I found this a bit ironic. CRN posted a film clip from Pastor Jeff Noblit called The Bible Driven Church, dealing with the sufficiency of scripture. However, this is how the clip was described
A God-breathed bit of fresh air (emphasis mine)
Scripture is all we need, but apparently both scripture and this film are “God-breathed”
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm and is filed under Linked Articles, What Can You Say?.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
49 Comments(+Add)
Showing again that its not about truth, its about if you’re in with the in crowd. They’d crucify Rick Warren if he said that.
Somehow I don’t think that tiny sentence was meant to be taken so seriously.
All scripture is God-breathed, but is scripture the only thing that is God-breathed? Couldn’t you describe convictions from the Holy Spirit God-breathed, or revelations from God God-breathed?
If God truly inspired the words of the man in the film, then couldn’t you call his words God-breathed?
Ironic or not, I’m not sure what the big deal is. Unless there is some serious theological fallacy that I’m missing.
No, the irony was that the video was about how the scriptures are all we need. Yet, they give this video the same adjective used to describe the scriptures.
Well I made it to the 3 minute mark in the video. I had to stop listening at;
“Not only are you Gods enemy but God is your enemy”.
Past all of that the lines about not needing to learn anything more about the busters, boomers, etc…is a fallacy. Not only does it discount a siginificant portion of Pauls ministry it also negates everything that YWAM, Face to Face, and every other foreign missions program would tell about how to be an effective missionary.
BTW it is also ironic!
Perhaps ironic, but definitely not out of character for them to add to the Word.
You are God’s enemy!
But despite that, God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were yet sinners (enemies of God) Christ died for us.
Read Romans Chapter 3- you will see that we are God’s enemy.
Then Read Romans 5 and see God’s indescribeable love for us despite that fact.
Yes PB I know that I’m Gods enemy! I have issue with God being my enemy. Something about “If God is for me who can be against me”.
Chris, that is in Romans chapter 8, speaking to those who have been justified and sanctified, and are being sanctified. It is speaking about believers.
Unbelievers are God’s enemy! God’s wrath abides on them! Thats why we must warn them with the Word of God!
I don’t really see any person referred to as God’s enemy in the New Testament. When Paul uses the term, it’s pretty much always referring to Satan. We could say that people are under Satan’s influence, or held captive by him, but I don’t think it’s correct to say that God regards them as enemies.
Interestingly enough, Romans 3 makes it clear that none of us deserve to be justified on our own terms, but Jesus’ death made God’s grace available to us all.
Proof that the ODMs are just as purpose driven as Rick Warren. We won’t make people feel good about themselves (like Warren), let’s scare the hell out of them. If we make them fear God and hell, then they’ll turn to Christ. It’s God’s wrath that leads them to repentance (ODM paraphrase of Romans 2:4).
Matt B,
I know you are being sarcastic, but the Word does say it is his kindness. His kindness is manifested in the fact that are his enemy and He came and gave Himself for us anyway. BTW, are you Rob Bell’s love child? Or do you go to the beauty shop for that look? 8^} “just give me the Rob Bell”
Phil, back up in Romans 3, because it makes God’s kindness and mercy more incredible to us!
9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15″Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
I think the name of the church is interesting. It shows they are as much against the Purpose Driven model as they are for the Bible. That srikes me as shaky ground.
A fundamental difficulty with ODMs is that all I ever get from them is what they are against as opposed to what they are for. It creates a sort of discretion-less vacuum.
It’s like Steve Camp’s article about being nice. You need context for taking a stand for Jesus. I’m just as much a fan of being confrontational when the times call for it as the next guy. But the spirit of confrontation must be tempered by moments of compassion, selflessness, and yes, perhaps even being walked over. If you don’t have those moments, then you aren’t being masculine for Jesus, you’re just being a jerk.
It’s not just being strong for Jesus, which comes easily, at least to me, but being compassionate, which is a little less simple.
In other words, knowing when to take a stand and when to turn the other cheek requires wisdom, which has very little place in the ODM’s world view. (Hence the spirit of taking a stand for Jesus seems to be on autopilot at some ODMs). When every single facet of our lives has a corresponding line, readily quotable, from Scripture to direct it (or an extra-Biblical norm embraced like scripture), wisdom ceases to have a place for us, doesn’t it? If everything is black and white, where is the value of experience, age, and years spent in the Word of God?
Popular Culture is killing the virtue of wisdom, and it makes me sad that so many fundamentalists are complicit in that.
Pastorboy,
I guess I still don’t see what you’re trying to say. It doesn’t say God regard sinners as enemies. I don’t even know that would be an accurate statement in the Old Testament. God made provisions to deal with sin even in under the Law because He understood the wickedness of the human heart.
A major theme I see in Romans is Paul warning the Gentile Christians against spiritual arrogance. If God can cut off Jewish people, He can surely do it to Gentiles. It’s only by His grace that we have any chance. I just think saying God is a sinner’s enemy is misleading. If anything, He is coming to them with a peace treaty, if were using political language. He is not holding their sin against any longer because of Christ’s work on the cross. It is up to the sinner to choose whether or not to agree to these terms. Even if they don’t, I don’t think God see them as an Enemy. I think he views more a wayward child.
The more time I spend reading blogs about Gods Wrath versus Gods Love I am increasingly thinking that there are those that see that “glass as half full and those that see it as half empty”
God’s unbelievable love for me draws me to him. There are those that prefer the method of saying “sinners in the hands of an angry God”. Both end in the same spot. And if the end justifies the means; where is the issue?
Well isn’t that special…?
Chris,
It may be some of that, but I think that in some way it comes down to what is more Biblically accurate. Of course this seems to always be a debate as well.
I guess you could ask the question of which is more harmful when taken to an extreme. I know a lot people have been hurt by the image of God as wrathful, vengeful being waiting to smite them. I guess the other extreme would be someone like the Universalist Unitarians who present God as something like your sweet, old aunt who just says, “ah, boys will be boys”.
I guess my response would be that presenting God as love has to show that love doesn’t negate consequences of sin, and that love can still include judgement.
PB-
My point is that the Bible talks about both God’s love and God’s wrath. Using scare tactics to get people into the kingdom is just as “purpose driven” as anything Rick Warren does.
I listened to one of the recommended ODM sermons. In one of the sermons, the preacher went into one of the most graphic description of an abortion I’ve ever heard. I don’t like abortion (neither does Rob Bell, by the way) and I think it’s a sin. However, the preacher was definitley using all the guilt tactics he could to terrify people into the kingdom.
If ODMs truly believe that God’s word is sufficient, then just preach it in monotone. We don’t need to be yelled at, screamed at, made to felt terrified, graphic descriptions of bad sins, personal commentary, etc.
Very well said. If I could extrapilate (sp) a little.
I think it is should also be considered what circumstances one comes out of prior to fire-bombing them with the gospel.
Growing up my father took off before I ever know him, my step-father was abusive. This image of God being a father was not a concept I could grasp. Wrath was easy I had seen that everyday and I didn’t want any part of it. Love and Grace was a breath of fresh air. A friend in High School modeled it and I embraced Christ because of it.
To refuse your statement “which is more harmful” I would say what “what message is more appealing”. *hearing the ODM’s screaming man-centered, man-centered* on that last line. But for me the Cross is man-centered.
Sorry meant “to rephrase your statement” hmmm….freudian maybe?
It cracks me up that people who are making sure we still dress in the manner they did when our country was a farming country (wear suits to church so that you can give God your best) are so concerned about how Rob dresses. You can read a critical review of him without someone referencing his look. Cracks me up.
As for the whole “scare the Hell out of ‘em thing” isn’t there a verse about it being God’s kindness that leads us to repentance? I should write a song about that…
Joe,
Didn’t say about how he dressed…it is the metrosexual look, bleached hair, horn rimmed glasses
Look at dudes site!
Joe,
It’s funny you brought that up. My sister-in-law leads worship at my parent’s church, and she recently had one of the elders complain to her about singing that song because it was “unscriptural”. Apparently, that elder must be using a different version of the Bible than me…
So Rob is now the poster child for metro-sexual? I smell an agenda.
John,
I understand. I honestly wasn’t referencing you as much as your comment made me think of it. Read the critique’s of his tour’s there is almost always something about his look.
PB:
Are you referring to me or Rob Bell about the bleached hair? My hair is both falling out and going grey, which is why I cut it short.
PB,
I don’t know. I don’t think Bell is quite polished enough to be a metrosexual. In the pictures I’ve seen of him from the the gods aren’t angry tour he had on sneakers with black pants. That wouldn’t fly with the metrosexuals I know.
PB-
Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.
Matt,
You are beautiful.
Another subject: Why did Jesus die? Did he die for social change, or to save us from our sin, or both, or much more?
Quit link whoring your own site pastorboy. Its unsavory at best.
Also, why are you so focused on externals? It sure sounds like you’re concerned with Scrubbing that white washed tomb.
Thread hijacking is one thing that happens, thread hijacking to link to your own blog is just not cool. Come on John, have some common decency.
Hey John,
If people wanted to read your site they could just click on your name.
I’m just trying to help you not have to hyper link and highlight so much. LOL
Tim,
What are you talking about? Externals as far as Matt goes?
I am seriously just wondering….the whole horn rimmed glasses thing, the hair, the kind of put together yet untucked look….is this an emergent thing? It just seems so funny!
Its not a focus, just an observation. I really could care less what people wear and how they cut their hair.
I did notice, however, when I went to Solomons porch that the styles fell on two extremes..The aforementioned Rob Bell look, and the vegetarian/rastafarian/hippie/Shane Claibourne look. There was not much inbetween…
Is it just the culture of emergent, or what?
Thanks Chris!
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Why are you so focused on what people wear?
Also, there’s nothing remarkable about what Rob Bell wears. That’s pretty standard for people his age. Its not an emergent thing, its a culture thing.
PB,
Yes, it’s all a big conspiracy. Every month I get a copy of The Casual Emergent, and it has acceptable Emergent attire preselected from American Apparel, Banana Republic, and the Gap. It really saves me a lot of time!
Last month’s 2-for-1 special on man-bags was great!
I have a man bag. I LOVE it
Phil,
ITS A EUROPEAN CARRY ALL!!!
Tim, like I said.. I don’t care…It is just an observation. It is almost like the culture I am in people just kind of dress differently than everyone else, though there are definite groups. I just find more and more as I observe very distinctive groups. I am not being critical, I am just very interested.
Pastor Boy,
could it just be that everyone else is in fashion, and the church left that behind along time ago? I love how the ODMs say these guys wear what they wear to be “relevant’. Nope. They just wear normal clothes, and most good Christians are stuck in the 1980s still. My mom being one of them… God bless her soul
Joe,
Me too. I have to always correct my wife, though. It’s acceptable to call it man-bag or satchel, but not a man-purse…
Joe, an emergent pastor friend of mine in Florida has one or two for everyday of the week. He said someone in his congregation asked him where he got his ‘f*g bag’
I thought that was pretty funny. I still am coveting his leather one with beading.
The only thing I have that fits from the 80’s is my two pairs of Air Force 1’s
Phil,
I don’t care if they call it a man purse…I go to a church that gets mislabeled all the time so I get used to it.
I need my moleskin with me all the time and I use a rainbow collection of pens so the man bag is a necessity, plus I always have my MAC with me
All this talk of man-purses is making me really uncomfortable. I’m pretty sure you won’t catch me with one any time soon. Sorry, guys…
That’s all right Chris, you’re too old for the demographic.
Maybe that’s why I don’t look “emergent”…
..though, I do sometimes wear a Hawaiian shirt when playing keys on Sunday mornings, but that’s PD, not ECM…
Joe: I think the correct term is “murse.” Both of my sons carry them…I’m so ashamed!!!
8^)>
Keith, I think your sons and I would get along. Coldplay, Murse’s …. HA!