Playing the Devil’s Advocate
One the most fascinating facts I’ve learned in my studies of Old and New Testament theology has to be about the role Satan actually plays. I think American Christians tend to focus on Satan as the originator of all evil, as he rightly is, but I think we tend to forget some of the more nefarious roles he plays. In Hebrew, the word satan actually means something very close to the accuser. It’s as if Satan is a spiritual prosecutor, accusing people of crimes and misdeeds they may have or may have not committed. This role is probably best seen in the book of Job or in Revelation 12:9 & 10:
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
So here, Satan is described as “the accuser of our brothers”. As a being he spends his time pleading a case before God that we deserve to be condemned. God, it seems, has little time to hear these accusations, though, as they are covered by the blood of the Lamb.
So it’s interesting to me that there seems to be a good number of Christians who seem to have the idea that taking on this accusatory role is a good thing. I see a post like this or this which basically seem to serve no purpose but to throw an accusation out there demanding a defense. It’s as if they have decided to take the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury upon themselves. I wonder, whose work are they doing?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not accusing these men and women of being instruments of the devil or anything like that. I don’t even doubt that they have good motivations, really. I just wonder, though, if they have been working under a wrong assumption about the justice and judgment of God and how it gets doled out.
I believe that God alone has reserved the right to judgment. I think that a main reason this is the case is simply because of the great power that comes with it. When Adam and Eve partook of the Tree of Knowledge, their eyes were opened to things that God never intended them to see. It was as if they were given a “serpent’s eye” view of things. So instead of trusting God and taking Him at His word, they began seeing things through the eyes of the accuser. I think it’s very easy for us to fall into this original sin today.
So my encouragement would be this. Instead of looking for ways to accuse our brothers and sisters, shouldn’t we look for ways to build them up? Do we really need to play the Devil’s Advocate. Do you we need to demand answers from people who we really have no connection to? Can we not trust that God is the only true and righteous judge?
It’s my hope that we will learn to put our hope in the judgments of God rather than our own.
Grace and peace.
![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")
80 Comments(+Add)
I have no idea of who Greg Boyd is and very little background on Rob Bell. Nor will I be looking into them further.
I want to address the broader theme here.
However, it is foolhardy to ‘build them up’ when they are running headlong into error and leading people with them.
You’ll notice that in almost all epistles (especially 2 Peter 2 and Jude) that the warning against false leaders was not exactly tame, but trumpeted as a warning loud and clear. Paul was explicit when warning about Hymaneus, Philetus or Alexander. As was John when warning about Diotrophes.
You don’t need to coddle people – especially leaders – if they are in error and they are so firm in their stance. As to the motives and means of exposing, that is a serious matter, but false teaching should be brought to light.
Remember, Satan is also a deceiver – a religious deceiver.
Isn’t that exactly what you are doing by linking back to these peoples sites?
I find it interesting that there was no link to Joe’s latest blog on his own site where he basically accused me of being an adulterer.
Then there was Iggys comments which accused me of being a non-Christian.
I guess it is not accusation or judgement amongst your buddies.
I also find in the scripture where we are called to judge, using right judgement. And who are we called to judge? One another. Christian brothers and sisters.
So, I get your point. Ingrid and Ken are Satan. Crn.info is not because they only accuse ODM’s.
Whoops….blockquote backwards.
Paul C.,
I agree with you as far any are actually leading others into false teaching.
The greater problem is, as I pointed out HERE, that many of the ADM’s are first building a caricature of the person’s teaching… a caricature that severely departs from reality, then accusing.
Neil
I have to agree with PB here: couching words and using disclaimers doesn’t do away with the obvious fact that this site is often just as guilty of ‘accusing’ as their ‘adversaries’ are.
I fixed it… but don’t want to “mess” with your comment – is it OK as it is now?
Neil
waaaah, waaaah, waaaah, PB.
People here called that mess out about you and Iggy.
Let it go. There’s no argument on that.
And to set it up as something about “buddies” etc. is patently dishonest.
I will say though that there’s no need to back away from naming behavior as participating in the ministry of Satan when they actually do…
Just consider the recent splash about attacking “appearances”…
Pastorboy,
This is downright dishonest of you… the way you present this it would appear Iggy’s comments were acceptable… but you know full well he was taken to task for this.
Neil
Why does it have to be either/or?
The consistent complaint I’ve seen here is that even when the imams have a point (see, PB, they actually do have a point sometimes) they freight it with so much name calling and rhetorical elbow jabs that it only undercuts their own position.
The fact that you and others insist on this binary all or nothing way of approaching it is really silly.
I actually tend to view what we do more like acting like a defense attorney. We present evidence for the accused most of the time. We try to refrain from naming names as much as possible, but linking to an article that was written by someone will inevitably give up the identity of that person.
I wouldn’t have as much of a problem if the ADMs stuck to purely addressing teachings, but it seems they often make it personal by throwing around ad hominems such as “heretic”, “apostate”, “neo-liberal” (whatever that means), etc.
The thing that inspired me to write this post was the post on SoL where the “admin” said he or she sent a letter to Mars Hill “demanding” a response. Who are they to demand anything from a church they don’t attend? I hope the pastors at Mars Hill ripped it up or deleted it as soon as they got it. Seriously, Mars Hill has its own board, and I highly doubt the “admin” at SoL sits on it.
I mean…
all other issues aside, can’t you just be honest enough to say that, for example, Ingrid’s personal jab at Rob Bell was personal and wrong and she should apologize?
THAT was the issue…and it’s that kind of behavior that is being called out here.
Why can’t you see that?
ruach.
We are self-proclaimed watchers of those who are self-proclaimed watchers on the wall (truth and the church I guess)…
When they cease from their false accusations and mis-characteristics of our brothers and sisters in Christ – we’ll be out of a job as well…
Are you guilty of Satanic accusing when you name the act of Satanic accusing by others?
Really?
Or, as is often the case with Pastorboy – he’ll make a point I agree with in general, it’s just that the “defendent” never committed the offense.
Neil
Funny… though maybe not – that you truncated the paragraph leaving out Jerry’s actual stated point so you could hypothesize one of your own.
Here is what you chose to omit: …I just wonder, though, if they have been working under a wrong assumption about the justice and judgment of God and how it gets doled out.
Yes. And to the point: Hebrews says: “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” (7:25)
For those in Christ, no accusation will ever stand. See also Romans 8:33-34.
So let them charge away, doing the devil’s work (see Job 1:11, 2:9). No weapon formed against us shall prosper, all those who rise up against us shall fall.
Agreed – this is often the case, I’ve observed.
And sometimes it happens here: in a rush to defend you (speaking generally here) often overlook the folly of the ‘accused’.
The sad thing is that in 100% of cases, both the plaintiff’s and defense’s attorneys present warped views of the truth. But I thank you for the honesty in at least admitting the frame of mind behind much of what is posted here – I think it’s accurate.
As Christians, we must be concerned with truth – not accusing wrongfully or defending hogwash. Both are different sides of the same coin.
I don’t think we’ve ever defended hogwash…
Jerry – all very well and good.
I think there’s a problem of perspective though. You consider yourself to be doing right and suffering persecution from the devil as a result.
However, the ODMs see themselves as doing right as well, alerting the church to the gross error and apostacy that is growing daily.
However, if the ‘victims’ are not actually victims, but fit into the references of 2 Peter 2, Jude, 2 Cor 11 and so on – then you might want to reconsider… Just a thought.
As the proverb says: “Every way of man is right in his own eyes…”
defending hogwash isn’t the same as wrong accusations of moral/scriptural failure.
AND…the point has never been to defend the “folly” of the accused.
The issues raised on this site are about the “rhetorical jabs”…
the fact that people insist that criticizing those jabs amounts to defending whatever mistake may or may not be present is still dishonest.
Self-examination is paramount.
On both sides (the ODMs as well as sites like this) there is a tendency to become vested and emotional.
Error, falsehood and the like should be pointed out, but not with glee and pleasure. I get it.
I think Rick’s comments to Chad on the previous post was very mature, forthright and honest. We all have a tendency to descend into wrong motives, especially when defending positions more than the truth.
Paul C,
It’s never simply about error.
And how are we to take seriously their estimation of “error” when “apostasy” is the removal of pews in a church or the modernization of cultural musical tastes, or whatever….
How are we to trust that they know what “apostasy” is when Bell’s personal style is now tantamount to a capitulation on morality?
Seriously?
How?
Can you see why such skepticism and scorn for such silliness is voiced here?
I’d venture to say that we are a lot quicker to point out disagreements we have with the “defendent” than most any ADM is to admit that the defendent is even Christian… let alone doing anything good.
it should also be pointed out accurately and honestly… so many times the accusations are built not on what was said or done, but on a twisted caricature of what was said or done.
We are not above fault, of course… but most of the posts on this blog show not only how someone is falsely accused, but how the accuser first changed the meanings of what was said or written… thus creating a strawman to attack.
You guys did call Iggy on it….
But this behavior, the accusatory behavior…is just as prominent on this blog as a watchblog as it is anywhere else.
I refer you to Bo Diaz, Joe, Iggy, et.al. And not just this blog, their personal ones.
Again Neil: as Phil accurately depicted, when it comes to posts here, you take the position of a defending attorney. The defending attorney is most interested, not in the truth, but in defending the accused.
As a result, the truth is relegated to the backburner, and might be inconvenient if it doesn’t support the innocence of the accused.
As a negotiator myself, one of the first things you learn is that people are not as interested in the truth as they are in defending deep-rooted positions, and then finding ‘truth’ that aligns with these positions. Human nature it seems.
I don’t expect you to agree with me – but it is an observation that comes through to someone who is neither an ODM or anti-ODM.
I think the vast majority of what they produce is actually accurate – but then sometimes covered with adolescence and anger which can detract from the point somewhat.
PB,
Forgiveness is not your strong point is it. I apologized for stating you were not saved, yet will not retract in how you act as one that is not saved…. even in the comments above you lacked the grace to forgive me and had to drag me into a thread I was not even involved in.
And again today I forgive you for all you attempts to drag me down from the grace that God has given me and that you mocked His Life in me…
And I thank you for letting me humbly bow before God to ask Him to give me Grace again today to deal with you.
iggy
So PB, you’re saying someone is guilty of Satanic accusing when they name the act of Satanic accusing by others?
Really?
I find it interesting that the ODM/ADM that comes here takes the road of Adam in the garden almost all the time…
Like Adam not recognizing his own sin and need to deal with his relationship with God… Adam states, “”The woman you put here with me–she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
Instead of reading and reflecting on how they might be as the post suggests and might need to change their own ways… they go, “But iggy does… “or “Joe did…” such and such or “Aren’t you doing the same thing in this post?”
It seems they have no ability or willingness to understand others or even attempt to try to move beyond that they can only be the one that is “right”…
Personally I am sick of their self -rightness and inability to give Grace to others.
Some claim to be “reconciliationist” and seem to lack even the rudimentary understanding or what that even means… as they seem only intent on attacking and lying and continuing their arguments through thoroughly refuted over and over.
It show a true unteachable spirit and I fear for any congregation, listener, reader or whatever that these people teach.
iggy
Iggy,
I didn’t note an apology. I will go look for it.
Apology or no, you are forgiven. Since your opinion about me has no impact on my life, I can easily forgive you.
I am simply using your blogs and your comments here as examples of how the anti-ODM crowd acts as accusers of the brethren.
NC
It seems a bit hypocritical to call one an accuser of the brethren when one is an accuser of the brethren him/herself.
But what would be really good is a OP on righteous judgement vs. unrighteous judgement (satanic accusing)
Come on over to my personal blog, John. Where have I lied about you on my personal blog? You have honesty issues, John. That’s just the way of it. You can change, but as of today you have honesty issues.
My first thought, as well, Phil. Who are they to ‘demand’ anything? If their community has decided that issues of homosexual practice are best handled one-on-one, and in a sensitive fashion, why should we question that? MHBC has not declared that “gay is OK” (which would be the easiest thing to do, I would note, if that were their position), but have rather said that it is a matter that they deal with on an individual basis.
Understanding all of the nuances with this issue, I don’t see that a church needs to “take a public stand” on an issue that isn’t core to the Gospel.
With that said, though, I do not consider CRN.Info a “church”, but rather a place where we come together to discuss matters of import to us or our readers. As such, I have no problems talking about my personal beliefs on the issue – but that shouldn’t be mistaken for me believing that this issue is “core to the Gospel”…
Or our job will shift to primarily articles like “Learning to Listen” and more observational/devotional articles. I would love it if the ADM’s went away (in their current manifestation and mission, at least) and we never had to address them again…
#29
Even a veiled non specific accusation like this can be construed as satanic accusation.
I forgive you iggy.
Thanks for allowing me to go before God’s throne having to demonstrate the forgiveness I have received so often from Him.
PB,
On my blog I give opinion as to how I see some are unjustly attacking others… On your blog you take my words and twist them to mean the opposite and then do not allow me to correct your error… and then lie that I am not being “nice” or whatever.
Meanwhile you come to my blog take what I say and tell me I am wrong, then re-read it and tell me that “this is how it is…” and it is just the same thing I stated!
It seems you are a bitter person that cannot forgive…
It was you that started lying about me again in the thread you are talking about and now whine that I stated you seem to act as one not saved? Tell me one scripture that God states “Lie about your brother” or “Twist another’s words to mean the opposite they stated.” or “Bear false witness and accuse another of threats when it was not a threat?”
Again, thank you for allowing me to Go to God in how to deal with you. My prayers are with you that you come to maturity in the Faith and forsake worldly/Satanic ways to attack others and tear them down.
iggy
Joe,
1. I do not ride a motorcycle.
2. I have never made an advance towards any woman on this blog. A lame attempt at a complement, but no advance
3. I have a temper? I guess you have personal experience to validate this.
4. I do not use a bullhorn. I suppose this is a lame reference to Rob Bell’s Bullhorn guy.
I would say you are the one with the honesty issues, Joe. And the one with the temper issues. Anytime your ‘boy’ gets dissed, it seems you write an attack piece. Most counselors would call this (your accusations of me) transference.
#34
I rest my case.
PB,
Nothing to veil. It is as I see it and seems to be as others see the ODM/ADM folk. If it hit home then maybe you need take it more to heart and change. If you are presenting yourself to so many as “an accuser of the brethren” then maybe you need step back and really look at how you act toward others. Nothing I stated was a lie or accusation about you… it was an observation that you and the ODM/ADM people seem much like Adam in not taking responsibility for your actions… even in your acceptance of apology you needed to cut me down… sheesh… so go back to the Throne and learn how to truly forgive and not use forgiveness as a tool to put others down.
iggy
oh, yes, PB
My disdain for stupid, demeaning comments about people’s appearance amounts to hypocritical satanic accusation.
that’s rich.
John,
1. But that is how you got the name right? I mean you wanted something for a vanity plate on your cycle. I just went and watched the TJ interview you did.
2. You hit on that girl. I know you disagree, but it was a hit on.
3. Yes, I would say I do. I’ve seen you lose your temper on blogs and say silly things.
4. Never said you do use a bullhorn, said bullhorn style.
And actually John, it’s called counter-transference (why be scholarly, right?). But there’s no attack piece there. it’s an invitation to look at another blog.
Yep. This is a fine example of building one another up.
dang,
hit submit.
I’m not trying to take you to task PB, I’m just saying I don’t think there’s an equivalence there. You haven’t demonstrated how there is.
naming satanic accusation is satanic accusation?
NC
I don’t get your last comment.
PB,
can you admit that Ingrid’s comment about Bell’s appearance and drawing a connection to his impending capitulation on morality was silly?
Even if he ever does advocate for homosexuality, does it that really have anything to do with his appearance?
PB,
It sounds like you’re saying that when people name satanic accusation for what it is that recognizing it and rebuking it is itself a form of satanic accusation.
You’re drawing equivalence between the rebuke of satanic accusation with the accusation itself.
John,
The page you posted that long comment from won’t come up. How long ago was that page written? It’s archived so it has to have been a while.
In the comments – maybe. I remember when they allowed comments and it was much much worse.
But the biggest difference is we do not need to create a false caricature first.
Neil
This is where the analogy breaks down. We have repeatedly pointed out disagreements with those we “defend.”
The point is not so much to defend anyone as it is to point out the errors and inaccuracies of the ADM’s.
Neil
I disagree.
#44
I don’t think thats what I am doing, or what I am trying to do. The original OP bothers me in that he names the standard whipping boys and does not examine the bad habit of his own peeps doing it.
# 45
It is Iggy’s site, I don’t know
#43 Wasn’t that already addressed on another OP? I stated that when we comment on people’s God-given appearances that it seems juvenile and detracts from the argument. Also, I wondered aloud if they didn’t try to make him look more feminine to make a point.
PB,
How do the “peeps” in the articles here even approximate comments like “painted girls of Sodom” etc. etc. etc?
Seriously… is there anyway we can block Pastorboy and Iggy from seeing each other’s comments?
Neil
RE #43
yeah, but what was the argument, PB?
It seems like just another chance for that woman to take a jab at someone.
It hasn’t been demonstrated how Bell’s video “She” is guilty of what he’s been accused of.
Neil,
I just won’t read them.
The reason the accusations of Satan are… well satanic, is because they are either false (e.g. Job) or they are coverd by the blood of Jesus and therefore dealt with (e.g. believers). In both cases the crux is that the accusations are false or moot.
If accusations are accurate and true… they are not false and therefore not satanic
[Here I am using "satanic" as they are Satan-like, not as they are inspried by...]
In the case of ADM’s (as I pointed out in my Mr Dumpty post) the standard practice is to make false accusations, or accusations built on a false and/or twisted foundation.
They change the meanings of what people say… and attack their self-created meanings.
Or perhaps they interpret it for the clear meaning that they perceive.
Is that any better if it’s still a lie?
Pastorboy,
Did you see where I corrected you block quote tag error on comment #2… is that correct?
Since we don’t normally edit comments I wanted to make sure you’re “OK” with the syntax correction.
Neil
Problem is, in most cases it’s not an issue of clarity – it’s an issue of honesty )or as I have said in your case I think it;s sloppiness), several which we recently discussed.
The original comments are clear enough… even you have been guilty of selective quoting, misinterpreting, and imputing meanings foreign to the context into Bell quotes – for example.
Taking an obvious comment and saying “Here’s what he really meant” – is dishonest.
The problem is the unchristian approach and the inflated view of their own divine appointments. Does anyone stop to think that regardles of your disagreements with Bell (for instance), he is a husband, son, father, and a pastor who has helped many despite some of his more “unorthodox” teachings?
The scorched earth policy of doctrinal debate can become void of humility, void of reason, void of respect, and many times void of Christ. remember, the demon shouting that Paul was an ambassador of the most High God was told to “shut up” (Frueh version) even though the demon was speaking truth. What does that teach us?
Just being in possession of truth does not insure you speak for God.
Sounds rather like what they accuse emergents of doing.
#57
Yes thank you Neil.
#56
Who is to say you’re interpretation is the right one or the one he meant? What if we are both right? Here is the thing; everything emergent is supposed to be based on subjective feelings anyhow…I mean, isn’t it?
The nature of reading is that I form my opinions based upon what I read. You may form different opinions than I do, but is it really wrong or a lie?
I do not think so.
The only different text is of course the scripture, whereby the Holy Spirit can illuminate His Word to declare exactly what it means, yet it is living, though not changing. What you need is a solid hermeneutic, a concordance, greek/hebrew lexicon, and a submission to the Holy Spirit to teach you what He has for you.
PB,
I am sincere about Ken Silva’s success as he grows a church that is of God.
The point though which you seem to overlook is that Ken states one version and the reality is another as confirmed by some here who have talked to those in charge of Ken’s church… that being the overseer appointed by the SBC who states the history is contrary to Ken Silva’s version.
Also, though that site is satire, I am sincere in that others come to the Grace and Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and I will always stand against what hinders growth… such as lies.
If Ken misrepresents himself, why are you defending him?
Interestingly it seems you only want to show the world how “bad” I am… and you overlook that I have even defended Ingrid in the last couple of days. I am not so out of balance I need to point out every little “wrong”… I will point out “wrongs” that are intentionally meant to harm the other without them being able to give their side.
Funny how I gave both sides of Ken’s story… It was actually a balanced piece that gave both sides of the story and let the reader decide as to the truth…. yet you seem to only see it as not edifying?
To me, often you come here and twist what is said to mean the opposite… you are not just a contrarian, but one that seems to have the need to always demean the other. I have not recollection of ever being edified by you… I have unfortunate recollections of you purposely trying to do me harm. Even when you agree with me you state you do not… then consistently restate the very thing I stated. You state things that are so far from biblical at times that even when corrected you will fight with personal attacks and bring up things that are not even part of the original post to draw attention away from the fact you were wrong.
It seems from day one when all I wanted to do with you was clarify some inconsistencies in your theology that you have only tried to find ways to harm me.
I personally think you need help… I think you have no clue as to what real reconciliation is and that Grace means nothing to you except that you get to go to heaven and seem gleeful that others get to go to hell.
I may speak in strong words… but as far as your interactions with me you never cordial or nice… you accuse me of not edifying others… but then put down God’s Word in one thread… call others liars who quote your very words and you deny them…
Get some help John…
Now, all that I do think you might be a nice person that is messed up with really bad theology. I hold out hope that God will finish what He started in you and pray you will humbly go before the Throne of Grace to learn how to give grace to others. I do not see you as the enemy though those you claim as “friends” do so of me.
Peace.
iggy
Yep…none of this going on here.
PB,
Serious question…. Do you see legalism in the church today? If so, who would you claim are those who are legalistic? Do you see anyone out there that stresses outward appearance over inward growth? Or do you see any group that adds works to Grace?
iggy
Yes.
I can see where I can be legalistic myself, but I must always remember that the law works death. It is a constant struggle personally to remember I am saved by Grace and that the works I do do not save me but are a result of the outworking of grace. There are many evangelical/reformation style churches that can tend to be legalistic if they are not careful. A great example is the ‘deeds not creeds’ credo we see in seeker sensitive and some emergent fellowships where they might say go awry of orthodoxy, and state, for example, that their deeds are more important than what they believe. I take James’ route: Show me your faith (orthodoxy) by what you do. But, in balance. Deeds do not save, but they can comdemn.
Yes! The emergent and seeker sensitive church! Look at what we are doing to save the planet for example. However, there are many institutional churches where people just want to ‘look good’ for each other.
Yes! See above answer!
I think we all, because we still have a sin nature, or the flesh as Paul calls it, struggle mightily to discover the balance of Grace. Works are a natural outworking of grace. We seem to forget that grace is transformational; God’s grace CHANGES you into a different person. It is a process however. One which is going to continue if you are saved until the day you die, and then we will be fully transformed (that is those who are saved).
Serious answer.
Whoops. NEIL!!!!
I think I did it again.
RE: everything emergent is supposed to be based on subjective feelings anyhow…I mean, isn’t it?
No. It isn’t.
that’s why so much of the critiques don’t make sense to us and we wonder who people are talking about…
PB,
Thanks for you honest answer. I would disagree about emerging… as what attracted me to it was the grace of many involved.
I wonder though how you can overlook the obvious as to adding things like.
A church is not a church unless it:
Has pews.
Has a preach that preaches out of a pulpit.
Sings only Hymns.
Or a person is not worthy of consideration as a brother or sister if they:
Sing modern hymns.
Wear the wrong clothes while they preach.
Speak in a way that non believers can understand.
Have some theological differences than the Creed they follow.
Read a version of the bible that one does not like.
Looks metro-sexual… (which has nothing to do with their sexual preference)
Uses worldly tactics to attack another servant of God in their disagreement.
and so on…
I see all that as adding works to Grace and that SoL and AM do such as this.
Again, though I really appreciate that you stated you can be legalistic. We all can lean toward that… In fact for a time I became legalistic for Grace… and God used a PDL/Seeker style pastor to call me on that.
I would agree that there are issues in PDL/Seeker models as programs may get in the way of the Holy Spirit’s leading… or confuse it. Yet, I can’t really understand who you might be talking about as far as being legalistic in the emergent/emerging peoples. If anything I would say they may be over gracious in acceptance of “sin” and sometimes lean too far as far as freedom… yet that be to me still impossible that there be too much freedom as we are now given the freedom from sin unto righteousness.
iggy
If you are referring to Bell – then no: 1) Bell is not emergent in the technical sense, and 2) Bell does not base everything on subjective feelings.
It can certainly be wrong. It is only a lie of you know it to be wrong and say it anyway.
I have shown repeatedly in the last two days how you have misinterpreted Bell.
fixed…
it’s not an issue of interpretation when a caricature is built up first. Bell clearly stated that Jesus was the only way, that trusting Jesus was necessary to be a child of God… yet this was not enough for Chris R… or you.
There was nothing in the Lectio Divina about vain repetition, or repeating words, of emptying the mind – YOU added all of that and then railed against it.
Neil
What exactly do you think the apostles were facing, to some degree, in the early church, that forced Paul others to warn about “another gospel” and “another Jesus”.
I know nothing of Chris R – but at the same time, anyone who blindly decides to hold hands with someone who simply says they believe in Jesus is setting themselves up for a fall.
In this day of tolerance and compromise, Christians need to be wise.
Paul warned about the devil himself being “transformed as an angel of light, and his ministers as ministers of righteousness.” What do you think they were telling people to do? Kill, rob and destroy? No – believe and follow a warped (FALSE) gospel and Christ of their own making.
As I’ve said before – “philosophies and vain deceit” are what have served to undermine the church all along its history.
In the days of Jeremiah, the false preachers were condemned for “causing my people to err by their lightness.”
What did they do wrong? They preached a chaffy and loose message, talked about God, performed the necessary rituals, but there was a lightness there that diluted the power of God to change lives.
I am not throwing off on Bell as I’ve never read (nor will read) any of his stuff – but more so in general.
I agree. That is why I do not “blindly decide.” The point is, though… if a man claims the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation – it is disingenuous to claim he is also universalist.
It is sloppy to post a quote and say it proves he’s a universalist, when in the very quote he says some will choose to be separated from God for eternity…
I wish that the attack on Bell was blind – but it is not – it is done using selective quoting, silvanizing*, and sloppiness of argument.
*silvanize – to take the plain meaning of a text or phrase and change it’s meaning from what was intended into something antithetical that is easy to attack and/or ridicule.
OK – but the things we are objecting to are very specific cases of ADM’s making accusations that can only be made (and defended) by sloppy and dishonest methods.
Paul,
To what part of Jeremiah are you referring?
What I find in Jeremiah is this:
And
And
This doesn’t look like “causing my people to err by their lightness”… (I would note that “lightness” in from the KJV, and is more accurately translated (in context) “recklessness”.
From the context of Jeremiah – God was prophesying that He would destroy Israel, while there were other (false) prophets who were telling the people that God will never destroy Israel. And so, by their (false) prophesy, these (false) prophets were erring in “recklessness”.
It was not about a “chaffy and loose” message – it was about making stuff up and telling people that God said it. Kind of like “The Lord appointed me to go after Rob Bell”…
You’re making this up as you go along, Paul…
Chris L – I stand corrected in regards to the word “lightness” (was quoting from memory as opposed to a cut/paste which would have been more accurate).
As I said, I was not throwing off on Bell specifically (this is only the second snippet video I’ve seen of him).
But I think the larger point stands, no? When we swallow everything just because of the label “Jesus” then we are easily deceived.
As I said, the early church was undermined by people preaching (another) Jesus and (another) gospel, not persecution.
Not if he is as slippery as some… He can also philosophize away.
This was my main point:
I’m always mildly amused at the idea of Satan being a actual tangible entity. One of my kids once asked me, “If God is all powerful, and has the power to divert storms (according to wackjobs like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) or create droughts, tidal waves, and bible belt tornado clusters, and the Devil is such a huge pain in the ass, why can’t he just make him dissappear?”
Had to ponder that one for a minute or two.
The only good answer I could come up with was that if there was no devil, all those wacky TV evangelists wouldn’t have anything to frighten people with, and their shows would lose most of their entertainment value.