Sometimes the headlines of the check-out line tabloids are so outlandish they become funny. You almost want to read the article to see what they are really talking about… though I never do, not wishing to fall for the obvious ploy.

In a similar vein, I did check out a post at CR?N that linked to another post at Apprising (I cannot bring myself to type the word “ministries” in connection with that site,) The headline in both cases is Contemplative Eugene Peterson Discourages Reading the Bible. In the latter site the headline reads in all caps, as if shouting out from some self-imagined wall.

The only problem with the headline is the fact that in the very quote offered as proof Peterson discourages Bible reading he is promoting Bible reading. DOH! My first inclination was to say Ken Silva is lying about Peterson, but when the quote you offer negates the claim of your headline, that’s not lying, that’s something else all together. (I also think Silva uses “Contemplative” as an insult – though I don’t know why since it’s biblically encouraged.)

Headline/article alignment at Apprising ______ and CR?N – FAIL!

Apprising and CR?N understanding of a man’s simply caution about misreading the Bible - FAIL!

Silva being caught in his own egocentric cultural bondage while accusing the brethren of promoting spiritual bondage – WIN! (…technically the latter is also a failure, and probably the saddest aspect of the whole affair, but as irony it is a win)

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm and is filed under Editor, Ken Silva, Legalism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

104 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Another epic fail is that fact that Ken posts at CR?N under editor but posts in 3rd person to further prop up his self inflated importance.

Yes I realize the wording is rough but I felt it necessary to emphasize the lunacy of Ken Silva.

2   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
June 10th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Dang, Neil, that’s harsh.

What did the tabloids ever do to you?

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

I actually do not understand the post you reference, however, I do understand the Tickle/Rollins posts which no one dare address.

Avoid the uncomfortable issues. When asked to state whether he believed that Christ’s death was an atoning, redeeming substitutionary sacrifice to save sinners Rollins stated that he had not come to a final conclusion on that – ‘the jury was still out’.”

That might make a real interesting post here. :cool:

4   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

I don’t really know that much about Peter Rollins, but I’ve listened to both of Phyllis Tickle’s sermons when she spoke at Mars Hill, and I liked them a lot. I actually recommended them to friends. I can say that the post Ken has about her saying all religions are the same is completely taken out of context is really an out-and-out lie.

She did say that many world religions have common moral elements (which is a fact that is hard to dispute), but that Christianity is unique. It’s on the podcast for anyone to listen to, so I’m a bit puzzled as to why Ken would so blatantly spread a falsehood… (OK, I’m not really…)

Seriously, when Ken writes this stuff that is so clearly wrong, why should anyone listen to anything he has to say?

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

I listened to her “talk” as well and found it utter nonsense. Rollins is a good friend of Tickle’s amd she highly recommends him.

I realize that it doesn’t mean much when someone recommends someone who claims the jury is out on the substitutionary, atoning essence of the cross, but it does reveal a blatant bias by the writers here.

You have lost your credibility since you pick the easy issues to criticize and ignore or plead “ignorance” about much more important issues of redemption. Tickle and Rollins are “persecuting the church from within” but do not meet the constricted requirements of an ODM so they are praised.

You have an axe to grind but refuse any sharpening of the same.

6   Neil    
June 10th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

The posts I commented on falsely smear Eugene Peterson and do not speak of Rollins nor Tickle… so I am not sure how they are relevant.

7   Joe    
June 10th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

#4.
Yeah, I gotta say I was 15 feet from her and she said what Ken says she said and then goes BUT!!!
It’s right there. Here’s the thing when your “ministry” is about finding fault with others you have to be willing to make stuff up.
Phyllis VERY CLEARLY stated that Christianity is different.
As for your question about should anyone take what he is writing seriously, I doubt that anyone does except for the rabid haters that are just like him. We have this church near us that is KJV only. They put verses about condemnation on their car, and stand on street corners and “preach” the bad news.
No one listens except the 20 or so relatives that also attend their church.

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm

They are relevant because almost all the posts you do address are ones that attack your favorite guys but you do not have the courage to address some of the posts that have significant questions about Tickle, Rollins, and Bell.

You are timidly selective which is nothing more than self serving.

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

This is one of the boards on which Tickle sits. A treasure trove of all faiths apostasy.

10   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

You have lost your credibility since you pick the easy issues to criticize and ignore or plead “ignorance” about much more important issues of redemption. Tickle and Rollins are “persecuting the church from within” but do not meet the constricted requirements of an ODM so they are praised.

Are you talking to Neil or to me? Neil wrote the original article, which wasn’t about Tickle or Rollins.

The only reason I mentioned Tickle was that you brought her up. Honestly, I didn’t really find anything wrong with her sermons, but again, that really doesn’t have anything to do with the post.

As far as Ken’s other witch hunts, I really don’t care anymore. He’s shown his “research” for what it is. Frankly, I don’t really care what people think of my opinions about other pastors and authors, either. I have educated myself enough to form my own opinions, and I don’t need the new Protestant magisterium to do it for me. I would hope others would take it upon themselves as well. The fact that people like Ken are willing to stoop to lying to prove whatever point it is they’re trying to prove just shows how desperate they are to hold onto what little power they have.

11   Neil    
June 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

They are relevant because almost all the posts you do address are ones that attack your favorite guys but you do not have the courage to address some of the posts that have significant questions about Tickle, Rollins, and Bell.

You are timidly selective which is nothing more than self serving.

I am sorry I have failed to meet your standard Rick. I posted on a false statement made by Ken Silva (twice) against an author I am familiar with, and whom I like to read. That I did not post about people with whom I am not familiar – that makes me timid, selective, self-serving?

GEESH!

The only selectivity I employed was selecting to comment on an author with whom I am familiar… and I am lambasted for not commenting on people with whom I am not familiar?

Do you have an opinion on the actual post, or are you just gonna bitch about the subject matter I chose to write about?

12   Neil    
June 10th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Neil wrote the original article, which wasn’t about Tickle or Rollins.

Apparently that was my failure… apparently I should write about people with whom I am not familiar.

13   Joe    
June 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

You are timidly selective which is nothing more than self serving.

huh?
Rick,
If pushed I’d say your over emphasis on all things Pauline is heretical. I even wrote a paper about why (not you specifically, but the train of thought). Maybe I could start posting about that? What’s there to be timid about online? Is John Chisham going to write a poorly researched, grammatically faulty–illogical article about my teaching pastor and tag me in it?
Is Ken Silva going to warn me about my eternal destiny? I’m not all that worried about any of it.
I just don’t want to get into it. Not with them or with you. There’s room to disagree. There’s room to think that someone is wrong without having to make stuff up–if you can’t see that is what this OP is about.

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

Are you familiar with Rob Bell? Tickle is a heretic and so is Rollins and Bell invites them to his church and you are unwilling to do the least amount of research concerning thses people, presumably becaue Bell has endorsed them?

Have you visited the site to which I linked or are you uninterested? This is the caveat that distresses me about some of you guys. I have posted about Silva and my track record on Ingrid is impeccable. But which of you are willing to entertain a substantive discussion on what Bell is promoting with these people?

Rollins is not a believer and Tickle is a good friend. Does that prick your interest?

15   Joe    
June 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

Rollins is not a believer and Tickle is a good friend.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Holy Spirit has entered the building.

16   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Your description of my theology does not phase me in the least, even the heretical term. You are biased and I understand that.

17   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Anyone who denies the substitutionary, atoning work of the cross is a lost heretic. Rollins should read the Bible and put down the vain philosophies of men. (and women)

18   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

They are relevant because almost all the posts you do address are ones that attack your favorite guys but you do not have the courage to address some of the posts that have significant questions about Tickle, Rollins, and Bell.

You are timidly selective which is nothing more than self serving.

It looks to me like:

A) This post is about Peterson
B) We’re not ODM’s, so going out for a sport of Heresy Hunting isn’t our bag.
C) What Tickle said in context is contradictory of Ken’s nonsense. I’ve only heard one of her sermons, and while I take some issue (as a complimentarian), I found nothing heretical in it.
D) Rollins doesn’t believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. So what? Neither did anyone in the church for 1500 years.

19   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

The word “penal” was not part of the question. Do the research.

20   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

You are biased and I understand that.

Rick,
he’s not saved because he doesn’t believe in PSA? What?
As for me being biased, my paper was graded by a guy who’s in Piper’s camp–and he agrees with me. Your over emphasis (near idolatrous) on Pauline epistles has nothing to do with where I go to church.

21   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

I’ve only heard one of her sermons

Interestingly enough, she said she was doing a “teaching” time not a sermon. She made that clear in the beginning of one of the sermons.

22   Neil    
June 10th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

The word “penal” was not part of the question. Do the research.

Tickle and Rollins are not part of the post, or even remotely related to it – stick to the subject.

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

“I pressed him to state whether he believed that Christ’s death was an atoning, redeeming substitutionary sacrifice to save sinners. He was honest enough to admit that he had not come to a final conclusion on that – ‘the jury was still out’.”

From here.

24   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

#22 – Escape when it becomes uncomfortable. Thread deviance is usually allowed except in these situations.

25   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 11:10 pm

Interestingly enough, she said she was doing a “teaching” time not a sermon.

Sorry, Joe – didn’t catch that.

Tickle and Rollins are not part of the post, or even remotely related to it – stick to the subject.

Sorry, Neil – this is my last comment on the diversionary path, and then back to the OP on Peterson…

“I pressed him to state whether he believed that Christ’s death was an atoning, redeeming substitutionary sacrifice to save sinners. He was honest enough to admit that he had not come to a final conclusion on that – ‘the jury was still out’.”

The code words for PSA. From skimming his blog, he talks like he supports Christus Victor. As for the site you linked to, I’m not even sure how to read that drek, and whether any of the quotes therein bear anything alike to the context in which they were spoken…

26   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 10th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Ok, I’m off to bed. Rick, I edited your #23 comment in that I blockquoted your quote. Hope you don’t mind.
Grace and Peace to all.

27   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

#22 – Escape when it becomes uncomfortable. Thread deviance is usually allowed except in these situations.

Thread deviance usually is a product of something actually contained in the OP, rather than a purposeful. “Yes, A is nice, but I’d much rather talk about B and C.”

28   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 10th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

I do not forsee a post that would accomodate the issue so I attempted a neighborhood comment.

Interesting. Carry on.

29   Neil    
June 10th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

#22 – Escape when it becomes uncomfortable. Thread deviance is usually allowed except in these situations.

What the heck does “Escape when it becomes uncomfortable” mean?

I do not understand what has gotten into you Rick. This is not thread deviation… you derailed it on the third comment.

I am sorry that I do not meet your standard of familiarity with the subjects you choose. But I am not uncomfortable when I do not post about person with whom I am not familiar.

30   Neil    
June 10th, 2009 at 11:58 pm

I do not forsee a post that would accomodate the issue so I attempted a neighborhood comment.

Interesting. Carry on.

Again, Rick, condescension is usually not your MO. Why the sudden hostility (toward me)?

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 12:02 am

OK class – The post was generally about Ken sometimes posting things that were goofy. I get it and I have said such the same. But I addressed the fact that no one seemed willing to engage some of his posts that were legitimate, and I mentioned one that I consider of great importance.

So, if you desire to highlight my issue variance you may do so, but I contend that there are areas in which you guys will absolutely not engage substantively, and at the most make indirect remarks which relieve the issue tension.

32   Neil    
June 11th, 2009 at 12:10 am

…but I contend that there are areas in which you guys will absolutely not engage substantively…

We all have areas with which we are familiar and can readily engage.

We all have area with which we are unfamiliar and choose not to engage.

For that matter, Silva posts stuff about Olsteen, Hinn, Schuller, Copeland as well… but no one here addresses these.

33   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 1:13 am

But I addressed the fact that no one seemed willing to engage some of his posts that were legitimate, and I mentioned one that I consider of great importance.

I fail to see GBA as a valid means of criticism, though you do not. I think we’ve been over that ground quite a bit in the past (which is one reason you tend to defend Lighthouse Trails, while I think they’re pretty much full of crap 99% of the time since GBA is their chosen modus operandi).

34   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 4:47 am

If by GBA you mean inviting a man to teach your sheep who says the substitutionary, atoning work on the cross is not settled doctrine then so be it. The fact that it does not raise even the faintest objection from any of you speaks volumes as well.

You may be adamant about certain dates and events that occured two thousand years ago but why is it you are blind to actual heresy today? And if it was proven that Rollins did not view the cross as an atonement for sin, would you decry Bell’s invitation to him?

Answer: No.

You have attempted to hide behind the penal view issue, but since I pointed out that was not the issue you have no impartiality and are disinterested in redemptive truth. You are followers of men regardless of what those men teach.

35   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 11th, 2009 at 7:49 am

But I addressed the fact that no one seemed willing to engage some of his posts that were legitimate, and I mentioned one that I consider of great importance.

Logically fallacy.

Phyllis and Rollins are friends. Rollins denies SA (which I’ve found no proof of) so he is heretical. Therefore both are heretical. Bell invited them to speak therefore we should address it. Even though they may have some truth we need to dismiss everything. hmmmmm?

Ken sometimes has the occasional “nickel in a spittoon” but mostly it is inanity, wrapped in rubbish, and surrounded in innuendo and rapidly anti-RC. But if there is truth we should heed it. hmmmmm????

36   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 11th, 2009 at 7:50 am

You are followers of men regardless of what those men teach.

Oh…I missed this. I also like my ears tickled (no pun intended).

Seriously Rick do you really believe that?

37   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 7:54 am

Here is your “proof”, or at least something that should engender research. To say that the jury is still out concerning the substitutionary atonement of the cross is white heat heresy.

38   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 11th, 2009 at 8:00 am

To say that the jury is still out concerning the substitutionary atonement of the cross is white heat heresy.

No it’s not Rick. SA only came into Christendom 500 years ago. What do you do with the other 1500 years of belief prior to SA. While SA may be the most widely accepted belief of the Atonement it is not the only one. Furthermore I find no biblical evidence of Christ saying “Believe on me and also the way I have reconciled you to the Father and then you will be saved”. No he says “Believe on me…”

Find me a direct quote where Rollins denies the Atonement and I will gladly write a post about it. I may include some GBA but highly unlikely.

39   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 8:09 am

This is a quote from Cecil Andrews on the link I provided as he revisisted his conversation with Rollins:

“I then had the opportunity to ask Peter Rollins if he viewed the biblical truth of what God’s people understand as ‘penal substitution’ [that Christ suffered at the hands of God the Father as their substitute to save them from sin’s condemnation] in the same light as Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke, namely that in their opinion, that constitutes ‘cosmic and divine child abuse’.

I was pleased to hear Peter Rollins say that he did not share their views on ‘penal substitution’ and he then proceeded to say that within IKON there were a variety of understandings about what did or did not happen on the cross. I pressed him to state whether he believed that Christ’s death was an atoning, redeeming substitutionary sacrifice to save sinners. He was honest enough to admit that he had not come to a final conclusion on that – ‘the jury was still out’.”

I recognize no one here will even find these comments as disturbing. Two thousand years down the road and we still cannot understand “what happened on the cross”.

We Christians don’t even have a decent grasp of our own faith.

40   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 8:28 am

Does a person have to believe that Christ was his or her substitute on the cross to be a Christian? What if he says Christ died for him, but means something else by the word “for”?

For example, I could say Christ died “for” me and mean it in the sense that Christ was my advocate on the cross. It wasn’t so much that he was my substitute, but that he was the one taking up my cause because I was too weak to do it. And what I believe he wasn’t paying a penalty that I owe, but rather making a way for me to walk through – opening a door that I couldn’t open.

Those are just a few ways I could think of to explain Christ’s death outside of a substitutionary scheme. I think once we start adding specific things that people must believe about the resurrection, we are getting on dangerous ground. We are just told to believe in Jesus, period.

41   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 8:31 am

A sinner can be saved with a flawed understanding of the cross, however teaching something other than substitutionary atonement is heresy.

42   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 11th, 2009 at 8:32 am

You may be adamant about certain dates and events that occured two thousand years ago but why is it you are blind to actual heresy today?

Bingo – that last part is something I’ve wondered about here. The only false preachers are the ‘health and wealth’ adherents. Everyone is a-OK!

Even though they may have some truth we need to dismiss everything. hmmmmm?

Is that the litmus test now?

43   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 8:34 am

A sinner can be saved with a flawed understanding of the cross, however teaching something other than substitutionary atonement is heresy.

Than many of the church fathers and pastors throughout history have been heretics.

I don’t believe the word “substitute” or “substitution” even appears anywhere in the New Testament. If it were a matter of such importance, wouldn’t the NT authors have addressed in a clearer manner?

44   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 8:40 am

I do not assess the ancient status of any teachers as some form of weight as it applies to doctrinal purity, in fact, it may be a hinderance since they were the embryonic representation of the church.

The atonement is the reflection of the Passover Lamb in the OT which by definition was the substitute since if that sacrifice was killed the sinner would suffer the death. That is where we get the word “substitute”. It is descriptive of the atonement teaching.

45   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am

The atonement is the reflection of the Passover Lamb in the OT which by definition was the substitute since if that sacrifice was killed the sinner would suffer the death. That is where we get the word “substitute”. It is descriptive of the atonement teaching.

I agree that seeing Jesus’ death in light of the passover does make a lot of sense. However, even in that scheme, the whole substitution aspect isn’t necessarily presented in the same way many people present substitutionary atonement today.

For one thing, it wasn’t the Angel of Death that killed the lamb in Exodus. It was up to each family to slaughter the lamb out of obedience and faith. If the blood was on their doorpost, they were spared. The blood of the lamb was a covering or a sign. God was delivering His people and the blood was sort of a sign of them partaking in the covenant. So Jesus’ death can be looked at in the same way. If we believe in Him, we are covered by the blood, and we are delivered.

46   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 8:51 am

Rick,
You keep harping on that one quote.
Have you researched any other of Peter Rollins’ writings?

Here is a quote from his latest book “The Orthodox Heretic.” A little background before the quote. The fictional tale is putting you on trial for being a Christian. The evidence piles up: your marked-up Bible; your journal entries; your public prayers and speaking; your attendance at the local church; your collection of Christian books and cds.
And yet the verdict comes back as “Not Guilty.”
You are surprised that in view of all this evidence, you are found not guilty of being a Christian and demand an explanation.
Here is the excerpt:

The court is indifferent toward your Bible
reading and church attendance; it has no concern
for worship with words and a pen. Continue to
develop your theology, and use it to paint pictures
of love. We have no interest in such armchair
artists who spend their time creating images of a
better world. We exist only for those who would
lay down that brush, and their life, in a Christlike
endeavor to create a better world. So, until you
live as Christ and his followers did, until you
challenge this system and become a thorn in our
side, until you die to yourself and offer your body
to the flames, until then, my friend, you are no
enemy of ours.

(This excerpt was taken from Paraclete Press’s website. They offer a sample of his new book in pdf format.)

I’ve read some other stuff by him and have been reading his blog. In my opinion (whatever that’s worth) he is definitely a Christ-follower. He is challenging many status-quo views of Christianity.
He is definitely pushing the envelope in some of his writings and in his weekly gatherings in Ireland.
But to question his salvation because, in this one instance, he evades a clearly loaded question is just plain silly, in my opinion.

Shalom

47   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 8:55 am

Phil – I understand the different facets and perspectives that can fall into the substitutionary net. I can accommodate all of them. But again, here is the question and answer:

“I pressed him to state whether he believed that Christ’s death was an atoning, redeeming substitutionary sacrifice to save sinners. He was honest enough to admit that he had not come to a final conclusion on that – ‘the jury was still out’.”

The jury is still out after 2000 years concerning the REDEEMING SUBSTITUTIONARY SACRIFICE TO SAVE SINNERS. That IS the gospel. Remember, Rollins has a doctorite in philosophy.

48   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 8:59 am

Remember, Rollins has a doctorite in philosophy.

And some people have their doctorate in medicine.

They might delve into theology in the medical field and share their findings.
To then demand that they answer our theological questions with our theological verbiage or else question their very standing before God is thin ice.

49   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Well, I suspect Rollins response had to do more with the fact that the questioner used the word “substitutionary” in his question. Frankly, it was a loaded question. It’s sort along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?”

50   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Nathanael – I have listened to everything on the internet and read every interview I have found. I find his life no different than is mine, but his doctrine is substantively unbiblical and he teaches faith by works. He insists that ministering to poor people will generate some kind of faith.

In his own words if a student approached him after his lecture and asked how to find God, Rollins said he would tell him to go serve downtrodden people and see if God shows Himself in that.

Heresy.

51   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 9:02 am

And as a prophet, I have accurately predicted the response here concerning some of Rollins’ more “provocative” words and teachings. The response?

A general defense and reductive explanations.

52   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am

In his own words if a student approached him after his lecture and asked how to find God, Rollins said he would tell him to go serve downtrodden people and see if God shows Himself in that.

Sometimes doing the right thing we help inspire the right belief. I don’t see anything heretical about that. Heck, if that’s heretical, than Jesus was heretical when he said this in Luke 11:

39Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

53   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 9:08 am

A general defense and reductive explanations.

Or rather, people expressing they no very little about Mr. Rollins and others warning you to be careful in questioning his very salvation.

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 9:08 am

We have different Rosetta Stones.

55   Joe    
June 11th, 2009 at 9:35 am

SA has been around more than the last 500 years. The Penal part hasn’t–at least it’s debated how long it’s been around. But I’ve not known it to be test of heresy anywhere in church history.

Rick, your attitude has been most interesting lately. You’ve been rude and condescending to people who have robustly defended you in the past (Chris L, and Neil)

56   Joe    
June 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am

I hardly ever go over to ??network but today I did because of this fine thread. I am reminded of a statement about a spittoon and a nickle. What a hack.

57   chris    
June 11th, 2009 at 10:11 am

Is that the litmus test now?

Not at all. I was just expressing that Ken as truth but so does Rollins. Who’s truth (cue Iggy) is more truthful? Can I dismiss some truth because of the messenger or can I accept some truth based on the messenger?

Often we dismiss people because of the messenger but we also agree if done in an honest manner and not a trumped of game of “gotcha”. I believe that is specifically what the OP is about.

58   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 10:11 am

A sinner can be saved with a flawed understanding of the cross, however teaching something other than substitutionary atonement is heresy.

Really. So St. Anselm was a heretic? Every Christian for the first 1500 years of Christendom was a heretic? And Origen, and Augustine, and…, etc.

PSA is about 500 years old. The oldest view of atonement is Ransom Theory, which sees Jesus as paying a ransom to Satan in exchange for our sins. (It’s what C.S. Lewis’ allegory in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is based on, as well). Ransom doesn’t go as far as Chalke in calling PSA “divine child abuse”, but he also doesn’t accept it as the model he believes in.

So what. It is apparent, from a quick skim of his writing that he believes in Jesus and in his death, burial and resurrection. It appears (and I’ve not dug deeply) that he holds to some form of Christus Victor.

At this site, we’ve dealt with the different atonement theories in the past. I don’t see how this is any different than the nonsense spewed by CR?N along the lines of – “If you OUTRIGHT Deny Penal Substitution then you are twisting God’s Word and are changing and twisting the content of the Atonement and the Gospel itself.” Hogwash.

The only false preachers are the ‘health and wealth’ adherents. Everyone is a-OK!

I don’t recall saying that. I’d say they were the biggest culprits. I have serious (serious) issues with the RCC, but I’m not willing to cast them into outer darkness. I have issues with certain branches of Pentecostalism, but their influence has waned.

Nathanael: But to question his salvation because, in this one instance, he evades a clearly loaded question is just plain silly, in my opinion.

Exactly. (And the link you keep providing to Cecil’s page is beyond horrific at trying to decipher. It’s kind of like a rudimentary Ken without the easy-on-the-eyes WordPress template. Who knows what the full context of the discussion w/ Rollins is in the first place…)

He insists that ministering to poor people will generate some kind of faith.

Actually, as I understood him, he was teaching that, when you find yourself doubting, that doing the right things, as taught by Jesus, will lead toward right belief. It’s basically the eastern/Hebrew philosophy vs. Western/Greek philosophy posit – “does right belief lead to right action or does right action lead to right belief?”

I have seen that both extremes can work. I have seen unbelievers who have done short-term volunteer/mission work because a friend invited them, and as a result of their experience they were led into faith.

I have also seen the reverse work, as well.

In his own words if a student approached him after his lecture and asked how to find God, Rollins said he would tell him to go serve downtrodden people and see if God shows Himself in that.

I’ve seen Jesus say something similar.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man inquired.

Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

And then…

A general defense and reductive explanations.

Or rather, people expressing they no very little about Mr. Rollins and others warning you to be careful in questioning his very salvation.

Yes, this is it in a nutshell.

As for the additional GBA (inviting someone w/ whom you disagree to speak), I still disagree – to a point.

Let’s look at you, for an example. We happen to disagree on a number of issues, and I do think your views on Pauline superiority/supercession are borderline heretic. However, I can think of a rather large number of topics I would be more than comfortable inviting you to speak to a group from my church about – areas that don’t have to do with our topics of disagreement.

I know we’ve had speakers come to a church I attended growing up that were theologically opposed to some fundamental beliefs (i.e. they were Calvinist, pre-mill, etc.), but they were invited to speak on certain topics, and (in at least one case I know of) they were asked not to speak on certain views.

Asking someone to speak to a group from your church is not carte blanche endorsement of anything/everything they believe.

59   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 10:25 am

Neil,
Going back to the OP, Greg Boyd did a series back in April and May that I am listening to now entitled “Animate.”
http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_910.htm

He does a very good job of describing how God uses all five of our senses and our imaginations and concrete imagery to help us draw closer together.

And he does a great job of grounding it in the scriptures.

60   M.G.    
June 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

This thread reminds me somehow of the short story “Flowers for Algernon.”

Disturbing.

61   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

#55 -

“…You’ve been rude and condescending to people…”

Spoken by a man who has practiced such many, many times. I believe I will reject correction in that area from you, Joe.

62   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

#58 -

I refer you to the prophetic wisdom of comment #51.

63   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Spoken by a man who has practiced such many, many times. I believe I will reject correction in that area from you, Joe.

Thank you for showing what your heart really looks like. Your grace is overwhelming.

64   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Ah yes, the heart reader. You and Tim Reed are the two people on this blog who have made the most enemies due to your aggressive and discourteous method of engagement.

Carry on.

65   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

BTW Chris, the ransom theory is substitutioanl at its core. Atonement is a price paid for someone else – substitutionary atonement.

66   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Well, I mean at least you’ve been courteous? You’ve been the picture of grace and love Rick. Internet enemies? Really?
The very fact that you look at it as “correction” says volumes. I was asking a question. But as I said, thank you for showing me your heart.
Your actions seem to be that of a proud and self righteous person. Are you my enemy Rick? Am I yours?
Do you believe you haven’t done what I said?
Whom have I wronged that I did not apologize to? Tell me Rick, surely you know.
As for Tim, I’ll not address your attack on a guy that hasn’t been here for months and months.

67   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

#61 and #64
Excellent way to not deal with questions asked BTW. Is that more prophetic wisdom?

68   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

You know Rick,
It doesn’t matter. This thread proves to me that to some extent this format (blogging) is a wasted venture. It’s why I often stay away. You can say whatever you want and there is no real accountability (you being a general you, not you specifically). The threads don’t matter the conversation comes down always comes back to two or three topics. When an inconsistency is pointed out “I don’t care” is an acceptable answer.
There’s real work to be done. Listening to you isn’t it. Trading insults with you isn’t it.
You are what you are, and do what you do. I’ll go back to not engaging your comments and you can go back to ignoring mine.

69   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Word.

70   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

I wouldn’t mind an answer to my question about who have I offended that I didn’t make it right though.

71   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

I passionately engaged in a conversation about the views of Peter Rollins and the substitutionary atonement. In the midst of that discussion comes a comment about me being rude and condescending from someone who knows that terrain and had not been engaged with me up to that point.

No, Joe, you deal with your offenses and I’ll deal with mine.

72   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Rick,
You’re the one who told me that I “made enemies.” I’m asking you to show me who I’ve wronged that I didn’t make it right. That is all I can do. You offered this enemy comment for some reason, I’m trying to determine what that was. Is it because you are concerned about me as a brother in Christ or is it because you wanted to somehow hurt me? I’m guessing you couldn’t care less about me as a brother and were more concerned about hurting me.
As to the comment that got you all fired up–
I was trying to say that I was surprised by the way you were talking to Neil and Chris L.

73   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

I passionately engaged in a conversation about the views of Peter Rollins and the substitutionary atonement.

Passionately? Perhaps…what I’ve seen is “I’m right your wrong now deal with it”. Add some snarkiness and it’s no longer “passionate” it’s denigrating to those who differ in opinion.

BTW Chris, the ransom theory is substitutioanl at its core.

Or it contains at least an element of that. But again no one theory of atonement encapsulates all that was accomplished by the Cross. But yet you insist that if it’s not PSA or SA then it’s heretical. Biblical speaking I can see how you would arrive at that view. However I’m not certain why the dogmatic approach to Salvation based on that view?

74   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

No, Joe, you deal with your offenses

That’s what I’m trying to do. Can you tell me who I’ve offended and not made it right? (cf. I Sam 12)

75   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Comment #68 – The wasted venture seems appropriate here.

But I still cannot understand the reluctance for the others to at least explore the views of Rollins as it pertains to the redemptive core. I wonder if he was unaligned and not embraced by Tickle, Bell, and Pagitt would he be given a deeper and more impartial scrutiny?

Billy Graham preached the message that led me to Christ, but I openly admit he has heretical views and highly questionable associations.

76   Joe    http://joemartino.name
June 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Rick
I am not trying to fight with you. We’ve argued in the past. You’ve also called me a brother and a heretic in the past. I’ve said that I think a lot of what you espouse is out there. But your statement today caught me off guard. So I’m wondering was it because you are concerned about me as a brother or because you wanted to hurt me?

77   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

My comment to you, Joe, was a personal observation over several years. You have been one of the most aggressive commenters here and have often displayed rudeness, however recently your tone is much more charitable.

I did not desire to hurt you, but to provide to you a perspective concerning your observation of me.

78   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

But I still cannot understand the reluctance for the others to at least explore the views of Rollins as it pertains to the redemptive core. I wonder if he was unaligned and not embraced by Tickle, Bell, and Pagitt would he be given a deeper and more impartial scrutiny?

Explore the views of others? I’m all for it, insofar as it means reading their books, listening to sermons, or looking at their beliefs in a comprehensive fashion. What I refuse to do, however, is to condemn someone based on a few sentences in an interview or book passage taken out of context. In the end, what does it get us anyway to go around labeling who is and who isn’t a heretic?

If a friend or someone who was in my congregation asked me specific questions based on what they read, I would do my best to answer them. However, even then, I think that can be done without branding authors with a big letter “H”. In the end, it’s not my call anyway. I can give an opinion on a certain teaching or whatever, but I fail to see how labeling people gets us anywhere other than it just encourages people to not think for themselves. One of the big ideas of the Reformation was that people don’t need a pope or a bishop to think for them. It seems that some people have a hard time accepting that.

79   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
June 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

I realize I am late to the party, but for what it’s worth I’ll offer up my two cents on Eugene Peterson.

He has written an entire library of books that are so full of Scripture, encouragement to read scripture, exposition of Scripture that one staggers under the weight of curiosity at where one man can come up with so much.

Peterson is a profound theologian. There is no single scholar/pastor who has influenced my own thinking and understanding of Scripture like Peterson. He writes as a pastor with the skill of a scholar and the keen eye of a marksman. He is beyond brilliant.

For Kenny to suggest that Peterson would make any such assertion is beyond the pale. But, to be sure, Mr Jacka…Silva left out a key part of Peterson’s quote. I’ll finish it for him:

It intends the reading of Scripture to be a permeation of our lives by the revelation of God. Reading the Bible, if we do not do it rightly, can get us into a lot of trouble. The Christian community is as concerned with how we read the Bible as that we read it. It is not sufficient to place a Bible in a person’s hands with the command, “Read it.” (81) That is quite as foolish as putting a set of car keys in an adolescent’s hands, giving him a Honda, and saying, ‘Drive it.’ And just as dangerous. The danger is that in having our hands on a piece of technology, we will use it ignorantly, endangering our lives and the lives of those around us; or that, intoxicated with the power the technology gives us, we will use it ruthlessly and violently.

For print is technology. We pick up a Bible and find that we have God’s word in our hands, our hands. We can now handle it. It is easy enough to suppose that we are in control of it, that we can us it, that we are in charge of applying it wherever, whenever, and to whomever we wish without regard to appropriateness or conditions.

There is more to the Honda than the technology of mechanics. And there is more to the Bible than the technology of print. Surrounding the machine technology of the Honda there is a world of gravity and inertia, values and velocity, surfaces and obstructions, Chevrolets and Fords, traffic regulations and the highway patrol, other drivers whether drunk or sober, snow and ice and rain. There is far more to driving a car than turning a key in the ignition and stepping on the accelerator. Those who don’t know that are soon dead or maimed.

And those who don’t know the conditions implicit in the technology of the Bible are likewise dangerous to themselves and others. And so, as we hand out Bibles and urge people to read them, it is imperative that we also say, caveat lector, let the reader beware.”–81-82

I am quite at a loss to know where Mr Silva gets the idea that Eugene Peterson has ever suggested in the book Eat this Book that anyone should not read Scripture.

Mr Silva, thou art an ass. And a liar. May God forgive me for being so painfully honest in my assessment of Mr Silva’s person and work.

I should also point out that these quotes are from chapter 6 of the book and that the title of the book Eat This Book comes from the references in Scripture: John 6:48-50, Ezekiel 3:3, and Revelation 10:9-10.

Eugene Peterson is not a devotee of anyone except Jesus Christ. He has been a minister of the Gospel for many years. Mr Silva has no idea what he is talking about whatsoever.

I hope the quote in context helps demonstrate the shear stupidity of the post at AM and, the utter un-trustworthiness of the author/editor.

jerry

80   nc    
June 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

What happened here?

Maybe people should take the time to scrutinize Rollins…

but good heavens, ya’ll shouldn’t be killing your good online relationships with each other like this.

81   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Mr Silva, thou art an ass. And a liar.

Yeah, but how do you really feel, Jerry? You don’t need to hold back so much… :-)

82   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 11th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

but good heavens, ya’ll shouldn’t be killing your good online relationships with each other like this.

If I wanted to kill my online relationships I would take scissors to my DSL connection. I’m just content to maim with my words not kill.

83   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

If I wanted to kill my online relationships I would take scissors to my DSL connection. I’m just content to maim with my words not kill.

The fact that you have a DSL line shows that you really don’t care about your online relationships anyway…

84   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Up until about 6 months ago, I only had dial-up.
But I must cordially disagree (in keeping with this comment thread) with you, Phil.
Rather than this revealing my lack of care for my online relationships, it proved how much they were worth that I would endure the slow connection to be with all of you.

;)

85   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

“Maybe people should take the time to scrutinize Rollins…”

Voilà, finally my overtures are met with a modicum of reason and respect instead of defensive language or protestations of ignorance without the motivation to change that condition.

86   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Rick,
I have researched him.
And I am still going to the “Poets, Prophets and Preachers” conference he is doing with Rob Bell in July in Michigan.

Do I agree with everything he says? Nope.
Can I learn from his experience and his wisdom? Yep.
Is he a heretic? The jury is still out.
(couldn’t help myself on that one)

I’m looking forward to the Bell/Hipps/Rollins combo.

87   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

#86 – Although our perspectives are significantly different, I can accept that response as…well…responsive.

88   nc    
June 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Despite the fact that I probably come across “on shout” alot on these threads, I actually do pay attention to as much as I can.

For some time, Rick has been mentioning Rollins–bringing him up, etc. etc.

So I think he (Rollins) has become a point of concern for a member of this “community”.

I personally have read his first 2 books–that doesn’t make me an expert and considering the fact that I read them while in the middle of grad school with all its required theological reading I will readily admit that I may not even accurately grasp what I do remember.

Anyway…

I think it would be interesting for people to get their hands on his books. Have a moratorium on any evaluations of him (pro OR con). Then maybe take a book and go chapter by chapter asking questions, etc.

What that means is everybody does a charitable read…meaning we shelve/bracket our enthusiasm for or against the guy…and really seek to understand the “argument” of a book…

then go from there…

I don’t know if I have the time right now to do this…(nice. I know. I know. I know. I’m making the suggestion.)

But it would be a way that this particular community could wrestle through something honestly and clearly.

Many times when I read the work of an author, their public comments start to make more sense to me because they’re “shorthand” for what is on the front burner for them.

Then again…there are times when some comments still sound wacked, etc.

Just my 25 cents…

;)

Love and peace to all…

89   Joe    
June 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

And I am still going to the “Poets, Prophets and Preachers” conference he is doing with Rob Bell in July in Michigan.

We should hang out.

90   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Joe,
I just sent you my cell number via Facebook.

91   Neil    
June 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

…you deal with your offenses and I’ll deal with mine.

Rick,

You called me self-serving, timidly-selective, escapist… you claim I will not research Rollins and Tickle because they were endorsed by Bell… you mocked my discussion on eschatology…

These are what I find to be offenses from you as they are directed toward me.

92   Neil    
June 15th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

I can see the jury being out on the specifics of what type of substitution Jesus was, but I thought the whole “He died in my place” thing pretty settled.

93   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

Neil – Your block quote was not directed at you. I mock most discussions on eschatology since in my view they accomplish absolutely nothing. I do believe you guys are selective and somewhat indifferent to substantive research concerning anyone emergent.

I realize the mission here is to confront attacks from within, however there are other attacks from within that do not emanate from the ODMs. I do not believe I said anything about you personally or even your style of communication.

I still vehemently contend that the issue of the teachings of Rollins and others are worthy of at least one major post, even if the theme is a defense of Rollins. Again, I do not forsee that in the future.

94   Neil    
June 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

I understand it was directed at someone else, I just figured I use it as an intro into your “offenses” against me.

I do not believe I said anything about you personally or even your style of communication.

Do any of these rate… or am I being too thin skinned:

You have lost your credibility since you pick the easy issues to criticize and ignore or plead “ignorance” about much more important issues of redemption.

You are timidly selective which is nothing more than self serving.

Escape when it becomes uncomfortable. Thread deviance is usually allowed except in these situations.

95   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

No. Those comments were substantive, and I never used the words rude, self righteous, caustic, ad hominen, or anything else that would not be germaine to dealing with issues.

I cannot know your heart, Neil, but those comments accurately reveal my observations concerning the direct issue I was referencing. I consider that specific issue important to me, and I believe I have engaged for over two years on the issues you guys felt were important.

I acknowledge this is not my blog, so I can accept that.

96   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

BTW – I have absolutely excoriated Ken Silva over the years on comment threads (to say nothing of Ingrid) and no one called me hostile then. The exchanges here I consider mild compared to those.

97   Neil    
June 15th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Thanks Rick, I guess after loosing my credibility there’s little use discussing anything further.

98   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm

I just do not know how to feel when I earnestly see a deconstruction of the faith that saved me 34 years ago. The emotions are across the board and I find almost any approach changes no one. Everyone arrives at the forum with views intact and use all sorts of communication styles to defend what they already believe, and they reject any unearthing of anything dangerous.

It is most disheartning when no one seems willing to even entertain the thought that some teachings have strayed from Biblical faith. I have no explanation other than the attachment to certain men or certain movements. Dinosaurs like me will soon pass off the scene (me more quickly than most) and all the discussions will be much different, and thorns like me will no longer agitate.

I am most convinced I have no power to convince anyone even about discussions, so I guess I will just be creative commentor who provides some humor or benign banter that displays some limited linguistic resourcefulness, but little else.

I see things significantly different than do you.

99   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

I do believe you guys are selective and somewhat indifferent to substantive research concerning anyone emergent.

I realize the mission here is to confront attacks from within, however there are other attacks from within that do not emanate from the ODMs. [...]

I still vehemently contend that the issue of the teachings of Rollins and others are worthy of at least one major post, even if the theme is a defense of Rollins. Again, I do not forsee that in the future.

Rick, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve only posted a few (pretty thin) articles since returning from Ireland. My research capacity these days is a on the thin side… I hope to rectify that in the near future, but it is what it is.

So, I’ve got very little interest in Rollins, particularly since his “influence” is that he’s on a speakers list for a two day conference in Michigan. Like most pure philosophers I know, he seems more than a tad flaky to me, but flaky does not a heretic make. And even so, it’s not like Mars Hill has put him on their board of elders.

My understanding is that, when you’re given a speaking slot at something MHBC-sponsored, you’re given a topic, some bounds around that topic, and a trajectory for the desired outcome of the talk you’re giving. As such, it’s not like you’re given carte blanche to speak on whatever you so desire, nor are you given an endorsement of everything you are and/or believe.

Example: A man very dear to my heart, Dr. Tim Brown, who is the president of a Calvinist seminary, has spoken twice at MHBC this year. He even quoted Calvin in one of the sermons (the underlying text was from Lamentations, BtW). I would have no qualms inviting Dr. Brown to come to my church to speak on a variety of topics, as well. Even so, I rather roundly reject Calvinist theology – and I’m pretty sure that MHBC is not a Calvinist institution, either.

GBA holds very little weight with me, so I have very little interest in; a) defending Rollins (though I have no problem with him holding to Christus Victor and doubting PSA); or b) defending MHBC for having him speak at a conference.

I cannot know your heart, Neil, but those comments accurately reveal my observations concerning the direct issue I was referencing. I consider that specific issue important to me, and I believe I have engaged for over two years on the issues you guys felt were important.

I acknowledge this is not my blog, so I can accept that.

I can only speak for myself, but unless I’m writing off the top of my head, I’m not much for writing these past few (and probably next few) weeks. My biorhythms, work cycles and personal time aren’t converging on much “research”, and the one page you linked me to on Rollins gave me headaches just trying to decipher what the guy (Cecil something-or-other) was talking about (and the couple of quotes/comments I Googled came back a bit different, in context, than what the Cecil guy painted them to be).

If I get a transcript of Rollins from MHBC and he says something really off-base, I’ll likely be willing to comment (since MHBC is “on my beat”, but every ECM church across the world is not). Why? Because I can be much more sure that I can trust the source/transcript, and I will know the context.

It is most disheartning when no one seems willing to even entertain the thought that some teachings have strayed from Biblical faith. I have no explanation other than the attachment to certain men or certain movements. Dinosaurs like me will soon pass off the scene (me more quickly than most) and all the discussions will be much different, and thorns like me will no longer agitate.

Rick – I can only speak for myself, but it is an issue of time and lack of “fire in the belly” on most topics (I didn’t even think I’d engage on the eschatology question until ignorant insults were tossed my way after what appeared to be honest questions about interpretation).

Witness yesterday’s minor spat/comment-string on Obama. I can’t stand the guy and hope he completely, utterly, totally fails in his office w/o screwing up the USA too much in the process. I also hope nobody assassinates him, because the only thing more insufferable than a clueless blowhard is one who’s been made into a martyr. It’s best that, a la Jimmy Carter, they’re shown to be the incompetent boobs and attention-whores they are. That attitude’s not going to change any time soon, but I’ve got no energy to debate it. It’s also not a very Christ-like attitude, so while I hope it will soften/change over time, I’m not going to defend it.

I’m sorry I have no interest in Rollins. Like I say, if he says something dumb at MHBC, I’m sure the ODMs will be on it like tapeworms in a hoglot. If that happens, I will be much more willing to say something. Otherwise, he’s just a speaker at a conference I have no money to attend, during a vacation in which I have free lodging up in the mountains.

Sorry.

100   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 15th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

A man very dear to my heart, Dr. Tim Brown, who is the president of a Calvinist seminary,

A very great man, excellent preacher, and an amazing theologian. Plus the president of the seminary I am now enrolled at. What does that make me in your eyes Chris? :)

101   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

What does that make me in your eyes Chris?

Incredibly lucky…

102   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 16th, 2009 at 6:26 am

Either I do not get it, or you do not get it.

103   Neil    
June 16th, 2009 at 9:34 am

Rick,

I suppose it’s also a matter of purpose. We (and you) have taken to blogging and commenting about the manner in which the ADM distort, twist, etc… so we offer rebuttals.

Every once in a while someone will post a post that is not in response to some ADM offense… but that is the exception not the rule.

As far as Rollins is concerned, I’d like to know just what he means by the jury being out when it comes to substitution atonement. Is he denying it outright? Is he questioning the metaphor? Is he exploring the nuances and doesn’t want to comment yet?

104   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am

I just do not know how to feel when I earnestly see a deconstruction of the faith that saved me 34 years ago. The emotions are across the board and I find almost any approach changes no one. Everyone arrives at the forum with views intact and use all sorts of communication styles to defend what they already believe, and they reject any unearthing of anything dangerous.

I think this kind of strikes at the heart of the issue, really. I’ve noticed this same type of thinking in other Christians I’ve met who’ve had pretty intense conversion experiences around the time of the Jesus Movement. I think in some ways they have a desire for everyone to have the same experience they had, but I’ve found that’s it’s just not the case that it’s normative for everyone.

I guess I don’t understand why you can assume that everyone has to have the same understanding as you on this particular issue. It seems to me that as long as a person knows that Jesus saved them by dying on the cross, that the mechanisms behind that are secondary. You don’t have to understand how an engine works to drive a car. In fact, you could have a pretty messed up understanding and still get to where you’re going to.