I’m not sure what your beef is this time with Slice, Joe. She’s letting all kinds of debate go on. Sheesh. I’m not sure why you’re speechless but maybe this is a good thing. This attack site is really something. If you have all the answers why don’t we see them here? So the Bible isn’t perfect? Is that what you’re saying? Why is it that the arrogance on this site never comes under scrutiny. Ken Silva and Slice are always wrong and you guys always have it right. Hmmmm, sounds familiar!

Well, it’s only perfect if it’s the King James Version, right?

(that never gets too old…. )

These address two of the “discrepancies” brought up in the comments at Ingrid’s blog.

The Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7-8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

John 8; the adulterous woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6

Anyway the Scriptures are only understood when the Holy Spirit reveals them. I do tire of wannabe scholars.

Isn’t it funny that Jeremy Z states that naked pastor ignores scripture when I have quoted directly or “salted” my comments with “cut and pasted” scripture and Ken ignored them or called me wrong? In fact Ken stated i am not saved?

Then they go and assert the Bible is perfect and that people like the naked pastor, do not “listen” to the bible?!?!

Now, interestingly I see the bible as inerrant, but not in the definition that is give most often today as “perfect”. In the topics that the bible addresses concerning salvation and the story of that great salvation… it is perfect in all it addresses.

Are the translations “perfect”? So are good and some are very bad yet not one is “perfect”…

Interestingly the verse that uses this is 1 Cor 13: 8-10
” Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”

The “perfect” in the cessationists view is the bible… I view the “perfect” as Jesus, yet to them it is the bible so that it validates their doctrinal view.

So in there mind the “bible is perfect” and to deny it means that they need rethink their doctrine… and that would take to much effort. LOL!

Be blessed,
iggy

LOL!

Does Samo share the same IP address with Ken Silva?

What is your view of the Bible, Tim? If posts are going to be made that appear to defend Mclaren,(you’re free to convince me otherwise,) then it seems like you would want to make your own thoughts on the authority of the Word of God clear before putting someone else’s discussion up for jeers.

Do you really hate McLaren so much that you think defending anything he’s written or done is enough to condemn someone? Just sad.

My view of the Bible is not the issue here. Its how you come to that view. Here you have a bunch of people who just assume the Bible is true. Which, now that I think about it, is how they pretty much come to all of their conclusions. They assume that the watchdawggies are right, they assume the emergent/emerging church is apostate, and they assume the worst about everyone not on Ingrid and Ken’s nice list.

There’s no actual reasoning going on there. Its why quoting scripture doesn’t do them any good, its why no amount of reasoning will do any good. Just look at What Kimball went through with Ken. Emailing him and calling him, holding his hand and explaining his position monosyllabicly and it still doesn’t do any good.

God gave us brains to do more than hold up our skulls, and when we don’t use them its a slap in His face.

Which makes me wonder, what is the true point of this site? Is the hope that someone will stumble across this site instead and be convinced by the arguments or are we merely patting ourselves on the back, showing how smart we are and how foolish “they” are, without achieving any real good?

In short, is it worth the time and money to engage in these pointless debates with people who will never hear?

I think this site is beneficial in the fact that it shows that Christians can actually disagree with one another without resorting to petty name-calling (most of the time). It also is good to show those on the fence, so to speak, that one can be a Christian without blindly accepting Fundamentalism. As far as getting the Fundamentalists to actually listen or change, I don’t have much hope for that.

Personally, I enjoy the discussion here. It actually seems people here will take time to think about other’s ideas and give honest feedback rather than knee-jerk reactions.

Todd,
It is amazing. Basically that article says Brian McClaren is apostate because he admitted he prayed and tried to stay close to God. I wish there was a way to make a smiley with its eyes rolling.

Ken,

Its amazing that you can post a scripture that includes the phrase “avoid godless chatter” and not see how it applies to you. Your entire “missive” starts with the assumption that McLaren is apostate and… well there is no and. You just assume.

Ken I understand that you base your opinions of McLaren not just on that article, but on his previous statements. My question for you is why you chose that innocuous, Biblical comment to rant against him? Did you read the entire article? Did you struggle to find any point of error in his words, and you felt compelled to bash Brian and this was just the freshest quote you could find?

You say we are blind without giving us any substance to prove that you can see. You know you are disliked, and you assume it is because you are “contending for the faith” and we “apostates” just disagree with you. That’s not it. It is your complete inability to engage in rational, fruitful conversation.

Why don’t you respond to Dan? Why do you respond with anger and pettiness? What is your motivation?

Really this is amazing!

“Well Brian, I personally have a couple of questions for you: I have also “kept praying,” and I have “stayed close to God”; and the one true and living God of the Bible, “Who was always far above” has led me to believe that you are an apostate and a iar. So where do we go now Brian? Which of our existential and subjective experience is actually from God? How would we know? Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)”

It sounds a lot like this to me…

“The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: `God, I thank you that I am not like other men–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.”

He who has ears!

Hear what the Spirit says!

iggy

(now please, I need to get my “I’ve just read Ken Silva’s latest rant” towel and clean off that spittle of hate.

Tim,

at Mosaic’s Origin’s conference this year, I was SO surprised at how many people read this site and gain helpful information. people asked for me by name when they came to the event. You would be surprised at how many people think that one of the lead watchdoggies is a crazy man and a threat to the reputation of Jesus Christ. People do find a helpful tool.

I mean, look at Ken’s response: “Amazing how blind you guys are, truly.”

I mean, really now?

Ken, still no response?

“And you would be surprised at how many people think that one of the lead watchdoggies is a God-fearing man and a threat to the emerging apostates who dare sully the reputation of Jesus Christ.”

Dripping with humility and giving God all the glory. Ken, sometimes you are pridefully adolescent.

So, Ken, no response to Dan yet?

sometime I am sad that I cannot say what I am thinking… this is one of those times

Ken would rather lash out then give a thoughtful response… for that would take listening to the Holy Spirit and producing His Good Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Ken would rather so hate, discord, wage “war”, give snippy put downs, be unkind, express his own bad fruit, show his lack of Faith in God’s ability to be faithful to His word, beat and abuse others and show his lack of self control in all his rantings and abusive behavior.

I think we now know whose fruit he is bearing.

Blessed?
iggy

Ken,
“you make no point”

And really what is yours again… I mean Ken you are all over the board in your false accusations and rants… you connect things with each other that have nothing to do with each other. You only hear what you want to hear and give absolutely no grace to anyone… and you think you are representing God? ROTFLOL!

You are representing a god of sorts but it is not The Creator nor His Son, or the Holy Spirit. You have created some weird hybrid Kengod that wants to rule and abuse others in some weird attempt to make something of yourself.

God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. I do not resist God, but I do resist you as my Father in Heaven does.

iggy

pm.http://www.sherwoodopendoor.org/specialmessages.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vquwIObeOaA

Anyone, but especially Chris and Joe,
The whole Brian Mclaren defense especially in light of these videos makes the previous discussion that we had about Witherington’s discussion of Bell’s views on homosexuality mute. If I’m properly understanding the defense regarding Mclaren, it doesn’t matter at all if Bell is “softening” in his views. Apparently it wouldn’t have mattered if Bell was welcoming and affirming.

If you all really want some details to respond to you could respond to the scriptures I posted under “keep diggin.” Could someone please show me why they don’t apply to a Christian leader teaching that it’s okay to continue in sin and why it’s ok to affirm Christian leaders who are not only living a sinful lifestyle but calling that sin “good?”

Iggy – I would hope that Amy would not subscribe to what you describe. Anyone is welcome in the church. I remember David Wilkerson telling a story about a male member of the choir. He said that this man used to be a transvestite, and one day he was invited to the church and he went. After several visits he was born again and His journey began.

But for weeks he continued to come dressed as a woman even though he felt he shouldn’t he struggled with what had been his security blanket. I know people who get so used to a particular habit they cannot get rid of it easily.

After six or seven weeks of coming dressed as a woman, and with people hugging his neck in church and loving him, the pastor lovingly spoke with him and through prayer and the support of the church he was able to overcome his addiction to women’s clothing.

He is now married with children and sings in the choir for God’s glory. That is the type of God’s loving patience that we need in order to lift our brothers and sisters out of the dunghill.

Rick,

I have read many a “pro Ken” blog that states that they need to keep the church pure of “homosexuals” and “emergents”… it seems we are just as wicked to these people… in fact we have become non people to these guys.

All I need do is reference you to the guy that got Ken notices… Phil Perkins… and his blog… and you will see what I mean.

It is in your last sentance that I think they all miss… it is not that the Body of Christ is being pulled down.. but if it is let to do as it was designed by God, the church will always lift people up out of the “dunghill”.

Blessings,
iggy

“McLaren seems to be talking about “church” in the campus/services sense of the word. You see this as the question is asked how you can be “welcoming but not affirming” and McLaren’s response is that works for people “who are already Christians”. How is that not a Biblical response?”

First of all, Mclaren talks about church, and specifically elders decisions in the church with the lesbian woman. So I don’t see how you got “church” in the campus/services sense.

Here’s Mclaren’s full answer to Dan’s principle of being welcoming but affirming (transcribed as closely as I could):

“I think it’s possible (with question intonation) and think that it works for people who are already Christians and are gay, and they want to be honest about who they are. I don’t think that works for people who are in relationships because in a way a lot of them have been damaged so much that they don’t want to cause trouble but they also don’t want to get more damage so I think that’s why thank God we have different kinds of churches that can be more or less helpful to different people.”

Whatever happened to the need for repentance, the recognition of God’s divine power that helps one lead a godly life (II Peter 1:3-4), calling sin sin. When did “honesty” replace repentance and obedience as a virtue? What happened to I Cor 5 and 6?

Mclaren mentioned different kinds of churches. We can see from where he has spoken that the “different kinds of churches” that he finds acceptable are welcoming and affirming, even affirming the leadership of gay pastors.

This is incredible deception.

Amy, do you know what’s incredible deception? Constantly and consistently misrepresenting his position, as you have. Those quotes are not an affirmation of a compatibility between homosexuality and Christianity but how each class (Christian and non-Christian) should be treated. In this case, the treatment of homosexuals attending services were brought to the leadership.

With regards to the “different kinds of churches”, I believe the reference there is to how the treatment of homosexuals (ie welcoming but not affirming and how it plays out, as well as how to deal with non-Christian homosexuals coming to church services) will look different based on the context and make up of the churches. Of course, you could choose to interpret that to mean “homosexuality will be embraced at some churches” but until he actually says that, I choose not to treat him as if he had.

As for repentance, I don’t see any need to call those who haven’t responded to Christ to repentance. Whether they repent or not, if Christ isn’t there it doesn’t make any difference.

As Joe said, head back to your axe and enjoy.

Amy,

The problem is, Joe, you already came in and defended Rob to demonstrate that he does think that people need to turn from a homosexual lifestyle.

Um, what planet did you read this on? First off, Joe was very careful to make sure that he was expressing what his church’s orthopraxy (and not Rob, specifically) was in regards to individuals struggling with homosexual lifestyles.

And Chris spent a lot of time arguing with me over Witherington’s article, AS IF IT WERE IMPORTANT TO BELIEVE that Rob Bell doesn’t believe it’s scriptural for people to practice homosexuality.

It is not important, one way or another, what Bell believes – apart from mischaracterizing anyone’s view on the subject, which was what was going on.

I’m also struggling with why we’re back on this topic, since the comments about Ken didn’t really come to play until Ken, uhm, came to ‘play’ (which is why he is currently being moderated).

Chris,
Why was Joe describing his church’s orthopraxy if not to give some understanding of what Bell’s underlying beliefs were, which were what we were discussing?

“It is not important, one way or another, what Bell believes – apart from mischaracterizing anyone’s view on the subject, which was what was going on.”

It seemed really important to you before to make sure that I understood that you were right and I was wrong about what he believed.

So now you’re saying it doesn’t matter what he believes. You’re saying it doesn’t actually matter to you if Bell is saying things like, “Jesus never actually addressed homosexual behavior,” implying that just perhaps, it’s not a problem.

Apparently Mclaren’s viewpoint is okay by you too?

Feel free to move this discussion to “Keep Diggin” if you want.

Amy,

I didn’t say I would agree with Bell if his position was different (or support a different position) – I said that his view was mischaracterized – and that it was a belief that I happen to agree with. Because it was a position I agree with, I was willing to go further in supporting it.

Personally, I don’t agree with MacLaren’s view, and I’m fairly certain that I wouldn’t attend a church with that “generous” an orthodoxy (if I understood his answer to mean that sin would never be addressed, though I only listened to it once). I ascribe to Dan’s position on dealing with the matter (which also happens to be Bell’s), and thus my support.

Please don’t put any more “agreements” in my mouth, or continue with your gross hypothetical comparisons. It just seems that you’re far too willing to extrapolate apples to oranges these days…

Amy,
You started reaching a long time ago, and this is your typical MO. As soon as your prime example for apostasy gets shattered you bring up some unrelated garbage. So now you bring up “I would say his speaking at a church where the pastors are gay shows that he doesn’t.”

Seriously, that is the lamest guilt by association charge ever. By that standard of evidence Ravi Zacharias is Mormon.

BTW, here’s the statement of beliefs from the church McLaren founded. I really don’t have a problem with any of it.

Amy,
That was a lot of words for “I’m just right”.

I’ve written in several places that calling for a “moratorium” on what the scriptures have to say about homosexuality is rather… well, nonsensical to say the least.

And I’m also writing to say that McLaren’s general attitude towards homosexuals has been far more Christ-like and Biblical than that of his critics.

Chris,
“It just seems that you’re far too willing to extrapolate apples to oranges these days…”

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Never mind, don’t tell me . . .

Why don’t you discuss this issue of Mclaren with Tim? It seems like you have different viewpoints on it.

Amy,
The ones who treat homosexuals like crap on the bottom of their shoe. I find it interesting that all your criteria for orthodoxy has to do with what they believe, and not with what they do. I guess if someone mouths the right words they can do whatever they want as long as its against the “right” kind of sinners, eh Amy?

You don’t find it a problem that homosexuals view most Christians as antagonistic? Meanwhile, for whatever reason, adulterers, gamblers, alcoholics, etc. do not. McLaren, Bell, and e/e’s in general are doing far more to change that than any of the watchdoggies, or traditional churches.

As for the scriptures you quoted, none of them applied as we’re dealing with two different types of people. Unrepentant non-Christans, who have no reason to repent and Paul specifically says he has no reason to judge them. Which is who McLaren is talking about, except when he specifically says “welcoming but not affirming” works for those who are already Christians.

BTW, Great response Tim

Todd, just checked out the missive link. At first I was confused over the title of the missive, since it left so much room for questions as to the true opinion of McLaren and what direction the essay would take.

But, luckily, he’s only an “iar” and not a “liar.”

“…you are an apostate and a iar.”

I’ve never read a McLaren book. I can’t comment on the “iar” aspect of his writings.

Mant if not most homosexuals were born with that bondage. If you’ve never wept over their plight, if you’ve never attended a funeral of one who commited suicide, if you’ve never put on gloves and protective gear in order to visit one in the last stages of AIDS, if you’ve never been personally involved with a homosexual who has become a Christian and hates himself because he still struggles, then you have no business in a antiseptic argument over how we catagorize their sin.

I was just in the Lake Michigan area, Chris.

That’s a lot of water.

I could probably be more poetic, but mainly, it’s a lot of water.