Finally, someone has the courage to point out what we have all been wondering.
I listened to all 6 minutes of this because I was genuinely curious as to how Rob Bell would incriminate himself. After listening, I was at a complete loss. I suppose that the words that come out of our mouths are utter meaninglessness any more. Words cannot be taken at face value. Clearly Rob Bell doesn’t believe a word he is saying. So I went on to read through this post a little (OK, I read the whole thing) and then the answer became clear when I read this:
One more thing I would like to consider is his association with NT Wright. Now I haven’t read any of Wright’s books, but I have read a lot of his interviews and his scathing denunciation of the penal substitutionary atonement. In an interview with Beliefnet, Bell said in no certain terms that Wright is a hero of his (source). Now (and I will raise the ire of some with this next comment), Wright is a heretic on several levels. He is a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul which I consider to be a distortion of Paul’s teaching on justfication as so ably proved by John Piper in his epic work The Future of Justification. Wright also denies a penal substitutionary atonement which believers down through the ages have taught as part of the Gospel, yet this man is a hero of Bell – who supposedly calls people to faith in Christ? I will leave that to your late night contemplation (believe me I have been there)
What struck me first was the sentence, “Now I haven’t read any of Wright’s books, but I have read a lot of his interviews.” So, the author of this post learns all he needs to learn about NT Wright from reading, not his published works, but interviews. Am I the only one who finds this strange? (I have read five of Wright’s books this year, including a book of sermons he preached earlier in the year at Easter. Those Easter sermons certainly did talk a lot about the cross and crucifixion and his book Surprised by Hope talks a lot about resurrection and his book Simply Christian talks a lot about orthodox Christianity and Evil and the Justice of God sure talks a lot about the cross of Christ.) And the lunatic Wright has the nerve to affirm the historical creeds of the church! The nerve.
Well, at least we have this issue cleared up! I am glad to know that finally, someone has cleared up the issue of why Rob Bell is a heretic. I know that I for one have been trying to discover it. What makes me even more sad is that now it has been revealed that I, too, am a heretic because I do read NT Wright’s books and even though there are times when I disagree with him, just as there are times when I disagree with David Wells, and DA Carson, and John Piper, and Marva Dawn (a lot!), and Tim Keller, and Mark Driscoll (a lot!), and Eugene Peterson (hardly ever), I still consider him (and these others) my brother in Christ. (There are also times when I am in disagreement with the authors who write essays for JETS and BibSac and Modern Reformation. I have yet to consider Michael Horton a heretic because his ideas of Sovereignty are sadly out of step with Scripture.) I guess this is God’s fault for giving us a book full of narratives and letters and poems instead of a bullet point list of how to do things. Shame on God for causing us such confusion by asking us to actually interpret Scripture. (God forgive me if I have overstepped my place to make this point.)
It must be nice to be afforded the spiritual gift of discerning what a person believes without ever having read any of their work. Paul tells us to ‘desire greater gifts’ so I am currently desiring the greater gift of being able to lay my hand on my computer monitor and discern which ADM is likely to have complete breakdown first. What frightens me the most is that the ADM’s of the world expect us to take their words at face value, but we must interpret the words of Rob Bell and NT Wright (and in Wright’s case, without ever having read a word he has written). I find this highly suspect.
Oh, the reason Bell is a heretic? GBA: NT Wright. This makes many of us guilty now doesn’t it?
PS–I also found it rather amusing that part of the this particular author’s evidence against Bell is that evidently Bell sounds like Benny Hinn. Hmm.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
234 Comments(+Add)
So if I question Rob Bell I’m a Pharisee?
Hmmm….Hypocrisy..
Do you suppose, Rob, The Spirit of God could be working in me, and in the church, and we could be right in some of our comments and so you just spoke out against the Spirit of God? You called that blasphemy…
Oh and Joe is a hero for stepping into the fray. I get it.
Irony.
Well it is a peculiar honour to be featured on your site. Bell’s association with Wright isn’t what makes him a heretic – it is the words coming out of the dude’s mouth. Just a thought for you to chew over…
Douglas – perhaps you should be specific – most of the criticisms of Bell have been debunked as half-truths and purposeful misrepresentations (as documented throughout this site…)
John,
Besides believing that you are a headline hunting, dishonest and less than honorable person who is willing to lie, cheat and steal to “make a case” where have I “entered the fray”?
You believe what you want to believe about Rob, I know the truth of what is going on here.
One other thing John, I’m not here to defend Rob. I’ve stayed out of all discussions about him for the most part. I have talked about some that went after our church but for the most part I’ve just ignored those as well.
As for this gentleman’s writing, well it provided a good laugh.
There’s something to chew on.
Has anyone read Jesus wants to save Christians? I heard Rob talks about PSA in that book, but I haven’t read it yet.
“Besides believing that you are a headline hunting, dishonest and less than honorable person who is willing to lie, cheat and steal”
But besides those things, I’m having a cookout this Saturday, can you come? My kids enjoy your Bible stories.
So this is Christmas
And what have you done . . . ?
I’ve read it, and Chapter 6, entitled Blood on the Doorposts of the Universe is all about atonement. He does indeed describe a version of substitutionary atonement. There too much to quote the whole thing, but here’s a rather long excerpt (pp. 146-7):
Sounds pretty historically orthodox to me…
Rosa: One of my favorite songs
Rick: That was funny
Phil: Thanks
Oh and John if you are going to Rick’s cookout, could you bring Rob’s latest book? Rick can mail it to me.
Thanks.
I will admit that in today’s evangelical world there are enough new Biblical interpretations, uncertainty about former certainties, nebulous sounding language, unfamiliar theological perspectives, and a myriad of “new gate” teachings that have many “old cows” like me shaking their heads sometimes.
But instead of a reasoned discourse there is invective laced verbiage. Instead of humility there is “God’s mouthpiece” hubris. Instead of doctrinal discussion there are personal attacks as well. Instead of showing some gracious respect these men are relentlessly caricatured and verbally inviscerated. Rob Bell’s “people” are blind lemmings while MacArthur’s followers are “discering Bible students”.
And so an old horse like myself shakes his head at these things as well. The result?
I get very dizzy from all my head shaking…
What I do not understand his how (or why) someone can (or wants to) take plain simple English and twist it into something nefarious.
The blogger linked above claims Bell is unclear that Jesus is the only way to God, then he posts a quote where Bell says – Jesus is the only way. Then he says “See…”
What the heck?
In the that very quote offered Bell affirms Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive way to God. Bell affirms that Jesus is the ultimate reality. Bell affirms that Christ should be followed not because of pragmatics but because he is truth.
Bell quotes Jesus.
Bell affirms that he believes what Jesus said.
Blogger uses affirmation to prove Bell denies Jesus.
*sighs*
Bell says one thing…and then does another. Sure he can say that Jesus is the only way – but then he goes and sits on the stage with the Dalai Lama and doesn’t even affirm his own statement of faith. The post was called “SPEAKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH” for a reason, y’know…
When you ignore what a BROTHER in Christ actual affirms based on an incident where he did not say what YOU think he should have said…
*sigh*
is right…
pastorboy, according to the emergent church
if you criticize Rob Bell or Tony Jones
you get branded a pharisee or heretic
that is why emergents have never criticized Tony Jones or Rob Bell for their statements
cause they dont care
cause emergents want their ears itched
2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
So if I question Rob Bell I’m a Pharisee? – PB
He never said you could not question him. He never said YOUR church had not the Spirit. He said it is dangerous to write off a whole church…
You have taken his words, and twisted them into something he did not say. Like so many of the ADM rants, you have poured additioanl meaning into his words, you have twisted them.
Your opening question makes no sense whatsoever if you just take what Bell said at face value… you opening question only makes sense if you pour your own hyperbole into to it.
How exactly do you “itch” something?
Anyways, I always find it funny when people use this Scripture against pastors or writers who are offending them in some way. If you’re offended, they’re not exactly scratching “your itching ears” are they now.
Maybe the critics are the ones who should be worried, always wanting pastors and authors to say things that keep them warm, fuzzy, and comfortable…
J,
And I contend it is you who love to have your ears tickled by reading false acusations and untrue statements about Bell – e.g. Pastorboy’s first comment.
I remember the Bible saying something about the notion of hanging around with those who are unrighteous (as in Rob Bell hanging around the Lama). It goes something like this:
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy or the swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you much not associate with any who claim to be fellow believers but are sexually immoral or greedy, idolaters or slanderers, drunkards, swindlers. With such people do not even eat.” (1 Cor 5:9-11)
I’d rather eat with the Dalai Lama, and I think I should, rather than eat with people who make accusations about people without even reading their books.
Douglas, it’s entirely too bad that in your quest for the historical orthodox Christian faith you have decided to align yourself with people who do little more than run down the body of Christ with their hate. Too bad for you.
jerry
About this idea of substitutionary atonement. I agree.
Then I go back to the historical, orthodox faith we affirm to the book of Genesis, chapter 3, verse 15. There we read something that historically orthodox theologians call the proto evangelion.
Here’s what I read RC Sproul, a noted Reformed theologian, had to say on this issue:
Strange that very little is said in this ‘pre-gospel’ about atonement for sin and a lot is said there about the crushing of evil, the destruction of our enemy, and the ultimate triumph of God.
The point is, dear Douglas, that no one is denying that substitionary atonement is one aspect of the death of Christ. I’m not. It’s there. It’s called propitiation. But, what I think is clear, at least since Genesis 3 where God himself made the prophecy, is that substitution is not the only aspect of it. It is a comprehensive picture of the work that Christ did.
Those you complain about, Bell and Wright for example, still preach Christ crucified. And isn’t that what the apostle did too?
jerry
Have you seen on Apprising where Ken compares his style to Irenaeus? Unbelievable.
This is really just a stunning, and revealing conversation.
ADM: Rob Bell is a heretic. Right here he said he likes tomato soup better than chicken soup.
Non-ADM: Uh…. what? That has nothing to do with anything, and right after he mentioned he ordered tomato soup instead of chicken soup he said that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
ADM: You just want your itching ears scratched. I refuse to listen to such double talk, I’m going to go listen to people I already agree with who also thinks that Rob Bell is a heretic.
I had a brief exchange with Douglas on his site. Unfortunately Ken decided to interject. Anyway, it sounds like he’s got the expected zeal of a 17 year old… and that’s kinda cool. Eventually he’ll either mellow like most do and realize he does not have all the answers, or he’ll harden like some have and think he does.
Time will tell and we’ll probably never know.
This paragraph I wrote sounds funny so I want to rewrite it. The original says:
I think it should read:
No one is denying that substitutionary atonement is one aspect of the death of Christ. I have not seen, at least in the 5 Wright books I read, where Tom Wright denies it. However, it is a part, at least since Genesis 3 where God himself made the prophecy of Victory over the enemy (’crush his head’), of a greater, more comprehensive work that Christ did. Christ didn’t die to merely atone because mere atonement is not enough. He died so that complete victory over that which enslaves us would be possible: the sin, the law, the punishment, the enemy.
I think it is dangerous, at least, to exclude any one aspect in favor of any other. We must look at the big picture and see all that He has done for us. Looking at Genesis 3:14-15, which is where many of your Reformed theological friends begin, we see that Christus Victor is not excluded and may, perhaps, even take precedence.
I hope that is a little clearer.
jerry
PS-I’m sorry for the ‘dear Douglas’ thing. I should be more careful and I didn’t mean to condescend. My sincere apologies.
bo, I would like to know:
what would Rob Bell have to say to prove he is a false teacher
I mean, since Rob’s defenders dont seem to use DISCERNMENT
I would like to know
what would Rob Bell have to say to prove he is a false teacher
cause I bet you Bell has already said it
and you dont could care less if Rob Bell is leading people astray
————————————————-
I mean we all know that Tony Campolo and Tony Jones and Richard Cizik
have all said in interviews that
John 14:6 and 1 Cor 6:9 are hateful bible verses
and christians must stop believing what is said in those 2 bible verses
Jerry:
Brian McLaren says we are supposed to deny the atonement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk
so neil you are saying that
by using DISCERNMENT
and I dont drink the Rob Bell kool-aid
I am reading alledgly
false acusations and untrue statements about Bell
BTW to the Rob Bell koolaid drinkers who hate people who use DISCERNMENT
I would love to ask you all what you think of what is said at
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=8255
and also
http://apprising.org/2008/11/todd-friel-a-matter-of-time-before-rob-bell-says-publicly-practicing-homosexuality-is-ok-for-christians/
Hey J,
It’s obvious you have some sort of vendetta against Bell, and your “points” and silly Youtube videos have been refuted again and again. So if you’re just going to keep on linking to same types of smears and lies, you might as well not post here. You can say what you like on your own blog, but personally, I think your posts are just a small step above the spam that goes to my junk email folder.
J,
I don’t remember mentioning Brian McClaren. I’m not personally a follower of McClaren so it matters little to me what he says or writes. I don’t read his books so I have no comment on them. For that matter, I’m not a follower of Rob Bell either and I haven’t read his books. This post is not about defending Bell, but about pointing out the utter absurdity of GBA and the further absurdity of criticizing someone whose books one has never read.
(Mind you, it is just as absurd to hold someone up whose books one has never read either which is why I’m deferring to others to defend Bell’s theological positions. But Douglas made the point that Bell incurs guilt because Tom Wright is his ‘hero’. My point is that if Bell affirms the teaching Wright he is hardly a heretic. I have read several of Wright’s books and other published works and find him credible, historical, and orthodox in his faith. If that is what Bell affirms, then more power to Bell.)
I don’t know that Rob Bell is leading people astray. He claims to follow Jesus and, so far, I haven’t read anywhere that Rob Bell says people shouldn’t follow Jesus. What I heard him say in that 6 minute clip above sounded very Historical, very orthodox, and very Christian. The only way to make them not sound that way is to redefine the terms which is what Douglas did in his post or he at least he interpreted Bell as meaning something other than what he said. (And Douglas did not do a good job of it either.) Besides, as I pointed out in another post I made this week, it is not our job to determine Bell’s orthodoxy. That role belongs to his local Church leaders (elders).
This post has nothing to do with Campolo, Jones, or Cizek. It has to do with Tom Wright, who, again, affirms the Creeds and Rob Bell. Did you somehow miss that?
jerry
Uh Oh. J’s pulling out “research” from Apprising and C?N. “Irenaeus” like logic on those sites. Uh-oh.
Tell you what J, you show me Ken Silva’s cred’s. I want to know where he went to college. What his course of study was, and if he’s been to Seminary. And if he’s graduated.
And post with your whole name.
Then, I’ll tell you what Rob would have to say for me to leave Mars.
With discernment like this, its no wonder I hear scare quotes around the word everytime you write it.
How anyone takes you seriously I don’t know. Go back to updating your rapture index which is neither historic nor orthodox.
joe, why?
no amount of evidence would convince you cause you make up a excuse for Rob Bell.
you,see if you stopped drinking rob bell’s kool-aid and start doing research into what he is actually preaching, you would realize Bell is a false teacher
bo, what is the rapture index?
I never heard of it.
BTW Bo:
if you are saying the rapture is neither historic nor orthodox.
then I guess Bo Diaz is saying that
Titus 2:13
Revelation 3:10
1 Thess. 4:16-17
1 Cor. 15:51-55
werent part of the bible til about the late 1700’s
Joe, show me your creds to be able to criticize Ingrid or Ken
or anyone who uses discernment.
and show me where the Apostle Paul or the early church leaders got their seminary degrees.
having a seminary degree makes you as much a theologian
as going into a pet store makes you a animal rights activist.
BTW to Bo and Joe and the others
I actually pray for people. Both SAVED and UNSAVED folks.
I dont see many emergents on online prayer boards praying for people
can someone explain why Rob Bell’s followers arent praying for lost souls
or why isnt any of Bell’s followers ever saying:
okay, I may disagree with Ingrid or J or Steve, but I will pray for their friend
http://www.urgentprayers.com
I am amazed at the vitriol towards a 17 year old who wrote the initial blog.
Have you read his posts? Incredible Biblical insight. You can take those theological degrees of Bells and see his flowery and misleading talk. Though Phil is right, that portion of the book is right on-Bell speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He may be accurate there, but there are volumes in his other works and sermons that throw orthodoxy on its ear. This young man has reasonably presented this.
I take this young man and his Bible and his insight into the Word over the poetic prose at Mars Hill. Great job, young man. And amen.
pastorboy, you are right.
I think that hatred is cause a lot of the emergents hate anyone who is critical or Rick Warren or Doug Pagitt or Rob Bell or the other “pastors” like them.
2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
1 TIMOTHY 4;1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(btW, THE followers of Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell should read that bible verse and then explain to folks what that means
if that bible verse isnt talking about the mysticism and occult stuff folks like Pagitt and Bell are trying to push in the churches)
1 JOHN 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Oh J, you just proved you really don’t know your Bible that you claim at all. Some of the early church leaders weren’t trained. Paul certainly was.
You may be unlearned, or not. You may just be a fool. Either way, if this statement shows your knowledge of the Bible there is no point in continuing this discussion.
BTW, I am part of a prayer team that prayers every week at Mars. Wed. nights. 7-9:30. Come check it out.
**Please pause for J to wipe the egg off of his hidden face**
J
I remember Jesus admonished us to pray in private and not to be seen by men so that we may be praised. Your admonition that you don’t know about Rob Bell’s prayer life (or that of his followers) may be the most absurd thing I’ve ever read here.
If you are confident of what Rob does when he shuts his door and gets on his knees, then you must be living with him. Somehow I doubt that.
m.g. so you are saying that we should have prayer ministries
or prayer boards online
I mean we shouldnt have prayer ministries
cause some emergents say that prayer ministries
and online prayer sites shouldnt exist
All i have to say after this trainwreck of a comment thread is this…
If you think emergents want to defend Rick Warren and the mega-church, seeker sensitive, etc. etc. then you don’t really understand the emerging church.
And if you think that not laying down for clear mischaracterizations and lies is “emergent”…well, I call that being Christian.
It’s not about the personalities for most of us…but then again, what you’re guilty of is generally what you see in others…even when it’s not there.
But I get it…
some people are just really mad that we don’t share in your sycophantic idol worship of your own choosing.
what.
ever.
I guess Joe just pointed out that they are…
Really? Paul was the student of Gamaliel (considered by Jews to be second only to Hillel the Elder, his grandfather, in terms of depth of knowledge and wisdom in application of Torah). Paul studying under Gamaliel is like a Physicist who studied under the tutelage of Einstein.
Then, Paul also studied for three years under Jesus, as well, after his experience on the Damascus Road.
Shhhhhhh. Why are you bringing facts into a discussion on ADM’s and telling the truth? They have a vested interest in Bell being apostate….
Shhhhh. These are not the droids you’re looking for. Move along…
Sure, Payton Manning says he’s a quarterback, but then he goes and sits on the board of a children’s hospital and doesn’t even talk about football there!
You (plural, to include ADM’s with ADM sycophants) have created this all-encompassing “evil” in emergents, and have ended up with a caricature that doesn’t describe a soul that walks this planet.
Live in fear and loathing! The emergents are coming! Don’t believe what they tell you, even if they agree with you! Help! AAAaaaaaaaHHHHhaaaahhhhh!
QFT
Douglas: FYI, there have historically been a handful of views of atonement, other than PSA, which are Biblical. We’ve examined them here in the past. PSA is not the only orthodox game in town – it’s a systematic theological “guess” at how atonement works.
What the heck kind of response is this? It certainly doesn’t describe an attitude that “always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” I didn’t think the job of Christians was to rip other Christians apart whenever they disagree (or imagine they disagree, as in Douglas’ case) on an interpretation of Scripture.
I thought we were talking about Rob Bell – why bring them in?
Whatever. Nobody’s drinking “kool-aid” by defending Bell. It’s more along the lines of drawing off fire from a wounded brother. I’ve disagreed with Bell on a number of issues (documented on this blog), but none of those issues rise to the level of “heresy”.
No – he’s saying that the “rapture” is an interpretive invention from the (look it up) 1700’s as part of premillenial dispensationalist eschatology, which is still primarily an American phenomenon. Much of the church outside the US tends to be some form of amellenial in its eschatology.
Me? I’m Partial-preterist (which I’m guessing Bo is, as well), which views the verses you quoted as relevant to the people they were originally written to, as well. I suspect some of the things you’re expecting in the future have already had (some degree of) past fulfillment…
okay, what is the emerging church then?
does it believe that John 14;6 is to be taken literally
does the Emerging church and emergent church believe that JESUS is the only way to Heaven?
does the emerging church believe we should pray for those who dont know JESUS
Ah yes, those “emergents” again…
…kind of like those commies hiding behind ever corner in the 80’s…
I am saying that your ears are being tickled by what you enjoy hearing – that’s all.
No one here hates you J… and no one here has drunk and Kool-Aide.
Why is it we cannot defend a brother against unjust attacks w/o being seen as following him?
It is a movement, not a denomination, where is why you’ve pretty much left reality when you ask “what it believes”.
I know churches which consider themselves “emerging” who have expressly stated this.
I know that Rob Bell (who has said multiple times that he is not part of the ‘emerging church’, nor part of ‘emergent’) has explicitly stated that Jesus is the only way by which men can be saved (in at least one sermon in the past year).
The purpose of following Jesus is not to get to heaven (i.e. a destination) – it is to be saved now and each and every day after today by trusting him, while we live and on after we are no longer living.
Again, since “the emerging church” is not an entity/denomination, I can only say that I know churches which consider themselves as part of the movement who have said so – Bob Hyatt, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, etc., etc….
PB,
You wrote:
What vitriol? Who is being vitriolic? Anyone? We’re having a nice discussion about the merits of his GBA of Rob Bell and NT Wright. I happen to think that Douglas is quite wrong in his assessment of Wright and, thus, at least part of his criticism of Bell is inaccurate.
Please don’t try to sidetrack this by making it personal. Douglas did a good job, but he is wrong. And, as I said, he is in sad shape if, at the tender age of 17, he has decided to align himself with the likes of my friend Pastor/Preacher/Prophet Silva. The minute that Pastor Silva starts defending someone and praising them I get a little concerned. I’m trying to help Douglas’ theological career by steering him away from hatred and un-grace.
jerry
The use of “the” before Emerging and the use of the singular “church” shows your lack of understanding.
This illustrates my point – it’s not discernment we oppose it’s the ADM inability to discern (as you have demonstrated) that we address.
Jerry,
You say you hate GBA, and yet you (and others here) are practicing it.
“If they like Ken Silva, Ingrid, Lighthouse trails, they must be wrong”
I read this fellows stuff, and most of it begins and ends with research in the scripture. Just because he is reformed and he interprets what Rob Bell has said or written does not make him wrong.
I just noticed something – everyone assumes I am totally unfamiliar with what Wright says. I have listened to his (in)famous lecture series from Auburn Avenue Church on justfication. I have also read this scathing denunciation of PSA as found on the link on my post.
Talk about painting with a broad brush…
PB,
I address his faulty logic before I knew his age… it was a moot point for me.
I do not see where you have addressed your error in the very first point, yet.
Neil,
Then the question is (and I agree with you)
In general, do the leaders in emergent thought proclaim Jesus Christ as the only way?
A quick reading of the Voice version of John would indicate no…As well as would a reading of Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones (who scoffs at the term ‘born-again’
Good fruit (emergent post modern people Christ-followers) cannot come from a rotton tree (emergent anti-theology teaching)
It is considered good form to actual read a persons book(s) before offering a critique.
Neil,
Which point? Bell very clearly called people who disagree with him Pharisees.
Douglas – is Penal Substitutionary Atonement the only correct view of Jesus’ work on the cross, with all other views (such as Christus Victor, Ransom Atonement, Governmental View, etc.) heresies?
If so, how do you justify this, and are you suggesting that the church for its first 1500 years was in apostasy over the meaning of atonement?
If not, how can you make broad-brush judgments on someone who disagrees with one (or more) aspects of penal atonement theory, if they hold to another Biblical view of atonement, instead?
PB – you’re making false dichotomies.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
PB,
I am not the one to ask when it comes to Emergents such as you have listed. I am much more familiar with those who would consider themselves emerging.
It is J’s non-differentiation I was addressing.
Neil
NO! … He did no such thing. He was referencing those who write off whole churches as if nothing of God exists there… he was talking about how to respond to those who attack the church… not anyone who disagrees with him.
Neil
This thread is a perfect example of why there is no discernment from ADMs. They have no understanding of the beliefs of those they attack, and no grasp on what the church has historically believed.
Not to mention an unbelievable ability to torture the english language. For example, when J claims that a theology developed in the 18th century is historical because a few proof texts were written and interpreted in an entirely different way 16 centuries earlier is “historical” is to make a mockery of the word “history” and all its derivations.
Is it any wonder that they’re able to twist any statement by anyone they don’t like into the most damnable of heresies?
Is THIS the scathing denunciation of which you speak?
It is a scathing denunciation – but not of PSA.
Hey J,
You coming to that prayer time? Or are you going to publicly say you were wrong about our church when you said we don’t believe in praying?
Just curious…
I don’t know if any of you are following the comment thread on Douglas’ post… but yet another contributor has brought up the “He did not say this…” argument.
Since when did employing an argument from silence become so popular?
Since when did employing an argument from silence even become credible?
Other than lack of any real arguments what explanation is there for assuming you can discern a person’s belief/intent base NOT on what they actually say, but on their not saying the exact words you prefer?
I noticed another tactic as Douglas’ comments. After I refuted his main point, instead of engaging me further or admitting my points… he just got sarcastic and moved on to another accusation.
I answered him, but probably should not have – I rewarded his evasion.
This is my favorite quote by Douglas on that thread
It seems he is going to the Ken Silva tape school of how to avoid being accountable for what you say.
I just posted an appeal to him… kinda breaks my heart (though this is overstated of course) to see a young man dedicate his spiritual zeal in the footsteps of the ADM’s.
Neil
Neil,
I would say he is trying to follow Jesus….Not Ken Silva.
Talk about GBA…how ironic.
Why not follow mullah Rob Bell and not say anything negative about another person’s ministry? You might be speaking against the Holy Spirit.
The guy is whacked! First off N. T. Wright does not deny penal substitutionary atonement, he may believe that over the course of our faith’s history the idea has grown and changed, but deny it… I doubt he ever has or will.
Here is a great article on this:
http://www.wordsofchrist.net/wright-atonement.pdf
The issue is that many Reformed cannot see beyond “just” psa and that other ways of looking at the Cross are taught in the scripture. Most often they lack a true understanding of how PSA even came to be. I see room for many different expressions. Yet, I think the worst is the miscaracturizion of PSA that many teach and seem to hold against others. It is their own perversion that is the “cosmic child abuse” version that they miss is wrong. Instead of going after those who teach PSA that way, they go after the ones that critique PSA and call others to come to the purity of it.
Yet, to say Rob Bell is a heretic because I never read N.T Wright but have heard other say N.T. Wright is one and so Rob Bell is one is the most foolish and convoluted logic and in fact proves the dishonest and ignorance of the person that wrote and those who defend him.
Good grief… I feel dumber for having even read the original post!
iggy
Pastorboy,
If you can’t follow the commands of the apostles concerning gentleness, and taming the tongue at least quit being exhibit A for GBA arguments from anti-Christian apologists.
Pastorboy,
I am sorry you have chosen to interject sarcasm and vitriol into a heartfelt comment of mine. I never made Douglas guilty by association I only lamented his choice of paths… and I also did not mention Silva.
“Mullah” – *sigh*
Neil
It is one thing to question anothers ministry… it is Pharisaical to question it in a way that is only out to “catch” that ministry in something… or worse, make things up and spread rumors and lies about them…that was to worldly tool the Pharisees used against Jesus.
I hope some can see the difference…
Bell spoke of writing off whole churches NOT an individual’s ministry. That said, I’m not sure a blog is a ministry anyway. That and I was not writing of Douglas completely, just addressing him on a couple points.
So once again, as above (which you have yet to respond to) you twist Bell’s words and force them to (try and) say something they did not.
Sloppy at best.
Neil
Well, this has been fun. Firstly I am not a follower of Ken Silva. I live in London and am a Reformed Baptist kid. I stand to make no gain from talking about Bell – not even a cent. I wrote the post because I believe that Bell is distorting the Christian message in a dangerous way. Feel free to chew me up – BTW I still have one more article to write and I am looking forward to being chewed up and spat up for what I believe…
Neil,
Comment #63…
You are right he does not dismiss PSA, but he does dismiss the improper understanding and teaching of it. That is the real issue is that there are a bunch of hoohas out there attacking others out of their own ignorance of the very doctrine they think they are defending… they turn God into a psychopath that abuses and kills His Son and it is all our fault… forgetting the plan of salvation was before the creation of the world and thus before sin entered the world. Their own ignorance perverts the truth of PSA as a doctrine and misses that this is but a part of the whole story… much of which I am sure we will not know until the regeneration of all things.
iggy
Iggy,
This may be true in and of itself, but it is not what Bell meant – just to be clear.
Three times in this very thread (comments 1, 57, and 69) Pastorboy has misrepresented a simple statement by Bell… three times he has twisted his words to say what he wants them to say, not what they said. Three times he has wrongly applied Bell’s simply understood words…
Neil
Well that’s at least one way you’re different from Silva. Of course you still have to gain notoriety and attaboys from other ADMs. At least until they realize you’re publicizing one of their favorite whipping boys: Mark Driscoll, if you’re lucky they’ll be as inconsistent as possible and won’t turn on you like ungrateful dogs.
And for those of you who have made the argument that merely appearing with the Dali Lama was enough to make Bell a heretic, I’ll be waiting for your condemnation of Douglas since his website promotes Driscoll.
Douglas, please do not take Pastorboy’s mistakes as things we actually said. I did not say you followed Silva.
No one is chewing you up. OK… maybe being called “wacked” is a bit chewy.
But, if you are going to enter the arena of cyber-arguing, then you must be able to seperate attacking your argument from attacks on yourself. And you should pick quotes and articles that advance your argument, not defeat it.
I take that back, while the form of payment may be different you still stand to gain from all the publicity you can muster by bad mouthing Bell. You have an Amazon wishlist on display.
Begging for books, and mp3 players is just a different form of payment than what Ken Silva begs for.
Neil,
Did we say that?
Or This?
Nope, that was not on this thread…
LOL!
Hey the Irenaeus like logic comment is a direct cut and paste off of Apprising.
Douglas,
Be encouraged. Telling the truth about the post-modern’s ’sacred cows’ like Bell, Pagitt, Jones, McLaren, etc. will get you attacked on this site, as you can see.
Just remember to life Jesus high, give Him all the praise and the glory. Honor Him above all, and the light will shine and expose the arguments and lies for what they are.
I praise God for you, little brother. Keep it real.
All it takes for an ADM like “Pastor”Boy to embrace you and call you brother is to attack the people he attacks. Unfortunately I don’t recall Jesus commanding us to be united by hate, then again the ADMs rarely look or sound like Jesus.
Dismissing J’s use of Apprising and C?N is not GBA, it is pionting out faulty, irrelevant, and untrustworthy sources.
Lamenting and concern that Douglas is following the way of Silva may become GBA, but at this point it is simple lamenting and concern.
Neil
” they turn God into a psychopath that abuses and kills His Son and it is all our fault… forgetting the plan of salvation was before the creation of the world and thus before sin entered the world.”
So God did not know that sin would enter the world before it actually did?
Then why would there be a need for a “foreknown” plan of salvation. This must be semi-open theist theology.
Matthew 24:
” 3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” 4And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.”
Bell comes in the name of Jesus, and proclaims Jesus as Christ. So if you believe the minimalist muck that is preached on this blog, and interpret Jesus’ words as only applying to the period before 70 AD, then Bell is alright.
Pastorboy,
No one appreciates self-proclaimed martyr… or as I told someone recently “I have a hard time calling it persecution when Christians act like jerks and are treated as such.”
Neil
(Not that I;m calling PB a jerk – it was in a different context) – gotta be clear lest my words get twisted a well.
Then again, why is it that someone can call a brother in Christ a False Teacher (based not on what they say but based on a caricature) or use terms and quotes as they please (regardless of their meaning) – and that is considered Jesus like.
Yet pointing out the errors in logic, pointing out the misquotes, the twisting, the incertions… this is defending “sacred-cows?”
Three times in this very thread (comments 1, 57, and 69) Pastorboy has misrepresented a simple statement by Bell… three times he has twisted his words to say what he wants them to say, not what they said. Three times he has wrongly applied Bell’s simply understood words…
#89
Sorry, Neil, Thats what I heard on the tape.
I promised not to comment anymore but a comment was brought to my attention by a friend which I have to ask about. God didn’t kill His own Son? What do we make of these passages:
Isa 53:10 ESV Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Rom 8:32 ESV He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Sounds like God willed it to happen to Jesus and actively involved in it…(and that is now my final comment which is always a good thing to discuss = the definitive work of our Lord Jesus)
wow – looks like I missed a whirlwind!
Douglas-
Isa. 53 is speaking about the suffering servant, which at the time of that writing would most likely be Cyrus.
Rom 8 does not say God “killed his own son” nor that he demanded it.
peace.
For the righte price I will write for or against Pastor Bell! (you choose)
No, PB – your reading comprehension still seems nonexistent.
LYING about other Christians will get you criticized by this site for doing so… It just happens that the ’sport’ you’ve chosen to engage in is in printing lies and mischaracterizations about brothers and sisters in Christ.
Personally, I would hope that other Christians would stick up for me if I was unfairly attacked. Nobody is correct 100% of the time, and I don’t know of any Christian figures who are given carte blanche here, though, but by your logic ANY defense against defamation is an attack on “discernment”… (which explains why ‘discernment’ is something you and the other ADM’s lack…)
>>>>> nc Says:
All i have to say after this trainwreck of a comment thread is this…
If you think emergents want to defend Rick Warren and the mega-church, seeker sensitive, etc. etc. then you don’t really understand the emerging church. >>>>>
No kidding. These “discerning folks” throw the big bad word “emergent” around like a boogey man and don’t even know what it means. Some in that “movement” would be orthodox and some not at all.
But to even call Rick Warren “emergent” shows utter stupidity about the subject for various reasons. For one, I was at the sermon when RW spoke plainly against those who considered themselves emergent that did not believe in “Biblical absolutes”.
As I said in another thread, “Just who are these”discernment” “ministers?” What makes them qualified to be the final arbiter of truth?
Chad,
I have to ask (I know this thread is addictive) – if Cyrus is the Servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, how does he meet the following criteria –
* Marred beyond recognition – 52:14
* Despised by others – 53:3
* Bore out pain – 53:4
* Punished OF GOD – 53:4
* Pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities – 53:5
* Taken away by oppresion and judgement – 53:8
* Assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death- 53:9
Further, verse 10 makes it painfully obvious that God WILLED to crush Jesus and make Him suffer (cf Acts 2:23)
Is it not very curious that Cyrus has led so many Jews to Christ? Does it not occur to you, Chad, that just as Is.7:14 refers not only to Isaiah’s son but Christ as well? I am sure you’ve heard of near and far fulfillment, and many real time events in the Old Testament symbalized and projected a coming prophetic fulfillment, usually with much greater importance and eternal consequences.
Peter and the gospels connect the passion with Is. 53. To confine Is. 53 with Cyrus is usually a liberal attempt to remove the unexpained prophetic accuracy, authenticating its divine authorship, of God’s Word.
I’m not sure how to react when one man says “…be careful not to write off whole churches…there will be praise, there will be Pharisees” and another man hears “…disagree with me and you are a Pharisee…”
Seriously, how can you say “That’s what I heard” when that IS NOT what he said?
Never again should Pastorboy deride someone for being postmodern, not when he takes words to mean exactly what he says they mean, regardless of context, normal usage, or authorial intent.
Simply amazing… but it explains a lot.
Douglas,
I think you will find, if you stick around here and comment. That we engage in a lot of discussions and routinely disagree with each other.
I for one hold to a view of the psa, but I also agree with Wright when he writes against a caricature of it.
Just like I can disagree with Bell, but write against the caricature created by ADM’s.
Neil
Chris L.,
Just for the record: I don’t think Douglas was lying. I think he misunderstands Bell and Wright. If he understood them he would not post quotes inwhich they affirm the very points he claims they deny. That is not lying, it’s poor arguing based on a faulty premise.
I’m don’t think Pastorboy was lying either. He obviously believed Bell really said that those who disagree with him are Pharisees. Of course he was wrong. But being wrong is not lying.
It is impossible to tell if Pastorbos is lying or not when he says “That’s what I hear him say.” On the one hand, what Bell said is so clear it seems impossible to miss the point. Also, as I said in my “When You Heart is on Fire” post – many times I think the search for something to oppose becomes self fulfilling… they hear what they want to hear. Yet… it is possible that he listened again and realized he commented too fast but cannot bring himself to believe it, or admit it.
So, I see three scenarios: he missed the point because he cannot understand plain English, or he missed the point because his heart is so on fire against Bell that his reasoning is clouded, or he missed the point and is lying to cover up.
Wright also connects the substitutionary aspect of Isa. 53 to Jesus as well.
Neil,
#77
And that PB twists mangles and mischaracterizes others surprised you how? LOL! I mean he does it to everyone… even me. Then when corrected he hides behind the… “you were not nice” card. I am done with PB as he has proven over and over
1. He can’t comprehend what he reads.
2. If he deems you a heretic, even if he agrees with you you are still wrong.
3. He will disagree with you then restate almost word for what what you stated in the 1st place as if you never stated it.
4. He will twist anything around to mean the opposite you stated to make himself look better than someone else.
5. He lies, slanders unapologetically so many people that it he makes a mocker of himself.
And in all that I am being kind. You see I think he does not even understand that he does this or can understand it. It is like a person I know with borderline personality disorder… they cannot not see the other persons side no matter how they try. They will do irrational things and then wonder why no one trusts them.
They are sick and I see that PB in the same light.
iggy
Neil,
#99…
Of course a Pharisee will be offended when they are told they are one… LOL!
What do you expect… When Jesus called them out for what they were they were offended to the point they conspired to kill him… and the modern day Pharisee would be just as offended in being called out today!
LOL!
iggy
Niel,
When someone suffers the sickness of self righteousness, there is no room for anyone else to be right. They only see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe… only trusting in their self right is all they can do unless they come to the truth of Jesus.
iggy
Oh and did anyone noticed Rob Bell states that we call people to trust Jesus with Heaven? I thought he did not believe in Heaven… I mean I had a conversation with some here that claimed that!
So if one is against the historic, root in the CHristian faith, orthodox centered around the Person of Jesus Christ, based on faith… then they are wrong?
Good grief I get so confused why some would say they are hearing Rob state that anyone that disagrees with him is a Pharisee…. he states clearly that anyone that disagrees with “the historic, root in the CHristian faith, orthodox centered around the Person of Jesus Christ, based on faith” is a Pharisee!
Now… I truly understand why PB and CP are soooo offended as they must be against “the historic, root in the CHristian faith, orthodox centered around the Person of Jesus Christ, based on faith” …
LOL!
I can understand why Pharisees are soo offended by Rob Bell as he preaches the gospel… Pharisees always hated the gospel.
iggy
Douglas and Rick-
No, it is not clear. NT writers reinterpret their present through the lens of the stories in the past all the time. The allusions in the NT to Isaiah are a way of connecting the dots and continuing the narrative, drawing a line between Israel and Jesus as the Israel of God. It is making claims about the Messiah upon reflection of this man having been raised from the dead.
You are free to suggest that Isaiah was talking about Jesus but no one in his day would have thought this had anything to do with that.
Douglas, as for Acts 2:23 that has nothing to do with a penal sub variety.
For the record, substitionary atonement is not what I (or Bell or anyone else) argues against. Substition is very biblical and is part of the historical understanding of the atonement. It is the penal variety of that theory that is debated – a characterization (perhaps, even, a mischaracterization) of substitution.
peace
one more thing…
I would argue that most of evangelical thought today has a very narrow and minimalist view of substitution (penal or any other kind). Christ is not only our substitution on the cross (as it is often reduced to). He is our substitute in the Incarnation, the life, the teachings, the ethic, the sacrifice, the death, the resurrection, the ascension, the present reign and the eventual return of this one we call Lord. The problem with PSA (and other views of substitution that are too narrow) is it makes most if not all of that needless.
post 84 is right.
I have never heard the emergents stand up for sound doctrine
in fact, many emergent leaders have said hateful things about John Macarthur
I may not agree with everything John says, but why has Chris and other emergents not talked about
Doug Pagitt and others attacking John Macarthur for believing John 14:6
Brothers (and those who have yet to truly follow the Jesus of the Scriptures), I encourage you to get today’s MP3. Phenomenal message by my brother and friend. The Trinity was discussed. Those who view God as a transactional accountant will be most uncomfortable. It was beautiful, it was moving and it was of God.
Hate on Rob all you want. Hate on Mars all you want. At the end of the day, God is doing things in and through Mars and no matter what lies, convoluted logic and silly arguments you use, you cannot stand against that.
I do not blame you. I understand that you were taught God as a transactional accountant type that you need to keep off of your back by your good works.
Grace and Peace to you today.
~Semper Reformata
109…
LOL!
That is such a laugh! I guess you have never really read any emerging blogs… I talk about “sound doctrine” and MacArthurites attack me over it stating I do not believe in “doctrine”… And BTW… it was JM who declared the Truth War and his followers have attacked people like me very aggressively… so please do not paint such a sad over generalization about emerging. Also as far as Emergent leaders… I think you miss that they do call for sound doctrine and when they do, they are attacked as being against the very doctrine they are defending! PSA for example… most agree it is there, but that the mischaracterization of the teaching needs addressing and they are attacked as if they deny the doctrine they are defending!
It is a glorious mess that J Mac has created… and the lies seem to pours out of others as if they are truth… and you seem to take his bait and have been snookered in badly.
As far as John 14:6… I have heard many emergent leaders teach on this… I also do… and have been told by JM followers that Jesus “taught the truth” and deny that Jesus was Truth… period. Again, sir, you are very much misinformed… The issue you refer to is not whether Jesus is the Truth… but if Biblical truth is propositional or the Person of Jesus… Emergent leaders say it is the Person of Jesus and JM people say it is propositional which means it is only an abstract idea. That sir is NOT biblical Truth. Jesus is not an abstract idea… Biblical Truth is not “just” propostional… it is Living as Christ is living. That IS the Emergent position…
iggy
BTW j,
I learned most of that from Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren… I have tossed off the Platonist dualism of truth that is taught by John MacArthur as it is not biblical but based on man made philosophies.
iggy
“but no one in his day would have thought this had anything to do with that.”
“I would argue that most of evangelical thought today has a very narrow and minimalist view of substitution (penal or any other kind).”
I reiterate my position that I do not care what “they” would believe or what the “evangelical thought” is on the subject. I do believe that one must make a tortured explaination of Is. 53 to argue against penal substitution.
But if you are interested in what some groups believe, the overwhelming position among saved Jews is that Is. 53 is speaking of the Messiah. (but that still doesn’t matter to me)
Joe – although I hold to the “traditional” view of the Trinity, I believe the deity of Christ is the essential component. I will never understand how someone who believes God is one person revealed in three distinct revelations is an heretic.
The New Testament teaching concerning the Trinity is sketchy. The teaching on Chist’s divinity is voluminous. Oh, but wait, the council of “so and so” decided it back in A.D. 375 so we must get in doctrinal lockstep.
Remember – Spurgeon is to modern evangelicals as Joseph Smith is to the Mormons. Spurgeons best work is devotional but so many quote him as justification for just about anything – except overeating! (just kidding)
I am still waiting for some emergent to call MacArthur an anti-christ, I have heard Bell and others called that. I believe the invectives coming from the emergent camp, however wrong, must still bow in intensity to the verbiage coming their way.
In the immortal words of the Wicked Witch of the West – “What a world…what a world…
Yeah, Rick, your appeal to what Messianic Jews think of Isa. 53 sorta falls flat when you repeatedly claim you care nothing of what other people think.
I don’t think it is as nearly as clear that Isa 53 teaches PSA. I would argue that we often interpret it to be about PSA due to our conditioning (except for you, the only purely objective one among us mere mortals)
In any event, I am happy to be proven wrong. The main point for me (and I think for Bell or McLaren or others) is that PSA be given just as much attention and lip service as the scriptural narrative and history of Christian thought have given it – which, when compared with the other motif’s offered for atonement, ranks last.
So go ahead and teach/preach PSA. Just so long as you have spent even more time and volume on the others, first.
#115- Good point, Rick. I have never heard anyone from the emergent camp question the salvation of Mac or anyone else.
Joe-
I look forward to hearing that message. This whole sermon series on Philippians has been outstanding.
J.,
So now your complaint is that some emergents have not condemned other emergents for an unspecified condemning of John MacArthur?
Seriously?
Neil
like I said…
trainwreck.
and as to “invectives”…
I would like someone to demonstrate where any critique raised by Emerging leaders ever could be characterized as “invective”.
I really like the whole J-Mac, “spiritual terrorist” imagery in some sermon a bit back…I even think the brilliant Ron Luce picked up on it too.
Yikes.
Bin Laden=Emerging “church”.
honestly, that’s just dumb.
“So go ahead and teach/preach PSA. Just so long as you have spent even more time and volume on the others, first.”
I reject your advice and I despise your youth.
Chad and Rick,
I would say we have disagreement with JM… Let’s say it this way. I do not agree with Brian McLaren, TOny Jones, Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell on every thing… just as I would never say all that JM teaches is wrong.
Yet it seems the MacArthur camp cannot see this is possible. It is either agree with JM totally or you are a heretic. But what if JM is wrong on some points… their own standard would make him a heretic…
Yet I say he teaches some heresy, but I would not consider him a heretic as the anti emergent people do with all things emerging…
iggy
Desperately longing for lurking mode to resume anytime now.
PB,
Feel free to stop commenting and start lurking anytime.
hehe. Well, my advice was aimed towards the young whipper-snappers out there
They are the ones who will lead the Church through this emergence.
iggy,
I think that is a fair and accurate assessment.
Honestly, (if possible for some) is there anything you see right about the emerging church?
I mean it can’t all be wrong? If it is then Jesus is not God, Jesus in not savior. Jesus is not Lord. Jesus did not subvert Caesar worship. We are not saved by grace through faith.. I mean I can go on and on what would be wrong if all is wrong with the emerging church. But then it would be a real problem for you are anti emerging as you are wrong also!
I state occasionally that JM is right on some things… Yet it is Lordship Salvation that teaches that we produce fruit when it is not us, but God in us that produces it. It is not “proof of our salvation’; the Holy Spirit it who produces the fruit in and through us. The issue of LS is that it places the burden of holiness on us instead of trusting in Jesus… it places the burden of righteousness on us instead of trusting in the righteousness of Christ Jesus.
LS is works salvaiton cloaked in the skin of Grace. In its core it subverts and negates “grace through faith” as it makes works proof of salvation.
Jesus alone is our righteousness. We are clothed in His righteousness and it is He that made us Holy. How can we think we can add to His Holiness or righteousness…
Yet that is what John MacArthur teaches if you actually listen to him.
iggy
Most of this stuff sounds a lot like people arguing over who baptized them: I am of Paul. I am of Apollos. I am of Rob Bell. I am of Johnny Mac or Piper. yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.
I feel sorry for people who have so much agnst over which human spiritual guides they are aligning themselves with, fearful that God is waiting to smite them should they choose wrongly. It’s like God is playing some cosmic game with his children: Before you stand 10 doors. Behind each of them are teachers who confess Jesus Christ is Lord. However, only 2 of them are really “in” and the rest, should you actually act as is your nature, like the dumb sheep you really are, and choose one of them, then BAM! Your going to hell! hahahahahaha.
I appreciate the desire to reach people, to help those who are the least and the last and the lost. I appreciate the social justice aspect. I appreciate the desire to have a conversation about the things of God.
The same things I love about the emergent movement are the same things that discourage me about it. The desire to reach people is all too often compromised with a syncretism that says all religions are equally valid and Christ is not the only way. The social justice aspect is very cool, but all too often it overides the verbal proclamation of the Gospel. I love having conversations, but the frustration I find with the emergent movement it that the conversation is extra-biblical and even more than that calls the Bible and its validity into question. Just look at the Voice; the worst mistranslation since the NWT and the Message.
I desire to have fellowship, but even the mockery towards a more modern approach, or even a more conservative approach to worship and to scripture and to orthodoxy makes many emergents into elitist snobs who look down on those who are not as enlightened.
It makes me sad, really.
PB – You are full of it.
Here is what PB’s friend on Facebook said to Jerry Hillyer regarding comments made about the book, The Shack….
…and I called her on it. Then I wondered why PB stood by silent in the conversation, saying nothing about Jerry but rather telling Jerry he offended Nicole and should “make nice”
PB evaded it all, saying he’s rather not “get involved”
When I insisted, PB asks me this:
Yeah…elitists snobs, alright.
And yeah, it is sad.
Good for you, John. I truly believe that if the emergent movement would have attempted to integrate a concern for the poor, the sick, the sexually bondaged, and many earthly issue within the context of the eternal gospel it would be much more attractive to reasonable believers.
But when people like Borg, Crossan, The Ooze, and a host of others are given a place at the doctrinal table the entire atmosphere has been compromised. The suggestion that sinners can be saved through other religions is also at the core of the unbiblical direction.
Even men like Driscoll have not only left the movement and separated themselves from it, he and others have labelled Bell, McLaren, Pagitt, and others as abject heretics. That comes from one who used to sit in their midst. There is definitely something wrong and there doesn’t seem to be a handful of emergent leaning men who are addressing such issues.
The intangible and mircurial nature of the movement lends itself to the nebulous nature of the movement which seems to be by design. God uses some helpful labels (man, women, child, etc.) so it might be useful for some to at least generally identify themselves with some illuminating adjectives.
Are there any conservative emergents or are all who are in agreement that moniker allow for the widest possible doctrinal parameters (or parameterless) ?
‘
PB,
You guys mock Rick Warren over a more modern approach often… I think that you also overlook that one of Brian McLaren’s books was about embracing scripture and orthodoxy… generously!
As far as snobbery? I know of not one book that openly attacked John MacArthur personally and twisted his words. I have seen more hate from many than I have ever seen love… in fact I can count on one hand good conversations I have had with JM followers… and one calls himself a MacArthurite emergent! LOL!… the other is Keith who comments here… all else are spiritual snobs that attack and lie and seem to love to use the worldly ways to show their way is superior!
So I guess again, you see what you see and I will tell you how it has been for me as your friends and you have attacked emerging without a care to truth, love or scriptural adherence. In fact most ODM/ADM make a mocker of saying they believe the bible literally… most seem to not even know what that word means! I am more literal now as an emerging person… than I was when I as a fundamentalist as I believe we are to love our neighbor, love God and seek justice… I believe Jesus meant it when he said “If you eye offend thee,…” Most of your friends say it was figuratively…. Nope not me, I believe it is better to go to heaven maimed that to burn in hell in our sin.
I do not pick and choose what I will believe and what I will not…you do! LOL! You claim to believe in truth, but use lies to do your dirty work. Myself, I see lying as a sin… as well as slander and bearing false witness… which is as much sin as homsexuality and so on… But then if that is snobbery… so be it.
iggy
PB,
Are you talking about emerging churches or the Emergent Movement. The question was about emerging churches, yet you answered about the Emergent Movement.
Neil
Rick,
The issue with Driscoll is that he is a Calvinist and falls more into the camp of John MacArthur than emerging. In retrospect many wonder if he ever was emerging…
Also, I wonder at some who seem to think it as heretical to discuss things that are considered heresy. In fact you were recently featured at SoL as a heretic who discussed something controversial… why is it then OK for you to do so and not for it to happen at the ooze.com? That seems a bit of a double standard if you ask me.
iggy
About the emergent/emerging movement… I personally do not see it as a movement, but as a conversation… the one started by God in Genesis and continues on today… to call it a movement diminishes it for me.
iggy
Even men like McKnight publicly rejected Burke’s beliefs. I cannot believe that you can not admit there are serious issues with some teachings. That, again, is one of the problems. Everyone is entrenched on a particular side and refuse to deal substantively with issues within their own foxhole.
“In fact you were recently featured at SoL as a heretic who discussed something controversial”
I consider a women doctrinal judge as heresy.
Well, I think the thing is that the movement was never really meant to be a denomination where everyone thought the same, or nearly the same. It was really just more of loosely connected group of people who were kind of trying to come to terms with what it means to be Christian today.
Personally, I’ve come to the place where I don’t really care what someone calls himself apart from a Christian. Personally, there has been some literature and such associated with the movement that has really been helpful to me and actually quite influential. If not in a primary way, at least in a secondary way. It’s really opened my eyes to a broader, historic faith that I really was quite ignorant of before.
I sometimes still get a feeling that there is quite a large divide in Evangelical churches that doesn’t get talked about much. I think there’s a divide between the “true believers” in a movement, meaning people that seem content to sit in a church and not really question what a pastor says, and the people who are questioning the movement. Perhaps it has always been this way to some extent, but the number of Christians I grew up with who have left the particular brand of Christianity we were raised in is quite astounding. And it’s not the people have just left the faith. It’s just that the old way of doing Christianity no longer was viable, and they came to a crisis point.
So it seems that churches can choose to continue to ignore this, or they can open their eyes. Sadly, I think many would rather stay where they are, resist change, and fade into obscurity.
Rick,
Wow… of all people… I guess you never read my reviews of Spencer’s book… I often speak out on what I see is wrong with emerging… I just recent had a online conversation with Bob Hyatt on our views of emerging over Tony Jone’s statement on homosexuality.
So, please don’t become like those others that state falsehoods about me. I am on record about many things that concern me and often teach correction on those things I see are in error or heading there.
The difference is I can discuss with someone like Burke in a way that is not attacking him or calling him a heretic… I mean what good would that do he already calls himself that! LOL!
iggy
Which views of Burke’s are you talking about?
I know little about him.
Rick,
Also I might add I have concerns about Rick Warren but who would know as I am in conversations mostly with those that are on the insanity fringe as to RW being the Antichrist… LOL! I would say there is a problem with the idea that programs can replace the Holy Spirit…
Yet I guess as with the things I may speak out against in emerging, are all lost in the fray with those who must overgeneralize all emerging as evil… I mean PB could not say one nice thing without throwing in a negative thing to “balance” it. I hear him trying to bring balance, yet his actions swing often against the thing he is balancing… I don’t know if that is out of fear from his peers or what… in fact I don’t really care why. I just see that often those who speak loudest against these things miss those are the very things God finds important in the scriptures.
iggy
Chad,
To summerize Burke… All are saved unless they opt out.
I am close to that view but see that all are forgiven but not all are saved. The potential for salvation is for all, but not all will opt in through Jesus… they will opt out by choosing other ways to save themselves.
iggy
Thanks, iggy. I might like Burke
heck, we all do this – even those of us who confess Jesus as Lord. As you know, salvation is not some static moment in life that we can freeze dry. It’s an old adage but a good one that is still true, I think: I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.
I thank God that his “yes” towards me (and creation) is one that is louder and gets the final say, despite the myriad of “no’s” I often find myself uttering.
I do see what you are saying, though. A vast majority of people do not know that they have been set free by Jesus Christ. Subjectively, they are not “saved.” They are still clinging to other gods as a means for their salvation. They do not know what it means to be truly human.
Would that be like saying you get what you most desire in the end?
C.S. Lewis wrote, more or less, that we can so continue down this path of “opting out” that God will one day say to us, Thy will be done.
Chad,
Personally it was a train-wreck of a book. Not very cohesive and at times hard to get to the point he was making. Though at times I weeped as I read it and found some things deeply moving.
I agree yet the difference is that I see if we are “all in” and “all are saved by Grace alone” then what we do does not “unsave” us. I see that once in, we are in… and there is no “opt out” as God saves us eternally and not temporally. I see that we still must move from just being forgiven to reconciliation which is salvation through relationship of love. God loves us… shows us by sending His Son to die for us, then we respond out of love back to God and toward others. In that we active in our salvation. Your adage is good, but to me has a short coming of being too engaged in a “time based” understanding and not the eternal understanding.
It seems that there is a time when we were not forgiven, yet not one person born after the Cross sinned before the Cross. So forgiveness is now, and salvation that comes through the relation aspect is also now… it is past, present and future… but from the viewpoint of the eternals and not “just” some points on a timeline. I agree there are aspects of this but to me a timeline limits the view.
iggy
All are saved unless they opt out? How does one opt out? Sounds foreign to historic Christianity… not to mention the Bible.
Chad,
To a degree I think that was what Burke was trying to convey. Yet it seems a bit convoluted in his book. He seemed to see my view as just saying what he meant in a different way though I still think there is a significant difference.
iggy
I had to read the above a few times
I’m a lil slow tonight. This is an insightful comment, I think.
Let me push in another direction: What if “what we do” doesn’t “unsave” us but rather dehumanizes us? What if it has nothing really to do with our status in God (we are objectively reconciled through Jesus Christ) – IOW, we do not become “unsaved,” the Father never stops looking out the window for his prodigal son – but rather, we never rise up out of the pig pit and continue to grovel in our own, um, crap. The Father is still my Father and I am still his son. However, I have “opted out” and am getting my just desserts.
I like that imagery a lot. Willimon, in his book Who Will be Saved?, paints this multi-facet picture of salvation (much like atonement has several “windows”). One of the ways he defines salvation is “salvation as vocation.” Salvation is a journy – it is something that is worked in us and becomes our life’s work. And it is founded on this relationship of love that you describe here.
Neil,
Matt 12:30. “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”
Luke 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Mark 8: 38. “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
John 3:36
36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
I think it was based on thoughts on these verses. In Christ man was meant to gather unto Jesus yet some scatter instead. The eternal plan (predestination as some call it) that all would be “in Christ” yet still some choose not to be.
My view is that we must recieve the Life of Christ, yet those who refuse it are not saved. To reject Jesus is to reject salvation.
All hinges on our relationship with Jesus. WIthout that we cannot be saved. It is not that we know Him, but that He knows us.
Jesus knows our true hearts and even if we believe, but not according to faith then we may not be saved. True salvation is when God knows us thourgh Jesus.
John 2:22-25
It was true then and it is true now. If we are not known by the Son or reject the Son, then we will not be saved, but if we believe and receive the Son we have eternal life… for the Life is in the Son. (1 John 5:11)
iggy
Well it would have been easier to understand if I used “when” instead of “then”…
You see I agree there is an aspect of “opting out” yet the difference is in the understanding of what salvation is. It is not based on performance, but relationship. Since the prodigal son returned, there was relationship. IF he had not, then he would have died with the pigs.
That is why I state one must move from forgiveness to relationship to have salvaiton. To have the Son is to have Life eternal. One can “believe” in Jesus and be saved and find they still sin… yet desire not to. Yet, some believe yet desire to sin and in affect have never changed from death to life so may not be saved. They would be like the prodigal son had he heard his father waited with fatted calf and open arms, felt secure in hearing that, yet never returned to be embraced and fed… he was forgiven for his squandering, yet still choose to die with the pigs.
Each of us need to understand that with the death of Christ we have forgiveness, but with resurrection to life of Jesus we have new life ourselves in Him.
To often so many go to the alter over and over to get “forgiven” when that already happened at the Cross, but very few go to the alter to receive Life from the Living Savior. They receive only half the gospel that can save them.
iggy
To say that all are “in” meaning all are saved unless they “opt out” is a monstrously unbiblical position that maligns the Great Commission and discounts a myriad of New Testament verses. Sinners cannot be saved unless they hear, that is clear.
Any description of how one “opts out” is simply a man made invention since the Scriptures do not deal with such a thing. It is a form of universalism that is dangerous and controverts the entire human/divine narrative.
The deceptive phenomenon that is most effective in attracting people to this new universalism is that many times those who espouse it are more pleasant and reasonable than those who are “orthodox”. That doesn’t substantiate truth, but it does seem to divert people’s attention away from the Scriptural facts.
Burke’s heretical teachings do not just end with universalism, I recall him posting an article about which he agreed which suggested that eunichs allowed men to mount them and that was a Christian show of submission. (or some other outrageous thing)
Iggy – you seem to be obsessed with people spreading “falsehood” about you. I always say I am glad they never got a hold of the truth.
Well, I don’t know that it has to be all or nothing. If by “performance” you mean we cannot earn God’s favor, then of course. However, if performance means living into the reality that is true of us – and in so doing we become more holy (and don’t hear moral snobbery in that) – than I would say “performance” is akin to relationship. I relationship falls flat if one or both parties are not working on the relationship.
But in any event, I prefer Willimon’s term of “vocation.” Salvation becomes our life’s work – not just in ourselves but in “co-laboring” with God to see it wrought in others. And afterall, Peter did encourage us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.
Teaching a class today, so I’m out of pocket – just a couple of things:
1) Burke is totally off the reservation on a slew of things (including the “opt-out” stuff), and his writings have been denounced by a number of prominent ‘emerging’ and ‘emergent’ folks.
2) #150 – Spot on, Rick
3)
While I agree, I would note that this passage by Peter and associated ones by Paul are written in the plural form, and are not individualized (though we often try to make them so).
Excellent observation, which further adds to the universality of the message, I think.
Rick,
No, not obsessed… confrontational with liars that are unrepentant i their sin… Funny thing is that is what those who often write against me claim I never do! Yet when I do I get criticized by others… like you…
Hmmm weird world we live in huh?
iggy
Chad,
Yet in saying Burke is a Universalist… he also believes those that “opt out” will end up in hell…
Now again, to me the “opt out” part is not the issue it is the “all in” part that troubles me.
To me it is more like receiveing a car as a gift but never taking it for a drive. You claim it is your car, but never took possession of it.
Many profess Jesus but few possess Him i their hearts. So we as you stated may opt out before salvation or in a sense daily as a CHristian and except for Grace loose all.
iggy
#148
Iggy, all I can say is, AMEN.
Opting out might not be a good way of putting it, Chad, but the Bible explanation Iggy gave is at once orthodox and oh so true. We reject, or refuse the grace that is available to all of us.
I agree with Iggy/The Bible
It is the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
#150
Rick, as usual, you have a grasp of this that is oh so true.
It is not about what man does, as opting out suggests. It is about what God has done. It is about responding to the grace He has provided. We cannot respond if we have not heard. The Gospel must be spoken, it is the power of God unto salvation.
Where many get stuck is that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to save all, but it is only efficient for those who respond in repentance and faith- both of which are provided by God.
“Yet when I do I get criticized by others… like you…”
I am universal in my criticism of any who do so with personal rancor or invectives including using humor to camouflage an unchristian attack, even if it is in response to a recieved one.
If this “opt out” thing is true than words can mean anything and everything. A “train wreck” can actually be a “car wash”.
LOL Rick!
And the world gets even stranger!
LOL!
iggy
“You must be born again”.
Forgiveness does not equate to salvation. Nor does reconciliation. They are but parts (albeit essential parts) to the salvivic equasion. Forgiveness and reconciliation make justification / salvation possible but they are not justification/salvation. Salvation is the regeneration by the Holy Spirit accessed through faith.
It does not matter if one is forgiven or reconciled if they are not a “part of the family“. Forgiveness / reconciliation are not “The Life”.
The back-door universalism being espoused by some based on universal forgiveness and reconciliation (which I too believe, BTW) misses this key point.
Pastorboy agreeing with iggy???
Eugene,
He does most the time, but just can’t see it! LOL!
wow, have you guys been following the stuff Ken is saying on this kid Douglas’ blog?
http://blackreformingkid.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/rob-bell-does-speak-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth-part-2/#comment-1782
Apparently the big fear Ken has is having to spend eternity with all the people he has devoted a lifetime to in mocking.
I have a question for the PSA only crowd, well actually a couple.
1. If it was just a legal transaction, then why so many references to “paying a ransom”? To pay a ransom is not the same as paying the legalities that are stated in the PSA only position.
2. The bible states that Jesus was the Lamb that took away the sins of the whole world. In Hebrews we are told that Jesus is the High Priest that sat down… after giving his own life as a sacrifice. Atonement means to cover and the blood of goats and bulls only covered the sins of those who gave sacrifice, yet they did not take sins away. Jesus is greater than the OT Atonement…
So why settle for less than having sins taken away… why settle for only having them atoned (covered)?
I hope as you look into these questions you see the limitation of PSA as the “only” position.
iggy
Chad,
I think Ken does have that fear… sadly fear holds us back from receiving what God has… that is why I always tell Ken I love him and pray for him. He states I am not his friend… but if he is in Christ, he is more than a friend to me, he is my beloved brother.
iggy
Chad – your arguement that some of us “pray” or “wish” for the damnation of the majority is both unsubstantiated in truth and irrelevant to Scripture. If you take the Scriptures literally, or even allegorically, God has acted in very violent and judgmental ways in the past.
* Destroying the world by flood.
* Giving laws to stone rebelluous children to death.
* Wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah
And many, many others. Therefore your caricature of God’s kindness and mercy remains untempored by His other attributes, and that singular manipulation of God’s character plays the vital role in your gospel theology.
If there is a hell, and if all sinners who have either never heard or rejected Christ go there for eternity, then your suggested theology is not only untrue, it represents the coming phalanx of deception that continues to gain popularity and acceptance.
No one wishes anything, and God Himself does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, but your theology has stripped Jehovah of His holiness, His righteousness, and His justice. The linguistic gymnastics that many are doing in order to manipulate Scripture into an unbiblical theology is creative, impressive, and most of all completely false.
FYI – I am not accusing Bell of this, to my knowledge he does not espouse universalism.
Rick, what is the flip side of hoping for a “Global family of God”? Funny, I recall many statements by you, many of them quite vitrolic, towards those many “unsubstantiated” people out there that have a narrow view of God’s grace and imagine only a small few or minority being saved (of course, they are part of that minority).
I may be overstating it when I say the flip side is praying for the damnation of many but my point should be clear in all that. I find it odd that any Christian would use as their argument against any group of Christians that they are people who hope everyone becomes part of God’s family. What else should we hope for?
As to the rest of your post – I disagree. But thats cool – you don’t care what I or anyone else thinks anyways.
That is because they are wrong.
A friend of mine wrote an article that might get published in an Old Testament academic plublication. In it he investigates the vioent acts of God in the book of Nahum. Part of his argument is that the prophet caracterises God as this violent because of the culture and the opression they live under. In this light this prophesy becomes a protest piece where God hears the pleas of the opressed and acts on their behalf. This helps us to see God not neceserally as violent but rather siding with the opressed – a theme of some of the other prohets as well. Any thoughts?
Gene – My thought is that this is higher criticism designed to de-fang the actual events.
Eugene-
Yes, I have heard that before as well and I think it has some teeth to it.
Much of the judment that we classify as “violent” in the OT and elsewhere may not really be the case of God acting violent. There is good work out there that argues these sorts of judgments are really God simply removing his hand and allowing creation to do what creation does when one tries to exceed the limit place on them by the Creator – death. IOW, these judgments are woven into the very fabric of creation itself.
Ultimately, though, we confess that we know God best as revealed in the person and work of the Incarnate Chrsit – God with us. This is the only healthy lens, IMO, from which to try to wrestle with those more problematic texts. This is the same God who while on a cross forgave the very people that put him there, among other things.
peace
So God will actually engage in violent acts of war which includes killing, taking of slaves and rape?
Excuse me for saying this but I would like to de-fang this.
And why de-fang Psalm 137:9?
That Psalm, btw, was read as our prayer each week before we began class.
The most compelling argument I’ve heard as far as God and the use of violence is this. We are told in multiple places in the NT that Christ is the full revelation of God. In other words, he’s the final say on who God is. We have to read what the OT says about God through the NT, not vice versa. So there’s never an instance where Jesus used violence as a solution to a problem. The cleansing of the temple would be the closest thing, but even then, He didn’t harm anyone.
So regardless of the fact that God may have used violence for his purposes in the OT, it seems that through Christ, He decided to be the one who absorbs and nullifies the violence rather than dole it out.
Phil, I agree.
And I’m not saying that God will not judge in the future. I just don’t think that judgment will necessarily be in the form of violence. I think having to stand before a holy and righteous God will be terrifying for some and a homecoming for others. But God doesn’t have to inflict violence to be terrifying.
So the unchangable God changes from being the one who “doles” it out to the one who absorbs it? Help me understand please.
I don’t know that I would classify the allowance of natural consequences as “doling out” violence. For instance, from Luke:
Here, it is not the owner of the house ‘doling out violence’, but rather the natural consequence to those not entering the house. If the owner holds a banquet and some do not come to the banquet, is it the owner’s fault that they rejected his invitation?
Fully agreed.
Yes, exactly – that was my purpose in pointing out the plural nature of “you” in much of the scripture – where the church is seen as the bride, but not all belong to the bride. Where the field is full of both wheat and tares, but the separation (and identification) of the wheat from the tares does not happen until the harvest.
A couple of things.
I don’t know if this was addressed, or maybe I just missed it, but:
That was Paul, not Peter (Philippians 2:12)
Second, #129, says this:
It is interesting to me that this comment is made concerning The Message considering that the OP had something do with a person making judgments about someone’s work without having read their work. Then the other night I participated in a FB thread concerning the Shack because someone was making judgments about it without having read it.
In both cases, someone says: Well, I read a review. Or, I read an interview. And in both cases, this is enough to justify labeling something anti-christ or heretical.
So I ask: Have you read the Message? Have you at least read Peterson’s book Eat This Book in which he explains the rationale behind his translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts? It should be noted that Peterson is a language scholar and is one of the most profoundly orthodox scholars on the market today. He does not tread lightly or cavalierly when he takes up God’s Word. I wonder if those who criticize The Message have read any of Peterson’s other work? Or the Message itself? Or have we again relied on ‘reviews’ and ‘interviews’ instead of finding out for ourselves by comparing Greek and Hebrew and English?
The Message is no paraphrase. It is a translation. And a good one at that. You can bash all you want, but I’ll defend Peterson tooth and nail.
Long live Koine!
jerry
Below is a snippet from one of my favorite books by Bishop Willimon, Who Will Be Saved?
Barth believed that salvation is not the removal of the treat of judgment but the accentuation and fulfillment of divine judgment. Salvation is to be face-to-face with the loving God whom we have so grievously wronged, which begins to sound somewhat like hell. I’m thinking here of Jesus’ parable of the talents in which the master returns and simply asks, “What have you done with what you have been given?” (Matt 25:14-30). The thought of that question being put to me by Jesus sends shivers down my spine.
We affirm in the Creed, “He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” All. The judge is Christ, and none of us is above assize. And none of us has advanced knowledge of the outcome. As Paul told a contentious congregation that tried to judge his worthiness as an apostle, “It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor. 4:4).
Even though we know we shall be judged and even though we do not know with certainty the outcome of that judgment, we can have confidence and hope, because we know the Judge. If we “abide in him” we will have confidence at the day of his coming (I John 2:28). In him “we have boldness before God” (1 John 3:21). The judge is the Christ who has gone to such extraordinary lengths to seek us and to bear the sins of all.
Confidence is not necessarily untroubled certainty. After all, the more closely we grow toward Christ, and the more we know of Christ (and by implication the more we know of ourselves) usually the more convinced we become of how far we are from Christ, how little we know of Christ, and how poorly we fulfill his will. Sometimes to be close to Jesus increases our uneasiness with Jesus. We know not only the one who is able to say “depart from me into the eternal fire…into eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:41-46) and, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23). We also know the the one who gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:1-6), the one who promisded that he would “draw all people to himself” (John 12:32). We know that in Adam all have sinned, but now we know that the grace of Christ takes precedence over the sin of Adam(Rom. 5:12-21). Or, as Barth preached so eloquently, “God has imrisoned all in disobedience, so tha the may be merciful to all” (Rom 11:32). All.
One of the ways that Christian Scripture differs from that of Islam is that we are not permitted to know as much as Islam knows about heaven or hell. Christ’s judgment is not his judgment if we presume to know the outcome beforehand. We must resist premature conclusion or synthesis. We are not permitted to despair, nor are we permitted to be presumptuous; that which we presume is not a gift, and despair doubts that Christ is able to accomplish his purposes. Humility is required.
It is unfortunate that theologians of the past attempted to draw too close analogies between human judgments and God’s judgment. If you explain Jesus death as a matter of satisfying, or substituting for, our sin in some forensic mechanism of divine judgment, you must also factor in the image of Jesus as waiting parent, as seeking shepherd, as dying friend. In thinking about salvation, historically the Western church has thought too much about salvation as a matter of atonement for sin, satisfaction for sin, and redemption from sin rather than a matter of solidarity with and a summons to sinners. (pg. 76-77).
I would say God’s nature is unchanging, but not his revelation. The way He’s interacted and revealed Himself to people has changed through history.
As far as God doling out violence in the OT, it seems to me that even a more nuanced reading of the OT will lead you to the conclusion that God did indeed seem to use violence at certain times. Now there are different explanations for this, but in many ways they become sort of moot points when we look at Jesus’ life.
On the cross, Jesus took all the violence the world could throw at Him, didn’t fight back, and ultimately turned it around for the defeat of Satan. So in a way, He absorbed it. I can see how “absorbed” is a potentially bad word choice, though. It’s not like God sucked it up like a sponge and it changed His nature. Maybe “nullified” or “withstood” would be a better term.
crap. I should proof read before hitting submit.
first line should be “THREAT of judgment” and not, “TREAT.” lol.
There may be other Freudian slips…
“The treat of judgment” – wasn’t that the title of a John MacArthur book?
Hahaha! Too funny.
Phil, I totally agree that all of Scripture should be read through the lens of Christ Jesus and the work he has done. He reveals the true nature of God and this is why I have trouble reading the Old Testament’s violent version of God. One part of me wants to think of the Bible as a narrative of people’s experience with God written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but still with that human element of trying to explain the unexplainable God in human terms thus the violence which was kind of the norm in ancient cultures. Then Christ Jesus appears and shows us what God is truly like, not the violent One seen through the lens of an ancient violent culture, but a righteous, loving, forgiving God who desires that all will be reconciled to Him and will go all the way to the cross to accomplish this. The other part of me still clings to the notion that Scripture is kind of written by the Holy Spirit using human hands and all of it can be taken literally, though this part of seems to be more confused than the other. I hope you can follow my poorly worded, schizophrenic argument.
BTW I love this forum where we can discuss faith without being danmed as unsaved.
Jerry, you wrote:
“The Message is no paraphrase. It is a translation. ”
You might want to tell the people at Wikipedia, as they clearly state that it is a paraphase. Also, I’ve read interviews with Peterson where he refers to it as a paraphrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)
Not to get into a big thing about the Message – as I don’t think that you and I would see eye-to-eye on it’s appropriate use – but it appears as though not all are in agreement with your assertion. I’ve typically seen Wikipedia being referenced as a reliabel source of information on this site.
Eric
wikipedia is reliable if the sources have been checked yet even then it is only really good for a reference and a “reliable source”. I don’t think anyone here would stated it as as a “reliable source”.
As far as The Message… I think Peterson refers to it as “a reading Bible” and it is clear as Biblegateway states:
“Eugene Peterson recognized that the original sentence structure is very different from that of contemporary English. He decided to strive for the spirit of the original manuscripts—to express the rhythm of the voices, the flavor of the idiomatic expressions, the subtle connotations of meaning that are often lost in English translations.” http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65
Personally it is a translation as Peterson did translate and then paraphrase the original language… So I see it as both… any problem with that?
iggy
Phil – I agree. God did things in the OT that He does not do in the age of grace. The only way we can define God in our own terms against the backdrop of the OT narratives is to relegate them to symbalism and metaphors, which makes each interpretation the truth and not the narrative.
Gene – I would love to de-fang unpleasant things as well, but upon whose authority? Jesus Himself referred to Sodom, and Noah, and even an eternal place of torment. So He was either speaking in code by representing symbolic narratives as literal…or…He was using literal events to teach aspects of God’s character.
It is difficult enough for sinners, even led by the Spirit, to interpret all the truth of Scripture without attributing everything as symbolic and in need of interpretation. Understanding Scriptural truth would be a process not unlike interpreting dreams. (which us old men have a prophetic upper hand)
Rick -
He also said it would be more tolerable for Sodom than for “them” (the religious people who were God’s chosen).
And Rick – I think it is a mistake to think that when Jesus referred to something that everyone took it as literal in the 1st century. They did not have the same take on literal vs. metaphor then as we do today.
It is irrelevant how they took it, how do you take it? And if those narratives to which Jesus referred were not literal events, which interpretations are authoritative, and how do we test those?
You have made the entirety of Scripture an adventure in subjective interpretation. I would also suggest, Chris L. could be more informed, that the majority of Hebrew listeners took the events Jesus referrenced as literal.
Rick,
Not subjective at all. And it is not “irrelevant how they took it.” Why do you care if they took it as literal back then if you think it is irrelevant how they took it?
In Hebrew thought metaphor and myth play a powerful role in conveying truth. A myth is not something that is “untrue” but is something that points to an even greater, more profound truth. That is not to say that certain events did not happen “literally.” They may have, they may have not. As we have been over before, Gen 1 and 2 are not “literal” but mythical – they point to a deeper truth.
At the end of the day my faith in Scripture as the inspired word of God as the true narrative of our lives and the cosmos is not and would not be shaken one bit if proof beyond a shadow of a doubt were presented that rendered every single OT story (from Gen 1-2, the Flood, Sodom, Jericho, the Red Sea, the wars, etc) as pure myth (i.e. not literally/historically true).
What if the gospel narratives concerning the life of Christ, including the death and resurrection, were pure myth? Would your faith be shaken? Or are the Old Testament narratives, including the ones quoted (if His words are literal) by Jesus, the only ones that can be either/or?
Your interpretation process renders you as the authority since you subjectively assign literal/mythology to each narrative. What Rosetta Stone do you use? Was King David a literal person? Moses? John the Baptist? I believe Marcus Borg and John Crossan would be in complete agreement with your view, and they include the resurrection. And the Jesus Seminar would no be limited to the OT, they take the same liberties you take with the OT in the NT as well.
And it doesn’t shake their faith, which of course does semm to be of a different variety than is mine.
I understand where this question is coming from but I hope you can see how it isn’t really parallel. By the time the NT was written there were higher standards for getting things more exact – you might say we were progressing on our way towards the modern era. During Jesus’ age you have real historians who are serious about getting events accurate and recording them for later generations (as more people learned to read and write this became useful – Josephus or Philo are good examples). Luke is one of our best examples in scripture when he begins his story to Theophilus and determines to record the events accurately. No one says such a thing in the OT. Even a cursory glance at the NT and the style it is written shows that it is quite different from the OT.
Granted, there are codes and laws in the OT which would be deemed as historical. We have records of other ancient people’s having the same. But some of the stories revolving around them are the stuff legends are made of.
Again, it is not to say they did not happen. But if they did not, I wouldn’t care. My faith would not be shaken due to the fact that I value the truth the stories point me to and have seem that truth evident not only in my life but in others (i.e. I have SEEN people delivered from Egypt. I have SEEN people cross over the Red Sea and have the sins of their past lay as dead bodies on the shores below. I have SEEN people involved in evil and idolatry to such a degree that the FLOODS of chaos and death roll over them while the righteous seem to float high above the misery. I have SEEN walls come crumbling down that have prevented people from reaching the destination and purpose and abundant life that God has for people, etc.)
True, ‘literal’ and ‘metaphor’ had a different sense in the first century than today. However, apart from the Apocalypse of John (clearly identified as apocalyptic literature), the literary form of the New Testament books does not suggest a metaphorical interpretation. Jesus’ words, while they may include metaphor, do not point to a strictly metaphorical truth. He clearly indicates, both in literal form and in parable, the existence of an eternal existence apart from God. He also clearly indicates, both in literal form and in parable, a sense of urgency rooted in the permanence of decisions made in this life.
While we might “wish” it otherwise, we will only find ourselves “wishing” against a reality defined by God. God does “dole out” violence against humans for eternity, what they receive is their just payment for sin – separation from the Father. That any are saved from the just consequences of their own actions is a miracle, and is the gift of His grace freely given. Unfortunately, all to many Christians fall in line with the world, ‘hoping’ that all just consequences will go away in a cloud of rainbows, puppies and unicorns – whether it is the earthly consequences of sin, or the eternal ones.
But that’s not what is described by Jesus – literally OR figuratively…
Sometimes we get this idea that God is deciding things as He goes along. Many things have already been decided as spiritual laws such as “the wages of sin is death”. God does not ascribe that death individually, the reality took effect when Adam sinned and all are born dead, even those who have not sinned “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”.
Like walking over a cliff, gravity does not decide to pull you down, gravity is a law that is in effect for everyone. While it is true that men like Phelps and others revel in the eternal punishment of others, it is also true that some have refused to acknowledge the eternal consequences of sin and hope everything works out for the good.
The basics of the divine/human narrative are these:
Man sinned and died eternally. Christ died to offer eternal life again. That life can be gained by faith without works in the finished work of Jesus the Messiah. He who has the Son has life (here and in eternity), he who has not the Son has not life (here and in eternity).
Although we must avoid a shallow message, God DOES have a wonderful plan for your life, even if it is to escape hell and live eternally with Christ. And to those in Christ He has blessed us with all spiritual blessings here and now. Praise His name!
Chris L – who are you suggesting is characterized as this:
I am assuming you think this is me since I was commenting on this topic. If you do mean me, or the position I am trying to articulate, you have grossly mischaracterized it.
I do agree that some Christians think that way. Just not this one.
I love puppies.
John –
Me too. I especially love puppies who chase unicorns. In my world we actually have puppicorns, which are the best of all worlds.
Chad,
You make statements like this:
. (I’m considering that statement within the context of all the previous things you have said about ALL men being reconciled, hell, etc.)
and this:
within 5 minutes of each other.
Whether or not Chris L was talking about you, it appears that whenever anyone tries to respond to what you actually appear to believe it is “THEY” who have a problem in misunderstanding you.
You appear to truly believe many things that are unbiblical, but when confronted with them you won’t own up to what you have said.
Reminds me of a interview I read done by Hershel Shanks with a prominent liberal feminist theologian. An espousal of unbiblical ideas by the lady with the attitude of “What, did I say that?” when confronted with the reality of what she was saying.
Amy-
There is a WIDE CHASM between the view that suggests there is an eternal torture chamber awaiting any who do not know Jesus and the view that suggests everything is a “cloud of rainbows, puppies and unicorns.”
So yes, I stand by what I said.
John 3:36 means something different than what I think Douglas thinks it means (and I explain that in a follow-up comment to him) and I disagree that not knowing Jesus is akin to fairytales or some hippy dance where we can all just “be happy, mon.”
Your inability to understand that does not make my position any less viable or potentially true.
Not that it really matters but I find it telling when some in the blogosphere continue to define things with loaded language that is offensive. I.E. “I once heard a black preacher” or the “religious right” or a “hyper calvinist” etc…
Anytime we characterize people by our definitions we diminish their Imago Dei. I know it doesn’t matter to some but I was just saying.
That’s why I find it difficult to have dialog with some.
I LOVE MY PUPPIES AND UNICORNS TO HAVE RAINBOWS PAINTED ON THEM…
Whoops…cap lock..sorry
Look, if we all emerge from sola scriptura, like Phyllis Tickle is advocating, we are all going to believe what we want to believe. Chad, my friend, you are already heading down that path.
Jesus Christ talked more about Hell and the Judgment to come than He did about heaven or the kingdom of God. You cannot play pick’em with the scripture, you must take the whole thing. John 3 clearly is a chapter where Jesus spoke about judgment, condemnation, and wrath that is waiting for all those who choose to refuse to look to Christ alone for their salvation.
Repentance is an urgent portion of this; more than a change of direction, it is a change of thinking in line with what God has to say about us; not our opinion of what the God we like would say, rather, what God did say. When we throw out sola scriptura, we get man’s philosophy about what he thinks god is like that is seasoned with views from sacred works as well as vain philosophies.
Well, chris, if I can label someone beforehand then I don’t need to take them seriously. I can place them in a predefined category which allows me to then not recieve them as one beloved by God but as the enemy. It makes being Christian “fun” while it also allows me to blend in with the world around me who does the same thing.
But to whom did Jesus say this to? It was to the Jews – the chosen ones. He didn’t really spend any time warning the pagans about the coming judgment. He was warning the Jewish people that the gig was up, and that Jerusalem was about to face a judgment unlike anything it had ever seen.
So I think it’s very easy to forget that judgment begins with us. We are the culpable ones. We will still give account. It’s not about holding a get out of hell card in the end.
Good point, Phil.
The judgments Jesus spoke of are in the context of a long, ongoing family squabble. They are directed towards those who should know better. “To those who have been given much, much will be demanded.”
We, the Church, who have been grafted into this ongoing family and narrative must now consider this. Judgment begins with US (as Phil said). We have been given much – much is to be expected. We have recieved life – we have the privledge of loving and being loved by the one who has created us and gave his life for us. What we do with that awareness is something every Christian must ask themselves – examine yourself.
To the ones Jesus said judgment was coming (the chosen people of God) he also said that it will be more tolerable for Sodom, Tyre and Sidon than for they (the ones who should have known better). So for us as the Church to sit around in our fancy pews, hiding behind our doctrines and bibles, casting judgments on “the outsider” or the “other” is preposterous. It is exactly the thing Jesus condemned the loudest.
Phil,
It is the near and the far prophesy; certainly Jesus was speaking with the Jews, but was He not also speaking with us?
Are you saying Jesus was not teaching about a literal judgment?
Are you saying that Jesus did not teach about a literal Hell?
I agree, salvation is not a get out of Hell free Card. True conversion is a realization that you deserve Hell because of who you are. By believing what God says about you, and changing your mind to agree with what He says about you and trusting in what He has done to purchase our salvation.
I believe that I deserve Hell, and but for the grace of God, I would be sent there. I agree with God that I am wicked, wretched, and there is nothing good in my fallen nature. I am so glad for His grace.
Of course, Phyllis Tickle and her emergent pals don’t want you to hear this message; theirs is a message of love without judgment, no need for repentance, only good works.
I don’t necessarily agree with this assertion. I think conversion is a realization that you are in hell to a big extent. It’s a realization that you are not living fully. It’s a realization that true life only comes through Christ.
So salvation isn’t a rescue from hell, per se. It’s a rescue from death.
This is completely untrue.
There are 51 references to Kingdom of God, and 32 references to Kingdom of heaven. Only 12 references to hell, and even if y0u throw in the word “condemn” you only get an additional 22 references, many of them having nothing to do with condemnation of sinners by God. Judgment gets another 20 references, but again that word is often used in reference to something other than judgment by God.
I really have to wonder how much you really believe “sola scriptura” when you make statements like this. I have to wonder even more if you really understand what Christ did if you think the Kingdom of God was some kind of also-ran in the ministry of Christ.
When we are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light our entire lives and motivation for living is transformed. But let us not minimize that our eternal destiny has been changed as well, which I would submit is THE major foundation for kingdom living.
If we affect people in a positive way and yet they reject the Savior, what will that profit them in the life to come?
Bo,
I will not take the time to dispute that, though I can list off the references for you. If you would like, I can e-mail them to you. It would be too large here.
But even if your contention was true, it would not remove the reality of the eternal hell which Jesus spoke of where the worm never dies, where people who are liars, thieves, fornicators, adulterers are cast (Rev 21:8)
And, of course, you may be referring to the ‘red letters’ when in fact Jesus is the Word, and He, as God, inspired the entire book…
Did you forget that? Or just cast it aside?
You really have a problem with facts. You wrote, “Jesus Christ said….” not me. When you’ve set the parameters of the metric for what we’re measuring you don’t get to whine and complain just because you were wrong.
Not to mention that your ministry doesn’t look much like Jesus’ ministry if your focus is on hell and condemnation. Jesus isn’t a “get out of hell free” card, and his entire ministry was focused on setting up the kingdom of God.
John Chisham,
In seriousness, I’d be interested in your references. Email them to me.
Bo beat me to it.
Actually, Bo is wrong. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is mentioned 102 times in the Gospels and 28 times in the remainder of the NT.
This includes:
At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. (Luke 4:42-44)
AND
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)
AND
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. (Acts 19:8-9)
Does he preach urgency? Certainly. Does he teach a permanence to the decisions made in this life? Certainly. Is the core of his message “turn or burn”? Certainly not. His message is about how to live today (as part of the Kingdom), not about buying a fire insurance policy…
Amen!
But, the reality of judgment is still not removed. The fact that we are condemned if we do not trust in God’s means of salvation. The fact that the wrath of God abides on us if we do not believe (pistueo) in Christ alone for salvation.
Salvation is not just salvation from hell (though there is that aspect) nor is it salvation only from death (though there is that aspect) It is salvation unto holiness (sanctification) so that we can be made in the image of Christ (see Romans 8:29) all to bring glory to God! The very fact that we deserve hell because we have offended a perfect God, that we are worms, scum of the earth, unworthy to look upon a smidgeon of God’s holiness, and he redeemed us and adopted us and called us his own by making us righteous is a proclamation of His goodness, grace, and mercy and brings glory to His name.
The glorification of God in all of His goodness and holiness. That is what salvation is all about.
It’s the whole “offending God” part where you and I part ways.
I believe the idea that God is angry with us is why so many people, even after they are Christians, have such a hard time seeing and experiencing God as a loving Father. If we offended Him before, what’s to stop us from offending Him again?
I think many Christians today are like the elder brother in the parable of prodigal father or the lazy servant in the parable of the talents. Neither of these characters really understood the heart of the Father. They didn’t understand that His desire for love and mercy was greater than His desire for justice. They both saw Him as a “hard man”, when in reality, this was a caricature of His true nature.
So when we present God to people as a vengeful father who will hold them accountable for stealing a stick of gum when they were four years old, it’s no wonder people have no interest in getting to know that God.
Chris L – good 216.
I would add that part of the sense of urgency in Jesus’ message was political. Unless Israel repent (turn from) the ways they devised to bring about the Kingdom then Rome would most assuredly do what Rome does to defiant minority people – turn them into the smoldering, burning rubbish heap as an extension of their own kingdom.
The teaching found in Matthew 12 illustrates this well. The Pharisees condemn the disciples for gathering grain to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus concludes his teaching with: “But you would not have condemned my innocent disciples if you knew the meaning of this Scripture: ‘I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.’ For the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!”
How many innocents have been condemned by religious leaders who have no understanding of the desires of God?
Chris,
Offensive to whom? What do you personally consider offensive about being “feminist” and “liberal”?
For many those are positive terms.
There is such a thing as just recognizing people for who they are. The lady is feminist. And proud of it. And she is liberal. I believe she would wear that label with pride as well. She would probably identify me as “conservative.” I would not in any way be offended by that.
Bottom line, I believe her view of scripture is similar to Chad’s, and I believe it is that view that contributes to the type of dialogue they share.
Amy-
What is the view of scripture that I and the feminist liberal share?
The white conservative reformed youth pastor responds to the the vigilant ultra conservative blog commenter… I don’t know what would be offensive. My bad!
The view that appears to underlie your insights as shared in many places on this site. A view that you and I would view differently. A view which if I were able and willing to accurately define would most likely lead to rebuttals and a longer discussion than I can have right now . . . .
Interesting, your earlier comments about Isaiah 53. Almost exactly the comments of one of the Duke graduates I mentioned a long time ago. The seemingly oppressed, cynical, book of Isaiah teacher who communicated to me with tears in his eyes that his faith had been dealt a great blow by his higher learning but that he didn’t think there was a way out of his dilemna.
His comments opened me up to Satan’s lies and took me to a dark, oppressive place in my life.By God’s grace I was able to see it as a dark, oppressive place and not a place of growing enlightment. And by God’s grace He got me out of it.
Chris,
I’m trying to decide which is less derogatory, “white” or “vigilant ultra?” (Sounds like some kind of bright neon orange crayon label.)
What do you think of the oft-used label ADM?
I think any label that lessens ones Imago Dei and boxes them into stereotypical labels is counter to Paul’s statement that in Christ there is no Greek nor Jew, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female…
Chris,
So I gather that you think the label “ADM” should not be used?
What if it weren’t, but all the stereotyping was there implicitly? Would that be acceptable to you? There’s much more to “labeling” than simply using a “label.”
_______
While I do think that labels can be misused, hurtful, and slanderous, it seems that some balance is needed.
Interesting that when you said, “I once heard a black preacher . . . ” I had only positive feelings. So what is a negative “stereotypical” label to some is positive to others.
How does one differentiate between “stereotyping” and simply describing the way a person really is? Going back to the original offense, let’s say the lady in question claims herself to be liberal and feminist. Is there some reason why she can’t be identified as such by others? And then, can one describe a person a certain way only if the person in question sees it as positive?
People are feminist. Chauvinists (sp?). Black. White. Mixed-race. Teenagers. Conservative. Rich. Poor. Democrats. Republicans. These words can be simply descriptive or loaded with positive or negative connotations.
Actually…just because a feminist thinker might agree with Chad doesn’t necessarily mean that his thinking is feminist per se…and even if it did that doesn’t inherently mean something bad. If people actually studied the range of “feminisms” we would see something much more interesting than the 1 dimensional floaties one finds when drinking from certain toilets.
As far as “liberal” goes…well that pretty just means anyone who disagrees with a conservative about pretty much anything.
Chad,
nice dodge wouldn’t you say?
What views are X?
The views that are the views of which I have had a view about those views per the said views of which your views are viewed.
Huh?
lol nc.
Amy-
In other words, you don’t know.
I was really hoping to learn something new about myself from a person who doesn’t even know more nor ever took the time to ask me honestly, “Hey Chad, what is your view of Scripture?”
For a moment, I thought I might be dialoging with someone with a divine sense of omniscience. Now, I am deflated.
There is one universal label I have found that is both aesthetic and utilitarian, as well as give me the sense of satisfaction for which I was looking.
Jerks.
There, I feel better…
my comment above should read: ….”who doesn’t even know me…” (not more).
Yes and No.
Sure labels can be descriptors that enhance knowledge of a person but they can also be derogatory to lessen the view of a person. Intent is difficult to judge.
Back to your statement about the liberal feminist and equating that to also be Chads vantage point on scripture was, in my view, a negative connotation. Now had you approached it differently and something a long the lines of “Chad what you are saying sounds similar to an author I heard who’s view of scripture comes from the bias of being a liberal and a feminist.” Would have been vastly different than…
It would also have helped the dialog if you actually had quotes, or the “prominent” woman’s name, or a transcript. You know actually back up your claims with facts. I know that’s lost on many in the blogosphere but I can hope.
nc,
I never said Chad was a feminist. He might be but I haven’t read everything he’s written and haven’t drawn that conclusion.
Back to my main point, which has been put aside in honor of Chris’s concern about labeling, and remains uncontested (and therefore true
):
As for your asking for an “honest question,” Chad,why don’t you start with the above? You could go back and look at other dialogues where you have consistently not responded to me and find more “honest questions.” How about answering the honest question, “Who are the “they” are who only want to make converts?” (Speaking of labeling . . . )
I also wouldn’t be surprised if I haven’t already asked you what your view of Scripture is.
As for this statement, Chris:
I wouldn’t make a statement like that because it is often the view of scripture that leads to becoming a liberal and a feminist, not the other way around.
Since labeling is apparently very important to you, (more important than discussing the actual point I was making) perhaps you could let me know how this site should talk about “ADM”s.” Does “Mafia whose view of other Christians comes from the bias of sitting in armchairs” work for you? I don’t see how it could. Mafia is quite a loaded term. And have you done documented research to demonstrate how much armchair sitting versus real-life ministry those who are called ADM’s are doing?
And how broadly is the term “ADM” used? If Chris L had continued along the lines of the dialogue in which Chad exited never to be seen again could he then be labeled as an “ADM?” And what are you going to do with the term “ADM sycophants” as used by the very same Chris in this discussion? To whom does it apply? Is this term not “negative?”
May I suggest that all of these terms – ADM’s, ADM syncophants” would not be worn proudly by those who are being called such names and that if labeling is wrong, then mean labeling is even more wrong? (In contrast to my label which you are so concerned about – I can’t imagine the lady wanting to be defined as conservative and whatever the opposite of feminist is. I believe I have done her an honor by calling her “feminist” and “liberal.”)