do with doctrinal purity, resistance to change or lack of missionary zeal. It had everything to do with the false hope in human obedience.
From PPP:
This is then the condemnation of you and your god against us. No, we do not worship the same god.
Then you are either a traitor to PPP’s mission statement or indulging in taqiyya. I have no reason to believe it is not the latter.
Neil,
So, at best; you would see this site as doing necessary discernment and helping other Christians understand the dangers out there but the comments can get carried away sometimes.
At the very worst; you would see it as tabloid style trashing masquerading as discernment.
michael,
please see amanda’s comment to me above. please tell me what i have said and or done that would justify being told i have a different faith in a different god. see her comment to chris about not talking to him but about him.
that is tabloid style trashing masquerading as discernment. it is a baseless accusation since she has no way of knowing the level of faith of the god i claim.
Regarding Scriptures
The Bible is fully inspired by God. I understand that both the Old and the New Testaments were without error in their original writings and are trustworthy as our supreme and final authority for matters of faith and life.
Regarding God
I believe in one God who is the holy and loving creator of all things seen and unseen. God exists eternally in three distinct and equal persons; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Regarding Jesus Christ
Jesus is wholly God and wholly man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, was born of the Virgin Mary, and lived a perfect sinless life. He died on the cross as the atonement for the sins of us all. He bodily rose from the dead and ascended into heaven where he is now our High Priest, Advocate, and King. It is through Jesus alone that I may find forgiveness and restoration with God.
Regarding the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is sent from God to live in all who believe in Jesus. He teaches, comforts, and empowers us; giving each follower of Jesus diverse gifts for serving in the church and serving others in the world. I believe that it is through the Holy Spirit that I grow in faith, developing a holy life and Jesus-like character.
Regarding People/Sin
Each person is created with dignity and value in the image of God. Through sin humans have lost our spiritual life and are separated from fellowship with our Creator. This separation has been transmitted to the entire human race and affects our relationships with God and each other.
Regarding Salvation
A perfect act of redemption was performed with the finished work of Jesus’ death on the cross. Through the grace (free gift) of God I have been rescued from the eternal consequences of sin and our broken relationship with God is restored. I received the free gift of forgiveness and was spiritually reborn by placing faith in Jesus alone. I believe that the relationship that one enters into with God upon salvation is eternally secure.
this is pretty fair – though the owner seems to be the most offensive, the most trashing, the most tabloidesque.
but, since i contribute to a blog owned by someone else i understand the balance contributors live with in this arena.
Cecelia het gesê:
Reg. Die woord was b**** ens.
Volgens die Urban Dictionary:
1. A term of endearment reserved for your one true love.
Gesien in die konteks van sy skrywe was dit nie sy bedoeling nie.
2. A alternate word to use instead of cussing
Insult meaning mean person, b***, a*****
3. A term used for someone who’s head is so stuffed with s*** that they aren’t thinking clearly.
Neil,
Deep breaths please…
Tabloid is when you have a headline saying something like ‘Pastor Wolfie McLovable caught with his pants down, another possible 8 lovers from within the church…’ when in a fact there is only a suspicion at the moment with one person and that has not even been confirmed.
It was an honest and impartial question; any tabloidesque style in ODMs attracts all the wrong type of readers and justifies condemnation.
Nee, dit is PPP wat ons verdoem as Fariseërs. Ek het Todd Wilken se woorde aangehaal. Dit is wat hulle van ons sê en dit plaas ons duidelik buite hulle geloof en hulle god.
Die oorlogsverklaring op PPP:
Dit is hulle missie. Hulle aanname is dat ons Fariseërs verplig is om met hulle te gesels, in Brits, en dat dit nie mooi is om openlik agter hulle rug te praat nie. Ek reken as jy wil oorlog maak, dan kan jy hoogstens jou eie strategie beplan en kan jy nie ook nog vir jou geswore vyand voorskryf wat hy mag en nie mag doen om homself te verdedig nie.
Nie onderskeiding nie, maar selfverdediging.
Die vlak van geloof in die god wat Ingrid, Ken ens. verdoem as Fariseërs is nie van die minste belang nie.
michael,
you offer “Pastor Wolfie McLovable caught with his pants down, another possible 8 lovers from within the church…’ when in a fact there is only a suspicion at the moment with one person and that has not even been confirmed” as an example of tabloidesque reporting… yet is was deborah who accused warren of pocketing funds from his church. i don’t see that big of a difference.
thanks for the interaction, i appreciate it.
knowing what brendt wrote that got removed and seeing the definitions offered by the Volgens die Urban Dictionary it is a fun lesson in the translation of idioms across cultural and linguistic boundaries. i looked it up myself and was stunned at the results… results i never would have thought.
At what point do we actually trust the Spirit? Until we can use charitably quoted, straightforward, extended quotes from individuals without quoting out of context, “translating” what they said into things they didn’t mean (as Amanda has done with me above, and Deborah has done with Louie Giglio on this blog), or quoting others who have “translated” what they said (paging DeWaay), etc. then we’re likely “too close at the beginning”. When we spend more time attacking individuals or nebulous “movements” than taking specific, explicit doctrines and their charitable positions, with Christ-centered commentary that doesn’t stoop telling commenters we’ve never met that they “serve a different God than we do” with pretty much zero evidence, then we’re too early, not too late.
Modernism is, at its extreme, a belief system which says that the only things that can be deemed “true” are those which can be scientifically studied and proven. Until it can be proven, it is not “true”. It also believes that, eventually, given enough time and technology, everything can be proven or disproven. Modernism is also very focused on emperical truth as rationally observed by the individual.
In its more common application within Christianity, it says that something is not “true” unless it is supported by a literal (or semi-literal) reading of Scripture. It tends to insist on literal interpretation of all Scripture, unless a literal interpretation is very clearly impractical. Practically, it also tends to insist that every Scripture has one “correct” interpretation, and all other interpretations are false. Modernist Christianity is heavily reliant on systematic theologies which logically show how everything within Scripture fits together like a well-oiled machine.
Postmodernism, conversely, at an extreme is a belief in “truth” as defined by the individual – there is no absolute truth. However, very few modern post-moderns believe in this extreme (which is self-contradictory), but rather see “tolerance” of all competing truths as an utmost virtue.
Practically, fully post-modern Christianity views narrative themes within Scriptures as having as much “truth” as specific passages of Scripture. It accepts almost any expression of Christian faith as fully valid (and in some cases believes in a form of universal reconciliation), and appeals to the Scriptural narrative as truth.
I do not think any predominant worldview, apart from the Kingdom of God, is “biblical”. Even so, I also think that in some ways, these worldviews just “are”. I tend to agree with the late Marshall McLuhan, who said “the media is the message”, in that the predominant form(s) of communication in society are the primary drivers of the culture.
In the first century Near East, the primary form of communication was oral history and community reading. Thus, early Christianity was experienced as a community and was interdependent.
As writing improved, and the papyrus/hide shortage of the first centuries subsided, Christianity was still experienced as a community, but the Word was in the hands of an elite few who would read and write – creating a Clergy/Laity distinction, and changing the earlier interdependency into a dependency on an elite few.
With the advent of the printing press, more people learned to read and write, and the dependency on the elite (1000 years in the making) was threatened and, in a number of areas, toppled. Because of the limits of distance communication, it was still a community experience, but there was a tenuous relationship with the “elite”, and the creation of systematic theologies that were not dependent on clergy to interpret for the people.
With the advent of the telegraph and the locomotive, community was further broken down, and the individual rose in importance. Logic and abstract truth became paramount, and expressed itself within the church, which now became much more highly individualized, and independent.
Now, with the internet, everyone can quickly communicate their views of truth at light speed, so we’ve become a global community of interdependent individuals (holy dichotomies, Batman!) and postmodernism is the response to this change in communication.
So, unless we want to blow up the internet, I don’t see that we can “go back” to modernism. All worldviews have their strengths and weaknesses. Post-modernism has a number of similarities to the First Century Hebrew culture we can use in reaching the lost, I believe (see here for an example of this).
________
Back on the topic of belief vs. action, and how I believe Jesus taught them as being interconnected: The Great Commission is a call to create disciples (talmidim) in all nations, not a call to create converts. A disciple, in the context of Jesus’ culture, is not someone who wants to know what his teacher knows, or someone who wants to believe what his teacher believers. A disciple is someone who wants, more than anything else to be what his teacher is. This is not a call for us to be divine (as Jesus was), but a call for us to be as much like him as we can be – which is beyond knowledge or belief, but is fully inclusive of action and intent. It is a following that is done out of love, not of expectation of a reward.
__________
Then perhaps our cultural differences value different manners when speaking about someone else, in front of them, in language they can’t understand.
This is the type of thing I was referring to – You’ve got no evidence that Neil “believes in a different God” than you. I’m not even sure that you’ve lined out where any theological differences you have lie.
I believe Wilken has it all wrong, so your using him as a source to interpret what I wrote was one of a series of errors it seems you’ve committed.
[For an example of where Wilken is most clearly wrong in his view of Pharisees: "Jesus condemned the Pharisees for softening the demands of the Law" is about as backwards as can be! The Pharisees had built "hedges" around the Law to prevent it from being broken, and then built "hedges" around those hedges. In doing so, they make the Law far stricter than it actually was. This is part of 101-level courses in Christian Bible colleges across denominations. Suffice it to say that Wilken couldn't be more wrong in his summation, when compared with the actual commentary of Jesus and the cultural context in which it was spoken.]
I’d also note that the portion of our mission you quoted used “discernment” with quotes to describe a spirit of divisiveness, not actual discernment. I do not deny that “discernment” that is used to shoot the wounded and harm the body is done out of a zeal for God (just as Saul (later Paul) persecuted the early church – he served the same God, but he sinned in the method he chose to employ in his service). Just because one sins does not make one in service to “a different god” – it may just indicate a misplacement of one’s zeal in service to the same God.
chris l.,
a form of humour/sarcasm maybe? it’s quite possible she understands me to be the christian i am, but was just making the point that we do not think she is a christian. i know nothing we’ve said should lead anyone to think that – but she does quote the missions statement a lot… even though it was directed at those who “‘persecute’ from within” – thus not denying anyone their salvation or faith.
i’m just guessing since though since most of it was not in english.
Neil het gesê:
Glad nie. Brendt is die grapjas hier.
Kolskoot!
Presies!
Die Fariseërs soos ons.
Oeps. Die Fariseërs was verdoem oor hulle ongeloof en was nie gered nie.
Neil het gesê:
Nee. Die Amerikaanse betekenis, die een wat Brendt sou verstaan, is baie meer kru as die Afrikaanse een. In Afrikaans word dit gebruik om te verwys na ‘n onnosele snuiter, ‘n jonger persoon.
neil – February 3rd, wrote: “brendt offers two apologies and an explanation. you assume he called someone a name and was justifying.”
My answer: because it happened on this site previously (not same commenter), so I had a ‘reference’ in my mind, and apparently my “assuming” was a ‘bulls-eye’?
So Brendt said:
>>> “Deborah, I am assuming that my previous comment was deleted because of a particular word that I used — I apologize for that. Perhaps it was a cultural difference, to which I should have been more sensitive, especially given the fact that I work with folks around the world every day. Here in the States, the word that I used would probably only be employed by a 7-year-old, and (even from the strictest parent) would probably only garner a “Now, now, Billy — that’s not nice.” I was trying to inject a bit of levity, but it apparently backfired. Again, my apologies.”
My comment: when you say you apologise, you do just that. Say you’re sorry and let it go. The moment you start to explain ….. that’s justifying.
(my thoughts…)
from my side: no hostility. I’d rather call it: wariness.
Just for info : I am like as in totally Afrikaans. So for me it is very time consuming to “think in Afrikaans and try to put into English that would say exactly what I would have said in Afrikaans”. For some Afrikaans words there are just NO English words. And because of cultural differences a certain word/sentence may mean not exactly just that in another culture, using the exact same word/sentence. BUT all languages and all cultures understand harsh words, swearing, vulgar language, etc. there’s no excuse for that in any language. So I also went the looooong way to find out what word was used, but will I make it a point of discussion? NO. I treat it with the silence it deserves, and even though I also did my search on the meaning(s) thereof, I will not jot it down here, because after all, it actually means nothing when it breaks down the reader thereof. (just my thoughts)
just to comment: rather interesting line of discussion now…c
Chris L het gesê:
Daar word vir ons Fariseërs duidelik uitgestippel hoe verkeerd ons is oor hulle god:
I believe Wilken has it all wrong,
For an example of where Wilken is most clearly wrong
is about as backwards as can be!
Wilken couldn’t be more wrong in his summation
This is part of 101-level courses in Christian Bible colleges across denominations.
Komaan. As jou god 180 grade verskil van iemand anders se god, dan dien jy sy anti-god.
Die Fariseërs het geglo hulle was regverdig solank hulle nie oor die mure gaan nie. Maar Jesus Christus het gesê:
Die Wet is in die hart oortree en die muur het geen krag daarteen nie. Dit gee ‘n vals gevoel van regverdigheid. Vergelyk hulle mure teen wat Jesus Christus gesê het in die daaropvolgende verse:
Todd Wilken [en ek saam met hom] verskil 180 grade van Chris L en druip dus “Christianity 101″.
Dit is ten volle geregverdig in ‘n oorlog wat teen ons verklaar is, om jou self-geswore vyand in die duister te hou as ‘n taktiek ter selfverdediging. Hulle gekla dat ek dinge vir hulle moeilik maak, val op dowe ore. Dit is nie asof hulle nie ‘n joiner in hulle midde het nie.
Dit is Brendt wat die teologie van relevansie vir die teiken kultuur verkondig, plus die oordeel wat wag vir die wat nie by sy teologie hou nie. Maar Brendt hou nie by wat Brendt verkondig nie. Sy onderrok hang uit en hy struikel daaroor met elke kommentaar wat hy skryf. My dilemma met Brendt is dat ek nie weet of ek moet lag of huil nie.
Cecilia
Sowaar nog ‘n kolskoot! Ek dink ons het ‘n Guillaume 2 op hande. Kyk net weer hoe Brendt in sy kamtige verskoning DTW aanval en haar in der waarheid afkraak as onredelik.
net nie huil nie A! pls don’t waste your tears on this matter. of much more value to cry out before the LORD for the totally unsaved, unlearned people – they understand the message of Jesus quick and follow His instructions to change and leave the past behind.
Cecilia
Ek weet. Ek weet. Maar met elke kommentaar wys hy sy minagting vir dit wat hy self preek en hy kom dit nie agter nie!
What an interesting discussion.
C and Amanda: Ek stem saam!!
Michael:
Interesting comments. Michael, give us some names of ODM’s that you don’t like and think attact all the wrong type of readers?
The rest: Still speaking Emergent speak using Christian words but with different definifions that oppose the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Cecilia,
Thank you for the clarification. Brendt told me what the word was and please be assured that in our context, it is a silly term but not offensive. In fact, it is often used to bring levity or lightness to a discussion.
When I looked it up on the Urban Dictionary I was surprised at the definitions they gave. Their definitions were ones I never would have thought. So, from an Afrikaan point of view I can understand how offense would be taken. Please be assured that this was not the case or motive. It was, in its purest sense, a case of something that was an accident of cross-cultural and cross-language misunderstanding.
I can only speak for myself, and say that I am not Emergent. I laid out exactly what I believe above. Please believe that I use all the words in their most biblical sense, in the sense of the historic creeds, in the sense of a literal applications of the Scriptures. If you wish, since you made the accusation, I would gladly clarify any areas of disagreement in definitions you think there are.
and since this is our first exchange – thank you for allowing this comment thread and my participation on it.
Cecelia,
As for the apology plus explanation… you are right that a justification weakens an apology. The question is, was he “justifying” or “explaining.” I believe, since I understand how the word is used in our context, that he was trying to “explain” – trying to show how his intent was to use a word that is silly, not offensive. So in that way his apology is sincere.
Amanda,
Do you think believers can disagree and serve the same God? I am sorry you think we are at war. I am sorry you take the mission statement of PPP as declaring you are Pharisees and therefore not believers. Please hear me say this is not the case.
The context of the statement is believers persecuting believers. We may disagree on what constitutes persecution, but issues of in Christ or not never entered our minds.
The context also never calls anyone a Pharisee… it speaks of the spirit… meaning similarities in attitude and approach.
Whether or not you believe me is out of my control. However, be it clear to all that PPP in general, and I in specific, have not, and will not, make a call on the salvation, faith, or God of someone else whom we do not know, or have no information on.
Debs,
>>> Michael, give us some names of ODM’s that you don’t like and think attact all the wrong type of readers?>>>
Sure- here’s one. According to this site below both Martin Luther and John MacArhtur are the greatest false teachers out there. This is tabloid discernment – trash discernment with industrial size discernment nets.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/wolves_in_sheep%27s_clothing.htm
But not all is lost, the usual WoF suspects are all there, the Roman Catholics, even….wait…for..it – even CS Lewis. There are actually some really good articles here, covering a variety of topics from modernism to psychology in Christianity, the purpose driven movement, promise keepers etc etc. All those goodies, including how Martin Luther is now burning in Hell.
Brendt
You are welcome to vindicate yourself by placing your original comment again. I will not delete it a second time. I admit that Urban Legend is not an authoritative source.
Amanda,
Thanks for accepting the explanation that the term was not intended to be offensive – that it was assumed it would be seen as silly and received as such. It is a good reminder of our need to take care when communicating across cultures, even cultures that nearly share a common language.
Amanda,
I would note that the verses you’ve quoted from Matthew 5 are all from the Sermon on the Mount, which was teaching addressed to the crowds (not the Pharisees), and that (in terms of Pharasaical debate) these statements are quoting the OT (“you shall not kill”, etc.) not refuting Pharisee teaching. In actuality, with the statements you quoted, Jesus was siding with the Pharisees in Bet Hillel, who taught that obeying the Law was without use if one’s heart was not changed vs. the Pharisees in Bet Shammai (who were allied with the Sadducees) who believed that one need only obey the letter of the Law (and only that in the Pentateuch), whether or not one’s heart was changed.
The primary text of Jesus’ words of criticism of the Pharisees is in Matthew 23, where he addresses six of the seven “types” of Pharisee. This includes those who “narrowed” the law [they slammed the door of the kingdom in others' faces and then didn't enter, themselves0, and created all sorts of extra rules [adding burdens to peoples' backs w/o lifting a finger to help them].
Jesus actually comments on several occasions on the exceeding faithfulness of some of the Pharisees to meeting the requirements of the law (they tithe of even the smallest spices) but not being transformed by its intent (missing the values of grace, justice and mercy).
Neil het gesê:
PPP:
Neil het gesê:
PPP:
Neil het gesê:
Jesus Christus het gesê:
Neil het gesê:
Taqiyya.
Die Fariseers was nie Christene wat ander Christene vervolg het nie. Hulle was ongelowiges. PPP:
Todd Wilken:
Hoe kan mens die ‘gees’ van die Fariseërs hê en steeds gered wees?
Neil het gesê:
Glad nie. Brendt het die geleentheid om sy oorspronklike kommentaar te herhaal sodat dit ondersoek kan word om te sien of hy en Neil in hulle veelvuldige verduidelikings die waarheid praat. Indien Brendt kies om nie sy stellings te herhaal nie, sal ek openbaar watter woord hy gebruik het en teen wie. Almal kan dan die humor daarin ondersoek en sien of hulle hul kulturele uitsig wil verbreed. Brendt het tyd tot Saterdag 0800. My tydsone, nie syne nie.
Chris L het gesê:
Die Bergpredikasie was nie ‘n motiverings praatjie vir mense om hulle harte te verander nie, maar om hulle te verdoem:
Chris L het gesê:
So wanneer PPP sê dat hulle vyande die dieselfde gees as die Fariseërs is, dan sê hulle dat ons nie wedergebore is nie. Hulle sê duidelik dat dit hulle god is wat hulle bemagtig om ons, wat van ‘n ander gees is, te beveg.
PPP se missie:
Cambridge Dictionary of American English:
Chris L het gesê:
Dan beter ons seker kyk wat Jesus Christus van Fariseërs gesê het:
When we get to the point that someone supposes to tell a group of authors what their words must mean, words the authors penned themselves with very specific meaning, when a person pours meaning into those words in direct contradictions and denial of the the authors said they meant – there seems no point in continuing.
Miskien is hierdie die einde van die begin in my les in Ontluikkaans. Kernwoorde kan na willekeur gebruik word as hul eie antoniem:
Stryd = om nie te veg nie
Slang = skaap
Farisieër = broer in Christus
Kultuur sensitief = kultuur blind
Amanda,
I thought of that same quote when I wrote the last comment. The difference is, we are not redefining words, we are using them in particular ways in a particular context… a context that the meaning of the words allow.
We have not called you or anyone a Pharisee as if we believe you to be outside of Christ, we do compare odm attitudes and tactics to those of the Pharisees. There is a difference.
Vizuri Nadhani naweza kutumia lugha yoyote nataka hii blog. Vizuri sana Amanda
>>> “there seems no point in continuing”
the “point in continuing” what? = the original “point in continuing” has long been lost!
Jy sal eers met DTW moet praat daaroor.
{Edited – bedoel vir Chris.}
Cecelia,
True enough – ’tis a figure of speech saying that we’ve each made our point.
no, it means the original “point in continuing” has been lost. that means most likely the little stubborn child in some would raise its head!
as for the Swahili comment: Amanda has two mother languages (as do most people in South Africa): she speaks Afrikaans (1st language) and English (2nd language). Swahili is not (one of) the mother tongue(s) of Chris. THIS EXACTLY WHY I previously said maybe it’s time to time out for most of the current visiting commenters on this blog. go try to and hi-jack (or whatever ya all are trying to do) another blog.
chris
I’ve thought about what you said, and no, Amanda does not own a coffee perculator.
It is the same thing that is often done to those they criticize – defining the original speaker/author’s arguments in ways that they would never agree to.
Amanda – Todd Wilken’s article is an example of what you get when you take a preconceived notion (eisegesis) and combine it with a complete lack of understanding of the people and the culture in which the events of Scripture actually took place – thus inserting your own context into the Scripture, erroneously.
When you begin a statement on First Century Judaism with the phrase “The Pharisees believed…”, you are already on the verge of painting with an incredibly broad brush. First Century Judaism was not monolithic in its beliefs about God and obedience to God’s Law. What Wilken wrote – if it is accurate about any First Century group, it would not be “the Pharisees”, but rather the Sadducees.
There were five to seven “houses” (betim) of Pharisees, with Bet Hillel (“The House of Hillel”) as the most lenient, and Bet Shammai (“The House of Shammai”) as the most strict. Bet Shammai was most closely aligned with the Sadducees, but Bet Hillel was the most popular with the people in the countrysides and Galilee.
According to Josephus and other first century rabbinic sources, there were eight primary debates between the different groups of Pharisees. In 7 of the 8 debates, Jesus sides with Bet Hillel – or takes Hillel’s ruling even further on the side of leniency (with the most prominent being “Who is my neighbor?” – where Hillel’s answer was “All people except apostate Samaritans”, Shammai’s was “Only God-fearing Jews”, and Jesus’ was “All people including Samaritans”. Only once did Jesus side with Bet Shammai, and that was on the question of divorce (only in the case of infidelity).
From the contextual clues within Scripture, Jewish Christian scholars believe that most of Jesus’ criticism of “the Pharisees” occurred in Jerusalem and its surroundings – which would be the primarily Shammite and the Sadducees (who were not Pharisee in their theology, but somewhat close to Shammai in their narrow interpretations). Additionally, there were (within the Pharisee groups) Seven “types” of Pharisee, of which six were criticized and one was held up as an ideal. Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 map almost exactly with the other contemporary criticisms of the six “bad Pharisee” types.
In these six “bad Pharisee” types, their key sin was not in leniency, but rather in creating their own rules which were more – not less – strict than what God required, and then expecting everyone to live by them or be rejected (by the Pharisees) from entering the kingdom. This is very similar to the way modern ODM’s operate.
If someone is operating in a spirit of ‘diviseveness’, it is not the person we are battling against, but rather the “spirit”. Perhaps it does not translate well to Afrikaans, but when I use the word “spirit” in the mission statement, I was referring to ideas or words – and separating them from people under those particular delusions.
I believe that one may believe in God and accept Jesus’ sacrifice, but still not immediately act in accordance with Jesus’ intent for the way a citizen of the Kingdom of God would act. When we correct one another within the church, it should be to remove the “spirits” of divisiveness, error, etc. rather than to attack the person. Our struggle is not with flesh and blood, but with the evil principalities and powers of this present darkness. One such “power” is a spirit that seeks to divide the church over issues that do not pertain to salvation.
Again, not to belabor the point – the “battle” is not against people, but against ideas.
In this case, it is against the idea/mentality that leads to division within the church, where one group of Christians declares that another group of Christians “serves another god” or are “goats” or “are false Christians” or are “damned”, etc., etc. over things which are merely interpretations of things which are not core to being covered by the grace of God through Jesus.
neil
The Word of God is very specific and the Holy Spirit is the one who interprets scripture for born again Christians. For those who are not born again, they are left wondering around emergent land looking for meanings in all the wrong places.
So until you get down on your knees and humble yourself before God and delare yourself to be a sinner and surrender your life to over to Jesus Christ the SON OF GOD. When you are born again the Holy Spirit (God’s Spirit) comes to abide in you from that moment forth you will have little problem discerning truth from error.
Until you are born again, there is no point continuing.
Michael
Does my blog attract all the wrong type or readers?
neil
Holy spirit will never contradict Himself!!!!!!!
A born again Christian and another Born again Christian will agree totally because they both have the Holy Spirit in them who confirms the truth.
A born again Christian and a fake Christian will never disagree. <—- this is the one you are referring too.
Chris L
Ideas/Mentality eh? Well the Bible says:
Ephesians 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Matthew 7:15 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
But basically let’s get down to the REAL MATTER HERE.
Person gets ‘saved’ because they believe in Christ
Person is now under grace
They can continue living in sin and if there are any problems merely look at the interpretations of what is sin and ammend where necessary.
Grace allows one to carry on living a sinful life by justification of good works.
Deborah,
The grace of God has always had an element of “scandal” to it.
So, when Paul and Barnabas disagreed, was one of the two a “false Christian”? Or when Paul and Peter disagreed, was one of them a “false Christian”?
The gift of the Holy Spirit does not ensure that there will be complete harmony of ideas within the body of Christ. Nowhere does Jesus, his disciples or Paul teach this.
As for Eph 6:12 – part of what Paul is describing is a fight against ideas, not people. The concept of “Spiritual Warfare” as taught in some modern churches is far from the first-century view, in which “evil spirits” were not synonymous with “demons”, but rather ideas, words and ideas put forth by men. “Spirit” (ruach, pheuma) is “breath”, which is the source of words/ideas put forth by men. My apologies for not giving the direct quote from memory…
Ek sal my HOT aan die hand van Chris L se skrywe moet hersien, beginnende met “inlegkunde” en “toegewend”. Die idee dat die Here Jesus Christus ‘kant gekies het’ is baie vreemd. Dit laat die klink of Hy bloot by die gewildste party in Galilea aangesluit het en hulle nagepraat het: Jesus Christus die Farisieër. Todd Wilken het Skrifverwysings gegee vir sy stellings. Weerlê hom aan die hand van die Skrif en nie Josephus en inlegkunde nie.
Chris L beweer dat die Here Jesus Christus meer toegewend as Hillel was ten opsigte van die vraag “wie is my naaste”.
Die eerste deel van die Wet van die Here sê jy moet die Here jou God liefhê uit jou hele hart en uit jou hele siel en uit jou hele krag en uit jou hele verstand. Doen dit en jy sal lewe. Doen dit nie en jy sal sterwe. Die wetgeleerde kon homself nie regverdig ten opsigte van die eerste deel nie, maar hy wou homself regverdig ten opsigte van die tweede deel – liefde teenoor sy naaste. Hy vra vir Jesus Christus: En wie is my naaste? Volgens Chris L, wat beweer dat Jesus Christus meer toegewend as Hillel was, het Hy hier ‘n sagte antwoord gegee. Chris L sê die antwoord is jy word gebied om alle mense, insluitende die Samaritane lief te hê. So, nie alleen sal jy sterwe as jy nie die Here liefhet uit jou hele hart en uit jou hele siel en uit jou hele krag en uit jou hele verstand nie, maar jy moet ook alle mense liefhê soos jouself. Dit is die meer toegewende antwoord?! Die strengste antwoord is van Shammai: om die Wet te gehoorsaam hoef jy net Jode te reken as jou naaste?! Sou Chris L reken dat die wetgeleerde bly was oor die “toegewende” antwoord wat hy gekry het en met blydskap daar weg is?
Jesus Christus het dan gesê:
Klink nie vir my of Hy met Chris L saamstem nie. Hy het ook gesê:
As ‘n mens Chris L se woord aanvaar dat Jesus Christus die mees toegewende Farisieër was, dan wonder ek of ek regtig wil weet wat Shammai sou sê oor egbreek.
Chris het die woord “toegewend” geherdefinieer om te beteken “streng tot op die uiterste toe”. En bitter is soet. En Brendt het minder as vyf uur om sy punt te stel.
DTW
Well, thank you very much. You have just confirmed the emergents’ worst fear about me.
Arguing is so much easier when you can just tell the other side what they really mean – in spite of what they say they mean.
I have.
I am.
I have never met anyone, in person or on-line, who declared I was not saved based on disagreeing about the use of a word in a specific context. I did not know my salvation was contingent on agreeing with Amanda about the use of the word “Pharisee.” In light of this, my profession of faith above must be null and void.
Amanda,
On what are you basing your declaration that Chris L. is Emergent?
ohhhh noooooo! DTW u’v given her away! now she’s gonna get coffee invites!
but seriously, thanks DTW for your comment and bringing the discussion back to what it is supposed to be about.
my thoughts: Paul and Barnabas did NOT disagree about the gospel and the faith.
Ek vra om verskoning vir die gebruik van hierdie woord. Toets self om te sien of Brendt en Neil die waarheid praat.
Brendt Waters van PPP het ODM’s “boogerheads” genoem. Hy het Michael verseker dat hy homself al meer onderskei van die ander “boogerheads”.
Dames, hoe voel julle daaroor dat die Amerikaner julle “snotkoppe” genoem het? Dink julle hulle verontskuldigings is waar en as ‘n Christen die woord gebruik in Amerika in dieselfde konteks teen ander Christene, gaan almal lekker lag? Bespreek.
Amanda
Hulle het die toets by my gedruip. Hulle kom voor of hulle n probleem met Dames het en as sulke woorde soos ‘snotkoppe” ge uiter word, dan is dit ooglopend waar hulle vandaan kom. Ek dink nie eers mens moet verder in gesprek wees met hulle nie.
Elmarie
Dankie vir jou antwoord. Ek stem saam met jou. Ek sal later vanmiddag my betoog aan DTW lewer.
DTW
Brendt Waters het gekies om op ons werf te kom en ons te b*****. Hy het die gebruik van die woord regverdig deur te beweer dat die woord in sy kultuur onskuldig en humoristies is. Ek glo hom nie.
Beide Brendt Waters en Neil het hulle geloofwaardigheid opgeoffer deur die gebruik van b**** te regverdig en vir ons kultuurpreke af te steek. Hulle het die geleentheid gehad om dit onvoorwaardelik terug te trek, maar gekies om dit nie te doen nie. Op grond daarvan het ek niks verder vir hulle te sê nie en stel nie in die minste belang om ‘n platform vir hulle taqiyya te bied nie.
Tot tyd en wyl jy ‘n beslissing bekend maak, sal Brendt Waters en Neil se kommentare summier in die vuilgoedblik gegooi word.
neil
>> Arguing is so much easier when you can just tell the other side what they really mean – in spite of what they say they mean.
Well are you not doing the same thing to us? You are arguing with us, telling us that what we mean is actually the same as you and others when it’s very clear it’s not and that we need to agree with you. So, you guys seem to know what you mean and we are distorting it, but at the same time you are doing the same thing to us. Just go poke that little finger somewhere else.
If we follow the same gospel we would not be arguing. But we are. And there is a BIG difference between disagreeing about little trivial things than disagreeing about the entire meaning of the gospel.
Since you arrived you have said NOTHING in agreement with us. How is this possible if we follow the same Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit is not confused and He does not contradict Himself. He does not speak one message to one and another message to another. He does not agree with false teaching and He certainly will never entertain people who follow strange doctrines.
c
>> DTW u’v given her away! now she’s gonna get coffee invites!
Oops. Well it did help to change the topic ehehe.
neil
>> On what are you basing your declaration that Chris L. is Emergent?
Based on the fact that Emergents preach a social gospel and anything else that tickles their fancy. They are full of philosophies and man made ideas and ignore the main principle of the gospel. To preach SALVATION and REPENTANCE OF SIN at all costs. Instead they are poetic, try act priestly, and ironically are prophetic as they speak the same ‘peace and safety’ message the bible warned about.
They are bridge builders and well diggers. They speak about grace when Grace is only given by God. Grace is what God has given those who believe in His Son Jesus Christ – that they may not perish, but receive eternal life. Emergent grace is man made love from ‘within’. They prefer to hide behind metaphors, tricks, marketing and hints and networks.
Their Jesus that you are expected to follow is not the same Jesus Christ as the bible. And we know it’s not the same Jesus Christ as the Word of God because this ‘new’ Jesus speaks a different gospel that sounds very similar but is actually completely different. This new Jesus is someone one can follow without having to follow the Word of God in its entirety. This new Jesus is someone one can follow by just trying to do and act as Jesus did. This new Jesus is one that would NEVER rebuked his own disciples let alone a crowd of people who wanted the miracle only but not the Miracle maker. This new Jesus is someone who does not really care what path you take as long as you just show love and are inviting to strangers. This new Jesus has a religion called Christianity too, but this Christianity opposes Jesus Christ the SON OF GOD and the Word of God.
neil
>> I have never met anyone, in person or on-line, who declared I was not saved based on disagreeing about the use of a word in a specific context. I did not know my salvation was contingent on agreeing with Amanda about the use of the word “Pharisee.” In light of this, my profession of faith above must be null and void.
I suppose there is a first time for everything. Having said that, it was not based on disagreeing about the use of a word in specific context but because your ENTIRE belief system contradicts the Word of God.
I said this before in another comment to you, I will repeat it here again:
Amanda
>> Well, thank you very much. You have just confirmed the emergents’ worst fear about me.
Well at least they wont be wanting to come to your house for coffee. As for fighting off the invitations to go out for coffee, I am sorry, I can’t help you on that one *rotfl*
DTW
But… but my HOT [Handwoordeboek van die Ontluikkaanse Taal] is not complete! Do you think the emergents will get it when I say: “I accept, thank you”?
I am sooo confused!
Chris L
>> So, when Paul and Barnabas disagreed, was one of the two a “false Christian”? Or when Paul and Peter disagreed, was one of them a “false Christian”?
Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement had NOTHING to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and faith, repentance of sin, etc.
>> The gift of the Holy Spirit does not ensure that there will be complete harmony of ideas within the body of Christ. Nowhere does Jesus, his disciples or Paul teach this.
DTW) Harmony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and harmony of people’s minor disagreements on certain minor issues that will NEVER affect, detract or distort the message of salvation and repentance of sin.
PPP) Disharmony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with harmony on any teaching that sounds Christian that ultimately destroys the Gospel of Jesus Christ and message of Salvation and repentance of sin.
Nice try anyhow on trying to justify error.
Chris L
>> As for Eph 6:12 – part of what Paul is describing is a fight against ideas, not people. The concept of “Spiritual Warfare” as taught in some modern churches is far from the first-century view, in which “evil spirits” were not synonymous with “demons”, but rather ideas, words and ideas put forth by men. “Spirit” (ruach, pheuma) is “breath”, which is the source of words/ideas put forth by men. My apologies for not giving the direct quote from memory…
Ephesians 6:12
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places
Where oh where do you think men get their unbiblical ideas from, their doctrines of demons? You say: “evil spirits were not synonymous with demons” back then? What a load of nonsense. You have completely and utterely taken something rather simple and made it into something confusing and complicated for no reason what so ever.
Our fight is not against flesh (for example: ideas of men) but the principalities of evil that speak though/to these men with unbiblical ideas who create doctrines of demons that capture people and lead them astray.
Michael
Oh wait, something else…
Your original comment said: “….attract all the wrong type of readers?”
What kind of readers do you think the website jesus-is-saviour attracts?
Amanda
I think Laduuumaaaa might suffice, or Ayobaaaa, or just a plain Eishhhhh. And leave it at that.
Ladies
Brendt Waters has brought something to my attention:
Our homegrown emergents [Nic, Roger, Ryan, Cobus, Eugene, Mark etc. without exception] do know their manners and would never, ever say that word, or any like it, to a lady. Well done, manne!
I was referred to this article by Pat Holliday. I thought the article contained good information, but to me, it only pointed up the hopeless mess all non-Catholic churches are in regarding doctrine.
It is best to have apostolic tradition and the magisterium to study and pray regarding church doctrine and then for the whole church to adhere to that one set of doctrines. It is not possible to come to a doctrine in all of its needed applicability in the here and now world by the bible alone. How we all wish that were possible. We need to talk to the apostles and ask them what they meant by certain words in the bible, but we can’t do that, so we have to go back and see what the personal contemporary friends of the apostles wrote and taught about certain matters. That is sacred tradtion. The bible does not anywhere teach “bible alone is the authority” and it does in more than one place mention that the apostles taught in writing and by word of mouth.
I could go to 10 different non-Catholic churches and get 10 different gospels. I could get a wide array of definitions like “faith”.
I believe that the very salvation of those who teach false doctrine as well as those who are led astray by believing false doctrine is jeopardized by false doctrine. That is why doctrine is so gravely important.
Sounded like you were defending John MacArthur. The facts are his church has become solidly entrenched in the “emerging church” or “purpose driven” doctrines.
I think for Christianity to really impact the world regarding faith and morals, it needs to be one. It certainly is anything but “one” now. No wonder there are so many many false doctrines floating around.
There are a whole lot of doctrines that have been around in all the diffent churches that date back many decades and those, not only the more recent false doctrines, need to be examined. Many of them appear most unbiblical to me.
God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ Who is Truth.
True enough, but neither have we. I posted my personal statement of faith and it was not addressed, yet Deborah said I was unsaved for disagreeing with Amanda on the use of the term “Pharisee.”
What are the specific disagreements on the gospel and faith?
To All,
It appears the term that Brendt used was highly offensive. I cannot apologize for him, but I can apologize if my words in his defense were seen as offensive as well.
Neil
My apologies if I misunderstood. I was under the impression our disagreement was over the use of the term “Pharisee” particularly in the context of the mission statement of ppp.
If we have any disagreements regarding the Gospel itself, I am unaware of them. I have posted my beliefs in detail, and before my privileges of commenting are revoked, I would appreciate it if you would kindly point out in what areas we disagree.
Thanks in advance
Deborah
I do not think I have ever resumed to declare what you mean… where have I ever told you what you mean? I have, in vain, tried to correct your misunderstanding of what I have said… that’s all.
Amanda: Just to be clear. I was not talking to you. I was talking about you.
Oh well, then that makes it all OK. Talking about someone right in front of their virtual face is always acceptable. I think that’s in the book of Hezekiah.
Amanda: Brendt, you are welcome to vindicate yourself by placing your original comment again. I will not delete it a second time.
I have no need to “vindicate” myself. I specifically apologized twice and also referenced the fact that I should have been more sensitive to cultural differences given my job. Even though the text was hidden from me in Afrikaans, I can see that the word was revealed already and that the definitions that you provided are, indeed, much worse than what I intended.
Further, Neil’s explantion is quite accurate. The context in which it was intended was (at most) silly, not offensive. Assuming that (unlike cecilia apparently) you can’t read my heart, you will note that in my explanation I stated that you’d probably hear the word from a 7-year-old. Cultural differences or not, I would imagine that you’d have to agree that a 43-year-old using a 7-year-old’s language is intended to be silly in some manner.
Amanda: Toets self om te sien of Brendt en Neil die waarheid praat.
While probably an imperfect translation, the google translator interprets this thusly: “Test yourself to see if Brendt and Neil are telling the truth.”
Personally, I find this more offensive than if I had used “4-letter words”. You are soliciting others to determine if I am being truthful.
Amanda: Dames, hoe voel julle daaroor dat die Amerikaner julle “snotkoppe” genoem het?
Again, via google translator: “Ladies, how you feel about the Americans you “snotkoppe” called?”
I find it very interesting that (assuming my interpretation is correct), you automatically assume that I’m talking about any contributor or commenter here.
Neil: On what are you basing your declaration that Chris L. is Emergent?
Deborah: Based on the fact that Emergents preach a social gospel and anything else that tickles their fancy.
Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Larry Flynt often wear suits. I sometimes wear a suit. By your reckoning, I am a money-hungry, sex-obsessed pornographer.
Put another way, your logic is backwards. Assuming that both Emergents and Chris both “preach a social gospel”, that no more makes Chris emergent than it makes me a car when I go into my garage.
Deborah: Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement had NOTHING to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and faith, repentance of sin, etc.
Perhaps, but Paul and Peter’s disagreement had EVERYTHING to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and faith, repentance of sin, etc. Peter was adding observance of the OT law to the Gospel. Thankfully, when confronted with the truth, he didn’t stick to his guns.
STILL waiting on a comment regarding Deborah’s specific (and incorrect) statement regarding the naming of PPP.
Not that I expect to hear anything. Any more than I expect this comment to see the light of day.
Brendt
Who cares if you all sat around a table debating on a name and came up with something uncannily similar to the PPP conference. The fact is it’s similar to the name of the Poets, Prophets and Preachers conference held by Rob Bell, Shane Hipps and Peter Rollins. It’s like rang a BELL that the name of the blog where Eugene was attacking Discernment websites was so alike to a name of a conference held by NEW AGE EMERGENTS.
I suppose I should not have used the word ripp-off. That I will say sorry for. But the similarity is still uncanny.
I wonder why Emergents are so scared to acknowledge they are Emergent when they clearly think on the lines of Emergent thinking and dialogue like Emergents. I know why, they don’t want people to know they are not really Christian, and need to HIDE behind Christian-like language in order to catch people, this is why websites who expose them are so unwelcome.
In fact if it was not for Eugene I would not have even known about Chris’ site. But Eugene could not help keeping quiet – he just had to say something, after telling us in over 50 comments how he was Christian and agreed with us. Typical – can’t keep a straight face.
Anyhow re:- PPP – If this is your only gripe then please go to Iggy’s website (the anti-ODM blog) and help write an article on the total horror of this situation. I would like an award for spotting the similarity between the name of Chris’ website and the conference of Poets, Prophets and Preachers.
And why would you think this comment of yours would not see the light of day? All your others were approved expect for the one where you swore like a sailor.
So stop sulking, get over it and move on like a man. It think I told Eugene once that Emergents need to grow some chest hairs. 1 or 2 will do fine – it’s a start I suppose.
Brendt
Errrrr….like….what is your point? Don’t answer that, cos then I am going to have to repeat the same question. “Errrrr….like….what is your point?”
Brendt
Yeahhhhhh…ok… “Errrrr….like….what is your point?” Does your car where a suit when it drives into your garage? “Errrrr….like….what is your point?” Again, don’t answer that.
That’s not nice, where’s the emergent grace in that comment? Tsk tsk tsk…
Brendt
How offensive is this then: 1 John 4:1-6
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
neil
you said so here…
And I said… “Well are you not doing the same thing to us?”
Simple…
Neil
Yes, the word Pharisee and it’s meaning that is used against discernment ministries. So yes, your ENTIRE belief system contradicts the Word of God. If you believed in the Word of God in it’s entirety they would not have that mission statement. Unless it’s that Emergent thing again where you come running out with a white flag hinting that you still want to take Discernment websites down.
Should I put my hands up in the air now like I am under arrest and play along?
neil
No problem.
PPP is Emergent though.
neil
One can post personal statements of faith till the cows come home. Which Jesus are you speaking about? Jesus Christ of the Bible or the new Jesus that the world is following like zombies? The fact that you are sticking up for Emergent dialogue that is anti-Christian is a perfect example as too how people can write fantastic statements of faith but follow another ‘Christ’ instead.
So stop following strange teachings and repent to Jesus Christ for doing so. Get back onto the narrow path. Get away from people who speak blasphemies against the one you call your Lord and Saviour. If Jesus means that much to you, you would run a mile from people who say even the slightest thing derogatory about Him. It would cut you deep down. It would hurt you to see ‘dialogue’ that opposes your King – the One you say you love so much. What does Jesus really mean in your life? Are you happy to mingle with goats who kick at Jesus Christ? Think about how much Jesus really means to you if you can tolerate people distorting the Word of God and make snide remarks about your GOD.
Jeannon
Um, if you re-read the article you will notice that this article has NOTHING to do with genuine Christianity but about false Christian teaching.
As for the rest of your comment…seeing that you are catholic and think they preach the truth then you should know all about Emergent teaching and loving it because Emergent teaching has it foot dipped in Catholicism. And if John MacArthur was going this direction you should be jumping for joy too. But John MacArthur is not going this route and he certainly is NOT purpose driven so stop lying.
Oh there we go; One faith, one world is what you want, all under Roman Catholicism.
So Jeannon, you are one big contradiction. As for Pat Holiday well… I don’t have much to say about her, except that everything she writes about is laden with occult teaching trying to expose occult teaching.
DTW
From Chris Rosebrough’s Extreme Theology: Rebutting Brian McLaren’s Latest Heresies: Was Paul’s Gospel Different Than Jesus’ Gospel?
Kom ons kyk of ons die kloutjie by die oor kan kry. ODM’s verdeel christene net soos die Farisieërs hulleself verdeel het, die gees van die Fariseërs. Jesus Christus het ‘kant gekies’ vir die mees genaakbare groep. Hierdie Jesus het die Wet versag sodat jy verplig word om almal lief te hê. ODM’s veroorsaak verdeling deur te praat oor die vals leer wat in die kerk gebring word. ODM’s glo dat ons opdrag is om die Goeie Nuus van bekering en die vergifnis van sondes in Jesus Christus se naam te verkondig. Die ontluikendes glo dat hulle die Goeie Nuus is en die wêreld moet red. Hulle kreun onder die las wat hulle self opgetel het en beskuldig ODM’s daarvan dat hulle die las verswaar deur te sê dit is nie die Christen se las nie, gooi dit af.
Deur die woord Farisieër teen ODM’s te gebruik, plaas hulle ons onder oordeel. Wanneer hulle gekonfronteer word, word daar na ander bronne verwys om die punt te maak dat dit gaan oor verdeling en nie ongeloof nie. En dat Jesus Christus die Farisieërs tog skape genoem het!
Todd Wilken in “Playing the Pharisee Card”:
Jesus Christus het die Farisieërs veroordeel. Hy het hulle nie skape genoem nie. In die bostaande kommentare het die gaste duidelik en herhaaldelik woorde van hulle bekende betekenis beroof en dit gevul met die teenoorgestelde betekenis, byvoorbeeld skaap teenoor slang en inlegkunde teenoor uitlegkunde, genaakbaar teenoor ongenaakbaar, Goeie Nuus teenoor goeie werke. Hulle kom in vrede om ons te stop!
Ek vind geen ooreenstemming met hulle nie. Dit is duidelik dat ek hulle anti-god dien en dat hulle god my veroordeel. Miskien was dit nie alles tydmors nie. Mag hulle almal die moed van ‘n Brian McLaren hê om die trippel-trappel te laat staan en reguit te praat.
Deborah
>>PPP is Emergent though.<<<
My thoughts on them exactly ! They have spelt it out clearly enough by their writings.
I just wonder if they will say so and answer you ?? But it does not matter. Why do these type of people always hide who the really are??. Could it be that, their conscience is bothering them?? If so there might be hope still.
The problem is that Wilken’s argument is not purely from Scripture – it is from Scripture PLUS Wilken’s assumptions about the Pharisees (that they were monolithic in belief, etc.). In my case, I pull all of my argumentation from Scripture, as well, and then lay it on top of the historical assumptions about the Pharisees and their culture, rather than my own 21st century assumptions.
There were a number of times that Jesus was friendly with individual Pharisees (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, etc.), Paul was still proud to declare himself a “Pharisee of Pharisees” (which was not a negative boast) after becoming a Christian, and Pharisees warned Jesus about attempts on his life. (All events in Scripture). Many of the proof-texts you’ve (and Todd) pulled with your assumptions about Pharisees do not even specifically come from Jesus’ comments to members of the Pharisee party!
Bottom Line: There is a good deal of sound Biblical scholarship on who the Pharisees were and how Jesus’ theology matches and differs from theirs. When I categorize someone as acting within the “spirit” of the Pharisees, THAT is the definition I’m using – not something made up by Wilken, etc. So, if you’re going to critique me calling an action “Pharisaical”, you cannot take a word I’ve used and assume it means something other than how I meant it.
My Google translator isn’t picking up all the words, but your usage of Matt 5 is not relevant to Jesus’ comments to the Pharisees. Jesus’ issue with some of the Pharisees was more about how they acted, not about what they believed:
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
FYI – the word “toegewend” does not translate in Google, so I cannot figure out what your issues is.
_______________
1) I don’t see anywhere that I have said that a “social gospel” is the Gospel.
2) I have a LOT of issues with different ideas/doctrines from some “emergent” churches or leaders (like Brian MacLaren)
3) My background is in the Restoration Movement churches in America, which have been around for 150 years and definitely are not “emergent”…
4) If my unwillingness to cast the entirety of the “emergent church” makes me “emergent”, though, then that would speak more to a lack of “discernment” by discerners than a fault on my own part…
Actually, we have both the Grace of God, and the grace we are to show to ALL men. (See Matt 18:21-35 for one example of this, along with all of Paul’s greeting to the churches in his Epistles.)
Incorrect – you’ve built a strawman in your diatribe which does not describe what we believe. I do believe there is an appropriate time for rebuke of other believers and/or their teachings (which I did over on PPP this past weekend with Chad for about the 2000th time). I do believe that Jesus expects us both to believe and to follow the Word and the example we have been given. I do NOT believe, though, that it is our place to elevate our own petty convictions to the level of absolute truth, and to then judge others by that standard.
I would agree, though (just to make sure we’re being clear) – the message of Salvation is not dependent upon “repentance of sin” (otherwise it would be a “work” by which we are saved), but rather “repentance of sin” is a result of Salvation, which comes only via the grace of God through Jesus.
I do not see that we disagree on the Gospel – we disagree on what a Christian’s role is in calling out others who have not yet repented of all aspects of their sinful nature, and on when brothers and sisters in Christ should be “called out” for disagreements over secondary matters.
Debs,
[quote] What kind of readers do you think the website jesus-is-savior attracts? [end of quote]
The kind of reader that will leave that site confused. You may want to remember that especially younger Christians are very impressionable and get easily rocked (frightened, like sheep). A person lands up on the site looking for information on the WoF and lands up throwing away any confidence he has in Jonh Mac. It’s happened before.
You may be drawing the wrong implications from my statements. To be fair and balanced I have tried to take an impartial view in the context of the original article [yes, even after being a little rude to begin with], especially on the issue of accountability. We will give an account to the Lord for everything we have taught [yes, exposing error does constitute teaching and representing God through a defence of his word].
I have read the criticisms and actually found some of them to be valid, others not – it’s only their perspective. Just because of the overhanging suspicions you guys have of PPP’s emergent links and post modern thought does not mean that they do not have reasonable qualms. I remain convinced that if someone wants to attack or discredit a discernment blog no amount of Grace, Truth or politeness will suffice. There is never a shortage of ways to twist the truth. But having said that…
…You know what? Neil is actually right [in an earlier post]. I am personally 100% opposed to Rick Warren and his methods and remain convinced that the purpose driven gospel is a false gospel. That puts Rick Warren in false teacher territory – motive, heart or sincerity is not for us to judge. But accusing, or even alluding, to him of pocketing money is excessive [this just gives the critics even more ammo and makes those in the neutral position tilt the other way]. That is an assumption, we are supposed to defend the truth – without evidence this becomes an accusation. If it came out that he pocketed the money, by all means mention it. This is unwittingly sliding in false witness territory; “You shall not bear false witness” [Matthew 19:18]. If we want to be blameless we have to curtail any excessive statements and remain fair, balanced and stick to the facts. No true Christian gets into error intentionally and makes a false judgment intentionally, but having said that we must use just balances (see proverbs quote in earlier post).
The whole point of debating is that we learn as we teach.
Even though I have other differences with them I have found some [emphasis on ‘some’] of the comments from Chris L and Brendt to be quite articulate and interesting. Let’s hope you can see the whole perspective because right now the thread is turning one-dimensional.
[quote] At what point do we actually trust the Spirit? Until we can use charitably quoted, straightforward, extended quotes from individuals without quoting out of context, “translating” what they said into things they didn’t mean (as Amanda has done with me above, and Deborah has done with Louie Giglio on this blog), or quoting others who have “translated” what they said (paging DeWaay), etc. then we’re likely “too close at the beginning”. When we spend more time attacking individuals or nebulous “movements” than taking specific, explicit doctrines and their charitable positions, with Christ-centered commentary that doesn’t stoop telling commenters we’ve never met that they “serve a different God than we do” with pretty much zero evidence, then we’re too early, not too late. [end of quote]
Chris L,
I disagree. In terms of commenting Bob Dewaay is probably the best I have encountered at taking on explicit [bad] doctrines with Christ-centered commentary. Just because he caught Rob Bell in the cross hairs does not make him wrong. There are false teachers out there, how do you propose they be exposed? Or should they just be left alone? Someone has to challenge what they are teaching.
Trust the Spirit? I don’t really understand the comment. I do agree that we should spend more time dismantling ‘what they teach’ as opposed to attacking the person but the two cannot really be separated. I do agree that it’s the thoughts, ideas and doctrines that we oppose – which is really the enemy and originates from the enemy. Not necessarily the person teaching them, he may just be a victim of his own folly. So I would agree with the notion that it’s not the person that’s dangerous, it’s their doctrine and lies. As for the other comments, I don’t know much about Louie G’s ministry so I withhold comment.
[quote] I do not think any predominant worldview, apart from the Kingdom of God, is “biblical”.[end of quote]
There is a biblical worldview and it covers everything from civil government to the economy to creation. One reason this world and the church is in the state it is in is because of a lack of a biblical worldview for all affairs of life. Perhaps we disagree on the definition but I remain convinced ours worldviews differ.
Michael:
DTW commented to Hector on 04-01-2010: “Actually you are right he doesn’t have to give it back because he is not a christian so he does not have to be honest, or decent, or caring, he can just pocket it and not think twice.”
>>> Neil wrote on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 pm
example two:
another post speaks of saddleback taking in 2.4 million at the end of the year. again, the post is rather centrist with the exception of the comment at the end about the church giving it back. but then, deborah, who i believe owns this site, takes things to what i would call the most extreme right and interjects the kind of accusations that we would oppose. IN ONE SENTENCE SHE CLAIMS THAT WARREN is 1) not a christian, 2) does not have to be honest, or decent, or caring, 3) and he can just pocket it and not think twice. c’mon.
then you Michael, on February 8th, agree with him and even OVER-EMPHASIZE it and made it sound even worse:
>>> “But accusing, or even alluding, to him of pocketing money is excessive”.
I personally don’t think DTW meant that RW took the money for his personal use. I’m sure if she knew this would be read into her words, she’d put it in different words. That’s just my opinion. Why not ask her what she really meant?
Oh yes, Michael, my sentiments as well, worded in your last paragraph on Febr. 8th.
Cecilia,
The ‘emphasis’ was really around the point that even those we have disagreements with can be right. We all have to work at being more fair and balanced in our writing.
Michael
What exactly are you speaking about?
I never said he pocketed the money for himself. By pocketing I meant he took the money without thinking twice – he requested 900.000 and received 2.000.000 so he kept the rest (not for himself, but for the ministry). Please read properly, infact please go back and read it again! It’s very clear that what you are accusing me of is not what I said.. But then you go and accused me of bearing false witness? Hmmmmm…
Sooooooo….I am now 1 dimensional, and unless I don’t see the WHOLEEEE emergent picture I will remain that way. Well…I was expecting you to change your tune but not that fast. Remember Michael, this is about the gospel that is preached – nothing else. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not 1 dimensional.
I hear PPP’s site is 2 dimensional. They are waiting there with open arms.
Lastly, I found some of the commenteres from PPP comment’s interesting, articulate and intelligent as well. But they are still Emergent.
Michael
What kind of ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ are you referring too?
And of course we have disagreements, does not mean everything now becomes wrong. No idea where that even came from…
BUT what level of right and wrong are we speaking about here and what exactly are we speaking about here?
There is no such thing as fair btw when it comes to false teachers leading people, children to hell.
C
Nah it’s ok, Michael does not need to ask me, it’s clear for all to see that it is not what I meant. Very clear infact.
But it is however not clear to those who are looking for a reason to give me a bad name.
Chris L
I would hint at the hint you hinted at when you hinted at calling me a pharisee but I wont because that would be wrong.
Anyhow…enough jokes for one night…
1) Since you have been saved, do you repent asking Jesus to forgive you of sinful things you have done today or a week ago…because you are still a sinner who is saved by grace hence you will carry on sinning (not talking perpetual sin, only small stuff) but you still need to repent of these things and as time goes by and the Holy Spirit’s conviction you repent more (called regeneration) and you start to become more like Jesus in holiness.
2) Or once you are saved you are now under grace and repentance came automatically, didn’t even need to ask.
3) Do you consider ‘repenting of sin’ at any stage (just before being saved and after being saved) a work?
3) If the message of salvation was not dependant on repentance of sin, then why need to be saved? In order to come to the point of being geuinely saved, one needs to know how genuinely sinful one is and fall before Jesus’ feet and repent and His blood washes you clean and you are dressed in white and presented spotless before a Holy Holy Father.
I write at PPP and am the anti-thesis of emergent. Just for clarification.
It’s very apparent (as I’ve re-read the comments) that Deborah wants everyone to understand her completely, extend grace to her words, understand her interpretation, and be charitable in their reading of her. All fair and appropriate. My question though is when is she going to start extending the same latitudes to others?
The Jesus that was born in Bethlehem according to the Scriptures, born of a virgin. The Jesus that grew up in Nazareth and lived a sinless life. The Jesus who became an itinerant rabbi and called to himself twelve disciples and attracted many more followers. The Jesus who was the fulfillment of prophecy, who was the anointed one of Israel, who was and is ans is to come again. The Jesus who died on a cross and yet, was raised again bodily on the third day hence. The Jesus whose life and death and resurrection are recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Jesus who, after his bodily resurrection ascended to the Father where he now sits at his right hand until such time as he returns to earth to consummate his Kingdom and establish his earthly reign.
That is the Jesus I speak about, the Jesus I follow, the Jesus who is my Savior and Lord.
To the best of my knowledge I have never stood up for something anti-Christian. In fact, at PPP I have taken some Emergents to task for denying Christian fundamentals. I will admit to sticking up for, and even writing, dialogue that is anti-”what-some-Christians-do.” But opposing methods is a far cry from being anti-Christian.
Deborah,
In the States the term “pocket the money” clearly carries the connotation of personal use. It’s possible that there was an issue of translation there. That being said, to claim he is not a Christian and to claim that he need not be honest or caring (particularly since the money was needed to help those in need) was unfair and inappropriate.
Michael – I would agree that there is a biblical worldview that covers civil government, the economy, creation, etc. It is the view expressed by Jesus and his contemporaries as the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven” (the second, predominantly in Matthew, because his gospel is more to a Jewish audience, which substituted “Heaven” for “God” in their spoken words). I do not believe, though, that the biblical worldview is any more or less Modernist than it is Postmodernist.
My issue with DeWaay is not his targeting of Bell, but that he often mixes his “discernment” with Calvinist apologetics – or, to be more specific, a number of his criticisms about false teaching, when they pertain to non-Calvinist figures (like Bell), too often center on adherence to the TULIP, without leaving the grace to deviate from systematic theology (which is only about 500 years old, and is more a product of the invention of the printing press than it is of historic theology).
You might check out Ravi Zacharias and/or Hank Hannegraaf, for more even-handed discernment.
I believe that the Spirit will continue to search us and help us to identify those areas in our life where we ought to repent. If we treat, or view, this repentence as required to maintain our salvation, then we are treating it as a “work”. If, instead, our repentence simply comes out of love and a desire to do what God desires, then it is a fruit of our Salvation.
That is more of a chicken/egg question – I believe that scripture teaches us that repentence comes as a result of Salvation, not as a pre-condition.
The picture that it painted by both Jesus and Paul is a parallel picture to that of the Children of Israel coming out of Egypt. God saved the people because He loved them and they were chosen by Him. After He saved them, He told them what they could do to please Him at Mt. Sinai (after they had been rescued).
We need to be saved because we are lost. Jesus saved us because we were lost, and he offers us his grace and forgiveness, if we will accept it from him. In this life, our salvation will work itself out individually, as the Spirit leads and as we listen. In the life to come, our salvation is as a people – a holy nation – and we will all listen and act together when that time comes (“every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess”).
No we are not. You have made an accusation that you have not proven, you cannot prove – because it is false.. Show me where we are Emergent in the sense we deny ANY of the fundamental teachings of Scripture. Show me where ANY of my beliefs are unbiblical.
I have played very nice with you Deborah, and at some point it becomes your responsibility to go beyond declarative statements of who I am and show where I have erred… show where I have deviated from the Scriptures… show where I am Emergent.
(and please, no more – “Since you use the word ‘Pharisee’ thus… you must be..”)
Chris
What planet do you currently reside on? Cos so far I do not see any problem but you trying to cause one.
Neil
If you are genuinely Christian then WHY are you here arguing with me? I am a born again Christian, I had an article written about me on PPP website by Eugene. Next minute I am horded by ppp’s for being the BAD one. Explain to me exactly how this was all changed around to me my fault???
neil
Yes you are correct, I should not have said it that way. I should have finished the sentence and said, ‘pocketing the money for what ever else he has plans for….(not pocketing it for himself)’
As for the rest….well….. Rick Warren is NOT CHRISTIAN
NOW it is clear that the Jesus you believe in is NOT the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the ONLY SON of the ONLY LIVING GOD that I believe in because Rick Warren is not a Christian, never was. He believes in a universal Jesus, a Christ of all faiths.
Anyhow thanks for letting us know…and that makes PPP Emergent again. I was almost going to let PPP off the hook for a split second. phewww… that was a close call.
neil
>> I have played very nice with you Deborah
You’ve been playing all along? I knew it.
Chris L
So, tell me, if I am a born again Christian and you are, and I am standing firm for Jesus Christ that no false teachers come and lead souls astray then why are you and your possee fighting with me?
I see you mention Rob Bell somewhere. Quick question. Do you agree or disagree that he is Christian?
It’s just a figure of speech.
neil
PPP is emergent
You have emergent writers on your blog – re Eugene. Gosh, wont even speak about Brendt. You think Rick Warren is Christian. Rick Warren is a combination of New Apostolic and Emergent. PPP came and attacked my website with an article about how bad discernment websites are and then set out to create an anti-discernment ministry ministry… errrrr, ag this is such a waste of my time, really.
I have never said anything of the sort. Chris L however did hint that I was one.
neil
I know I was just playing…
Deborah,
Just so I understand completely. Despite my statement of faith. Despite my long explanation of which Jesus I follow. Despite you not pointing to anything biblical with which we disagree. Ignoring all that (since you have not and cannot disagree with it) you claim I follow another Jesus because I will not agree that Rick Warren is not a Christian?
1) – If we have any disagreements regarding the Gospel itself, I am unaware of them. – Me
followed by
2) – Yes, the word Pharisee and it’s meaning that is used against discernment ministries. So yes, your ENTIRE belief system contradicts the Word of God. – Deborah.
So, here you are denying my whole belief system, my declared fidelity to Scripture based on the use of “Pharisee” in the PPP missions statement.
neil
Yes, because it’s as clear as daylight that he is not Christian. Of course one can be mislead and still be saved, but the Holy Spirit always leads Christians into the TRUTH all the time – not little bits here and there, or does half a job. So if you hear the truth that Rick Warren is not Christian AT ALL you will go and do your research and then agree that he is not because the Holy Spirit WILL CONVICT YOU ON THIS MATTER.
Are you misled or do you genuinely believe Rick Warren is a Christian, and on what basis do you base that Rick Warren is a Christian?
I keep arguing with you because you are labeling me things I am not. You are denying my faith not because of my faith, or what I believe, but because I will not agree that Warren is not a Christian.
You say you are born again – I believe you.
I am born again as well…
Please pray tell, how does someone deny your belief system?? Nevermind I do not want to know. As for the rest of what you said. Neil, I don’t care about the pharisee thing. It means nothing to me. Bickering about a word here and there is pointless.
Eugene wrote the article about Micheal and his article… not you.
I agree in regards to the bickering over the use of Pharisee.
You claim my entire belief system contradicts the Bible – even though you have yet to disagree with anything I have said about God in general, Jesus in specific, or the Bible itself.
You have said I follow an unbiblical Jesus – even though you have yet to disagree with anything I have said about God in general, Jesus in specific, or the Bible itself.
Please show me what I have said about Jesus that is incorrect… not about Warren… about JESUS – the common bond we have!
Neil
Unfortunately this is not true. Eugene was on this blog for a few weeks with Emergents from futurechurch.co.za etc going on and on and on about all things emerging- and then they did some really nasty stuff to me.
Michael had not yet started to comment on this website. I put up michaels article recently. Eugene found it and then decided to have a go at me. ‘me’ being this blog, discerning the world.
As for the hordes coming here from PPP and making you the bad one.
The reason for the comments were to correct the issue of Eugene owning the blog. To correct the false impression that PPP had anything to do with Bell’s recent conferences. And to clarify that Iggy is not associated with PPP and that many of use do not like his parody sites.
My first comment was to answer a series of question… supposedly designed to show whether or not are not we are Christian or Emergents. Yet those answers have never been addressed.
I know nothing of the exchanges between you and Eugene. But as far as PPP is concerned, the article he posted there specifically addressed this article by Michael.
neil
Who came here to this thread and started commenting against this blog, throwing in your 2 cents as to why we are so terrible? You did right? So please tell me why I am the one that is labelling you, when you came here and spoke your mind first?
Really…. I feel like I am in a twilight zone right now… this is so ridiculous.
You are right, I came here and spoke my mind – and what did I do first? I answered the questions. You have labeled me as Emergent. You have labeled me as following an unbiblical Jesus. I agree it is ridiculous.
Also, where have I said you were terrible?
neil
Ok so you admit that you agree that Rick Warren is Christian
Will you mind telling us why he IS a Christian
As for me being born again and you believing me. It’s got nothing to do with you believing me or not. And I mean this is the nicest way, not being rude or anything (not that I have ever been rude) but I don’t care if you believe me or not. It’s not about trying to make people see or think you are saved? I know my heart. I know that I will stand strong here day after day and contend for the Gospel of Jesus and warn people of the hundreds if not thousands of streams of false teaching pouring into the boiling pot daily.
I’ve been insulted, cursed, threatened, death threats, some where very funny, others weren’t. I’ve been fooled a few times already. And I am sure I will be fooled again, right now even… But I have Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour who protects me day in and day out and the wonderful conviction of the Holy Spirit in my life who constantly warns me and brings me to repentance.
So nothing that anyone can say will stop me from shouting out the secrets of false teachers and their teachings from the rooftops.
neil
Let’s use Rick Warren as our example as to why someone is or is not a Christian.
Please tell me why you think he is a Christian??
neil
Also, where have I said you were terrible?
You didn’t, it was me rambling off again… I said “….throwing in your 2 cents as to why we are so terrible? You did right?”
When I speak about “we” I mean this blog. Sorry I didn’t not mean it to come out that way. If you go to the beginning of the thread you will see I posted all the links to all the articles where Eugene had commented.
Lets so back to your first comment where you answered those questions:
———————————-
-Do you believe in hell?
-Where do you see the world in 50 years time?
-Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian (this includes Catholics)?
-Do you believe that Eastern religions have something to offer Christianity?
-What exactly is you favourite reading material?
-Do you agree with Pantheism or Panentheism?
-What do you think about Israel and Palestine?
i have been a writer at prophets-priests-poets since nearly the beginning, i’m not sure but i may have been the first to join after the original two started their first site.
in that frame let me asure you that all the contributors are borm-again christians even if we do not use that term very often.
as for the questions offered:
Q -Do you believe in hell?
A – yes
Q -Where do you see the world in 50 years time?
A – i have no idea
Q -Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian (this includes Catholics)?
A – i’m curious what the parenthetic is supposed to add… as chris l. said, i have a lot of theological issues with the roman church. that said, i cannot speak of the faith of individuals without fuller knowledge.
Q – Do you believe that Eastern religions have something to offer Christianity?
A – not as it applies to truth, no
Q – What exactly is you favourite reading material?
A – as others have said “favorite” is hard to say. i like c. s. lewis, n. t. wright, some rob bell (other stuff i find overly provocative). i like dan kimball, carson, moo, grudem, etc…
Q – Do you agree with Pantheism or Panentheism?
A – no to both entirely
Q – even though i hold th.m (master of theology in church history) from dallas theological seminary – i am no longer dispensational. therefore, i support a two-state solution. admitttedly, i sympathize with the majority of the palestinian population who find themselves caught in the middle. i particularly empathize with the palestinian christians since their plight has largly been ignored by american evangelicalism in their quest to support unbelieving israel.
michael, when you say of brendt – “I don’t get it, you like the same guys I do? This is getting confusing” – it illustrates the dangers of labeling and assuming.
though i have no fight with you. the idea of labeling someone then assuming you know their beliefs and heart based on that label is a common tactic of american odm’s.
and while we may disagree on the application of our faith, i hope this helps you see how we share that faith in common.
————————————-
So you are anti-semetic (Pro-palestinian, anti-semetic = Emergent)
speak about how we ‘share’ a common faith (emergent – sharing common faith)
and you entertain rob bells reading along with dan kimball (emergent)
etc, etc….
Right, all problems have been cleared up. Can you just put on your “Emergent common shared faith cap” and let us move on. I am getting bored now.
Darryl Dash on a seeming viewpoint of Brian McLaren: … set the terms of the discussion so that if you disagree with me, then it’s clearly because you have a problem, so it’s no use even continuing.
Deborah: what is your point? Don’t answer that
How MacLaren-esque of you. And I’m the one being accused of being Emergent?
Michael Anthony, February 10th
“The ‘emphasis’ was really around the point that even those we have disagreements with can be right.” etc
I’m gonna use a “sosial” example to illustrate how I feel about your answer, with no offense Michael!
ALL parents, in bringing up their children, have good and bad in the bringing up process. One can agree to that. so even tho we ‘disagree’ with the ‘bad’ in with which some people bring their children up, there are the things that all do marvelously right, yes?
BUT, it’s when they want to teach their “how to bring up your child” in TOTALITY, to others, that the problem steps in.
well, that’s how I feel (oh no, I’m repeating myself!). The same with spiritual things.
Now some will be quick to say this is what DTW is doing or trying to do. NOT SO! This Discernment Blog is about warning all who wants to read, about the FALSE movements and all else you can put the word ‘false’ to. correct me if I’m wrong D? BUT on top of all, it’s to point all who wants to read, to the true gospel of the LORD Jesus Christ, without all the extra’s that (church-)movements add to it.
As jou diagnose verkeerd is, gaan jou voorskrif verkeerd wees. Sou die ODM’s tjoepstil bly, sal daar steeds dieselfde verdeeldheid in die kerk wees. Die verdeeldheid word veroorsaak deur vals leraars en vals leer.
Waarom nie omsien na die eenvoudiges nie? Verder, die een wat ‘n ander Evangelie verkondig, is vervloek. Waarom hulle nie waarsku nie?
Dit is nie moeilik om te verstaan nie.
1) I disagree with Rick Warren on a number of issues, particularly some of his pragmatism in the way some of his church programs are structured.
2) Having studied up on Warren, and communicated with members of his staff and congregation, I would say that your statement that “He believes in a universal Jesus, a Christ of all faiths” is demonstrably false, and proven so on a weekly basis.
3) Taking #1 and #2 into account, I think it is silly and uncharitable to declare that “Rick Warren is not a Christian” (let alone to make agreement with such a statement a test of faith). I do believe that his methods (not his theology) create a level of comfort that is conducive to the creation of converts who do not wish to be disciples – but I’ve also seen in the past year or so where he has acknowledged this, and has sought to change.
3) It is highly fallacious to suggest that if a Person A believes that Person B is a Christian, but you do not, that Person A is therefore, by default, not a Christian, either. There is no Biblical precedent for this. In fact, the biblical precedent seems to be around Paul and Barnabas’ argument of whether or not Mark should be included in their mission – Paul said “no”, Barnabas said “yes”, and Barnabas was proved out in the end.
Because you’re shooting a good number of sheep along with the wolves. I do not see that you are “standing firm for Jesus Christ” – I see that you are “standing firm for Deborah’s opinion of who should be in the kingdom and who should not”, when it is up to God. When we look at the false teachers of Paul’s day, the apostasies they were teaching had a far more distinct divide than what you, and other ODM’s, draw.
For example, Louie Giglio and the Passion movement are incredibly conservative, evangelical in nature, and fundamental in their beliefs (and they tend to catch a good deal of flak from the liberal churches in the US for it). However, as a young adult-oriented ministry, their music and use of art have made ultraconservatives and some discernmentalists wary of them. [And historically, the most conservative elements of the modern church have always had a problem with artists and intellectuals.] Your assessments of Louie couldn’t be more wrong, and the way that you take statements from his articles and “reinterpret” them to mean something completely different is uncharitable and more akin to false witness and gossip than “discernment”.
I disagree with Bell on a small number of issues (like the egalitarianism), and agree with him on a number of others. Bell has done a number of things to distance himself from the “emergent church”, but he often gets lumped in with them because of the linguistic and cultural similarities between first century Hebrew culture and postmodern culture.
I have listened to about 100-150 of his podcasts, and while he does not use Christian catch-phrases (or “Christianese”), I would say that he is generally sound in his theology. At the same time, I’ve read all sorts of things about him from Ken Silva and other ODM’s that he (Bell) has outright denied are true, but the lies that are told still persist because what he represents (orthodox theology without the hundreds of years of man-made tradition to go with it) is threatening to those who find comfort in tradition and too often mix it with their theology.
And down is up, 2+2=5, war is peace, love is hate, etc., etc. PPP is simply a collection of Christian writers from different backgrounds and no collective label apart from Christian. While we have been fairly kind in our dealings with the emerging church, our differences from the emergent church are much greater (which is often demonstrated in Chad’s frustration with us – and me in particular – when we reject his theological musings).
I find it odd that the test of faith being put forward is about whether or not a third party, not involved at all in the conversation, is or is not a Christian.
The bar of entry into Christianity is fairly low (which was part of the scandal of Christianity, in itself, in its early years), but the response to our being saved should consume us.
Rick Warren? In all of the basic tenets of the faith (ex. as summed up the Nicene Creed), Warren is orthodox, and would fit the criteria for being called a brother in Christ. Where most disagreements with Warren lie are the methods he believes should be used (or the pragmatism with which he uses them) in growing the church. We have a commenter on our site, “Pastorboy”, who is a street preacher – and I’ve seen clips of him in action, and have been disgusted by the methods he uses (which I believe drive people away from, not attract them to, the Good News). Even so, I would not declare Pastorboy to not be a Christian because I disagree with his methods. There is a difference between a false teacher and a poor teacher.
Neil never said he was antisemetic – he simply disagrees with the way the modern state of Israel has treated the Palestinians, and that he believes the appropriate solution would be a two-state one. (I happen to disagree with him on the solution to the problem, but I do not disagree that Israel has not been lily-white in their treatment of the palestinians within their borders).
As for the logic here? I am a fan of the Indianapolis Colts football team. My friend, a Christian, is a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers. An acquaintance from my workplace likes the Steelers, but he is Muslim. Does that mean that my friend is a Muslim, as well?
Again, this is the same logic as above. The church “denomination” (the American Restoration Movement) I am a part of is about 200 years old, and has been historically very conservative. Even so, one of its mottos has been “We are Christians, only – but we are not the only Christians”. The belief that churches in different denominations with stark disagreements on secondary doctrinal issues can “share a common faith” is not new, nor is it unique to the “emergent church” (and, in fact, we recognize and acknowledge that some parts of the ECM have taken this far beyond biblical bounds).
See my comments on Bell, above. Kimball, as well, is more accurately labeled “emerging” than “emergent”, as he’s rejected many of the far-left teachings of MacLaren, Jones, etc., and is not part of Emergent Village. Sure, his hair looks funny and his church has a lot of artists in it, but that doesn’t make him (or folks that read him) “emergent”.
Brendt, re the url provided of McML’s viewpoint: I like comment nr 3 of Ken Davis.
Brendt
I know it’s taking a while for it to sink in, but yes. I am hoping the rest of your posse will emerge and own up too. Ok let me refrase, they have emerged they just need to own up. Get a cuppa coffee, add some extra caffine to give you the boost you need and just say, ‘Hi, my name is Brendt and I am an Emergent’.
And then we will all say.
‘Hiiiiiii Brendt’
Great news is Jesus Christ saves those who truly seek Him and follow the Word of God.
Rob Bell:
Rob Bell on why he talks about the Good News the way he does.
Interview by Mark Galli
Rick Warren:
Hierdie bogenoemde stellings is wat verdeeldheid in die kerk bring. Die blote monde snoer van die ODM’s sal nie die verdeeldheid herstel nie. Christene leef met die werklikheid dat die Kerk nie meer in die kerk is nie. Dit help nie om te skreeu ‘Vrede! Vrede! terwyl daar geen vrede is nie.
Ek wonder wat Pete Scazero vandag vir mense by Rick Warren se nuutste konferensie geleer het?
Chris L
Awesome answers Chris, thanks for proving all my points in more words than I thought you would give away.
Michael
Is this conversation still 1 dimensional?
>>>Is this conversation still 1 dimensional?>>>
Whose conversation would you be referring to?
Mistaking your friends for the enemy, labelling everybody that disagrees with you either emergent or unsaved is one-dimensional. That’s actually the polite word.
I am not anti-semetic. I support a two-state solution… meaning i believe BOTH have a right to exist so I am anti-neither.
Well, with the exception that I am not dispensational, you have not shown me anything I have said about the faith that we do not share in common. Saying we share a common faith is not emergent… it’s a point of fact. We share the same faith in the same Jesus.
>> Chris L, February 11th
“I see that you are “standing firm for Deborah’s opinion ”
I’m sorry, I don’t know who you were addressing this to, so I’ll just reply from my own side. I think I speak for myself, Amanda, Deborah and some others, when I say: the people commenting on this blog has their own opinions. It just so happen, as it does on your blogs (or the blogs you love) that one connects to and have more or less the same feelings and understanding(s) of/on a certain idea, thought, subject… (whatever you want to call it, I don’t know all the big words now); we are faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ we personally (each one individually)know; we are NOT Deborah’s disciples, nor do we “stand firm for Deborah’s opinion(s)”.
We are not “shooting” = we are not at war.
what you are saying here, has been said already on this blog-subject, just in different words. when will everybody stop repeating over and over again, the points of difference? My thoughts: if Deborah said something about the Emergents and you totally disagree with it; in your opinion it is a total lie – no total of words or arguments you use will change her mind if it is set because of the research or reading up (etc) she has done on the person/subject! So why is it so important to PROOF her wrong? in trying to proof her wrong, you can actually cause readers to question even YOUR critique and/or believes, because the whole matter of “fighting” put real Christianity in a bad light.
that’s just my thoughts.
Hi, my name is Neil and I am NOT Emergent.
What I think about Rick Warren, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell is not what determines whether or not I am a Christian. It is my belief in, my trust in, my faith in OUR Lord and savior that makes me a Christian. It is the fact that I am born-again (and every bit as much as you) that makes me a Christian. It is by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit (that allows me to even say this) that determines that I am a Christian… not what I think about other guys.
So other than the secondary issue of dispensationalism – again I say, show me anythinhg that I have said I believe that is not Christian.
Thank you Chris L for proving the Bible to be true once again . . .
As you pointed out very clearly… The fruits of Rick Warren is BAD.
If he was truly born again he would repent of his works and start teaching Biblical truths…Amen ?
I believe that if we “shoot” Rick Warren “down” we are not hitting a “Sheep” !
Obviously this then also goes for the Emergent leaders…
Question: If the scripture below is true, why is Chris L, Niel and other so defensive of a Tree bearing Bad fruit?
Please people, cut these bad-fruit-bearing-trees out of your lives for they WILL lead to you eventual destruction… I know because I was there !
Please consider the practical implications of the following scripture in your lives…:
Mat 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
Mat 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Amanda
They don’t warn about false teaching because ‘warning’ is a good work. Repentance of Sin is a good work too.
As per the PPP’s:
1) Salvation comes by believing in Christ only (if you repent to receive salvation it’s a good work)
2) Repentance of sin however is supposedly a product of salvation
3) Once ‘saved’ you are now under grace and ‘holy’
4) This grace is permanent, therefore: once saved always saved.
The New Grace = Guranteed salvation by just saying ‘I believe in Jesus’. If you do anything more than this it’s a good work.
I heard Jospeh Prince preach the EXACT same thing on TBM a few days ago. What a coincidence….
Deborah, I stand in respectful awe!! Your cherry-picking of the least relevant sentence in my post, totally obfuscating my point, is a thing to behold!!
C
Yip, correct. I am only here to warn and point out the errors in false teaching and warn about the ones that preach it so that people can SEE for THEMSELVES what they are being dragged into.
We all warn others of other types of danger. It’s upto the person to heed the warnings or not. Also the Holy Spirit is our conforter and he guides us as to WHO is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth by lining up what is spoken to the Word of God.
But there is more to this issue…. I am hoping Michael comes back to explain himself fully.
Deborah,
To be more correct as to what I said, “if you repent in order to receive salvation, it would be categorized as good works” (noting that good works are good, but they do not serve to save you).
How can we truly repent if we are not convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit? Do we receive the Holy Spirit before we have received Christ? It seems to me, from the Gospels (ex. John 14) and the words of the apostles (Acts 2:38) that the Holy Spirit comes after accepting Christ. Most certainly, we are commanded to repent, and I believe it is part of the process of Salvation – but it is not something we do as payment for receiving grace. Grace, is – by definition – free. And even so, there are things in our lives that may truly be sinful, but which we have not yet understood to be so at the time of our conversion. And when we are convicted of these, our response should be to repent of them. Even so, if we are struggling with them, do we lose salvation until we have properly repented of them?
We are only holy because Jesus declares it to be so, but yes.
I did not say this (and do not agree). It is possible to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and it is possible to reject Christ after first accepting him. Even so, if I were to sin this evening in being unkind to my wife, if I died in the night before repenting of this sin, I would not be damned as a result.
You see – both #4, and this statement are NOT what I said, nor do I agree. Yet you have declared it so, and damned me all the same. This is a microcosm of how you treat other sheep in the fold of God – misrepresentation and straw men.
I would agree that we are not saved by our good works, and that it is only God’s grace through Jesus which saves us. Rather, we do good works because we are saved – and they are fruit which is proof of our salvation.
If we say that we believe and are saved, but produce no good fruit, then perhaps we are deceiving ourselves. As James says, “faith without works is dead”. Where you seem to be getting hung up (and it is not uncommon in ODM circles) is in the difference between cause and effect.
CORRECT: Cause: We are saved. Effect: We repent.
INCORRECT: Cause: We repent. Effect: We are saved.
While this might seem that this is a license to sin, it is not. As Paul notes, we should not sin so that grace should abound, but (as Peter says) we should live such holy lives among the pagans that they would see our good deeds and praise not us, but our Father in Heaven.
Brendt
Well it was either that or, “what’s your point?” because I have run out of things to say to you. So this is my last… you do not believe in the FULL gospel of Jesus Christ and have added other doctrines to it. Go back to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and get rid of all the wicked ideas and philosophies of men; ask Jesus Christ for repentance that you are sorry and want to follow Him on the straight and narrow.
That is not what I said. I said I disagree with some of his methods – particularly around marketing – which is different than saying that he produces “bad fruit”.
Here is what Paul writes about fruit:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
And these are contrasted with the fruit of sinful nature:
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.
I know several Christians who attend Saddleback, and I have heard some of Rick Warren’s sermons from there. The fruits produced by Saddleback Church and their impact on their surrounding community are in line with the “good fruits” outlined by Paul.
Are there nominal Christians at Saddleback? I’m sure there are some, as I’m fairly certain there are in 99.9999% of the churches in this world. This does not mean that Rick Warren produces “bad fruit”.
And which of his works requires repentance? Providing food, clothing, water and shelter for AIDS victims in Africa? Providing the Gospel to the people of Orange County, California? Providing food, shelter, clothing and counseling to women in crisis pregnancies in Los Angeles?
I believe that it is up to the King to separate the sheep from the goats at the time of judgment. I believe that the King assigns his angels to separate the wheat from the tares. Even when I disagree with Warren on matters within his sermons, I do not believe that these matters rise to the level of “false teaching” (which, in the verses you reference, primarily deal with teaching that Jesus did not resurrect, or that he was not the Son of God, or that one had to become a Jew before one could become a Christian).
Of the following two items is worse? Which is most clearly a sin?
A) Falsely accusing a brother in Christ and unjustly banishing him from the church?
or
B) Failing to recognize a false teacher and allowing him to stay within the church?
I suspect, when facing these as the two options of being wrong in an area of discernment, until actual apostasty is clearly identified, the correct course is in line with the advice given by Gamaliel in Acts:
“Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
I believe that the wildly off-base parts of the emergent church movement are already dying off and becoming irrelevant, and that they will continue to do so. I believe that the legitimate parts of the ECM (often spoken about by Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell and others) will continue to grow. I believe these are in line with Gamaliel’s advice.
I believe that the wildly off-base parts of “Purpose Driven” will die out, with many already having done so. I believe that Rick Warren has led some of the changes to move away from these “surface”-centered issues, and to try and move his congregation further along the road toward discipleship. I believe that others have taken some of his techniques for their own self-interest, and have (or will) reap the whirlwind where they have done it for their own glory.
But this is true of any movement within Christianity.
Michael
Mistaking your friends for the enemy: what? who are you speaking about? give me a name or two or PPP.
labelling everybody that disagrees with you either emergent or unsaved is one: what? In accordance with the Word of God YES!
Just so we get this straight:
You agree that Chris L, Brendt, Neil et al are on solid Christian ground? YES/NO
I tend toward the repent and be saved ordo myself… just goes to show ya we at PPP are not as monolithicaly unified as we are portrayed to be.
neil
As an example:
If you think Rick Warren, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell are Christian and teach great biblical truths then you have problem.
If you think Rick Warren, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell are heretical then you should be ok.
Right, over and out…
I assume that since our salvation can be judged lacking based on what we think of Warren, then his salvation can be judged based on what he thinks of us… connecting the guilt by association dots… hey this discerning is easy.
Deborah,
No more games. In American we’d say it thus: “Put up or shut up.” I hope that is not offensive in your context.
Show me where anything I said about what I believe is unbiblical. Not about Warren, not about middle-east politics, not about preferences of reading material, not about some supposed phrase like “shared faith.” Show me anything I have said about God the Father, Jesus the Son, or any other biblical/theological/belief that us not in agreement with the Bible – or you for that matter.
This is a challenge you cannot produce, since up ’til now there is nothing we disagree upon that is a biblical truth. Our entire disagreements have been on tangential issues that are irrelevant to anyone’s salvation.
Chris L
Say no more.
There is video of Rob Bell sitting on a stage with the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, a Muslim Cleric a Jewish Rabbi and some bald headed buddhist women all declaring that we all follow the same God.
Rick Warren gave the speech at Obama’s inauguration and said a prayer to the God of all faiths including Isa al Masih (Muslim Christ)
I can go on and on, but I wont… I know exactly what you guys are delving into. I don’t need to sit here and explain it to you – gosh you’re the ones reading these books and watching these podcasts – take off your blinkers.
Promoters of interfaith, one world faith, universal Christ, ecumenical, emergent, emerging, new age, contemplative, purpose driven, transformation, yada yada, bla bla, whatever. I can’t think of other words here right now to explain that when I speak about Emergent I speak about everything that takes away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, anything that tries to scratch little verses out of the bible in order to change it’s meaning, etc, etc, etc.
So if you don’t want to be called Emergent then how about Ecumenical or Transformation?
neil
That was a question to Michael not you.
neil
In the Bible the disciples just dusted their feet off and walked away. I am doing this now…
Go ask yourself why you tolerate reading and even accepting teachings from Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Dan Kimball, etc. That is all.
I need to go to sleep.
C
Yeah good one:
Neil het gesê:
Nee.
The Secret All the Arabs Know
Terug by die ontluikende kerk hoor ons nou dat sekere uitwasse doodloop. Tog is die skade reeds berokken. Misleiding het plaasgevind. Verdeeldheid is gebring en die skape het gevlug. Die “Fariseërs” moet gestop word!
Amanda
Exactly. Thanks for that comment re the 2 state solution. And of course this entire ‘solution’ goes completely against what the Bible says.
ChrisL: so sincerely, what do we do with this verse:
For godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation … (2 Corinthians 7:10)?
why I’m posing this question, is to respond to this whole “turn away” from the original post: in the end we will be refuting our different understanding(s) of the Scriptures and of Church Policy and of Doctrine(s); => (and again I ask the question): TO WHAT END?
This is NOT a Bible Study Site. There are other sites that does exactly that. The readers who visit this blog to “learn” (which obviously should actually NOT be the already learned people), things about movements (good and bad), which DTW discerns God wants her to point out to readers – same as you and others do on your different sites.
Isn’t it time to quit trying to convince others of your viewpoint and your stand? and rather say be grateful that there is a discernment blog that does have at its foundation The Lord Jesus Christ and faith in Him?
Readers to this blog anyway go and look up the different other sites to see what DTW is talking about.
my humble opinion.
Actually, this is untrue. Rob was asked to speak on a panel on the subject of “compassion” and what his belief (Christianity) taught about compassion. Nowhere did he declare, or agree, that they were all serving the same God. In fact, the following week at Mars Hill Church, he made a point of saying the opposite – that they do NOT all serve the same God.
This is incorrect, as well. He said the name of Jesus in several languages, and when asked about it later (by a discernmentalist blogger), he said that his use of Isa was just to use the name of Jesus, not to give any support to Islam. He has also said on several other occasions that Isalm and Christianity do not serve the same God.
To this point, you’ve not given any actual teaching of Kimball, Warren or Bell – just misrepresentations that have been pretty solidly refuted by them, along with multiple Christian writers.
Can you point to a specific doctrine taught by any of these men which is an example of apostasy? I’m not talking about inferred meanings (like Warren’s use of Jesus’ name in multiple languages being some sort of crazy pro-Muslim shout-out), because to this point, you’ve not demonstrated any discernment in your inferrals.
I’m talking about actual, explicit doctrine taught by Warren. And Bell. And Kimball.
And I’m talking about doctrine – not “they believe so-and-so is a Christian, and therefore they are not” (i.e. Guilt by Association)
And I’m talking about their words, not “so-and-so says that Bell teaches X”.
And I’m taking about apostasy – abandonment of the faith – not disagreement with systematic interpretations (like Calvinism) or eschatology.
Neil, just for interest sake: what made you change your avatar to Arab?
Chris
Actually this is true, and I don’t make up stuff for the sake of making a point. I have the video, in fact you can get it here if you are willing to buy the dvd’s. http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/10/18/wtl-dvd-the-emerging-kerkchurch-nou-beskikbaarnow-available-10-oct-09/
Now stop making excuses, admit you are not following the Word of God (nothing added or taken away). Once you admit it to yourself then you can fix the problem. If you don’t want to fix the problem then don’t come here and try tell me how ‘Christian’ you are when you are not and expect me to believe you. If you are that secure in your faith, you would not even bother trying to justify yourself. I don’t.
I know that following strange teachings is wrong – in fact it’s not just wrong; it shows how much one actually loves Jesus Christ that one can go and do the exact opposite of what He told us not to do.
Who do you think He is? He is GOD, you are nothing. Just like I am nothing, a sinner and I fear my King for I know that He loves me and I need to obey Him, and I obey Him because I love Him, not because I fear Him.
Right I have proved over and over and over again that PPP is Emergent, Ecumenical, interfaith, Transformational, etc, etc, etc, etc.
——– I am back home from my holiday and have much to catch up on, like exposing the pants off of Louie Giglio and some other DECEIVERS who speak like butter could not melt in their mouths but are vipers luring youth into contemplative spirituality by the thousands.
The Bible says that God will hold us accountable for every careless word we speak – that we will have to give an account for these words on the day of judgement. (Matt 12.)
You should not think that you, Deborah, are exempt from this warning. If I look at your words about others they are careless. God will hold you accountable for all these things you have said. Have you the fear of God? You say you do. Let your words to and about others line up with what you preach, Deborah, for I would say that in many ways they do not.
I’ve seen some careless words spoken at PPP as well, to be honest. Some commenters there should remember this too.
GrowingAndLearning
Coming from someone who refuses to do his own research on Contemplative Spirituality or answering my questions to show me why Louie Giglio does not teach this occult teaching based on Louie Giglio’s own words is his articles he wrote… is a bit of cheek.
I don’t care if PPP has had some careless words spoken there. That’s not my problem. The problem is PPP and it’s ‘owner’s refuse to acknowledge they speak a ‘New Age’ Christian gospel. And the proof is above in over 200 comments where they in their own words expose what they believe (hidden amidst the Christian talk). If you read them you will clearly see this.
At times I also get cross for all the lies bein teached but no this Jesus will be with His true followers until the end of time. Satans works will come to nothing. All the above is very interesting and as children of the loving God we need to stand in unity with one another. Lets lift up all those who are trying to deceive Gods children by trying to teach a different gospel in prayer because at the end of the day God is the judge of the righteous and unrighteous. It is shocking to see how many great men are falling!!
[...] is then perplexing to me when I read something like the following: There is a criticism – a protest, if you will – that discernment websites are accountable to [...]
[...] when we thought we were under attack, Discerning the World comes to the rescue and makes a tough stand on discernment blogging. Indeed Discerning the World [...]
[EDITED: On que as usual...]
[...] the sites that labeled us using shallow, tangential, and irrelevant criteria are Rapture Ready. and Discerning the World. This entry was posted on Friday, February 12th, 2010 at 4:26 pm and is filed under Blogging, [...]