I am going to believe the best, and say that the General Editor at CRN is not as ignorant as this article seems to show. For the last time, when Rick Warren said, “the future of the world is not secularism, it’s religious pluralism”, we was not advocating for one global religion. He was simply stating the facts. Just like when I say, “the future of my friend with cancer appears to not be a long life, but an early death”, I am not advocating the ending of her life. I am simply stating where things are headed. So, I hope we do not see a plethora of posts about how Warren is calling for one big global religion, or accepts all religions as true.

But, when you say things like

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary (FTS), and his embracing of apostate Roman Catholicism as a Christian denomination it would appear Rick Warren is not the only one interested in a future of Global religious pluralism…And apparently this religious pluralism extends to non-Christian cults as well.

It does not make sense. If it was meant to be a jab at Warren, it was not very good. If it was meant to show that cults would be a part of a religiously plural society, you as simply stating the obvious.

AN UPDATED SIDE NOTE

I laughed so hard at this video. The music, the captions, the exclamation marks! Check it out

YouTube Preview Image
  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pm and is filed under Editor, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, PD/SS, Updates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

219 Comments(+Add)

1   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm

That video is GREAT (in that funny/can’t take it seriously sort of way)! You’re right, the music and the comments set it perfectly. (I wonder how much John Williams’ music you can use w/o violating the copyright?) It kinda reminded me of Science Theater 3000 – maybe next time Chris can have the silhouettes of views in front of Warren to add character to the comments…

Nathan, why do you posts have so much whitespace between the headline and the body – is that for dramatic effect?

Neil

2   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Nathan, why do you posts have so much whitespace between the headline and the body – is that for dramatic effect?

I fixed it…

3   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm

On a serious note: The clip above was lifted from a presentation that is 21:14 in length. The clip above is Warren’s summation starting at the circa 19:20 point.

The above clip sets no context.
The above clip ignores the biblical stories Warren told.
The above clip fails to mention the presentation is centered on Psalm 72
The above clip pretty much dismisses everything Warren said for 19 minutes to set up those comments.

Now, we may argue over how much pleasure God takes when people do good based on how they are wired… we may even argue over whether or not “they” can do good…. but calling him a liar is not only hyperbole – it’s just plain wrong.

Neil

4   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Neil,

I’d like to point out several things.

The context of this talk is the book the Purpose Driven life and what it means to be ‘purpose driven’.

Psalm 72 does not teach that Unbelievers make God happy when they ‘be themselves’.

Rick misquotes Psalm 72 so badly that the passage is utterly mangled.

Scripture is perfectly clear that without faith it is impossible to please God. (Heb 11:6)

Although the video segment is only a portion of the entire video, it still correctly represents what Warren told this audience of unbelievers. This is also the same message that he said earlier this week on Comedy Central. http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/01/is-this-the-bib.html

If you disagree with my assesment then show us from scripture where it says that

1. God Smiles on Unbelievers when they are being themselves. (Chapter and verse)

2. God says “That’s my boy / girl” when an Unbeliever does ‘what they were made to do’ and use the talent and ability that God gave them. (Chapter and verse)

Seriously, I’ll take the video down AND apologize to Rick Warren if you can show me from God’s Word that God is happy with, pleased with unbelievers when they do what they were wired to do despite the fact that they do not trust in Christ and have not repented of their sins.

In the meantime, I stand by these passages of scripture.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Eph. 2:1   And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Heb. 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God

5   mandy reed, owosso mi    
February 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm

that video was the best laugh i’ve had all day :)

6   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Chris R.,

It is your prerogative to believe that God is not pleased with the good that unbelievers do. I have not thought that through enough to elaborate on it – that is why I said we could discuss that question.

But to call Rick Warren a liar is to say that he is saying something he knows to be false – You may believe it is false, you may even believe very strongly that the Bible says it is false. But unless you can prove Rick knows otherwise and is therefore telling a lie – you should apologize for calling him a liar and stick to just giving your opinion that he is wrong.

Can’t we all just disagree with each other without the hyperbole of being “spiritual liars?”

Neil

7   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Chris R.

Just to be clear – as far a I am concerned my problem with your video is not so much the issue of “Can unbelievers please God when they do good?” It’s calling Warren a liar.

Neil

8   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Neil,

I appreciate the fact that you clarified your complaint. THANK YOU!

That being said. I am still going to stand by what I said.

Pastor Warren has a PhD in theology and he is a Christian pastor in the Southern Baptist Church. Therefore, the topic of original sin and the status of unbelievers in relationship to God is something that Pastor Warren has experience with. The Southern Baptist Church’s official position on this doctrine is that man has fallen and that ONLY the grace of God can bring man into fellowship with God.

Whenever any pastor or teacher claims something about God then he have to have a clear word from God to back up what he is saying. Otherwise, he is just speaking his own opinion and ideas.

Warren told Unbelievers information about God that has no scripture to back it up.

Warren told Unbelievers information that is contrary to clear words from God. (And his own denomination’s position)

I think the charge of liar is appropriate in this case. I know it is strong. But along with this message is Warren’s habitual practice of twisting God’s word. So I do not believe this is out of character for him.

9   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 4:44 pm

OK – not a liar, a deceived deceiver.(in resepct for Chris L. I will not use the “h” word on his blog) Anyone can take human sentimentality and attribute that to God, but that is totally subjective and can only be substantiated by our own thoughts.

Jesus said to His own disciples that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, He didn’t enjoy them just being them. When Peter blurted out a well meaning “never” when referring to Christ’s death Jesus didn’t say “Oh that Peter, I love it when he is being himself”. He used the name of Satan.

I am not saying that Warren never gives a piece of the gospel but he seems to be straying further and further. Every unsaved person in that room could agree with what he had to say and the Holy Spirit had nothing with which to “convince the world of sin” with.

As I watched the TV in 1975 I didn’t need to hear that God loved me being me, I needed to hear that Jesus was returning to this earth and all sinners who were not covered with Christ’s forgiveness were doomed. Believe it or not back in 1975 I heard that from Billy Graham and I was changed.

There is a lot about me now that God still dislikes. I pray for Rick Warren as well as myself.

10   amy    
February 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Satan is an intentional liar. He knows the truth and does everything he can to twist that truth, which often involves giving a partial truth.

What bothered me the most about Rick Warren’s initial “gospel” video was what Chris R expounded on – that because of his background with the Southern Baptist Rick should be well qualified to know and share a clear gospel message – but yet he didn’t. Why?

11   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Isn’t that a TEDS symbol in the background? Has TEDS been kicked out of the kingdom by ODMs now?

12   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Tim,

TED is not a Christian church or group. It is more like a collection of 18 minute lectures by the ‘greatest thinkers and doers’ in the world.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/

I actually think it is very interesting. But there is nothing “Christian” about it.

13   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 1st, 2008 at 5:54 pm

http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/

That’s what I was referring to.

14   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Tim,

Okay. So to answer you question. No the ODMs have not kicked Trinity Evangelical Divinity School out of the kingdom. (if they did, then I didn’t get the memo).

But, Rick Warren spoke at TED, this has no connection to the divinity school. Here is the link to the full lecture.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/71

15   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
February 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm

[rick vader]Together we can rule the third world countries as para-church and church![/rick vader]

16   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Chris R,

It seems you have set up these questions

1. God Smiles on Unbelievers when they are being themselves. (Chapter and verse)

OK,

here it is…

If you disagree with my assesment then show us from scripture where it says teaches it!

Acts 10
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

4Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

Now, God noticed this “unbeliever” for what he did. In fact Cornelius had not even heard the Gospel so it is certain he was not saved. Do you not agree with that?

2. God says “That’s my boy / girl” when an Unbeliever does ‘what they were made to do’ and use the talent and ability that God gave them. (Chapter and verse)

The issue i have with this is not whether it is right or wrong or backed up with “scripture”, but it is like stating…

God does not want us to drive a car. Show me chapter and verse.

I see any Father would be happy if their child does something they are wired to do. I really think though the issue is once agian you are adding your own twist to what is stated. Also, did you check the Lamb’s Book of Life to see that ALL in the audience were in fact “Unbelievers”?

So, your question set up as a factual challenge is factually challenged… LOL!

Unless you can prove this audience was made up of all unbelievers and that Rick stated that he was just talking to unbelievers in the audience your questions are both mute points.

Not trying to be a stinker to you,

iggy

17   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Hmmm….I guess I’m simple minded. Watched both videos and saw a guy having conversation with some folks. Was it really supposed to be more than that?

Don’t get me wrong, I know little about Warren(apart from what little I read about him) and I put myself in the ambivalent catagory. I’ve got plenty of issues of my own without having to deal with someone elses!

I’ve often had conversation with folks, not much different than what I saw happen here and guess what. It lead to more questions and deeper dialog. Ya start out with a bottle, and then later comes the spoon feeding, etc, etc.

Me thinks ya need to lighten up a bit!

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 8:32 pm

What happened to that “code”? Wow!

19   amy    
February 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm

I recently read in a Randy Alcorn book something to the effect that if a “gospel” doesn’t work for both the West and persecuted Christians (in this particular case, China) it is no gospel.

If God is smiling on those who are getting to do what they were wired to do, then He isn’t smiling on much of the world – who are suffering from war and struggling with starvation. Certainly God didn’t wire people for that?

20   Mike Corley    http://www.mikecorley.org
February 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm

One may not like the presentation of this video or even think it is corny ( i like it and wish i were that creative)….but it is true and accurate and I agree with Chris and Rick. It is consistently Rick Warren, light, cavalier and misleading.

21   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
February 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm

I fixed the tags. We won’t say who (word of mouth ministries) failed to close a tag.

22   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm

I think the charge of liar is appropriate in this case. I know it is strong. Chris R.

So you say he is willingly saying things about God that he knows is false… I’m trying to imagine holding such a position against someone – based on an interpretation that is different then mine.

It’s hard not to be sarcastic… on one hand I’d like to know how you know he’s willfully deceiving people… but then again… I don’t.

Neil

23   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Every unsaved person in that room could agree with what he had to say and the Holy Spirit had nothing with which to “convince the world of sin” with. – Rick

Had it been an evangelistic presentation, I’d agree. But since that was not the point…

Neil

24   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Rick should be well qualified to know and share a clear gospel message – but yet he didn’t. Why? – Amy

Not the reason for the presentation.

25   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Don’t get me wrong, I know little about Warren(apart from what little I read about him) and I put myself in the ambivalent catagory. I’ve got plenty of issues of my own without having to deal with someone elses! – Scotty

Scotty,

Funny thing is, there’s plenty about Warren I don’t care for… but I’d never presume to question his motivations, nor assign him to the dark side.

When that happens, I find myself defending someone with whom I disagree…

Neil

26   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm

OK – so since I have a Master’s Degree in Historical Theology, I guess I am willfully speaking things I know to be false if someone (not sure who qualifies as “someone”) disagrees.

That’s what I take from this…

OH, and if I’m ever asked to speak before a group of unbelievers, I MUST present the Gospel regardless of why I was asked to speak.

Neil

27   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Yeah – it looks like he was asked to speak about his book (PDL) and the circumstances before and after it. Since the (ahem) purpose of the talk wasn’t supposed to be evangelism, I wonder why he didn’t use it for that anyway…

28   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Iggy,

I have to give you kudos for the best attempt to make what Rick Warren said to those unbelievers sound okay.

However the passage that you quoted actually works against your argument. Here’s how. Verse 2 states:

2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

In other word he was a God-Fearing Gentile who practiced Judaism and was awaiting the Messiah. Unless you are prepared to say that all those who practiced Judaism prior to Jesus’ first advent are to be categorized as ‘unbelievers’ then Cornelius doesn’t fit that definition. Instead, he had faith in the one true God through revelation of the Old Testament scriptures. The fact that he was a true believer is evidenced by the fact that he had good works that accompanied his faith and the fact that God heard his prayers and was pleased with his works.

Cornelius was every bit a believer as King David was.

29   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Chris L.

I remember watching a well known evangelical on Larry King not so long ago. It didn’t matter what the question was from Larry, the answer was – “Well Larry, the Bible tells us that Jesus died for…”

It went something like:

Larry King: “So, what do you think about the recent developments in stem-cell research?” “If they can create them through means that do not kill an embryo, do you think this is a moral way of harvesting them?”

Evangelical: “Well Larry, John 3:16 says you must be born again.”

Larry King: “Uhhh, OK, Thanks.” “Join us tomorrow when…”

30   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Chris L and others,

Pretend you were invited to speak at TED and that the topic of your lecture was The Power of Art in Worship.

Even though the occasion of your lecture was to discuss art and worship, if you used part of your lecture to convey truths about God we would all expect that what you said about God or claimed about God was in alignment with the scriptures. If instead you made the claim that God’s favorite food was toasted cheese sandwiches (and you weren’t joking) then every discerning Christian would have the right to challenge that claim.

Yes Warren was at TED to discuss his book BUT in the process he said things to his audience that were not true and actually contradicted the clear teachings of scripture.

The occasion of his lecture does NOT give him a pass regarding what he said nor is it even relevant. He said what he said and what he said wasn’t true.

31   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 10:56 pm

then every discerning Christian would have the right to challenge that claim. – Chris R.

Challenge accuracy/truth of what was said – yes.
Call a liar, question motives – no.

Neil

32   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Neil,

I never actually challenged his motives. I must admit that I do not know what they are.

There are different types of liars. There are intentional liars, there are malicious liars, and there are liars that believe that what they are saying is true but the information they pass along is a lie, that is, it is not true information.

At the very minimum the information that Rick told this audience was a lie in the sense that it was not the truth.

Does Rick believe what he said was true? Probably.

But as a SBC Pastor and PhD in Theology he knows better. I have a theory about this. I think that at some point in Warren’s career he made a conscious decision to believe something contrary to what the SBC and the scriptures teach and that he’s found a way to rationalize this decision. But this is only a theory and I do not know his motivation.

33   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Chris R,

So you are saying that Cornelius was already saved before he heard the gospel?

Hmmm, sounds like you are a Universalist now.

So explain to me how Cornelius who yet had not heard the Gospel was saved before he heard it and believed?

I know a lot of people who are”devout and God-fearing” as the Jews and Muslim… so you are saying being devout and God-fearing saves you? Where is this “Christ Crucified” in all that?

Paul was a devout Jew who killed and persecuted many “Christians” so was he saved also?

iggy

34   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pm

I never actually challenged his motives. I must admit that I do not know what they are. – Chris R.

I made the connection thus:

You claim he is a liar.
To lie means purposefully giving out false information.
Purpose implies intent, therefore to say someone is a liar is to say their motive is to deceive.

Neil

35   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 11:26 pm

…and there are liars that believe that what they are saying is true but the information they pass along is a lie, that is, it is not true information. – Chris R.

I would say this is not a liar, or someone who told a lie. I would say this is someone who is wrong.

If I give out directions to the post office and I am mistaken, I am giving out false information but do not know it – I’d be pretty upset that my mistake was considered a lie.

This is why we have pretty much “banned” the accusation against each other on this site… it implies too much foreknowledge and motivation.

Neil

36   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm

At the very minimum the information that Rick told this audience was a lie in the sense that it was not the truth.

Does Rick believe what he said was true? Probably.

So, to put a fine point on it:

If two people are debating a topic and holding two oppossing views, both believe their view is correct… one is right, the other a liar. Even though he believes what he says?

Neil

37   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 1st, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Neil,

I’m working from a broader definition of the word lie.

Miriam Webster defines lie this way.

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

I have always been working from the second definition and not the first. Why? Because as I’ve stated before, I don’t know his motives so I would be hard pressed to prove that his intent was deception.

I hope that at least explains where I was coming from and I appreciate you taking the time to help me see where you were coming from.

38   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Chris R,

I might note that if you read Acts 10 as you are, you are missing the very point of the story.

Cornelius is not a converted Jew, he is a gentile. Note that Peter even states about this…

Verses 44-45

44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

Later Peter retells the story in Chapter 11… and it tells us that Cornelius was NOT a converted Jew…

“Acts 11

1. The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
2. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him
3. and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

Noticed that it states “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them”? do you see the one word that negates you whole understanding? Uncircumcised…

If they were converted Jews, Peter would not state they were not circumcised… and would not have had an issue eating with them as they were then Jews… as it was a sin to eat with uncircumcised Gentiles.

iggy

39   Neil    
February 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm

I don’t know his motives so I would be hard pressed to prove that his intent was deception. – Chris R.

I am glad we can have this discussion and keep it civil – at the risk of being self-serving, kudos to both of us…

You are correct then, that it is (technically) correct to call someone who has made a mistake a liar.

I just think it adds unneeded emotion to the discussion… most people, I think, would assume that a lie is intentional, an error intentional.

Neil

40   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 am

So Neil,

Would you then consider Chris R a liar or deceived that he is calling Cornelius a Jew, when scripture states clearly that he was a uncircumcised Gentile? Should we attribute a motive to his insistence that Peter is a liar that Cornelius was a converted God fearing Jew?

Just thinking out loud…

iggy

41   M.G.    
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 am

Anyone who doesn’t recognize that lying *necessarily* involves intent is mistaken about the plain definition of lying.

Either that or we might have replace Satan with weathermen as the father of lies.

That’s the funny thing about ODMs. They claim to be interested in fighting against postmodernism in defense of truth, but I see far more mendacity coming out of the ODMs than I do around here.

42   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 am

Iggy,

The term ‘God-Fearing’ (phobomenos ton theov) refers to the fact that he is a Gentile that practices Judaism. This is a well known and historically understood term. The term ‘god-fearing’ would not be employed of a man who feared the ‘god’ Zeus.

Here is what one Biblical commentary says on this matter.

When Luke writes: “pious and god-fearing with all his house,” the adjective marks the Godly character of the man, the participle, however, brings out the fact he and his whole family were proselytes of the gate.

There were two types of Jewish proselytes in the first century. The first were ‘Proselytes of the Gate’. These were gentiles who were not bound to circumcision (yet) and were restricted in their worship. The second type were the ‘Proselytes of Righteousness’. These were Gentiles who became complete Jews.

Iggy, these are well known historical facts.

Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte, specifically a Proselyte of the Gate. That is why he wasn’t circumcised and that is why he is referred to as ‘God-Fearing’. It wasn’t some generic deity that he prayed to. It was the God of the Old Testament that he feared, loved and trusted.

Another example of a Proselyte of the Gate is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8. He was so devout that he travelled to Jerusalem on a religious pilgrimage. However, because he was a eunuch he could never become a ‘Proselyte of Righteousness’.

So I stand by my original assessment. Cornelius was a God-Fearing gentile (Proselyte of the Gate) and had faith in the one true God. He knew of this God through the Old Testament scriptures. Even though he had not been circumcised he still believed in, prayed to, and worshiped the God of the Old Testament.

The scandal of the story is that God sends Peter to him with the Gospel. Cornelius and his family believes that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah and are given the gift of the Holy Spirit even though he wasn’t circumcised. In the Jewish way of thinking Cornelius was not yet a ‘complete jew’. There were further steps and works for him to accomplish before he could be accepted into their fellowship and God completely overthrew those steps by giving him the Holy Spirit and making no distinction between him and the other Jewish Christians.

43   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 am

M.G.

Anyone who doesn’t recognize that lying *necessarily* involves intent is mistaken about the plain definition of lying.

Then using your logic the Miriam Webster dictionary is mistaken.

44   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am

Neil,

If two people are debating a topic and holding two oppossing views, both believe their view is correct… one is right, the other a liar. Even though he believes what he says?

Yes, and in the case of two evolutionists debating the finer points of evolution, they would both be liars in the sense that they’re both creating a false or misleading perception of reality.

I understand that ya’ll have banned the word here at your site. But I run an ODM and the video was originally published for my site. I reserve the right to use the word and employ it according to its full definition instead of the narrow definition that ya’ll employ here at .info.

45   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 am

I believe the word liar is understood in its colloquial usage as carrying with it knowledge and intent. If I once taught pre-trib escatology and Jesus comes post trib does that make me a liar?

Christ – I think “false teacher” is a more accurate moniker, even the “h” word, but I do not believe Rick Warren lies any more than we all do. As a matter of fact, I think he is a warm and gracious believer in Christ who does many acts of kindness all over the world. His teachings are what I contest, never him personally. If we do not guard our hearts in this manner we will be blinded to our own sin and become unloving to our doctrinal adversaries.

God has given me the grace to actually like and love people like Rick Warren while vehemently disagreeing with their orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I think MacLaren has a very winsome personality and even exhibits humility but he is assuredly an he…well, you know. This is a very important issue, one that is inherant in any discernment.

We cannot, we must not, be ambivilent to our own methodology and approach, and even the thoughts and intents of our own wicked hearts. I tend to move in and out of the love of God. I hope by His grace I can stay in God’s love at all times. BTW – I consider Rick Warren a wayward brother in Christ for sure.

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am

Actually, Chris, in appropriating the “broader” definition, you are mistaken in applying it to a person, as it applies to situations or images.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

NOUN:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

VERB:
intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

When used as a NOUN, ‘lying’ implies deliberate deception. When used as a VERB, #1 again includes intent, and #2 involves ‘image’ and ‘impression’, which is an artifact of intimacy (as evidenced in the example given).

It’s sad, but y’all love to accuse “emergents” (whatever that happens to mean that day) of changing the meanings of words, but that’s exactly what you’re engaging in, and in a VERY uncharitable (see 1 Cor 13) manner…

47   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am

I’m working from a broader definition of the word lie.

So, what’s the meaning of “is” ? ;-)

48   Neil    
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am

I understand that ya’ll have banned the word here at your site. But I run an ODM and the video was originally published for my site. I reserve the right to use the word and employ it according to its full definition instead of the narrow definition that ya’ll employ here at .info. – Chris R.

It’s “banned” here in the sense that we prohibit commenters from making the accusation to each other… since we believe calling someone a liar implies purposeful/willful deceit, not simply erroneous statements.

Obviously you are free to use the word as you see fit on your site, and if we link to it – we have to deal with it… which is basically what you and I have been doing.

Neil

49   Neil    
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am

Rick,

Good distinctions to maintain.

Neil

50   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am

Chris L,

I am not going to get into a ‘dueling dictionaries’ battle with you over this word. I used MW you used American Heritage. Which dictionary is going to give us the definitive definition of this word and who cares?

I’ve explained that I have been operating from the broader definition and that I do not know Warren’s motives.

This does not change the fact that the information that he spoke regarding God and what pleases him was false and misleading information. People’s eternal destinations are at stake.

So, I think that beating me up and taking me to task regarding a narrow or broad definition of the word “lie” is soooo off topic and unimportant as to be laughable.

I wonder if you guys think that Elijah was being overly cruel when he taunted the prophets of Ba’al and asked if their ‘god’ was busy taking a dump.

1 Kings 18:27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”

Did you guys notice that one of ‘i’s’ in my video was missing a dot? I bet I even committed a grammatical syntax error. I think you should talk about that too. But whatever you do…Don’t talk about the fact that Rick Warren gave false information (lied) to unbelievers about their standing before God. Because if you did that, then you’d actually have to admit that an ODM actually had a valid point.

51   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am

Chris R,
There’s no shame in admitting you went to far in claiming Warren is a liar. If you didn’t over reach in your demonization of those you disagree with you’d be able to get to what is, in your estimation, the important things. Instead you have to spend lots of time trying to convince everyone that the definition of lie doesn’t include the intent to deceive.

Of course if you didn’t overreach in your demonization you wouldn’t be an ODM.

I also find it interesting that, yet again, an ODM defends himself by using the example of a prophet, someone who God spoke to face to face, and ignores completely the admonitions to gentleness and love given to every believer by apostles, prophets and Jesus Himself.

52   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am

Tim,

I don’t get your smug hypocrisy. According to you:

“Watchdoggies are all nasty liars.”

http://twitter.com/teamawesomer/statuses/626131762

We’re YOU operating from a narrow or broad definition of that word?

53   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 am

Judging by the fact that in this video you lied nastily about Warren I was using the definition of the word that includes deliberate intent to deceive.

54   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am

You also forgot this one:
http://twitter.com/teamawesomer/statuses/657648302

Which now seems prescient, but really is just the recognition of a pattern. No different than observing that it gets cold in winter.

55   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am

Tim,

Please tell what where in the video I lied about Warren.

56   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am

You lied, when you stated he lied.

57   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am

This tape proves that Warren either does not study the Bible, and he is deceived, or he does study the Bible, and is deceiving others.

58   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am

Tim,

I’ve already made my case for using that word and made it clear that I do not know Warren’s motives. I stand by what I’ve said and my conscience is clear.

Now, you just had the audacity to lecture me about using that word and told me about how the ODMs

ignores completely the admonitions to gentleness and love given to every believer by apostles, prophets and Jesus Himself.

Based on your standard I’d really like to know if you were completely ignoring these Biblical admonitions when you said that, “Watchdoggies are all nasty liars“?

Not too surprisingly, I wasn’t feeling any gentleness or love from your statement.

But MORE IMPORTANTLY I’d like you to PROVE your statement. Unlike some of the people here I have a really thick skin when it comes to being called names so I could care less if you called me a liar. I’m more interested in you actually proving that ALL WATCHDOGGIES ARE NASTY LIARS.

59   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am

I’m also, Chris R, quite flattered that you follow my life so closely. I’m sure you’re doing it out of excellent motives, and not maliciously at all. What’d you think of the newest baby pictures I put up?

60   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am

Gents,

If someone teaches/makes statements etc., whether they believe what is said or not, and it turns out not to be true, then it is by definition a lie.

Webster’s Dictionary – “liar n. a person who tells falsehoods.” [insert accusations re. Ken here]

But the fact remains that it is entirely possible to tell falsehoods without knowing them to be false; e.g. men who once taught the earth was flat. That turned out to be a lie.

61   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am

But MORE IMPORTANTLY I’d like you to PROVE your statement. Unlike some of the people here I have a really thick skin when it comes to being called names so I could care less if you called me a liar. I’m more interested in you actually proving that ALL WATCHDOGGIES ARE NASTY LIARS.

http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2008/01/09/whos-the-real-liar/
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/11/01/ken-silva-needs-to-repent-of-slander/
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2008/01/16/dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story/
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2008/01/11/this-is-so-good-i-cannot-help-myself-some-thoughts-for-jim-from-old-truth-that-i-want-to-share-with-you/
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/04/30/lies-and-slander-ken-phil-and-johnnie-on-homosexuality-and-the-ecm/

I believe that covers pretty much everyone I’ve referred to as a watchdoggie, and this doesn’t even include comments (on those few ODM sites that still allow them) such as accusations that XXXChurch staffers use porn, and via their commercials are covertly trying to get kids interested in it.

If it doesn’t then I’m willing to amend the statement to most watchdoggies are nasty liars.

62   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm

“If it doesn’t then I’m willing to amend the statement to most watchdoggies are nasty liars. ”

Tim – that is using the word liar in the same way in which you object to its use to Warren. Most if not all the ODMs believe what they are saying so they are not intentionally lying, they are either misinformed or starting from an innacurate perpective which has a tendency to manipulate us – all of us.

Or another possibility is that many times they are saying the truth in an objectionable way. You guys get caught up with linguistic theories, but you leave the substance of Warren’s speech. Warren isn’t lying just as MacLaren isn’t lying (unless it is proved they go in the back room and laugh at their listeners), but what they teach are falsehoods (according to me).

You are correct that saying staffers at the xxxchurch are attempting to draw kids into porn is a bold faced lie if untrue, but sometimes people get so entrenched in their views that they believe their own lies. Fred Phelps could probably pass a lie detector test. I have yet to see where Warren, MacArthur, Bell, or MacLaren have ever lied.

In my opinion all of them have taught error but have not lied. I think lying is more personal and not a doctrinal participle. (lying). I disagree withChris R. strongly about baptism but I believe he believes his teaching. But neither you or Chris is a liar.

But Chris Lyons is a liar! (Humor duex)

63   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Tim – that is using the word liar in the same way in which you object to its use to Warren. Most if not all the ODMs believe what they are saying so they are not intentionally lying, they are either misinformed or starting from an innacurate perpective which has a tendency to manipulate us – all of us.

I suppose that’s fair enough. I failed to take into account the watchdoggie inability to understand anyone other than other watchdoggies.

64   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm

BTW Tim – if you accuse someone of lying because he disagrees with Warren or presents his version of his message and it turns out they were right, then you are a liar because you called them liars. See, a purposeless merry-go-round.

But then again you believe what you say so you are not a liar. It reminds me of a Star Trek epsiode where a computer took over the Enterprise. Kirk then told the computer “I always lie”. After allowing the computer to digest that Kirk then said “I am lying!”. The computer burned up in confusion and Kirk regained control of the ship!

65   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Tim,

Sorry but throwing up a bunch of links is FAR from proving that ALL watchdoggies are ‘nasty liars’. You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Remember, you have to prove that ALL of these watchdoggies had the intent to deceive because you admitted that you were using the narrow definition of the word ‘liar’.

Also, comments made by readers on an ODM site do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner. I still allow comments on my site and I don’t flush any comments unless they contain vulgarity. I think that discussion on a issue is important. Therefore, if someone wants to express their opinions they are free to do so even if their opinions contain factual errors. Since you guys are always complaining about the other ODM sites not allowing comments I find it odd that you are calling ME a nasty liar because of a comment left at my site. It seems like nothing I do will satisfy you Tim. That’s because you are too busy demonizing me.

So try again and please provide the proof that ALL watchdoggies are ‘nasty liars’ with the INTENT to DECEIVE.

66   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Chris – I think Tim’s last comment put that one to rest. The liar word must have evidence while the error word can be argued from a Biblical perspective. In reality all of us are liars having lied about something in our lives. I once said I wasn’t more intelligent than Einstein but later I was exposed for having lied about that!

67   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Rick,

Tim’s last comment was…

I suppose that’s fair enough. I failed to take into account the watchdoggie inability to understand anyone other than other watchdoggies.

Sorry but I still am not feeling the love or gentleness from Tim that he talks about.

Claiming that watchdoggies do not have the ability to understand anyone other than other watchdoggies is another false and inaccurate statement (lie?). It was another sweeping generalization that looks as if it had as its intent the desire to demonize ODMs. AND there was no evidence provided to prove that ‘propositional truth claim’.

68   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I wouldn’t go as far as calling you guys liars. I would just say that you will take any bit of news against your opponents and massage it to fit your agenda.

Rick Warren is working with non-believers to help the sick, he must be a universalist.

Rob Bell says the God’s aren’t angry, he must believe we are all going to heaven.

Erwin McManus wants to shape the culture of our society, he must not believe in Christ

Brian McLaren says Muslims can keep their cultural heritage, he must believe you can follow Islam and be saved.

The list goes on and on. These people can do no right in your eyes. 9 times out of 10, you have not read their books or heard their sermons. You read captions from online sources and believe you know the whole context. Most of it is really just hyped up tabloid material and should not be called “Christian Research”

69   amy    
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Neil,

Not the reason for the presentation

.

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to, which was Warren’s initial Purpose Driven Life video where he asked people to pray with him and said “Welcome to the kingdom afterwards.” My statement was a response to a comment Chris R made. Here’s what I said again:

What bothered me the most about Rick Warren’s initial “gospel” video was what Chris R expounded on – that because of his background with the Southern Baptist Rick should be well qualified to know and share a clear gospel message – but yet he didn’t. Why?

I’m sorry that I didn’t communicate more clearly.

70   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Chris R,
If you’d like you can use the search bar to go through and see where I’ve pointed out examples as they’ve come up.

71   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Chris – that is not an inaccurate statement, that accurately reflects Tim’s perspective. I often give sweeping generalizations but I strongly attempt to build a fire wall between personal judgements and doctrinal observations.

Here are some examples of sweeping generaizations:

“All emergents are doctrinally unsound either in creed or practice” Am I a liar because I believe that?

But here is a personal generalization:

“All emergents are unloving parents” That is a lie. What Warren did was no lie, he was spewing some humanistic I’m OK/You’re OK verbiage. I do believe that Tim gets caught up sometimes by some speech that mirrors some leveled on his side of the fence.

I have been guilty as well. I do think that what Tim wrote was an acknowledgement of that as well. You should not require a Papal Bull in the matter, extend some grace and continue your Biblical evidence as it concerns Warren.

72   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Scrubs provides us with the definition of liar:

73   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Tim,

Let me give you the advice that you gave me. Here are your words, modified to speak to you.

There’s no shame in admitting you went too far in claiming that ALL the ODM’s are Nasty Liars.

I also find it interesting that, yet again, Tim is trying to defend himself and justify his actions yet he is completely ignoring the admonitions to gentleness and love given to every believer by apostles, prophets and Jesus Himself.

74   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Chris R,
Back up scroll up a bit, and you’ll see I already admitted I went to far in saying all ODMs are nasty liars.

75   Neil    
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

think you misunderstood what I was referring to…I’m sorry that I didn’t communicate more clearly. – Amy

Amy,

You are correct, I thought you were referring to the TED presentation. Thank you for the correction.

Neil

76   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm

“Back up scroll up a bit, and you’ll see I already admitted I went to far in saying all ODMs are nasty liars. ”

No you didn’t, you’re a liar!

77   Ian Kennedy    http://yankees.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Wonderful, now we’ve gone from discussing Warren, and the video to discussing Tim.

78   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm

For clarity – my comment was humor. Tim knows.

79   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Chris R,

I am going by what the Bible actually states not just ONE BIBLE COMMENTARY THAT AGREES WITH MY VIEW.

You are then stating that there is no big deal that Peter went into the house of a Proselytized Jew. Peter then did not need to lie later that he had and Paul needed not rebuke Peter “to his face”.

In fact you then need to explain that God did not really open the door to the Gentiles through Peter and then send Paul to them.

And then by your view we must all become Proselytized Jews BEFORE we can come to Christ Jesus.

In that the book of Galatians is a lie as the Judaizers were right and Paul wrong and we are saved by becoming Jews first then by Grace.

Really you are changing quite a lot by making Cornelius not a uncircumcised Gentile.

The point you are CLOSE on is that Cornelius was a “God” fearing Gentile. This means he was monotheistic and not a polytheist.

So… so far I gave many scriptures to back my view and you gave one unknown commentary. In fact I see that you are very much in the minority as I even try to look for your view… it seems it is you and your commentary that state your view alone. It seems most back my view. (I would say all but I can’t find your “commentary”.

I suggest you go back and just read Acts 10 and 11 and see what God was doing through a Gentile.

iggy

80   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Who cares if Cornelius was a proselyte of any kind or if he prayed to the God of the Old Testament, he was an unsaved Gentile and was used by God to teach Peter and the council at Jerusalem the universality of the offer of redemption.

God heard his seeking heart and sent the gospel. God wasn’t pleased with who he was, God desired him to be saved. I cannot understand how you guys defend Warren’s sentimental portrayal of God. Even if he was there to speak about something secular, Warren didn’t need to stroke everyone’s conscience with a “Hallmark card” definition of God Almighty.

Warren’s entire presentation of how God looks upon us was a serious misrepresentation. We don’t need to breathe fire and sulfur every time we witness, but if we are going to water or plant let’s make sure we are Biblical and clear.

81   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Yep… who cares about biblical facts these days… hmmm me an “apostate” emergent guy…

Strange world it is! = )

igs

82   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Iggy,

I am not trying to brag here. I promise.

I have a degree in Religious studies and Biblical languages. I spent my 3rd year in greek primarily in Gospel of Mark, Acts and Revelation.

I’ve worked my way through these passages in the greek and I’ve wrestled with the scholarship on this issue.

What I said about Cornelius being a Proselyte of the Gate is a Biblical fact and there are great number of scholars, Biblical cross references and historical information that backs up what I said.

I’m sorry that those facts don’t agree with you interpretation.

83   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I am not trying to brag here. I promise.

I have a degree in Religious studies and Biblical languages. I spent my 3rd year in greek primarily in Gospel of Mark, Acts and Revelation.

I’ve worked my way through these passages in the greek and I’ve wrestled with the scholarship on this issue.

What I said about Cornelius being a Proselyte of the Gate is a Biblical fact and there are great number of scholars, Biblical cross references and historical information that backs up what I said.

I’m sorry that those facts don’t agree with you interpretation.

Modernist. ;)

84   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Tim,

LOL! How can I be a modernist? I have a goatee and am always wearing my baseball caps backward on my head. That means I’m emergent, doesn’t it? 8^)>

85   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm

LOL! How can I be a modernist? I have a goatee and am always wearing my baseball caps backward on my head. That means I’m emergent, doesn’t it? 8^)>

I find your lack of coffee is disturbing.

86   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm

The narrative of Cornelius is almost exclusively included in the canon to show that Gentiles were included in salvation. All the other stuff is conjecture no matter how many degrees we all have. The original point is that God wasn’t happy with Cornelius the way he was (unsaved), he sent Peter to share with him a life changing message.

87   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Chris R,

let’s say you are right. Then God still sees one who is not a believer, as you have yet to show me where Cornelius believed in Jesus and was saved before Peter went to him.

Also, if you do have all these degrees, then you know something about sighting sources… can you give one?

Now, here is the thing. IF you are right, and Cornelius was a (Jewish) God fearing Gentiles (which is a major contradiction and is not stated in the bible itself) then God never sent Peter to a Gentile…(as you are stating Cornelius was a Jew though not a very good one as he was not circumsized which seems to be a very important part of becoming a Jew), then there was no conversion to the Gentiles and the Abrahamic promise was not fulfilled. In fact, you are making the case that all Christians must become a Jew first to be truly saved!

If you would give us answer?

iggy

88   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I might add,

That now you have the issue that the Jews are saved without Jesus… as you are stating Cornelius was a “believer” before he came to Jesus…

I can quote you some scriptures where some “believed” and were not saved… but I will let you dig out of this hole a bit.

iggy

89   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Chris R,

This gave me the greatest laugh

Tim,

LOL! How can I be a modernist? I have a goatee and am always wearing my baseball caps backward on my head. That means I’m emergent, doesn’t it? 8^)>

But, nope that could mean you are heading out to the bar to get some drinks…

You are emerging though as you are in the conversation… so you are part of the emerging conversation and thus the emerging church… Welcome!

LOL!

iggy

90   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Igs,
Chris R is Lutheran. We assume he’s posting from a bar with wifi.

91   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Tim,

Shhhhh. Are you trying to get me kicked out of the ODM club?

Let’s just say that Lutheran’s have their own version of the sacraments and German culture has played a role in that.

92   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Iggy,

I will only do this with you if we take it slow and stay on topic.

I want to start out with 2. Questions for you.

1. Was King David saved?

2. If he was then what was his salvation based on?

93   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm

A few things:

1) Not sure why we’re talking about Cornelius, but he was not Jewish, but he what was referred to as a “God-fearer” or “believer”, which describes those Gentiles who believed in God, but not necessarily that he had converted to Judiasm (meaning that he was not subject to ceremonial law). Most “God-fearers”/”believers” lived in Asia Minor, Egypt or east of Israel, and many (but not all) converted to Judiasm, though many (mostly men, for obvious reasons) had not. He was distinctly different than David in that David was Jewish (by race and religion) and Cornelius was not.

2) Per the definition of “liar”, even Merriam-Webster notes that the word “lie” imputes dishonesty, which belies intent. And, as Rick has pointed out, if what Warren is saying is false but he believes what he’s saying, it would be classified as “error” or “false teaching” (depending upon whether or not it was a salvific issue).

3) Listening to the clip, it seemed to me that Warren was only affirming that when we do what we were made to do, that is pleasing to God, not religious practice and ritual. “What we were made to do”, per Genesis is ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and ’subdue the earth’. This latter command is seen as the talent/bent given to all men in their work (which is different than toil). It seems to me, Chris R, that you were hoping for a statement of -praxis and not doxy – but then the question becomes “does the heart change by God working through one’s mind (doxy) or through one’s actions (praxy)?” The Greek would say the mind, and the Hebrew would say the hands, and neither need be 100% right or wrong…

4) If we’re not done trying to pull Tim into this somehow, I’m going to close the thread, because that goes nowhere…

94   mandy reed, owosso mi    
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Chris R,

Would you also like my twitter name so you can keep tabs on the whole family? Maybe I’ll set Sam up an account too.

I think Tim just says stuff on his twitter account because he thinks it’s funny you’re reading it.

95   Phil Miller    http://www.veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Iggy,
It sounds like you are saying that the thousands of Jews that lived before Christ aren’t saved. I have actually heard some Christians make this argument, and I think it’s a misunderstanding of what salvation is to some extent.

The Jewish people were saved just like Christians were, by grace through faith. They weren’t saved by adherence to the law. The obeyed the law out of obedience. Many Christians still present Judaism as a works-based religion.

It seems to me that Jesus’ death and resurrection was an event that had effects for all time. Faithful Jews were saved through it because they had faith in God even though they didn’t know the details.

Also, Christians have to remember that in Romans, we are described as being grafted into Israel. If the Jews that came before Christ aren’t saved, we don’t have much either.

96   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Iggy,

I agree with Phil, as well, and I would note that Peter makes a reference that many scholars believe is indicative of Jesus’ salvation for those prior to his coming:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

97   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm

The question arises “All the people who were saved by grace thru faith in the Old Testament economy and were alive before and after Christ died, did they all become unsaved?”. I doubt that, but even if Cornelius was saved before Peter he still was chosen by God to become an incredible object lesson to Peter and all the Jews.

I still am not sure what Cornelius had to do with the original video.

98   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Is a Jew saved? Then why does Paul seemed so grieved that so many are not saved?

or are you asking that one that Believed in Messiah was saved?

I agree with the second one.

Yet,

Now let’s take this slow….

King David was saved for he believed in the Messiah to come.

Yet, you have yet to show me anywhere in Acts 10 and 11 that..

1. Cornelius is a converted Jew.
2. It states he believed in a Messiah.
3. He is anything more than a Gentile who believed in God and did good works which God noticed.

Are we to conclude then that one must become a Jew and do good works to be saved?

I think that the idea that is missed is that this is a Gentile who God saved and opened the door to salvation to the Gentiles as Peter stated, and Paul teaches through out the NT.

Also, (since you are bringing this up) as many criticize McLaren and others for stating one can be saved without knowing Jesus… is this still true of the Messianic Jew today who is still looking for the Messiah to come and has rejected Jesus as Messiah?

Now also (For Chris) You have yet to show me your source…

Also, though I have NO formal training, I have been around many very highly educated men who agree with me and that I ahve in fact shown them things they never noticed or saw before. I see that more often education hinders one from really understanding the bible. I am not saying it is of no value, but that God teaches us more than a bible school or whatever ever will.

I ahve turned down ordinations from denominations that wanted me to pastor in them. I have always been in the fast track… I only state this as I boast only in God in that He is in my life and has done many things in and through me and that it is all to His Glory.

Again, I see that there is nothing from scripture that states that Cornelius is more than an uncircumcised Gentile who did good works and was noticed by God who sent Peter to tell him of Jesus.

To add more than that seems to be adding to the story as told in scripture itself.

Again, IF Cornelius was a proselytized Jew… then why the criticism of Peter eating in a house of a “uncircumcised” Gentile.

Note that again the bible is clear Cornelius was uncircumcised.

Now Wikipedia (which is not the greatest source) but states in one place what you stated, yet contradicts itself in the actual requirements of the proselytized Jew.

Here they are:

A righteous proselyte[3] was a Gentile who had converted to Judaism, was bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish economy, and was considered a full member of the Jewish people. They were to be circumcised and immersed in a mikvah should they wish to eat of the Passover sacrifice. A gate proselyte[4] was a “resident alien” who lived in the Land of Israel and followed some of the customs. They were not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They were bound only to conform to the so-called seven precepts of Noah, the Noahide Laws: do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God’s name, do not murder, do not commit immoral sexual acts, do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish courts of justice. Besides these laws, however, they were also required to abstain from work on the Sabbath, and to refrain from the use of leavened bread during the time of the Passover.

Note again for Cornelius to be a proselytized Jew, he was to be circumcised, yet the BIBLE states;

Acts 11: 3. and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

BTW Gentile is always used of those who are not Jews… yet again the BIBLE states:

Acts 10 44-47:

44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47. “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Notice there is a “difference” that is noted between the circumcised the Gentile?

Note later in Acts 15 7-9 Peter again speaks of the “us and them” being Jew and Gentile…

7. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

So again, scripture is refuting that Cornelius was a proselytized Jew… and making it very clear he was a “God-fearing” uncircumcised Gentile.

iggy

99   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm

The point of all this is that Chris R is stating that God does not smile on unbelievers. And Cornelius was not yet saved yet what he had done had gone in front of God who approved and sent Peter to preach the Gospel to him…

He was “God fearing” yet not saved until after he heard, believed and received the message of Jesus. So yes, God does smile on unbeliever when the do what they should do.

iggy

100   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Every Jew who was saved by faith in the coming Messiah and lived before and after the crucifixion was still saved. But all unbelieving Jews, after the death and resurrection of Christ, must now be saved the same way as a Gentile by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Just as a Gentile in the Old Testament must become a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be saved, so must a Jew believe on Jesus today. All have sinned and there is only one Savior. Again, if Cornelius was saved (as probably was Paul) he still became a Christian. This was a very dramatic and transitional time and many on the Day of Pentecost were probably saved (Old Testament) and became born again in Christ.

I still cannot grasp the significance of the point about Cornelius in this discussion.

101   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Iggy – I do not see in Acts where God smiled upon Cornelius one way or the other. The Lord not only responded to his seeking heart, but like Paul he was chosen sovereignly to teach Peter and James especially.

102   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Iggy,

I agree with both you and Phil. The Jews prior to Jesus’ first advent were saved and they were saved by grace through faith. So the only thing left to answer is whether Cornelius was a believer.

R.C.H. Lenski in his Commentary on Acts explains that when a Gentile wanted to become a Jew they were first considered a ‘Proselyte of the Gate’ and that the common term for this was ‘God-Fearing Gentile’ or proselyte. These were Gentiles who believed in, prayed to and worshiped the God of the Old Testament but were not yet circumcised. Their temple access was also restricted to the court of the Gentiles. They could not have full access to the temple until they had become ‘Proselytes of Righteousness’. (Lenski, 67)

We see references to these proselytes throughout the book of Acts.

Acts 2:7 And they were amazed and marveled, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes

Acts 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 17:4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a great multitude of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Acts 17:17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.

Lenski in his commentary on Acts points out that the God-Fearing Gentiles in Acts 13:43, 17:4 and 17 were the Proselytes of the Gate (Lenski, 597, 693 & 710)

As you can see from all of these references the term ‘God-Fearing Gentile’ was a colloquialism used to designate gentiles who were Jewish proselytes. So when Acts 10:2 says that Cornelius and his family were ‘God-Fearing’ it is clearly telling us that he and his family were Jewish proselytes of the gate. This is not speculation nor conjecture this is just plain fact.

This description of Cornelius as a ‘God-Fearing Man’ is reiterated in Acts 10:22 which says, “The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people.

This verse not only uses the proselyte phrase ‘God-Fearing man’ to describe Cornelius, it goes on to say that he was RESPECTED BY ALL THE JEWISH PEOPLE. If there is one thing that we can say about first century Jews is that when it came to religion, they did NOT respect anyone who didn’t worship the one true God of the Old Testament. This only further proves that Cornelius was numbered among those gentiles who believed in, worshiped and prayed to the one true God.

This is why Matthew Henry in his commentary says of Cornelius:

“Doubtless Cornelius had true faith in God’s word, as far as he understood it, though not as yet clear faith in Christ. This was the work of the Spirit of God, through the mediation of Jesus, even before Cornelius knew him…”

Since no man is saved by keeping the Mosiac law and all men are saved by grace through faith. It is clear that Cornelius had faith in the One true God through the testimony of the Old Testament scriptures. This is further evidenced by the fact that God heard his prayers and that his faith produced good works.

That Cornelius wasn’t circumcised had nothing to do with whether or not he had faith. It is clear from the text that he was a believer in the Old Testament sense of the word prior to Peter’s visit.

103   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Rick,

Iggy – I do not see in Acts where God smiled upon Cornelius one way or the other. The Lord not only responded to his seeking heart, but like Paul he was chosen sovereignly to teach Peter and James especially.

Acts 10: 4 “Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.”

Now if you want to be “technical” God may not have “smiled” but Cornelius was noticed and his offerings came up to God as a memorial offering before God. It was that Cornelius was helping the poor that his prayers for them that God noticed.

In that I think God was pleased enough to send and Angel and then Peter… I would suppose that God would also have smiled as he was doing so… Don’t you?

iggy

104   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Iggy – That certainly does not fit into Warren’s “God smiles when you are being you” theology. Warren even diminished the prayer and alms that was noticed by God in Cornelius. I think Cornelius is a poor support for the general statement of a smiling God that Warren suggested. (If that is your point)

105   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Chris R,

I have shown you that a proselytized Jew was to be circumcised… and you still state Cornelius was one.

It is clear that the Bible states he was not one and is making a great points to state he was a uncircumcised gentile who believed in God, but was not yet saved.

So until you can show me that proselytised Jews were NOT circumcised and that it was common that they were not, you still need to show me that to be true.

The Bible states the point he was an uncircumcised Gentile over and over so none can miss it… You take a scripture and a commentary that fits your view and miss the overwhelming points the Bible makes concerning Cornelius.

iggy

106   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm

OK Iggy and Chris R., I need to check your circumcism so meet me behind the 7-11 at 10:00 PM tonight. No fresh wound will be accepted.

107   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Iggy,

Acts 10:2 says Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

Are you seriously arguing that Cornelius prayed to God but he didn’t actually believe in God, worship God or trust in God or have faith in God because he hadn’t been circumcised yet?

Acts 10:22 says that, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation

Are you seriously arguing that even though Cornelious was a God-Fearing man and the WHOLE JEWISH NATION spoke well of him that he was not a true believer in the God that he feared because he had not been circumcised yet?

You are now arguing like a Judiaser by saying that Cornelius couldn’t possibly have been a believer in God because he had not been clipped.

I have shown you from clear scholarship that there were two types of of Gentile Proselytes in the Judaism of the first Century. The first was the Proselytes of the Gate (who had not yet been circumcised) and the Proselytes of Righteousness who had finished all the requirements to become a Jew including circumcision.

Just like many churches have membership classes that people attend prior to becoming a member of a church, first century Judaism had a process for taking someone from being a new Gentile convert and bringing them into full fellowship. Fact, the word proselyte itself actually means ‘NEW CONVERT’.

Those Gentiles who were ‘Proselytes of the Gate’ were considered JEWISH CONVERTS even though circumcision was still required before they could be accepted into full fellowship.

At this point Iggy you are ignoring the clear Biblical texts that clearly identify what a God-Fearing Gentile was. Furthermore you are ignoring the clear texts that prove that Cornelius believed in, prayed to, and feared the One True God. That is hardly the description that you’d use of a pagan unbeliever.

108   Simon Johnson    http://www.biblegateway.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Iggy – I’m not a scholar but it’s really clear that you lost this debate. The bible says that Cornelius feared God and continually prayed to God. I don’t know any unbelievers that do that. Heck, I can’t even say that I continually pray to God and I’m a Christian.

Step away from the keyboard. This debate is over. Chris R won a long time ago. His position fits the biblical facts. Your position doesn’t.

109   M.G.    
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 pm

I know this is an old topic, but I’m a fan of the truth so maybe we can set this
straight.

Liar:

Freedictionary.com: One that tells lies.

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary: A person who tells lies.

American Heritage College Dictionary: One that tells lies.

Wordnet: a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly

I can’t believe this was debated. It strikes me as pretty obvious. How can people who claim to be committed to the truth be so good at twisting it?

110   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Chris R,

Are you seriously arguing that Cornelius prayed to God but he didn’t actually believe in God, worship God or trust in God or have faith in God because he hadn’t been circumcised yet?

Apparently you are not reading what I have written…

There are examples as I already stated where some “believe” but are not saved.

John 2: 23-25 is the most clear that this happened.

23. Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

So to say one “believed” does not equate with salvation. I never stated he did not believe in God, I stated he was not yet a believer in Christ Jesus and was saved until he heard the message from Peter… so you are saying he was a “Believer” as in “saved” before he heard the message? Prove that from the scripture! LOL!

I think you are assuming that he could not be well spoken of among the Jews and not be a proselytized Jew… and that is harder to prove as there is not one reference other than the subjective conjecture you are presenting as if it was biblical fact.

Cornelius was noted among the Jews as was also gentile

Maybe you need look at what a gentile was?

The point you are missing still is that Cornelius was not a full Jew as you keep pointing out! Look again at proselyte of the gate…

Note their requirement contrasted to the requirements I already stated.

A gate proselyte[4] was a “resident alien” who lived in the Land of Israel and followed some of the customs. They were not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They were bound only to conform to the so-called seven precepts of Noah, the Noahide Laws: do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God’s name, do not murder, do not commit immoral sexual acts, do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish courts of justice. Besides these laws, however, they were also required to abstain from work on the Sabbath, and to refrain from the use of leavened bread during the time of the Passover.

They were not “Jews” but Gentiles that observed Noahide Laws,

This is more like a Legal Alien with a working permit that follows the minimal laws of the land to be able to occupy the land.

He is not called one in scripture but IF I concede that he was as you say, then you still are missing he was not a full convert and was not keeping the full Law… and was still a Gentile who believed in “God” and not had yet come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Since he had not been saved by the Gospel of Salvation he was still an “unbeliever” as far as knowing Jesus. (unless you are arguing that one can be saved outside of knowing Jesus?)

In that the he was NOT a righteous Gentile in that he was not circumcised still proves my point…

iggy

111   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Simone,

I guess then if I lost then the bible is wrong when it states as I pointed out that some believed but were not saved.

Explain how this is not true as I pointed out in John 2:23-24

Jesus did not believe in their belief… yet it states the people believed… where they then saved?

iggy

112   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Sorry i meant Simon.

iggy

113   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Chris R,

I guess what is amazing me is that by making Cornelius not a
Gentile (though that is made very clear in scriputre) and a converted Jew, Peter never really should have been astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. Nor that it seems that the chapters seem to emphiszie that Peter and his group were “circumsized” and Cornelius” house was not.

It seems you want (for the sake to win htis argumetn against me) to show that Cornelius was a converting Jew and not a Gentile so that Peter’s words are now a lie when he stated “So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” ”

I guess then I am done as I see that God’s plan was to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles through Peter who was sent to the Gentile Cornelius who was saved “just as he did to us.”

Acts 15: 17Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

So now that you negated that God saved the Gentiles… what else do you deny?

iggy

114   Chris Rosebrough    http://www.extremetheology.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Iggy,

Debating with you is like debating with a wall.

At this point, we’re going to have to just agree to disagree. I’ve laid out my case and presented my witnesses. Let the cards fall where they may at this point. But I’m not the only one who is utterly unconvinced by your reasoning.

I’ll just be a good modernist and stick with my scholars and what I know the scripture says.

115   M.G.    
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm

“Debating with you is like debating with a wall.”

Wow. That’s really insulting. Why not just call Iggy an idiot and get it over with?

Why is basic decency and kindness so rare in these debates?

116   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Iggy – Chris R. staterd this in one of his comments:

“In other word he was a God-Fearing Gentile who practiced Judaism and was awaiting the Messiah. ”
(Cornelius)

So how is it that you accuse him of denying Cornelius was a Gentile? Your entire premise is faulty since it seems Chris believes Cornelius was a converted Gentile. Do you not owe him an apology if this is true? Please quote him saying Cornelius was a Jew, maybe I’m not seeing it.

117   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Rick,

Just as easy as he is stating I am saying things I am not.
I was very clear that Cornelius was “God Fearing” and yet I am told I am saying he did not believe in God… I never stated that at all… Chris R seems to think I did… but I stated that not all that believe are saved… so in that sense, Cornelius was not a “believer in Christ Jesus” and not saved.

Unless you also are stating that some can be saved outside of knowing Jesus?

iggy

118   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm

I think Chris is saying that Cornelius was a saved Gentile in the Old Testament sense and when he believed on Christ by revelation and Name he was baptized into the body of Christ. You believe he wasn’t saved until he believed the gospel. The Scriptures do not say explicitly but the entire dicussion centers around does God smile over the unbeliever being an unbeliever.

Cornelius aside, God takes no pleasure in the wicked. I am not sure whether Cornelius was saved in the Old Testament sense before Peter’s witness, but we do know that God took notice of his heart to seek the Lord. It is definitely possible to believe in God and even believe in Jesus (the devils believe) and still not be saved.

119   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm

I will point out that Chris is stating that Cornelius was a Gentile converting to Judaism, and i am stating that unless you read into “God-Fearing Gentile” to mean what he states, (which I am not stating is totally untrue, but still has connotations IF as Chris R is stating, that this means that he is a Jew…

Chris R is trying to state he is a Jew so was a believer, but is not getting that Cornelius was not a believer in Jesus… thus if he was in the audience when Rick Warren spoke, he would be an unbeliever. Being an unbeliever, God noticed Cornelius and was pleased enough to send Peter with the saving Gospel.

I see that what Chris R stated is not true as he states that God is not pleased with unbelievers, which I supposed his original meaning was that they were not all Christians.

Again, how Chris R knows that all in the audience were not Christians is beyond me, but that is the original assumption he stated and has yet to prove.

So was Cornelius then saved before he heard the Gospel and believed and received the Holy Spirit? Was he as much a believer before he received Jesus than when he was a converting Jew?

I am not sure why this is so hard for you guys to get, but it seems that winning your argument means more to you than what the bible teaches.

iggy

120   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm

“I am not sure why this is so hard for you guys to get, but it seems that winning your argument means more to you than what the bible teaches.”

Thank you for that objective observation.

121   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Rick,

I pointed out scriptures and showed more than one “phrase” that might mean what Chris R stated a commentary said it stated.

I see that even IF it was as he stated, that my point is still there and that if one cannot see that Cornelius was a Gentile and had yet come to know Jesus and thus be saved, then I am not sure what else to state. I see that though Cornelius was a believer in “God” he was not saved thus not a Christian, thus not a “Believer” in the sense Chris R is stating the audience was in his article.

Again… maybe this is more of a CPBS situation… at least it is becoming one to me…

I guess I am to concede that God never converted the Gentile to Jesus, but only a God fearing Proselytized Jew to God and never really began saving the Gentiles through Peter in Acts 10 and 11…

And it seems you agree with Chris R in this?

iggy

122   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm

RIck,

Cornelius aside, God takes no pleasure in the wicked. I am not sure whether Cornelius was saved in the Old Testament sense before Peter’s witness, but we do know that God took notice of his heart to seek the Lord. It is definitely possible to believe in God and even believe in Jesus (the devils believe) and still not be saved.

All are save through faith in Christ Jesus… I think you are missing that Cornelius was “wicked” as all men are, yet somehow God was still pleased in him. At least pleased enough to send the angel and then Peter.

I see that salvation came to the house as and when Peter proclaimed “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Was Peter astounded that this Jewish convert was saved as he was? Or was Peter astounded that God sent the Holy Spirit as proof and even gave the same sign as he gave the Jews in Acts 2 as to that they were now saved in Christ.

Since Jesus had already come, it is now that we accept HIM by faith… not just believe in the One to come… He came and was revealed.

This is strange as I am hearing the Universalist argument coming from you and Chris R…

?????

iggy

123   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Good one, Rick!

124   Simon Johnson    http://www.biblegateway.com/
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Iggy – you are making this too complicated and its like you didn’t even read anything that Chris R. said. Chris R. doesn’t sound like a universalist. he was just pointing out that Cornelious was a god fearing gentile and it seems pretty clear that means he was in the first stages of converting to jewishness. he believed in and prayed to the god of the old testament. you are making it sound like Corney wasnt saved because he wasnt circumcised. but wasn’t this whole debate over whether or not Corney was an unbeliever. Chris R was saying that Corney was a believer. I think that is pretty easy to see in the text. I also think that Chris R makes a good case for Corney being saved even before Peter told him about Jesus. If Corney’s salvation was based on circumcision and not faith then none of the jewish proselytes were saved until they went under the knife. isn’t that salvation by works and doesn’t the bible say that no one will be saved by keeping the law?

125   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:26 am

Simon,

Show me where I stated that Cornelius did not believe in God…

then read the text and show me where Cornelius believed in Jesus before Peter was sent by God to him… For it is in believing in Jesus that one is saved… Right? That is the Gospel I heard and accepted.

Then I will state that Cornelius was not a Gentile but a converting Jew and that God did not send Peter to the Gentiles as he stated God did.

Acts 15: 7-9 7.

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Everything I stated is what Peter stated… I guess if I am wrong so was Peter…

Cornelius had faith that is not the issue. But Rick and Chris R are assuming that Cornelius was already saved becuase he was a Jew. That is a logical leap… Cornelius was not a believer in Jesus thus was an unbeliever… Am I wrong that if one does not believe in Jesus that they are unbelievers?

Paul states that he wishes the Jews might be saved as he was… so even Paul states the Jews are not saved until they come to Christ by grace through faith.

Yet, here Chris R is arguing that God does not “smile” (lets call that a blessing) yet Cornelius, who did not know Jesus had his prayers heard by God and he was sent Peter to give the saving Message of Jesus Christ… then he was saved and became a believer.

Now, show me from scripture where I am wrong in any of this… and I will become a Jew so I can truly convert to being a real Christian as Chris and Rick seem to think happened.

iggy

126   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am

You guys I am so done with this discussion..
Chris and Rick go ahead and preach your Judaizer gosspel…. I will stick with what Paul taught.

Galatians 3

1. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3. Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

iggy

127   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 am

Iggy – Cornelius was clearly a Gentile who either was a convert to Judaism or a God fearing heathen. It is possible that he was a saved Jewish convert in the Old Testament sense and then believed on Jesus when Peter shared Christ.

Were all the 3000 Jews unsaved at Pentecost before Peter preached? Was Mary unsaved before the cross? The only reason God will bless an unsaved person’s life is when he responds to the Holy Spirit in seeking God and God brings to him the gospel.

People got saved in the Old Testament by faith in Jehovah, so even if Cornelius was already saved he was filled with the Holy Spirit and was baptized into Christ. All be faith, no works. You have constructed your own argumant and I cannot see why you disagree about Cornelius.

If you believe God smiles at an unbeliever being himself so be it, but you, Chris, and myself are all in agreement about Cornelius. BTW – I can go back to sleep this morning because I already went to worship God yesterday on the Sabbath in the synagogue!

128   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 am

Maybe I’m a little dense, but I’m not really sure how Cornelius became relevant to this discussion, though your summation, Rick, has helped me a bit.

You wrote:

If you believe God smiles at an unbeliever being himself so be it,

This isn’t exactly what I heard Warren say – even upon relistening a couple of times. What RW seemed to be talking about was choice of vocation, not lifestyle. The entire talk deals with vocation, leadership and influence, so to treat this snippet as somehow dealing with salvation is disingenuous (i.e. gives a false impression).

Listening to the entire talk, as well, he does not give the idea that you are saved by God because of your lifestyle or your vocation. What he does address a fallacy that exists both within and without the church – that God honors “spiritual” activities and vocations more than (or exclusive to) “common” activities and vocations.

129   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 am

I also notice that the statement JUST BEFORE the clip is “What are you doing with what you have been given?” – he makes it clear that the next section is dealing with vocation and influence (not a lifestyle of sin or holiness).

Earlier, he went through the Biblical granting of wealth & influence to Solomon and the importance of using these things to serve – the widow, the orphan, the poor and the stranger living among you.

It seems you’ve set up a false impression here, Chris, that RW was telling these people how to be saved and gave them the wrong answer. Rather, he was telling people with jobs of status, wealth and influence that those things, in and of themselves, are not wrong, but rather what is done with them is what is important. Nowhere did he suggest that this, alone, would save them.

130   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 am

I will agree with you Chris in this, Warren’s teaching here and in many other places is so nebulous, so non-specific, and so general that his words can be interpreted to mean whatever people want them to mean. His teaching about do what you’re wired to do seems to me to be well travelled ground but also not always true (Moses, etc.).

Context here would be helpful. What was the theme of this seminar and were the listeners Christian workers, secualr people, or a mix? I would love for someone to link to the entire talk.

131   M.G.    
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am

The Cornelius debate is going nowhere.

That said, I have a question. Underlying Chris R’s position, as far as I can tell, is a belief that the wrath of God that rests upon unbelievers is quantitatively the same for all unsaved persons. It’s like an on-off switch of some generic and infinite wrath God has for all the unsaved. That’s why God would never distinguish between the various things an unbeliever may do. Since the wrath of God is on, and nothing you may do or say could ever decrease or increase that wrath, the unsaved person has something of a static (non) relationship with God.

I have one question, one hypothetical, and one observation. First, how would you interpret, in light of this theology, Revelation 20:12? (Specifically, that all are judged according to their *deeds*) If God is the holy and righteous judge of *all people*, then how does he *not* have an intense interest in what we do on a daily basis?

I think the theology underlying Chris R’s positions robs God of the sweet majesty that goes with being the perfect Judge that God so rightfully is.

My hypothetical seeks to push the point a bit. Chris R., does God care when an unsaved man rapes, beats, tortures, and murders an unsaved woman? Does God have any empathy for the unsaved woman when it’s happening? What if she were to escape from the man’s clutches? Would God rejoice in that moment for the unsaved woman?

My observation is pretty simple. Warren was engaging in Christian moral theory, not preaching the gospel. As far as I can tell, Chris R. has no use for a Christian moral theory. (Would it be fair to say that your Christian moral theory would be “Preach, and live, Christ Crucified?)

Fair enough, but first give a cogent and reasoned explanation of why there is no place at all for any Christian leader to engage in broader moral reasoning before you attack him simply as one who is diluting the gospel.

I think a primary reason why we are losing the culture war, and failing to be salt and light in a dying world, is that we have no basic answer and no witness for the non-Christian in answering the question of “How now should I live?” So when a Christian leader takes the time to engage in those kinds of questions, I respect the approach.

Yes, we can and should preach the gospel at all times. But more than that, the Church is failing because we have no idea of what sanctification truly looks like beyond a “don’t sin” mentality. Sadly, I suspect many Christians are leading lives that lack moral depth. The kind of depth that comes from a commitment to wisdom and virtue that seems to be lacking in our society and the Church. (A basic observation: Why can’t a group of men who all claim to follow Christ engage in a civil and edifying debate? Instead, we tear into each other like unbelievers.)

Is Warren the answer in all of this? No. He’s changed the debate by awakening Christians to the reality of Darfur and AIDS. I applaud him for that. But I would agree that he spins the message at times, largely because he has such a broad audience. That makes him a flawed man, of course, and not the Anti-Christ.

132   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am

Chris L.
ABSOLUTELY!! I agree! To say that he mangled Psalm 72 was outta of place. I had NO problem seeing where he was going with that.

133   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 am

That makes him a flawed man, of course, and not the Anti-Christ.

If this were the position that ODMs took, and discussed specific flaws, rather than demonizing him as if he were Satan himself they’d be a lot more credible.

134   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 am

M.G. – The sweet majesty that you made reference to is exactly what I contend Warren does with the gospel and salvation. He is so pragmatic that it seems he reduces the sacredness and majesty of God’s plan and presents it through earthly staves. I also believe that morality (moral majority, Christian right, etc.) does detract from the gospel.

Many unbelievers view Christianity through morality and not redemption. I would love to have a link to Warren’s entire talk. Some of you internet experts could find it?

135   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Chris L,

The purpose of bringing in Cornelius was to show that God does “smile” (though I will admit not necasarily a literal one) and was p[leased with the NON christian (unbeliever) and sent an angel and Peter becuase God noticed Cornelius was doing what was right.

Chris R contends that Cornelius was not a “Gentile”… but a “convert to Judaism (God fearing Gentile)” thus was not an unbeliever…. even though he had yet to hear the Gospel of Christ to save him. (Which sounds very much like what Doug Pagitt states and Pasterboy condemn Doug for saying and sounds a lot like the Universalist Gospel.

It seems that what I learned from Chris R. A person is saved before they hear the Gospel and receive it if they are converting to be a Jew and are doing good works. In that, they really do not need Jesus, but since they are already believers, then God really just saved someone that was already saved. (Confused? I am!) LOL!

Rick seems to affirm this also.

Now, I am done with this but wanted to let you know what it was about. I see God was working in the heart of a non-Christ believer who saw his good works and sent an angel and Peter to him to save him. In that this opened the door to the gentiles. This all takes place in Acts 10,11 and explained in Acts 15.

iggy

136   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Iggy – you may be correct, Cornelius may have been an unsaved Gentile and God saw he was seeking and sent Peter. He also may have been a saved covert to Judaism thru FAITH in Jehovah and became a believer in Jesus by name thru Peter. You are adamant that he was unsaved so you can substantiate your “smile” theory.

Even if he was an unsaved Gentile, God didn’t smile upon him as he was, he sent the gospel to him. No one gets saved by works, ever. I am sure Chris R. ackowledges this as well. The point of the Cornelius narrative was to publicly show that Gentiles could be saved. There is nothing in the story that is even remotely related to anything Rick Warren had said either way.

137   M.G.    
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm

I think some people may need to agree to disagree.

I am still interested in knowing if God cares if an unsaved woman gets raped by an unsaved man.

Does the wrath of God mean that He takes no interest in the lives of unbelievers?

138   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Rick,

Here’s a link to the entire talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/71

139   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Having read through ALL of this thread (weighing in a little late obviously) I take exception to Mr. Warren’s assertion that God refers to unblievers as “my boy” (I think that was the term he used).

Rick, I think you have adequately summarized the situation in your post at 2:18 PM today.

Q: Is there any significance to Cornelius’ use of the word “Lord” in Acts 10:4?

I’ve always seen this particular passage in Acts as being more about bringing Peter around to the fact that salvation was for both Jews AND Gentiles rather than at what specific point and time Cornelius was saved. I have a friend that believes salvation comes precisely and only at the time of baptism, citing Acts 2:38 as his proof-text. Just asking–is it really that important to be able to nail it down?

I’m not sure Rick Warren is an intentional liar, but he certainly handles the truth a little carelessly. Never really cared for the guy after reading PDC.

140   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Rick,

My head just hurts…

iggy

141   nc    
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm

regardless of the technical sophistry over a dictionary term, some people need to wake up and admit that words are hardly used so technically. In a colloquial context–where most words get used–”liar” would heavily indicate some kind of impugning of a person’s intention, etc. (Intentions that the best of his critics have been careful to admit they are unaware of and have no access to.)

If what you mean is mistaken, and sorely mistaken, tragically mistaken, then say that.

People on both sides of this issue are not so dumb as to not know the inflammatory ammo the word “liar” is.

C’mon folks.

I’m no Rick Warren fan. I think PD is bogus.
If you locked me in a room with Chris R. and opened up this topic he and I would find a lot of common ground I think…

But knowing the average “audience” in these types of discussions leads me to not use the word “liar” when I know I’m trying to indicate someone is mistaken–to whatever degree.

Seriously.

I say again…

C’mon.

Here again is a great example of what “contextualization” really works out to be.

Just admitting the facts about how things actually are understood…regardless of the dictionary.

Whatever.
We might as well have a discussion about insisting the word “gay” return to it’s original 19th-early 20th c. meanings. Or how people shouldn’t react strangely because the technical definition of the word didn’t have certain culturalconnotations.

And more to the point of “contextualizing”…everytime my conservative friends–yes, friends–use the Creed in their church and they change the word “catholic” to “christian” they are contextualizing to their faith community…they understand the baggage of word for some people for goodness sakes.

oy.

I’m remembering why I haven’t been around here in awhile.

142   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2008 at 7:52 am

Now, I am done with this but wanted to let you know what it was about. I see God was working in the heart of a non-Christ believer who saw his good works and sent an angel and Peter to him to save him. In that this opened the door to the gentiles. This all takes place in Acts 10,11 and explained in Acts 15

.
Iggy,

Next you will say that a person in Timbuctu can believe according to what he knows of God and go to heaven without naming the name Jesus- The anonomys Jesus theory….

143   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
February 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am

Next you will say that a person in Timbuctu can believe according to what he knows of God and go to heaven without naming the name Jesus- The anonomys Jesus theory….

It doesn’t matter what you call Him, more the belief in the heart. “Jesus” isn’t His name anyway :P

144   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Dave,

Do you go to Shepherds Crook (www.emergent-c.blogspot.com) Mars Hill (www.marshill.com) or Solomon’s Porch? (www.dougpagitt.com)? Because this anonomys theory is preached in all three places. Not out of scripture, mind you. Romans 1:18-23 should explain this to you.

145   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am

PB,

Which Mars Hill are you referring to? The website you list is a consulting service, and both Mars Hills I’m familiar with (and have listened to weekly services from for the past 2-3 years) have never preached this…

146   Neil    
February 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

regardless of the technical sophistry over a dictionary term, some people need to wake up and admit that words are hardly used so technically. In a colloquial context–where most words get used–”liar” would heavily indicate some kind of impugning of a person’s intention, etc. (Intentions that the best of his critics have been careful to admit they are unaware of and have no access to.)

If what you mean is mistaken, and sorely mistaken, tragically mistaken, then say that.

People on both sides of this issue are not so dumb as to not know the inflammatory ammo the word “liar” is.

Exactly.

147   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Pastroboy,

Next you will say that a person in Timbuctu can believe according to what he knows of God and go to heaven without naming the name Jesus- The anonomys Jesus theory….

Actually, that would be Chris R. I have been stating that Cornelius was not yet saved, though God was working in and through him. Chris was stating that he was already a “believer” (He stated Cornelius was a God -fearing Jewish convert and so was not an unbeliever) and saved before Peter came to share the gospel with him… that is why i stated that it sounded like Chris R was telling me the Universal gospel…

So, get your story right before you state slanderous things about people.
Now, I am guessing that you believe God cannot work in the life and heart of a person in Timbuktu to ready them to accept Christ when they hear the Gospel? Is that what you are saying?

iggy

148   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Iggy – God can and does work in the lives of unbelievers, all toward redemption. I also believe unbelievers can seek God because of the imptint of the Lord in their souls and the unseen ministry of the Holy Spirit. If Cornelius was unsaved, that was actually the case.

Where I disagree is with the “smile” word which indicates pleasure. God takes no pleasure in the wicked (unbeliever).

149   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
February 4th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

John Chrisham you are sharing false information. Mars Hill (GR and Seattle) do not teach anything close to what you are espousing. I expect you to produce proof directly from their own sources to back up your claim.

150   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Rick,

Where I disagree is with the “smile” word which indicates pleasure. God takes no pleasure in the wicked (unbeliever).

Then explain this… Cornelius was a most a Gentile convert to Judaism, who was not yet saved by Jesus… do we agree?

I hope so becuase that was the story…

But if you are saying God is not “pleased” with wicked unbeliever, then I agree as Romans teaches over and over the only one that God IS pleased with is with Jesus.

Yet, we still have in the story of Cornelius this…

Acts 10: 4. Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

Now I AM NOT SAYING that Cornelius’ works saved him… I am stating that God saw his heart and saw his works as the works of faith that God was “pleased” about enough to send and Angel and then Peter to him so he could hear the Gospel that saved him.

We are all enemies of God, yet God in His kindness gave us a way to be saved through Jesus. God sees the heart of a person and in that sees their faith (which to me is humility) and in that sees their response to God in what He is doing in their lives.

What I hear over and over from ODM’s is that God does nothing in an unbelievers life becuase sin keeps God from hearing their prayers… (a little limiting of the Sovereign God if you ask me).

I also hear that God does not wok in the heart of a person until they are regenerate… I disagree with that as I see regeneration coming at the same time as conversion and continuing on in the persons life as they have their minds renewed and are conforming more and more to the image of Christ.

What I hear is one must be regenerated, before they are saved… (which is the cart before the horse) and that man cannot do nothing to respond to the Gospel unless God regenerates them.

I see that one must come to faith THEN be regenerated… and that core issue I ahve with Chris R.

He is saying that Cornelius was saved and not an unbeliever as he was a Jewish convert… yet if one just reads the story in Acts it does not play out that way and Luke is taking great pains to show that Cornelius was not circumsized and outside of a possible meaning of one phrase “God fearing gentile” we have no indication he was converting to Judaism. But we do see over and over he was a gentile and uncircumcised and not yet had come to a saving knowledge of Christ Jesus.

Again, I am really tired of trying to explain that God does see the what unbelievers do and can be pleased…

So again, explain what it means when scripture states:

“Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.”

iggy

151   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

I have made it clear that God sees and responds to a seeking heart. He is not pleased with the unbeliever as he stands. There are many transitional events in Acts that do not translate into today (healing under shadows, eyc.), but any teaching ny Acts narratives must be derived from the epistles, otherwise we can all interpret the gospel and Acts narratives according to our own perspectives.

152   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Rick,

I agree, but you still have not given an answer…

iggy

153   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Iggy: I admire (and have to chuckle a little at) your tenacity.

Rick: “Run away!!! Run away!!! (Name that flick)

Still looking for an answer to my question: Is there any significance to Cornelius’ use of the word “Lord” in Acts 10:4?

154   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Iggy – the answer is I’m right and you’re wrong.

Case closed.

Angels are not inerrant.

155   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Keith,

“Lord” was used as a title of respect. It can mean “God” as well as “sir”.

The issue to me is crucial to the understanding of the Epistles. If one does not grasp what happened in Acts with the Gospel going to the Gentiles and God saving them as He did the Jews, then much of what Paul teaches is going to be misunderstood… I think that this is one of the crucial areas that people miss concerning understanding things like “predestination” and “regeneration” let alone how God made one man out of two… among many things. Without the proper understanding that Jews saw Gentiles as “dogs” and less than human, (thus the accusations against Peter eating at a Gentile’s home) we do not understand how great a thing God did and Paul teaches.

As far as I understand Acts is still part of the Bible and is God’s word… am I wrong there? LOL!

Also, Keith, go and just read the passages I stated… and you will see that what I stated plays out.

iggy

156   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Rick,

So the angels lied to Cornelius? LOL! That is your answer?

WOW!

iggy

157   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Iggy – take your medicine. I never said the angel lied. Biblical interpretation goes from the teaching books and expands to narrative examples, not the reverse.

Are you related to Cornelius?

158   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Rick,

You stated:

Angels are not inerrant.

So, you are saying that the Angel was not speaking for God and telling Cornelius the truth?

Maybe Gabriel was wrong when he announced Jesus?

Or when he stated that Mary was with child?

Show me where an Angel sent from God has lied to anyone…

Do you really believe what you are stating?

iggy

159   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Rick,

Just to point out something ….

You seem to agree with me on the main point…

God does work on an unbeliever before salvation. In that you disagree with Chris R.

iggy

160   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Iggy, I was playing with you. I do not understand why you seem to have such a thorn about this issue. If you believe God is pleased with unbelievers so be it. God can also be displeased with believers sometimes, I being one.

I am not sure whether God allows an angel his own words while conveying God’s message similar to the writers of Scripture. Just some musings, don’t take it personally. Anyway the entire thing is just one big story! (humor).

161   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

So far here are the points made

Not by me.

1. God does not hear “wicked” people though no man is righteous. He does not work in a person before they are saved.
2. Cornelius was a “believer” and saved before he heard the gospel and responded.
3. Angels sent by God, lie to people about the reasons they were sent.

And I am the emergent heretic…. hmmmm.
iggy

162   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Iggy: “Lighten up, Francis.” I was just hackin’ on ya because you said (Sunday morning at 1:30 AM mind you)– “You guys I am so done with this discussion..” and yet here we are some 36+ hours later and you’re still on this. It’s OK. Some people don’t see it/don’t agree.

When you say things like –”but it seems that winning your argument means more to you than what the bible teaches” the subtitles read: “winning your argument means more to you than agreeing with what I say, because I say what the Bible says, so NAH!!!”

I haven’t won an argument here yet. Probably never will. I still come back and enjoy the banter. Let it go, brother. Let it go. You’re gonna be eating Rolaids like M&Ms before long if you’re not careful.

You be the emergent heretic and I’ll be the Calvinist heretic. See…it’s all better. (And Henry!…quit picking on Iggy!)

163   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 4th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Keith,

I was done until I read what Pastorboy (john) stated… as he was stating what (as far as what was also discussed in this thread) was a “lie” about my position.

But, really as far as I am concerned if some don’t want the bible to teach that God brought the Gospel to the gentiles through Peter to Cornelius, then whatever… that is their problem! LOL!
iggy

164   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
February 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Dave,

Do you go to Shepherds Crook (www.emergent-c.blogspot.com) Mars Hill (www.marshill.com) or Solomon’s Porch? (www.dougpagitt.com)? Because this anonomys theory is preached in all three places. Not out of scripture, mind you. Romans 1:18-23 should explain this to you.

No, I don’t go to church.

165   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am

Iggy: 8^)>

166   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am

Joe,

It is not a false claim, it is a true claim. Heck, Rob Bell even believes that you can call God Allah and still wind up in heaven. Remember, it is not about who you know, you must reject Jesus (or be rich and not care about the poor) (He said this in a Wittenburg Door Interview this summer) to go to hell, because Jesus’ death provided reconciliation/redemption for everyone, no matter what you believe ( he said this in VE).

Iggy,

Only by God working on non believers can they come to Him. When a person in Timbuctu responds to creation and conscience, and is drawn by God to Himself, there will be a missionary or some other sort of word sent so that this God-fearing man or woman can respond to God.

167   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
February 5th, 2008 at 9:47 am

John,
It is a false claim.

168   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
February 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am

John, I realize that calling you a liar is banned here in this forum but I can see no other way to deal with your outright slander of a godly man. Now, I was like you, I might put my caps on and start typing names like liar and snake, instead I will wish you well and trust that God will show you mercy that you might repent of this slander.

169   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am

John,
What I love about you and and others in your camp is your unique ability to twist everything to make it fit what you are trying to prove. I feel bad for you if you really believe what you said about Rob and Muslims! In fact, all it proves to me is you hear and what you want to. We have been talking about Muslims the last couple days at church. I went to both services and nothing like you claim was said! In fact listen to Sunday’s podcast when it comes out and than you will see how wrong you are. If after listening to it, you can walk away and say this women does not know the Lord Jesus Christ as her Savior, which has nothing to do with Alli, than you and I worship a completely different God and have different ideas on how one becomes a Christian. If after listening to it you still insist that Rob believes Alli is God than I will worry that you are the false teacher. You don’t have to admit to me after listening to it that you are wrong because it does not seem apart of your DNA . At some point I hope you give up on all the false accusations and evil that comes out of your lips in when talking about fellow believers and that love will fill your life!! Grace and Peace be with you as you seek God!

170   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am

Pastor Boy,
If you would like to read a brief summary of church Sunday than you can read my post!
http://www.joemartino.name/erica/2008/02/i-stand-amazed.html

171   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am

Erica,
While I admire your attempt I’m afraid you’re wasting your keystrokes. Notice how the ODMs never write about the podcasts/sermons of the people they criticize. If they did they’d have to admit that they’re not Jesus-hating heretics. Instead they have to take extremely select quotes produced in venues that are not explicitly focused on Christ. Notice the last interview by McLaren I posted. We know the ODMs keep tabs on this site, one of them even commented in that thread, and yet, not a single article was produced about that interview. The reality is that most ODMs aren’t interested in what their targets actually believe and teach, they’re more interested in smearing people who aren’t on their team, and if that means taking a single line out of an interview given in a secular venue on a topic selected by that secular venue then that’s what they’ll do.

172   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

In fact listen to Sunday’s podcast when it comes out and than you will see how wrong you are. If after listening to it, you can walk away and say this women does not know the Lord Jesus Christ as her Savior, which has nothing to do with Alli, than you and I worship a completely different God and have different ideas on how one becomes a Christian.

Praise the Lord for this testimony

But what does this have to do with Rob Bell’s universalism?

173   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

But what does this have to do with Rob Bell’s universalism?

Pastorboy,
When did you stop beating your wife?

174   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

What are you talking about? Rob Bell is not a universalist! Do you sit around and think this stuff up? Show me where Rob has said that. I want a direct quote from Rob not something you have taken bits of pieces and drawn your own conclusions!

175   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Joe,

So this is reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” All things, everywhere.
This reality then isn’t something we make come true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making. (VE, 146)

I know, we have gone to this quote multiple times, but it does show that Rob Bell absolutely, positively, believes that all people are reconciled to God. They are not. I believe that Muslims are people too. So are they, or are they not, part of this reconciliation? If they choose to cling to this reality of their own making, what happens then? are they no longer reconciled? or do they go to hell?… wait a second… what is hell and who is it for?

“DOOR: Sometimes the issue of the poor gets lost in all the left vs. the right crap in this country. How do you cut through that? Serving the poor is not a new message.

BELL: The issue is not saving the poor—it’s saving us. When Jesus uses the word hell, He does not use the word with people who are not believers or not believing the right things. It is a warning to religious people that they are in danger of hell because of their indifference to the suffering of the world. So the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not what heaven and hell are like. It’s a parable to rich people warning them that their apathy has them in danger. Heaven and hell are present realities that extend into the future.” (Interview, Wittenburg Door, 10/07)

I’m sorry, Joe and Erica, but your pastor says things that are put into print that belie his true opinions about his faith. Your view of him is great, but what he writes and what he says (despite what Tim says, I do listen to his podcasts, I did read the Brian McLaren Interview) can be quoted to expose him for what he believes. I am sure that he is a wonderful man and a great Pastor. He seems like kind of a cool person to have a Starbucks with. But he is dead wrong on many issues.

176   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Pastorboy,
When did you stop beating your wife?

What does that have to do with anything?

177   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Well, I figured if you think its all cool to build the assumption that Rob Bell is a universalists into your writings, then you wouldn’t have a problem if I assumed in my writings that you beat your wife.

178   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Plus Pastor Boy, I am trying to talk in terms you all understand. In your all’s world it is guilt by association. When Pagitt came to speak at Mars, you claim he is a universalist.(Which he is not) So that meant Rob was a universalist(Which he is not) because he spoke at our church. Now we have a women that shared her testimony at our church that believes in Jesus work on the cross his resurrection and she said ” I prayed and asked Jesus in my heart!” If I use your all’s logic that means Rob believes the same way she does because he invited her to speak at our church. I am just using your logic. So that is why you should care about her testimony. I am trying to help you be consistent.

179   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

The difference is, Tim, That I have never advocated or said or even intimated that I believed in it or did it. Rob Bell’s writings and noomas indicate that he believes in universalism.

180   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Erica, that is unfair.

I think I will go cry in a corner while you alls look at the quotes I quoted above.

181   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

The difference is, Tim, That I have never advocated or said or even intimated that I believed in it or did it. Rob Bell’s writings and noomas indicate that he believes in universalism.

There is as much evidence that Rob Bell is a universalist as you beat your wife.

182   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I expect a 72 word statement, like the one from Velvet Elvis above, that I wrote, that shows that I beat my wife, or approve of it. Otherwise, Tim, you are guilty of slander.

183   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Where am I being unfair?

184   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

When Pagitt came to speak at Mars, you claim he is a universalist.(Which he is not) So that meant Rob was a universalist(Which he is not) because he spoke at our church. Now we have a women that shared her testimony at our church that believes in Jesus work on the cross his resurrection and she said ” I prayed and asked Jesus in my heart!” If I use your all’s logic that means Rob believes the same way she does because he invited her to speak at our church.

I never said any of these things. I believe Rob Bell is a universalist based on his writings, interviews, Noomas, and podcasts. I believe Doug Pagitt is a universalist (even more so) because of the same things. I believe this woman is a Christian based on what you testified about what she said. I don’t draw those kind of guilt by association conclusions. You are making me guilty by association by saying that.

185   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Pastor Boy,

Speaking of slander, or incorrect assumptions,…………….I am still waiting for the “Bruce Gerencser denies the gospel” post? Will it be forthcoming?

Bruce

186   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

anytime now, Bruce. You are giving me lots of ammo by stating that opening the door for people=evangelism.

187   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

You defend Ken when he draws such conclusions!
Seriously, Doug is not a universalist and neither is Rob. Doug has flat out said he is not a universalist. Ask yourself this question: Why would Rob want someone to come for two days straight and share her testimony which he already knew ahead of time if he was a universalist? Why when she talked about asking Jesus in her heart! Did everyone start cheering and clapping if we Rob believes in universalism? It would not be a big deal to share any of this. Obviously he finds it important what she is sharing to invite her back on a Monday night when we don’t have church. This is the second person in six weeks that has shared their testimony at church. Why? Why would he invite these people if he believes in universalism?

188   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I expect a 72 word statement, like the one from Velvet Elvis above, that I wrote, that shows that I beat my wife, or approve of it. Otherwise, Tim, you are guilty of slander.

See that big block of nothing between the blockquote and this sentence. That is the evidence of yoru wife beating. It is also equal to the amount of evidence in Velvet Elvis that Rob Bell is a universalist.

Listen to yourself. 72 words out of an entire book (and then you have to twist and deliberately misinterpret those few words). Do you even listen to Bell’s sermons? I have, off and on for over a year. Of course if you did that you have to drop the whole “Rob Bell eats babies” routine. Why, you might have to do something other than play the ridiculous team games the ODMs have made their MO.

189   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Still waiting….slanderer

190   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Still waiting….slanderer

Quit projecting.

191   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Pastor Boy,

I have given you NO ammo. Remember the issue is the gospel not methodology, Calvinism, order of salvation, etc. You accused me of denying the gospel.

The trouble you are having is that I don’t deny the gospel. So unless you write for SOL, where truth doesn’t matter, how ya gonna pull this one off?

I have been accused of many things, and guilty of many of the charges……….but denying the gospel is not one of them.

Jesus Saves.

Bruce

192   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Erica,

Universalist is a pejorative term that is meant to elicit response.

193   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Sorry,

I leaned on the submit button :)

Universalist is like most labels……….meaningless. I have been told arminianism=univeralism

If Rob Bell was truly a universalist why would he bother pastoring a Church? Why bother trying to reach people? A better profession would be social work or porn star

Bruce

194   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved. Some say that it is through the atonement of Jesus that all will ultimately be reconciled to God. Others just say that all will go to heaven sooner or later, whether or not they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal redemption will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died and lived again in the millennium (as some “Christian universalists” claim) or some future state.

So, compare the highlight to Rob Bell’s 72 word quote…And yes Tim, WORDS MEAN THINGS.

So this is reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” All things, everywhere.
This reality then isn’t something we make come true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making. (VE, 146)

So, what is your definition of universalism that states that Rob is not a universalist?

195   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

PB,
It seems Rob Bell is just restating something that a lot of Christians believe, just in other words. God has already reconciled everyone to Himself through Christ’s death. We can choose to accept this or deny it. That’s not universalism, it’s more like the Classic Arminian position, if anything.

Go read C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce, and I think you’ll get an idea of how a lot of people involved in the EC (which Bell isn’t really) are borrowing their ideas from.

196   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Pastorboy,

God is Reconciling all things to himself. Either you accept the truth of that or you don’t. Either you accept the reality of what God is doing , and live accordingly, or you accept a false reality of your own making.

Geepers, Creepers. Where is universalism in that?

You must be hung up on “It is already true” I suspect Bell means something different from what you are reading into it

From God’s perspective……..Reconciliation is complete.From our perspective it is ongoing. Two different dimensions.

Bruce

197   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Pastorboy,
Have a quote from Rob Bell from Velvet Elvis:

And this reality extends beyond this life. Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust.

According to what you just wrote if someone believes that anyone won’t be saved then they’re not a univeralist. In the very work you cite to prove Rob Bell is a universalist he specifically states that there are people in hell.

Did you even read the works you cite? Because it seems to me that you’re cherry picking from the “research” of ODMs, rather than reading what Bell wrote, or listening to what he said.

Repent of your slander.

And yes Tim, WORDS MEAN THINGS.

How cute, not just a slanderer, but condescending.

Take to heart your own words pastorboy, and quit twisting the meaning of Rob Bell’s words too.

198   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Well, Tim, by your own standard we cant take 65 words out of the book and hang the whole book on it…clearly Rob does not believe this…according to your own standard.

If the people in hell were forgiven, and Jesus died for them, why are they in hell? I guess it all depends on what hell means, hell on earth, or….

God does not love people in Hell. His wrath abides on them. It is too late for them. They are neither forgiven, nor is their sin atoned for. That is why they are in that place.

slanderer.

199   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
February 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Pastorboy,

I guess it all depends on what hell means, hell on earth, or….

Words mean things pastorboy.

I think you just showed us how much integrity you have when it comes to evaluating anyone not on your team.

200   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

PB,
So once again, PB, it comes down to whether or not one believes in limited or universal atonement. Last time I checked, one can be an Arminian without being a universalist.

BTW, I though you preached at a CMA church. I always thought they were pretty Arminian…

201   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
February 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Honestly, I agree with Phil and Bruce. I just don’t care to get in a Calvinism verses Arminian debate. I grew up believing this was such a huge deal. I prided myself on saying I was a five pt. Calvinist. My father still is an often asks me my stance. I don’t think it matters. Some how God died for the sins of the whole world but you often see his chosen people in scripture. I don’t know how this works. I do believe God loves and died for the sins of the whole world. His desire is to reconcile all things unto Himself.
Col 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
I don’t have all the answers. In fact I don’t think anyone does. Rob, myself and even you Pastor Boy believe in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross, His resurrection and sinless life! This is how we all know we have life! I took at class at Mars in the fall. I specifically asked if they believed in Hell. They believe if you spend your life on earth denying Jesus Christ than you will spend eternity separated from Christ. I believe the same way. From my understanding universalist do not believe this. So again I ask why do you keep saying Rob is a universalist? The quote you used seemed to be more of debate of Calvinism vs. Armin ism.

202   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I think Pastorboy is A Calvinist, yes? I know there is a Calvinistic strain in the CMA. Several of the CMA pastors I knew in SE Ohio were Calvinistic.

I have tried to make the point that pastorboy often confuses the gospel with Calvinism.

The Church was 1500 plus years old before we got the labels Calvinist and Arminian. MY oh my what did they do before then?

203   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Rob Bell’s writings and noomas indicate that he believes in universalism.

Only to the uncharitable reader, looking to be offended…

204   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

“When did you stop beating your wife?” – perhaps you’re unfamiliar with this particular meme, but it is the classic reference to the fallacy of “Loaded Questions“, in which the question contains a fallacious premise (i.e. Rob Bell is a universalist, Pastorboy beats his wife, or equally untrue concepts), which requires acceptance of the premise to answer it.

Tim’s point, PB, was not to slander you, but to point out the basic fallacy in your question and your uncharitable character.

205   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Chris,

Quite correct.

To someone of the Church of Christ a Baptist might ask:

So you believe in baptismal regeneration.

I used this loaded question for years until I finally understood what the Church of Christ (and any Church that baptizes differently from the Baptists) believes.

206   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
February 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

PB,
I find your deceptions to be a disgrace to the office of pastor.

207   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

PB,

Iggy,

Only by God working on non believers can they come to Him. When a person in Timbuctu responds to creation and conscience, and is drawn by God to Himself, there will be a missionary or some other sort of word sent so that this God-fearing man or woman can respond to God.

Again, this is not my issue, you need to explain this to Chris R who thinks you are wrong… as well as myself. Since you and I hold the same view.

iggy

208   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

From what I gather from PB is that he is more into causing divisiveness than truth.

I would just stay away from him as even when someone agrees with him they are somehow wrong.

iggy

209   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Bruce stated: “If Rob Bell was truly a universalist why would he bother pastoring a Church? Why bother trying to reach people? A better profession would be social work or porn star”

Just to jump in the fray here–not taking a side–here’s an example of a Universalist Pastor. He doesn’t hide it, in fact he’s quite open about it. “All dogs go to heaven.” I’m not defending him, but I’m pretty sure he’s not a porn star.

210   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Iggy quoted pastorboy as saying:

Only by God working on non believers can they come to Him. When a person in Timbuctu responds to creation and conscience, and is drawn by God to Himself, there will be a missionary or some other sort of word sent so that this God-fearing man or woman can respond to God.

IS there any Scriptural support for this argument?

God reveals himself to all men through conscience and creation. Romans 1 is clear.

It is the last part of this statement that I believe lacks scriptural warrant. It is a two step to get around the “what about those who have never heard?”

Calvinists can get around the issue by consigning whole nations of people to ranks of the non-elect.

I tend to to think God judges all men according to the light they are given. If not, it seems God sends people to hell because they were born into the wrong part of the world, are the wrong color, or were born at a time when the Church is is sending out fewer missionaries to unreached places.

While some may tar me with some liberal label………….here is what I do know. If I am correct about being judged according to what light we have been given…………..what does that say about the judgment that awaits we as Christians in the US? We have full light, it shines like the sun………..and what do we do?

Bruce

211   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Keith,

Pornstar was my bad attempt at humor.

My point is………..if everyone is in unless they do really bad things like Hitler ,then we might as well “get down and party”., as long as we show up at Church every once in awhile. Oh wait, that’s what we do now :)

Part of the problem is that Pastorboy and Rob Bell have two different concepts of what it means to become and be a Christian. I side with Bell because I think he presents a holistic understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

This does not mean I think Pastorboy is preaching a false gospel. It does mean I think his view is flawed. Many of us were converted with flawed means. Isn’t that what grace is all about?

I have an exercise I often employ in discussions like this? How well does this argument play out in a First century context? A powerful, simple, complete gospel was proclaimed by the early Church. Somehow we (myself included ) have lost our way.

Peace and prosperity has caused us to lose our way. Let unrest and poverty come our way………..and the arguments and debates tend to dissipate.

Bruce

212   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Bruce,

If you read this thread, you will see what my view is. Acts 10,11 and 15…

I will not get back into it though… email me privately if you want to talk more about it.

iggy

213   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Bruce, if you cannot explain your view of Christ to a child, it is too complicated.

214   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Pastorboy,

Then you should love PDC’s. LOL!

iggy

215   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

On that, Pastorboy we would agree

See, that wasn’t hard :)

Bruce

216   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Bruce: I was just pointing out a pastor that actually teaches everyone goes to heaven (universalism). He seems to think there’s still a necessity for him to preach. That’s all I was saying. I don’t read or listen to Rob Bell.

217   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.gerencser.net
February 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Keith,

Got it :)

Bruce

218   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
February 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Does this article really need 200+ comments?

219   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
February 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Jesus is pleased with our 200-comment-eventual-resolution. And will be very displeased when someone reopens the wound with a drive-by.

=)

Joe