“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:25-27).
I think it is fair to say that I have had my issues with the church. Maybe my issues are a wee bit different given that I have been on both sides of the proverbial aisle—as a lay person and a professional person. Maybe those are the wrong categories too.
It was not just professional failure that caused a lot of my criticism. I had some especially irritating youth leaders when I was a younger man. They thought they knew so much with all their ‘you shouldn’t do this’s’ and ‘you shouldn’t do that’s’. Ugh. Being a teenager was such a drag with all those hypocritical youth leaders whose own children grew up worse and who, inevitably, ended up divorced or worse. Sheesh.*
But hypocrisy is something I am well acquainted with now that I am adult. You’ve heard the old saying that there was a certain fourteen year old couldn’t believe how dumb his father was and who later, when he became a twenty-one year old, couldn’t believe how much his father had learned in a mere seven years? I now believe in the utter genius of all those terrifically, wonderfully, hypocritical youth leaders who loved me so ceaselessly when I was a teenager. Now that I am older man with children of my own who have never experienced that for a minute in their lives, I realize just how blessed I was. How I wish my own sons had some hypocritical, problem-laden adult youth leaders cramming all that morality and Jesus talk down their throats.
Who knows the depths of self-destruction that might have plagued me had they not been there, hounding me, loving me, restraining me. As I look back, I think I was actually compelled by their sometimes confrontational nature. I enjoyed arguing; they were more than happy to give me reasons to argue. I wanted to be loved; they did so generously, carelessly, and devotedly.
I have read a couple of articles in the past week that I believe were placed in my path by one of those old youth leaders or perhaps the Holy Spirit had something to do with it. Either way, they were special articles that I thought I’d share with you.
The first is from Books & Culture and was written by Philip Yancey. It’s from a couple of months old issue of the journal, but I’m a bit behind my journal reading. In the essay, Yancey is recapping an aspect of his writing career that has dealt, primarily, with his criticism of a certain Bible College he attended as a young man. Near the end of the essay Life in a Bubble he writes:
Through the grace of God, and also the grace of the college administration, I managed to survive through graduation. I now reflect on my time at Bible college with some shame but much gratitude: for the biblical knowledge I acquired there, for the personal disciplines that I resented at the time but learned to appreciate, and for the essential part that school played in grounding my faith. Ever since, we have had an ambivalent relationship, the school and I. They gave me a Distinguished Alumnus award—and nearly asked for it back after I wrote about the school in What’s So Amazing About Grace?
This is an especially good article Yancey wrote. He took some flak for it in a later edition of Books & Culture in the Letters to the Editor section, but I appreciate his honesty.
A second article I read is from the November 14, 2010 issue of Christian Standard. In the article Stop Bashing the Bride, Mike Baker wrote, rather beautifully I might add, the following:
Here’s something else to consider: God knew the church would be imperfect! I’ve always been amazed that God established two crucial institutions in the world—the family and the church, and he put weak-willed, imperfect, prone-to-sin, messed-up people in charge of both. Did it ever occur to anyone that this is a part of God’s great design to show his strength in our weakness?
I’m not saying we should go on being imperfect losers so that God’s strength may abound. But I am saying God knew the people of his church would be imperfect; in fact, imperfection is one thing that has been universally consistent about the people who make up the church from the first century to the 21st century!
But the church is humanly imperfect. Spiritually speaking, she is beautiful and without flaw. God made her that way through his extreme love in dying for her. I believe it’s time for leaders in the church to stop pointing out her spots, wrinkles, and blemishes because Christ has made her radiant. Have you noticed her beauty lately? God has.
I encourage you to read both essays in their entirety.
Since venturing into this world, the world of blogging, I have met some of the most wonderful people on the face of Darwin’s earth. I realize that even though I am not currently supported by the church, any church, it was the church that supported me and my wife through many toils, trials and snares. Cancer. Hemolytic anemia. Three children. Bible College. Through all this and more it was the church—‘imperfectly perfect’ as Mike Baker calls her—that has loved me, loved Renee, loved my sons. There is, to be sure, a lot of ugliness in the church. No one denies that. But there is, more so, a boundless and unmitigated beauty in her too.
And I, for one, have, in my gross exaggerations of suffering at her hands, missed this beauty. Sometimes so eager to justify my own points of view or sin, I have been a downright arrogant prig when it comes to the church. My demands have been, at times, more than the Lord Jesus has asked of her. Unfortunate as that is, it is the truth.
Now I find myself in a strange way missing the church that has loved me so relentlessly.
I need a new trajectory for dealing with the church and her imperfections. It is only my awareness of my own conceit that keeps me from seeing the church as Christ sees her—His bride, His Love, the One He died for. He died for the church—the very church that I, and others, have taken such a delight in bashing and criticizing. Woe is me. I am a man of unclean lips and I blog among a people with unclean keyboards.
Eugene Peterson wrote in his book Practice Resurrection that the church is somehow different, somehow beautiful, and that in the church we learn something we cannot learn anywhere else on earth: we learn how to love.
The church is the primary place we have for learning this language of love. The conditions here in the church, unlike the conditions in the world, are propitious—not the endless variations on eroticized fornication and adultery posing as love in the world, nor, to take a de-eroticized alternative, a classroom with a distinguished professor giving lectures on love, assigning papers, our desks strewn with grammars and concordances and dictionaries. Rather, in church we find a gathering of people who are committed to learning the language in the company of the Trinity and in company with one another. We don’t learn it out of a book. (216)
This is a long way to saying something along these lines: I love the church because she first loved me. I have been far more accepted in the church than I have been rejected. After all, I cannot let a few professional terminations along the way determine how I feel about those who have done nothing but open their arms and welcome me back anytime I happen to decide I’m sick of the pig-pen.
Maybe if we saw the church in terms of the Bride that Christ Jesus loves, instead of the place where we have been run over, then we will not be so anxious to hurl our criticisms at her. Perhaps if we are quicker to see the church as the Bride Jesus has healed with his own blood then we will not be so quick to point out that there may be places where she is not entirely healed just yet. Perhaps if we are wise enough to see how patient Jesus has been with the church then we will be a little slower to become angry with her ourselves.
Perhaps if we took a minute to see how much Jesus loves His Bride then…then…we will speak more tenderly to her, of her, about her, and around her. After all, if someone speaks ill of my bride, I’m going to take offense and deal with those words accordingly.
Perhaps we need to all take a minute and consider how Jesus feels when we talk about his Bride.
We are talking about Christ’s bride here. Shouldn’t we be a little more careful about how we flippantly describe Jesus’ wife as irrelevant, corrupt, hypocritical, and ineffective? Indulge me just a little as I defend the church I have come to love and am falling in love with more and more every day. (Mike Baker)
*I’m being a little sarcastic here.
![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")
266 Comments(+Add)
A little Polyannaish. I Corinthians, for one example, does not deny the grace Christ has bestowed upon His bride. However what you call criticism, God calls correction. Jesus caorrect 6 out of the seven churches in Revelation.
In the position of grace the bride of Christ is perfect. In practice she is exhibiting much infidelity. And if that is not addressed, she will go deeper into unfaithfulness.
PS – Our personal experiences and mistreatments in the church are irrelevant. We must discern objectively, Scripturally, and with an ever present mirror as well.
yes! people who always gripe about the church miss this reality.
watch out how you talk about Jesus’ bride! The true bride, those who have been regenerated are positionally spotless, without blame, and are being sanctified. More often than not, they demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, are submissive out of love one to the other, and seek to bring glory to Christ in all that they do. Our frustration with her is more often about our flesh than the actual bride.
There is also the strange woman who is not the bride; she is a harlot and she is the broken mirror which reflects not the True Husband. She is seeker sensitive to who she may devour; she uses ear tickling and worldly wisdom to entice her followers. She calls with the voices of the Warrens and the Bells and the McClarens, the Hipps and the Claibournes and the Wallis’ to draw in the young and foolish. Though they do works that imitate the Bride, they fail because they have not the power, the bond of Love and the Holy Spirit to keep them in the Vine. They are the stony ground hearers who may sprout up, but, as in many cases, when the reality of persecution and hatred of Christ’s true followers wells up, they fall away.
Beware that the ‘church’ that you speak and write about may not be the true BRIDE.
PB – Pot meet kettle.
You’re nothing but a modern version of Sanballat the Horonite, casting aspersions on the children of God, and the Bride of Christ.
#4 No, I cast them on the false bride. The true CHURCH is the BRIDE which Jesus loves. Many of the modern and post-modern versions of the bride are really simply harlots who use their seeker sensitive and emergent enticements to lure unregenerate men and women in.
Where in Scripture do you see anything like this distinction?
Didn’t Protestants free themselves from the power of the papacy in the Reformation? It seems like some people really want to have that sort of power still. It seems they’d be quite happy being able to excommunicate people they don’t agree with.
Well, there is the book of Hosea….and the Proverbs. Also, although the emergent/NT Wright types do not believe much of what He says there is Paul. We can also access the Book of Revelation. Of course, I did take some metaphoric liberties. In my opinion, bourne out by empiracal evidence, much of the institutional church in America is not the Church at all, but a harlot that is not the Bride, only a facimille- and a bad one at that.
#5 – As much as i have serious issues about the movements you identify, no one, and i mean NO ONE, can accurately decide who is a deceived sheep and who is a goat. That is exactly why Jesus told us not to pull up the tares.
I need not reiterate my observations about the western visible church.
LORD knows Jesus didn’t have those type of people around Him
Then there’s this gem
If it’s empirical, it’s not your opinion and if it’s empirical you should be able to provide some of it.
Which you have clearly not read since God specifically told the prophet Hosea to ‘go and love your wife…even though….’
Love John. Why do you so consistently miss out on the message of the Bible that we are to love? I just don’t know how you can miss it…I really feel sorry for you.
Thank God, since they are almost certainly wrong.
you are liar! a false teacher defaming the brethren! shame be upon you and your dark heart!
if i were to employ upon you the same judgmental criteria you employ upon others – your salvation would be in question.
but as dark as your heart is toward the brethren of jesus christ… even though you continually lie about them… even though you bear false testimony against the bride of christ – i still call you brother.
I almost commented on the lie about Tom Wright, but because it’s been addressed so many times before, and John keeps bringing the same false accusation against him, I refrained.
i suppose i should just let it go as well… for some reason he is hellbent on lying about wright… yet… he warns jerry about about maligning the bride, while he continues to lie about a brother in the faith. and this after assuming false motives of worshipers and that after questioning another brothers faith based on said brother not living up to a standard pastorboy creats and imposes.
shall we talk about the fruit of one’s heart now, pastorboy?
I think it’s a good reminder to love the Church and be compassionate about her imperfections.
That being said, mature love is one that is honest about who we are so that one we love will be better.
methinks there is some bitterness about the Church in some people, but there is also a weakness and immaturity in many believers I know who can’t countenance honesty about the failures of the Church…precisely because they are complicit in those failures and it’s hard to face it.
irrelevant, corrupt, hypocritical, and ineffective?
But if she is being those things…then it ain’t flippant to say so. It’s an outgrowth of honesty and love.
All that being said, I love Jerry’s honesty and openness in his journey around these issues. They help me think, reflect and grow in my own life…
#10. I was thinking the same thing, “I wonder if he’s actually even read the book?”
#16 – Your condescension rivals the ODMs. It is almost impossible to have a legitimate conversation with you guys.
Have you ever read any of the bible, Joe? See, the sme condescension you dish out.
Church.
The Bride of Christ.
I do not think that the words above or phrase means what you think it means.
The CHURCH is the bride of Christ. It is made up of those who have been regenerated. There are people in the bride of Christ all over the world in good and bad institutional churches. The Bride is not how Jerry describes. For the most part the Bride manifests the love of Christ. The people Jerry describes are likely NOT part of the Church even though they are IN a church.
And that is not so hard to believe with all the goat herders LIKE NT Wright who preaches a false view of Justificaction/righteousness. LIKE Rob Bell who preaches a false Exodus Theology and Universalism LIKE Rick Warren who preaches NO GOSPEL. And people stay in those ‘churches’ because the pastors preach a ‘gospel’ that represents the ‘god’ that people feel comfortable with.
They are not churches. The CHURCH is the body which Christ died for and which, as the bride, growing in His image.
#16 yet another example of a follower of a pastor leading people to Hell.
# 14 NT Wright is wrong about Paul, about Justification, and I dare say about salvation. He is leading people to Hell with his false teachings and doctrines. I do not know if he is a Christian, but I do know that about justification he is a false teacher.
#17
Perhaps, some day I’ll reach the Rick Frueh level.
#10 The wife represented Israel, the chosen and unfaithful bride of God. And yes, God does love the church- the elected, regenerated, blood purchased Bride of Jesus Christ.
But that is not necessarily the visible church.
Rick, and John Chisham, how can you say the book of Hosea justifies what the ODM’s do?
Who is speaking about ODM’s?
pastorboy, thou art a liar! thou art a false accuser of the brethren!
I don’t know John, maybe Rick? I am still trying to figure out who your leading to hell as a pastor that lies about brothers in Christ…repeatedly.
rick, ’tis true joe has a cutting edge. yet, how can one carry on a conversation with a liar and false accuser like pastorboy? sometimes condescension it born from frustration.
Is any correction aimed at the briide defined as “bashing”. You guys never offer any correction, except to correct those who correct.
I guess everyting is all right and needs no correction. Happy trails to all of you.
And to you Rick.
re 18.
we all understand the distinction. and though jerry may have took license with his metaphor (something even you admitted doing) it does not negate his experiences.
re 28:
rick, you are a mystery sometimes. you can be insightful and profound. you can also be frustrating and shallow – as we all can be…
but then you say things like this that are so patently false (and out of character) – i just do not understand.
#28. Are all positive comments determined to be compromising. For all the griping I hear from you about the church, I never hear anything about it being the bride of Christ that He loves, even if you hate it and seem to think that only Pollyanna types can think of her in a positive light.
I understand, Neil, we operate on a different page. I do accept that I have ever said anything that is “patently false”.
Out of character? I am not sure what that means.
NT Wrights view of Justification and of Paul are false teaching. I am being nice. Paul would say that NT Wright is anathema. But NT Wright would also change that….bring it to a new perspective. It is just a false perspective.
I loved my children emensely, however when tow of them were in overt rebellion I spoke often and mostly in correction to and about them. It did not mean I did not love them, and they eventually came back to God.
But if I had just spoken words of acceptance and love in their backsliden condition they may never have repented.
re 33 – so you say it is true that we never offer any correction? that we every correction as bashing?
#35.
Or they may have. We’ll never, thankfully because they did turn their ways around.
The point is that Jerry didn’t talk about correcting, he talked about never ending verbal assaults. Constantly griping about the church as if we are somehow outside of being part of her. She is the Bride of Christ and we often treat her like something beneath us.
I have seen you offer a disagreement, butI never have seen you offer a distinct correction. I guess we define correction differently. I do not believe “I do not agree with everything he says” as correction.
re 34: even if this were true, so what? how dare you question his faith and say he is leading people to hell?
show me where the bible requires belief a certain view of justification. like the pharisees you heap upon people unbiblical requirements.
give in to grace, pastorboy. his burden is so much lighter than what you carry and assume others must carry as well.
If someone believes something to be true that is actually not true and spread this untruth can they be said to be a liar? I thought one had to know the truth but lie about it in order to be a liar. You know like “you are spreading lies” or “what you say is not true”, but to say “you’re a liar” is something different. I may disagree with PB, but I am not sureI would call him a liar. Neil, do you think he knows (believes) the truth about NT Wright, but is lying about him or do you think he is just deceived and in error and spreading lies? I think he honestly believes in what he is saying whether his statements are actually true or not.
I do not agree with some of PBs hyperbole, but even my observations or perspectives are met with suspicion at best, and abject dismissal usually.
Oh well…
re 38. we cannot correct anyone with whom we have no contact. i cannot correct anyone who does not look to me for correction. so in that sense you are right.
in that sense i can no more correct rob bell as i can correct pastorboy. in the case of the former – he has no knowledge of me nor my opinions, and in the latter – he continues to hold his position even when shown definitive proof otherwise.
whether the object is the likes of bell or pb – i can only express disagreement.
#34 – I found that odd also Neil.
Picture me, a 6′5″ 230 lb. 57 year old man with a miniature schnauzer on my lap as I write.
he is certainly spreading a lie – that much is obvious. and you are correct, it is possible that he truly believes what he says.
yet, his accusations are so outrageous and have been rebuffed and proven false over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and..
at some point ya just gotta say he has seen the truth and rejected it. he has chosen to spread a lie in face of overwhelming proof to the contrary – thus i call him a liar.
PB is a lot of things but aliar is is not.
black or gray schnauzer?
rick and john
i understand your distinction. but if someone is shown pictures of the earth from outer-space and still adheres to a flat earth… what else are we to call him?
Black with gray highlights. And Rudy, my 13o lb. German Shepherd lies at my feet.
#48 – Goofy or deceived. I would say the same with the 24 hour creation day.
i suppose if rudy were in your lap the typing would be more difficult.
Rudy cannot be on my lap.
Both dogs are 3 years old.
Hey Rick, do you realize that I wrote this post about myself? Do you realize that ‘other people’ were far from my mind when I wrote? Do you realize I was writing from a position of humility whereby I was exposing myself and my own flaws and errors and repentance?
Rick, you are just so bent on finding whatever wrong with me that you miss the overall point I have been making for several months now. You see, I have been learning a lot more than I wanted to learn since getting fired from the pulpit.
My post is directed NOT at so-called ODM’s, but at myself and anyone who is willing to listen and identify with what I wrote. Your ongoing complaint is boring and simply beside the point any longer. You are just an angry individual with a vendetta.
I’m sorry Rick. This post is about myself and no one else.
“Perhaps we need to all take a minute and consider how Jesus feels when we talk about his Bride.”
I thought the word “we” meant all of us.
BTW Jerry, ask Ken and Ingrid what my words look like when I am angry. You have not actually seen me when I am genuinely angry. I have been much more angry with ODMs than I ever have with you guys. I realize you do not read my blog regularly or you might know that.
Hi, I’m Rick. I continually miss the point. If I am speaking to anyone else it is those who are willing to identify with the post. Those who are not willing to identify with it are not included in the ‘we’. As I said, You have a personal vendetta. You are a mean, angry, and supremely smug individual.
I have tried to be nice to you, but any longer I think you write your garbage simply to provoke me.
Anyone play online chess?
Rick, I don’t really care about your anger. I don’t care about about your dislike of my theological ideas. I have been looking for your love. That I haven’t found it speaks a lot…
not a whole lotta love at all in this thread.
Neil, take that up with Rick and John, not me. A person can only take so much contrariness….
Neil, take that up with Jerry.
Anyone play online chess? I’ll take it easy.
john, i suppose you are correct. pastorboy knows the truth – he just won’t believe it. so he actually believes the falsehoods he spreads?
therefore i guess hthat means he is not a liar, technically speaking.
it’s a conundrum really. we know he can read and reason and plenty of proof against his falsehoods has been shown – therefore it only seems logical he must be lying…
yet – he truly does appear to believe the vile vomitous rhetoric he spews against the elect of God.
not much of a choice now is it?
Addressing people’s theology, and calling them false teachers or heretics or even leading people to hell, is still attached to their theology. But calling them a liar is a personal attack usually born out of frustration and is inappropriate.
“vomitous rhetoric he spews against the elect of God”
Even that is acceptable.
Jerry,
I will repeat myself. God has a lesson for you in Rick which you will be doomed to repeat until you get it right.
Neil,
I fully understand your frustration.
Calvinistsbiblicists have a whole other level of gates you have to pass in order to be considereed “in”. It just comes with the package. Gotta love ‘em.Calvinistsbiblicists have a whole other level of gates you have to pass in order to be considereed “in”. It just comes with the package. Gotta love ‘em.When a person throws out an accusation about someone else, and others present facts showing that it isn’t true, if the person continues to repeat that accusation, I’d say the original person is lying or is just stupid.
Even the Reformed theologians who do have some theological disagreements with Wright do not resort to anything like the poo-flinging that PB resorts to. I guess the good thing is that his accusations are so whacked, that I think the vast majority of reasonable people would see them for the smear campaign they are.
Yeah, but once Piper went sold out and went liberal all bets were off.
John C, I have a direct question for you that begs a direct answer.
Have you read “Justification” from cover to cover by N.T. Wright? Or have you only read excerpts? Or have you only read John Piper’s book against Wright’s view of justification?
I know that there were actually three questions, not just one. But please provide an answer before you continue to comment on this thread or on any other threads.
Thanks.
“Even the Reformed theologians who do have some theological disagreements with Wright do not resort to anything like the poo-flinging that PB resorts to.”
Do a google search, Phil, and I believe you will find scores of “poo-flings” that are in concert with PB’s. If that is what they actually are.
Piper is a double agent!
A Google search on what? Blog posts about Wright? Bloggers and theologians are almost mutually exclusive groups. I’m not saying there aren’t theologians who disagree with Wright – I’m sure there are. I’ve read some of them. But they also never call him an “anathema” or say he’s leading people to hell.
And what, pray-tell, might that be? If you want to send me private email, feel free.
this is similar to the conundrum i described. i do not think pastorboy is so stupid that he cannot read and comprehend what the likes of wright or kimball or even warren say.
he just refuses to take them for their word. he chooses instead to insert what he thinks they mean into their words – then address that.
i suppose it is technically not lying if he truly believes it… but it is dishonest and in the end spreads false information that maligns a brother in christ.
re 71: this is an exercise in futility. as we have seen in the past pastorboy will either not do that kind of research, or he will not admit he is wrong if he does.
I honestly cannot see where Wright is anything close to Paggit or Hipps or Burke. “Leading people to hell” is definitely hyperbole, especially coming from a Calvinist.
for all their disagreements even piper and wright would never be so arrogant as to say that about each other.
they each realize this is an “in-house” debate. it’s only those who add extrabiblical requirements to salvation who withhold salvation from others based on these kind of disagreements.
It’s a new day, Neil, think positive.
Regarding comments 72 and 74, even Piper contacted Tom Wright before he wrote his book. And from what I understand (I did not read Piper’s book) he addressed the doctrine that he believes Wright is wrong (nice) about. He did not attack and accuse Wright as a man or hold his Christian faith in question.
if you look at it from the point of view that being european or associating with liberals means you are ecumenical and therefore a denier of the word – it can be done.
of course this also involves a bit of racism and a lot of ignoring key facts… but far be it from pastoboy to not put in that effort.
My “new day” comment was in response to #77. I was typing as Rick and Neil were.
Did anyone read the Yancey article or the Baker article? Why do all of our threads end up about PB and his inability to properly discern his brothers and sisters in Christ?
i have only read a couple of yancey’s books – and i profited form both. the essay is good, i wonder what motivated it.
Jerry, sorry to be part of the derailing of the thread. I have not read the essays yet, but I REALLY appreciated your post and your transparency.
Lord help us!
There was a time in my life when Yancey’s writing’s were like water for my dehydrated soul.
NT Wright is an Episcopalian.
His view on salvation/justification has to do with being part of the covenant.
He does not believe in individual salvation.
He believes justification is maintained by works.
In teaching these things, according to Galatians he is anathema.
Of course, if you do not believe Paul, or if you reinterpret what He says clearly, then you can get away with it.
#71 I do not need to read a book cover to cover to understand a view of justification that I can see inside of one paragraph and understand quite clearly being for 14 years an Anglican myself.
I have not read justification cover to cover. I will not. I have read enough to know it is a false and dangerous view.
John, thanks for answering the question.
Jerry, I went back and read both essays. I enjoyed them both. Thanks for bringing them to our attention.
What do you mean he does not believe in individual salvation? And what works “maintain” salvation?
This comment thread has taken several directions. One of them was determining who is the true bride and who is not. This one should not have taken up as many comments as it did. It was a detour that should have been short-lived, but which pulled some of us off-track.
The other direction, which probably could be discussed more, is the difference between correcting and criticizing. I know that neither one of these directions was Jerry’s intent, but as in all conversations, things often progress from the initial thought.
Correcting vs. criticizing, in my opinion, find their base in the motive. If I truly believe that the bride of Christ is pure and spotless in the eyes of her groom, and that He is flipping-out, head-over-heels in love with her, than when I see her behave in a way that is contrary to this courtship, I can address these areas in an effort to restore her to this relationship. If however, I’m more concerned with my own definition of her purity, of my selfish expectations, then my focus will be to find fault and point out error; not to restore her, but to condemn her. And herein lies the distinction. Restoration or condemnation.
Nathanael,
These are serious words from the one who is “flipping out, head-over-heels in love” with His bride and cannot be ignored.
All too often I have seen doctrines made form the extrapolations of a single concept, e.g., Christ’s love for His Church which just run with the one concept while ignoring all the other Scriptures that come in to play.
I believe in balace. I always seek the balance of Scripture. PB I agree with many here that your approach is often unbalanced (and specificially so in this instance). But there is also the opposite extreme.
The truth is that Jesus is head-over-heels in love with His Church, but He also admonishes Her (sometimes with shocking severity) and His Holy Spirit has also directed His Apostles to admonish Her.
It’s a balance folks, a balance. May we avoid hyper-criticism and overlook the Brides beauty, or turn the other way and whitewash Her sins.
There is also a conflation of the Church Universal and a local Church here. I would dare say Christ viewed the Church at Laodicea (a local body of believers) more on the lines of that horrific picture above than His spotless bride of the Church Universal.
“Wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.”
Let’s all go home and try that one on our brides tonight!
John, I agree that there is a balance needed. No one would argue that fact, though we all teeter on one side or the other. But even the most severe admonitions from the groom are from a heart of love and are moving toward restoration.
The blasting of the church that is often leveled at her (even if it’s justified by saying that it’s toward the false church) is not in the desire for restoration. It is condemnation.
And though the Holy Spirit did lead the apostles to admonish the church strongly, neither you nor I are apostles. We are an arm or a foot or a nose of this visible body, this extension of the love of God to this world.
John,
I don’t know that balance or equilibrium is really a goal that we should strive for. I’m not saying that we should purposely go to extremes, but I also think the concept of balance is almost an idol in evangelicalism. It sort of squares with the idea that when you become a Christian your checking account will magically get bigger, your marriage better, and your hairline will stop receding.
When I read those verses you posted, I see Jesus saying those extreme things because He is burning with such an extreme love for His bride he can’t stand to see her living in a way that is beneath her. I don’t see rage or a desire to punish, but rather Christ being jealous for His own.
Talking of balance reminds me of something I read in Messy Spirituality by the late Mike Yaconelli. Here’s a great interview with him. Here’s an excerpt that gets to what I’m talking about:
The closing thoughts on the Mike Baker article that Jerry linked go like this:
To this I raise my glass. I’ll drink to that.
There can be no resoration as long as there is denial. The organized western church is full of divorce, adultery, hedonism, nationalism, fighting, power struggles, and obscene amounts of borrowed building money.
You can write glowing words but they do not mirror the reality in practice. One day His bride will be spotless and without sin, but for now we need to rebuke, reprove with all doctrine. Building up is also a part, but when the church falls in love with babylon she must be rebuked in love.
I wrote:
Then Phil wrote:
I was wrong.
Actually, Phil, that quote you cited is a good example of balance. Though we would like to think that Christianity will “fix us,” we discover that we’re still human.
Really? We’re talking about the redeemed of God, those purchased by His blood, those who live under the same power that raised Him from the dead, those who eagerly anticipate His return?
The phrase “There can be no restoration as long as . . .” has no place here.
It’s all about restoration. Who are we to place criteria upon her restoration?
So sin and spiritual adultery is acceptable? I did not place the criteria for restoration, God did. It is called repentance, contrition, and a fresh awakening to seeking Christ.
Eagerly await His return? You’ve got to be kidding.
Wow! From left field. Who ever said sin and spiritual adultery are acceptable? Of course they’re not. That’s the difference between correcting in love and condemning.
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again, and you can quote me.
The glass is not half-empty. It’s not half-full. It’s overflowing with the Water of Life.
Huh? And almost in the same breath it is admitted that he never even read any of Wright’s books? Amazing!
Funnily enough, I didn’t even quote NT Wright in this post. But I did quote from Eugene Peterson, Philip Yancey, Paul and Mike Baker (Presbyterian, Baptist, Pharisee, and Church of Christ). And yet an Anglican gets thrown in and slandered.
Heck, I even threw in a little Quentin Terrantino for good measure…and yet we have a problem with NT Wright!?!?!
Freaking wow.
Nathanael, I agree 100% and understanding that is a part of the balance.
Again, I agree. I think most of the verbiage coming from the ODMS is of the latter.
Phil, absolutely. It’s all from Christ’s motive/desire for redemption. I agree wholeheartedly. But still it’s serious stuff. Rebuke stings no matter what the motive and admonishment is not just for show to demonstrate righteous anger, but for our good.
Phil,
When I use the concept of “balance” I mean we must keep in mind the whole counsel of Scripture. I hope you don’t mean we should not do that!
As you and Nathanael have rightly pointed out Christ’s rebukes have redemption at their heart. That is balance, that is the whole counsel of Scripture. Not to say you or Nathanael are guilty of this by any means, but again, I have seen well meaning Christians take the truth of God’s Love,for example, and extrapolate this one truth all the way out to Christian Universalism, totally ignoring the copious Scriptures on judgement, hell, etc. this is what I mean by being unbalanced.
” Christ’s rebukes have redemption at their heart.”
Give that man a cigar!
the distinction rick raised was between correction and disagreement. he faulted us for disagreeing with others but not correcting them.
my point was to say no one (us or any odm) can correct someone if they a) have no knowledge of our existence and/or b) refuse to acknowledge facts.
e.g. a) – there is no point trying to correct rob bell through this site – he would never see it.
e.g. b) – there is no point trying to correct pastorboy through this site – he ignores the facts that displease him.
Well, yeah, of course… But, I will say that I think sometimes people hide behind certain Scriptural understandings and use balance as an excuse. Take, for example, when Peter was told “take and eat”. He said, “no” because he knew it was wrong – it was explicitly forbidden in Scripture that he eat those animals. Yet, the revelation he received from God was against this.
I guess what I’m getting at is I think there’s a very real danger in missing the forest for the trees when it comes to arguing things like doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. My pastor always uses the phrase “the heart of the Father”, and I think that’s been a challenge for me recently. If what I think about certain things is correct, but I miss the Father’s heart, than I’m no better off than someone who’s completely wrong.
I actually think someone can be a universalist of some sort and still have the Father’s heart. Someone can be too far into Charismania and still understand the Father’s heart. The reason for this is that this understanding is based more on revelation than simply reading the Scripture and coming to a conclusion. God revealing Himself to us through Christ is what separates Christianity from any other religion. It’s, in essence, what it’s all about.
Many of us do not correct Shane Hipps personally because, as you pointed out, he would never see it. What we correct is aberrant theology as taught by him.
If “all religions have sails that catch God” isn’t aberrant theology, then what is? And if a pastor allows that theology to be preached to his congregation, what does that say about that pastor and his theology?
If, in the end, Christ chooses to save everyone through His finished work and without their conscious faith, then so be it. But we cannot, we must not, preach that since it goes against the overarching teaching of the New Testament.
However, a person can be a universalist and still be saved. A person can be a heretic and still be saved, or a homosexual and still be saved, or a worthless haughty blogger and still be saved, etc., etc., etc.. If that is not true, then works save.
re 87: for someone to be simultaneously so ignorant about and confident against another man’s beliefs is mind-boggling.
you are misrepresenting, maligning, falsely testifying against an elect member of god’s household!
Conversely, a preacher can still be lost, an orthodox theologian can still be lost, a heterosexual can still be lost, a worthless haughty blogger can still be lost, etc., etc., etc..
Challenge: find a lexicon which defines the Greek word dikaiosune (righteousness) as membership within a group or dikaioo (justify) as to make or declare the member of a group.
I am not sure that what Wright says is too far from what calvin taught. Salvation is just a revelation of what was already decided and it has nothing to do with a person’s choice.
PAUL: faith is reckoned as righteousness
WRIGHT: faith is a badge of covenant membership.
Case study on Correction:
That’s not how Wright defines it either. Saying that the concept of justification is about something isn’t the same as defining it. Wright would define the verb form of righteousness as something “being faithful” or “acting in fidelity”. There’s just not a good English equivalent.
It’s obvious to me from your comments that just don’t understand what Wright is saying. That would be one thing. What makes it worse is that in your ignorance you’re attempting to put words into his mouth.
I abhor microdissecting theology which only the intellects can understand.
pastorboy – i think your biggest problem is one of sloppiness. just as you did with the copy/paste quote from lighthouse trails regarding the lausanne occasional paper.
you intersperse the terms faith, justification, salvation, and others as if they were synonymous. they are not.
you offer a quote, then comment how wright is wriong about faith – when he never even mentioned faith is the quote.
sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
so is this pastorboy being sloppy or just dishonest?
dikaioo according to BAGD – to be pronounced as righteous.
dikaioo according to M&M – to think or deem right.
dikaioo according to Wright – a declaration that grants a status [of rightness].
another case study in correction?
this is the kind of thing that makes me think he just a liar. he routinely takes someone’s words – in this case wrights – guts them of contextual meaning, pours in his own – then redresses them.
there is a lot of effort involved in this to be just a mistake. i suppose it is possible, and as i said above – i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is just ignorant – not a liar.
Sloppily dishonest?
NT Wright is simply Wrong.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 22, May 28 to June 2, 2001
It’s called coming to a conclusion about someone based on prejudice, and then filtering everything about them through that bias. When things are presented that seem to contradict this preconceived notion, I cannot take it at face value. That would mean I’m wrong. So I force a round peg through a square hole and pat myself on the back.
.
This is a perfect example of balance. Peter was following his understanding of Scripture, but took in to account that God was providing him with a new revelation. He later understood (with the help of Paul, no doubt) that the Old Covenant was being replaced with the New. It was a transitional period. Peter weighed (balanced) both written Scripture and new revelation and came to the conclusion (rightly) that God was doing something new.
so there we have it.
pastorboy makes two declarative statements about wright’s teaching: his denial of individual salvation and his definition of justify.
i provide a rebuttal in wright’s own words that pastorboy should take as correction – if he were truly interested in accuracy and truth.
instead he moves on to further accusations.
this is typical.
this is sloppy.
this is being a false witness.
re 129 – normally when a quote is offered, the author is identified as well as the context. as presented, these comments are worthless.
who is speaking?
how is wright wrong?
what is he wrong about?
what difference does it make?
NONE of these questions can be discerned from a sloppy copy/paste.
and let us not forget this whole thing started with the unsubstantiated claim the wright is leading people to hell.
what arrogance!
even if his view of justification is wrong that statement that does not mean he is leading people to hell!
pastorboy – i call you to repent of your false witness against our brother in the faith.
Wright is wrong, because #121 states he is looking at a corporate salvation as opposed to an individual’s stand before God. Justification is not first about the covenant group….it is about the covenant individual. I am not justified because I am a member of the church; I am a part of the CHURCH because I have been justified. See the difference?
Wright is not wrong about penal substitution, however, he is wrong about justification, even about ‘final justification’ and proving or earning justification by works.
#134.
Galatians states:
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Wright, Bell, Pagitt, Hipps, Jones Warren et.al preach a different Gospel.
Let Wright, Pagitt, Bell, Hipps, Jones, Warren, et.al be accursed.
This is a highly modern interpretation, and I probably one that even Luther himself would reject. The Church universal isn’t just a collection of individuals, like the Rotary Club or some other organization. The Church is the body of Christ, and an individual cannot survive apart from the body. Paul is explicit about this in Ephesians. We are baptized into the body and we partake of the body.
The Church, as a body, experiences justification, deliverance, salvation, and eventually glorification. As individuals, we partake of this. The whole notion of the individual that you’re describing here isn’t even a concept that Paul or his readers would have recognized in the first century. It’s basically a construct of the post-Enlightenment west.
That’s not to say that individual salvation does not exist. It just doesn’t exist apart from corporate salvation.
And Wright makes it very clear in the book that you refuse to read cover to cover that he believes in individual salvation. What he does is set the groundwork for what it meant to its first hearers in view of the covenant that a faithful God made to Abraham that was fulfilled in Christ in which we (Jews and Gentiles) are now a part of through Christ.
It’s not “wrong.” It’s a helpful perspective. It’s more than just me and God. This justification doesn’t just rescue me from hell. It ushers me into this covenant that God promised to Abraham years ago.
he says NO SUCH THING! he clearly affirms that salvation IS personal. i even made it bold. must it be in all caps as well?
you have changed what he said. he does not deny personal/individual salvation as you claim. he does not even put corporate and personal in opposition. you are not quoting him correctly.
What’s “wrong” is reading only sources that disagree with an author, not actually reading the author himself, and then declaring him wrong.
yes i see the difference and agree – as does wright. he did not say we a justified by joining the church. YOU say he says that, but he does not say that.
he clearly affirms justification is found in faith alone in christ alone,
again – you bear false witness, you spread lies, against one for whom christ died, the elect, a join heir.
re: 136 – the only perversion around here is you perverting what a man of god has clearly said.
you prove it again and again.
you make an accusation, and when you are shown wring you pervert what is said.
show me where wright perverts the gospel! show me is you can!
read this again, pastorboy… and maybe do so slowly.
he affirms personal salvation. he does deny it. how can you take a statement in which someone affirms a thing – and twist it to claim he affirms the very opposite?
so piper claims salvation is accomplished by the sovereign grace of god, operating through the death of jesus christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated by faith alone.
pastorboy – do you agree with this? when men such as piper declare these truths, yet you call them accursed it makes me wonder – if you say what written above is a perversion of the gospel – then what do you believe?
do you agree with piper – or is this a perversion?
Hince the rub: How do we know “the Father’s heart?” 99.99% of everything we definatively know about the Father and Jesus we know from Scripture. Scripture is the means Holy Spirit uses to reveal Christ. He illuminates brings alive said Scripture in the Believer’s heart in such a way the unregenerate can not understand by definition. To my understaning, the only foolproof way to know “the Father’s heart” is through the Spirit’s illumination of Scripture, not some “feeling” in the heart (which can be deceptive). So I guess we will have to part ways here in this regard.
Scripturally, we are to expect an inner testimony, i.e., the Spirit of Christ within us and this can, of course, manifest with visiceral feelings (or not). But **everything** must be tested by Scripture.
Just for grins, name one thing you know about the Father’s heart that was not first revealed in Scripture either directly or by inference.
I’ll have to mull that over a bit Phil. My initial reaction is “not so”. Just for starters all the covenant family of Israel were not saved in either covenant.
This is just sort of an odd question to me. I guess I’d just say being able rest in God’s presence and experience His grace in an extremely trying situation is something I’d point to. Yes, I can read about God’s faithfulness in Scripture, and I can even believe it fully, but the experience of seeing this worked out in my life is something beyond information or even reading Scripture can compare with.
I do think that Scripture is key in understanding the heart of the Father, but it has to be read with an openness to the Spirit, like you said. I also think that we can’t discount the effect other Christians have on our understanding of God. I really think that a big reason a lot of people hate God is simply because they have been treated like crap by some Christians. I consider myself fortunate that even though I grew up some very bad examples, I also was exposed to some very good examples.
I’m not meaning to sound like a relativist or anything like that. I just think that Christ didn’t just send out the disciples with information alone. If Christianity were truly just a matter of getting the right information out and people hearing Scripture, I would think the whole world would be saved by now. It’s a much more organic and experiential thing, though. The love of the Father needs to be demonstrated and proclaimed.
Individual salvation does exist. I was saved, apart from a church, on top of Garret Mountain in March of 1975. No one there but God and me. I did not know anyone at that time who was actually born again, and in fact, I was unaware of that term.
no one said all were saved, so i’m not sure the relevance. the point is, each person saved was part of whole.
re 149 – ok, but unless i misunderstand phil, no one is denying individual salvation.
let us not allow pastorboy’s false accusation to lead us into a tangential issue.
he claimed wright denies individual salvation. i have shown wright affirming the same.
now i call pastorboy to admit his error and correct his false witness against our brother in christ.
I just think Wright is overly erudite doctrinally. I am not sure how you can lead the nonelect to hell. I assume they are on the God’s will road anyway.
he’s certainly too deep for me. what encourages me is both the depth and simplicity of his faith.
When you overly dissect the New Testament into a complex systematic theology (Calvin) you almost always end up leaving the simplicity that is in Christ.
Not denying it at all. I just was disputing PB’s description of it. I don’t think of the Church as a group of loosely associated individuals (even though many times it does certainly seem that way).
I just think American especially have the idea of the “rugged individualist” so ingrained in our thinking that we naturally have a hard time really thinking of ourselves as part of the body. It’s sort of funny to me that so many churches invest so much energy into forming small group ministries, and for many it’s a losing battle. We just seem to bristle against the notion that we actually need other people, and that they are essential to living out our lives in Christ. When your theology focuses entirely on the individual, it’s not surprising that way people experience life in many churches tends to be very isolated.
I do not believe that denominations (Anglican, etc.) are New Testament expressions of the gospel.
#152 I will not, because He does not. His definition of Justification, by my reading (and many others including Piper and others) is that he not only promotes a covenant justification, but a progressive and final justification based upon works.
This is more than a language issue, this is a salvation issue.
PB – Can you provide the piper quotes that say that?
#160 – Great! We insist that the Scriptures are inerrant, but our interpretations are not. And given the plethera of different interpretations, even within the orthodox community, why is inerrancy such an issue?
Inerrancy minus interpretation minus life expressions of our interpretation equals – a watered down gospel.
The implications of Wrights misleading view on justification run deep for all true Christians.
Piper’s overriding argument is not that the gospel is being lost by outright dismissal, but in a gradual, incremental relaxing of the gospel due to a blurring of the biblical understanding of justification. So dangerous is this blurring, according to Piper, that at the end of the day, Wright may in fact be reinforcing Roman Catholic soteriology (p. 183)!
Piper is concerned that Wright’s biblical theology has become a grid that brings in too many extra-biblical resources to make interpretive decisions:
Wright’s removal of justification from the gospel :
,
and
the missing element: Christ’s imputed righteousness
Thank you.
If you actually read Wright’s book completely, you’d see that he blows all of Piper’s assertions out of the water.
Really, Piper trying to take on Wright is a bit like a little league pitcher trying to go up against a major league hitter. Piper is simply not a Pauline scholar. He’s just not nearly a proficient with the original texts as Wright. I believe Wright simply wrote a book in response to Piper simply because he knows Piper is popular in the US. Otherwise, I can’t imagine he would have bothered.
#165 – Theologian idolatry. What ever happened to a little child or the simplicity that is in Christ?
The original texts and languages can be gleaned by internet sources. Of course many “scholars” disagree. What does that tell you?
I also think it’s funny that one of Piper’s contentions is that Wright relies too heavily on extra-Biblical sources. Well, the whole crux of his argument – the notion of “imputed righteousness” is a phrase that doesn’t appear anywhere in Scripture, and the concept falls apart relatively quickly when examined critically. It’s really a holdover from medieval Catholic theology.
The concept of imputed righteousness falls apart when examined critically? Wow.
re 158, 163: stop avoiding the question. do you say the gospel as presented in #145 is false. should piper be accursed for this?
so now YOUR definition of justification is what proves we are true believers? agree with you or we are not?
REPENT!
I have yet to see a lost sinner who is conversant with the nuances of justification by faith. I was a blank slate when I was saved. All I knew was that Jesus was God’s Son and that He died for me and rose again.
re 163: more obfuscation and diversionary tactics.
THRICE you have been prove wrong regarding wright in the last 90 comments and you bring yet MORE accusations?
REPENT!
rick – i according to pboy if you do not see the implications of wright’s errors you are not even a true believer… so do not give us any of this “when i was saved” talk. according to pboy – you cannot be saved and agree with wright.
I honestly could not care less what Wright, whoever he is, believes. I am still working on accurately reflecting what I say I believe.
i understand rick. i am just defending a brother in christ against the relentless, false, and lame accusation from pboy.
Neil – What is your avatar?
This blog has an interesting article about the the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society Wright recently attended. I find it funny that in the comments section, it’s pretty much the same old – Calvinists pretty much saying that unless you believe exactly like them, you’re endangering the Gospel. Which is a very ironic stance to take if you’re a Calvinist, if you ask me… Can God’s sovereign will be thwarted by N.T. Wright? Apparently…
Anyway, this quote of one of Wright’s replies is pretty explicit:
it is one version of a fair trade logo. after getting involved in ministering to haitian sugarcane cutter in the dominican republic, our church only buys sugar and coffee that is fair trade certified.
http://www.transfairusa.org/
also from that article:
and from the article
REPENT pboy. here wright clearly denies that justification is based on works, or maintained by works.
amazing – here was a gathering of some of the greatest evangelical minds in america… if not the world.
and none of them were clever or spirit-led enough to come to pboy’s conclusions.
I love the church.
jerry, my apologies for taking up your thread with this redressing of pboy.
’tis a pity he refused to acknowledge his agreement of the gospel truth according to piper from comment 145. if he cannot affirm that, it makes one wonder what he does think the gospel is.
but since i have thrice proven him a false witness against a fellow servant of the most high – i will leave him to his own misery…
#145 Where is the quote from? I do not see it attributed properly.
NO!
Justification is the action by which we are declared righteous. We are positionally righteous upon conversion. We are justified. We do not stand before God on the day of judgment for our sins. Wright is wrong.
#182 I love the TRUE church. They are, after all, my brothers and sisters in Christ as I have been adopted.
I do not know if Wright is my brother, I do know that he is teaching falsehoods in regards to Paul and Justification. He does have penal substitution right, however.
Hey, “Bashing the Bride” might make a really good video game. You take an ODM persona (Ken, Ingrid, etc.) and search for heretics, false teachers, compromisers, and gays. When they pop up, you shoot them with OT and NT verses.
You only have a certain number of verses , but if you expose a pastor in immorality you get a power bullet! When the bride is sufficiently bashed, you go to the next level which is burning the heretics at the stake!
(The alternative video game is called “Ninja Emergent” which hunts and silences ODMs!)
And if someone pops up on your self-fulfilling radar multiple times, they fall into the “gift that keeps on giving” catagory.
Neil,
I don’t care if you address PB. No one needs to apologize for the course a thread goes. I just don’t see what point it serves to continue bashing our heads against a wall that can’t think or reason or articulate any sense of grace.
Rick,
I want to point out to you again that my OP was not about ‘Ken’ or ‘Ingrid’ or anyone else in the world…but me. There’s no point in even bringing those personalities into the conversation. Yes, I used the word ‘we’; it was an editorial ‘we’…designed to give people reading the opportunity to identify and embrace my ideas and, perhaps–as I have had to do–to repent.
jerry
#188
Yawn.
Please, Jerry. give us your definition of grace that I am not attaining to.
#186
Frankly, I don’t find it funny at all. Part of my post said this:
I really don’t believe we often stop and think about how we talk about the Bride of Christ, his Church. And it crushes me to think of the things that I have said about his Bride.
To be sure, I do not think this is a joke. This is serious stuff. And there is room for repentance, and it starts with me. If anyone else gets on board, that is their decision and God’s grace. As it is, however, for people in my position–those who have been mistreated by the church–to come back and love the church again is surely a work of God’s grace.
It is no easy road. It is no easy task. And God is not finished with me yet. I have had to do a lot of rethinking about the church, how to forgive her, how to love her, and how to belong to her again. I wish that wasn’t a joke to you because there are many others in the world just like me.
And we do not think it funny.
#190
I have been hurt by the institutional church many times. I think that the Bride is different, though in many cases a part of, the institutional church. My belief is that we always love the Bride of Christ, though we may struggle with the tares in her midst. I maintain that Jerry, and many others like Him, have been destroyed and damaged by the institution of Church, but the Bride and the Bridegroom are the source of comfort and healing and grace that you will not find with the unregenerate and institutional.
#187 –
#189
There are relatively few actual damnable heresies in the world John.
We are not saved because we have all the theological i’s dotted and t’s crossed. We are saved by grace. That’s in your Bible.
If we are saved by grace, then we are saved because Jesus wants to save us not because we have managed to work out a theological system that explains him.
At the end of the day, people like NT Wright are saved not because they write books, belong to this or that church, or because they had a beautifully correct system in place to explain God to wayfarers.
They are saved because Jesus wants to save them. This is the point you simply do not comprehend. For all the ‘passion’ you have for the ‘lost’–which people around here worship you for–you haven’t the faintest idea of these things because you show less grace to people than Jesus does.
I have read thousands of pages of Wright’s work, I have listened to hours of his lectures and sermons, I have read interviews and essays he has written…he has more understanding of the Gospel in his pinky-finger than you have in your heart because he understands that he is not saved because of what he says or does but solely because of the work of Jesus on the cross.
That, John, is what you patently DO NOT understand when you condemn your brothers and sisters and set yourself above them as if you and you alone have it right.
And if you do not have it all right, and I’m sure you will say as much, then why do you lay that standard at the doorstep of everyone else who dares to comment about the work of Jesus? And if you do, you are a hypocrite and a liar (as has been pointed out).
You think God will welcome you in because you have it all right? Bah. God will welcome you in despite your rightness and in spite of your wrongness.
As he will us all.
#188 – “Why so serious?”
I have been mistreated many, many, many times too. But Jerry, no one has written and groaned about it as much as you have in the past. I hope you get healed, however a merry heart and all that jazz.
True. Salvation/Justification by works is one of them.
True. It is by grace we are saved through faith that is NOT OF OURSELVES it is the GIFT OF GOD lest anyone should boast.
However, when we are saved, we desire to know Him more and explain Him rightly. If we are trusting in the wrong Jesus, are we saved? If we express to others this wrong Jesus, are we keeping them on the path that leads to destruction?
Amen, actually, NT Wright does write beautifully. It is just in the case of Justification and Paul he is dead wrong. And, I believe, is keeping people on that broad path as a result.
People are saved only if Jesus saves them. They must be regenerated- quickened- awakened (like Rick Describes) to the truth of the Gospel. If people ‘worship’ me, they are wrong. I do not want or deserve worship. Only Jesus deserves that. I give people grace, but I do not give them a free pass on false teaching. I think that example is borne out by Jesus Himself.
So he can go on teaching falsely? I do not think so. He may understand it, but does he rightly teach it? In my opinion, no.
I do not condemn anybody. I do not have the right to. I deserve condemnation myself for my sin. But I have been declared righteous TODAY. It is not by works of righteousness which I have done or do, it is by His mercy He saves me (Titus 2:5)–a teaching Wright does not grasp.
You are right, I do not. But what the scripture says, I believe. I do not try to re-write Paul or His perspectives. Talk about hypocrisy!
And in spite of my sin and my worthlessness. Amen. That is grace. So, should we continue in sin that grace may increase? May it never be!
So the real Bride, those who are truly redeemed and not just part of a local congregation, cannot wound or hurt or injure or destroy her own?
One day this will be true.
But for now, we are redeemed humans who mess up royally and hurt each other because we still sin. We’re still selfish and self-seeking. Until this flesh is gone, I’m going to say (and type) things that I cannot take back.
Jerry was not wounded by an institution. He was wounded by fellow-believers. And that’s what makes the pain deeper.
How do you or he know they were fellow believers?
If I were to judge (and I wont) based on his writings alone, they sound like false converts!
is comment 145 a description of the gospel to which you hold or not? where i got it from is not relevant, who said it is not relevant. i am attributing it to piper – but that is also not relevant.
it is a simple statement and i just want to know if you agree or not. is that an accursed gospel or is it biblical?
I’m glad you’re not my pastor (ok, that’s a lie – I’m ecstatic!). Anytime I mess up or hurt someone you’d go around telling me I’m probably a false convert. So much for assurance…
Do you ever read of the Apostle Paul going around and accusing people of being false converts? No, actually, you see the exact opposite. You see him reassuring people that Christ is at work in them, and that they need to be encouraged that He will bring fruit to bear in their lives.
#199 – It is noteworthy that Paul addressed the Corinthians as brethren even though that church was filled with divorce, greed, hatred, law suits, and all sorts of vileness including a man who was committing a sin the heathen even avoided.
That man was later revealed as a believer as well.
which would only be relevant to this thread if anyone held that position. but since none of us here, nor even the bishop hemself, holds this view – your point is irrelevant.
You attributed this to Piper. I do not think he said this. It is not a complete or well-worded view in my opinion. I would replace salvation would be replaced by regeneration….I would say it like this:
“
salvationSalvation is positional and a process, begun by regeneration. Regeneration is accomplished by the sovereign grace of God, Quickening us to be able to hear and respond to the Gospel Call by repentance and faith in Christ alone, his atoning work through His death in our place and on our behalf and His resurection for our justification, and Salvation from sin and its penalty. This regeneration is evidenced not by a prayer of faith, but by a life of producing fruit borne by the Holy Spirit and becoming more and more into the image of Jesus through sanctification. On the last day, we will be glorified, for we have already been justified. This means we will no longer see through a glass darkly, but we shall be like Jesus.Salvation is positional and a process. It begins with justification (freed from the penalty of sin) continues with sanctification (becoming free from the power of sin) and is finished with glorification (free from the presence of sin).
Salvation is not a prayer.
Salvation is personal, not corporate.
Salvation is not purchased or maintained by our works.
you have once again incorrectly described the bishop. you have once again falsey accused him.
since i have thrice proven you guilty of this and you have refused to repent. i won’t bother trying to correct you again.
it is clear you are not interested in accuracy.
#199 no, he encouraged them to examine themselves to see if they were in the faith. He never assured them of their beliefs, he thanked God for their works, but he encouraged them to make their calling and election sure.
no one said it is.
no one said it is.
no one said it is.
Have you ever read the epistles written by your hero Paul? Corinthians comes to mind. What you call groaning, I call maturing. What you call sadness, I call repentance. What you call joyless, I call faith.
I groan about it because there are people like me who do not understand people like you and your bff John C. That is, those of you in the church who condescend to those of us who want a place to belong, but are prevented from doing so because of attitudes like yours.
Besides, I have permission for my healing and repentance to be worked out here.
Wright is like a lot of theologians. He speaks in complexities and doctrinal shades with verbiage that is quite unclear and open to misinterpretation, and when someone supposedly misinterprets him he squaks and suggests that is not what he said.
Does it ever occur to these men that their communication skills are lacking, OR, they back off when confronted.
#206 – I wish you much success in your maturation process.
Well, there’s a whole lot of people out there in the church who disagree with you profoundly on this point.
I might equally say that your heroes, those bloated neo-reformed calvinists are dead wrong too. About a great many things.
Actually, it’s both…
It’s like light. It’s has properties of both particles and waves. If you insist on saying it’s only one, you miss out on some fundamental understanding of its nature.
God delivered Israel as a nation from the Egyptians, but individual Israelites were required to act in obedience to take part in the deliverance fully.
jerry, i undersatnd your hurt and i hope and pray writing about it helps.
rick, i understand your disappointment with the western church and i hope and pray reading about the new generation of beleivers gives you hope and encouragement.
pboy, i understand you have a cold condescending heart against those in the true church with whom you disagree. i hope and pray god softens you heart to the work of his spirit in others – even when that work is unlike his work in you.
#208–smug, again.
what is ironic about all this, is that the post was written from the point of view of someone repenting of their sin. The sin? Bashing the Bride.
And yet, over and over again, the Bride is being bashed in this thread by some.
I love irony.
“those of you in the church who condescend to those of us who want a place to belong, but are prevented from doing so because of attitudes like yours.”
Are you blind to your own accusatory style?
Answer: yes.
phil, the issue of corporate vs. individual salvation is a false tangent.
pboy made an accusation against wright regarding this. we have proven pboy false. yet he would rather stand in his false ignorance than embrace the truth of correction.
See, jerry, you are bashing me. But your bashing is accepted.
maybe he meant it? just think’n.
I actually don’t find Wright all that confusing. He is a bit wordy at times, and his phraseology is a bit different, since he’s a Brit, but I don’t find him trying to muddle things.
I really think the reason many people coming from the Reformed tradition have issues with him or misunderstand him is because he refuses to use their lexicon when it comes to talking about all these terms. So they see him say one thing, and read all this stuff into it that isn’t there, and they run with it.
To me the test of whether an author is confusing or not is how well I can follow their train of thought. With Wright, as long as I’m reading carefully, I don’t have much problem doing this. I’ve certainly read other theologians where after reading certain chapters, I’m like, “what the heck did I just read?”
Bekieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
Frueh’s Exhaustive Soteriology
Jerry repents of bashing the Bride, yet in this thread, I see him bashing Rick repeatedly! Is this hypocrisy?
Neil supports Jerry, and accuses me of bashing the bride, and bashes me for bashing the bride.
Hmmmmm……….
It’s quite a bash!
interesting that you will not say whether or not you agree with it. i have attributed it to piper – but you smell a rat! do you think wright said it? does it matter?
it does not matter who said it. the question is – do you agree with it? not would you add to it, or word it differently. maybe i would as well.
the bottom line is – you are afraid to agree with it because you think it a trap… you are more concerned about WHO wrote it than whether or not it is TRUE.
truht is based on content not source.
(as far as i know – the quote in question was not penned by wright)
#219
best and most thorough and accurate soteriology I have ever read.
The next bash should be catered! Barbecued spare ribs!
#222 The bottom line is, I did not feel it was complete, therefore not accurate. I re-wrote it.
i have supported jerry in the process of working through his pain. yet, three comments above this i also challeneged him regarding rick.
you chose to ignore that, or just didn’t see it.
either way it is typical of how you read the biship… you seize on certain things and ignore what does not fit your preconceived notion.
yes – i have bashed you. you continually misrepresent the bishop. you are a false witness against him. this has been shown repeatedly yet you refuse to recant or repent. that deserves to be bashed.
We all bash occasionally and we all are bashed occasionally. But God’s love and grace are sufficient for us all.
completeness is not the question or issue. but since you will not answer the question, i will not ask again.
since it is such a basic question, such a simple request… i can only assume you think it a trap.
btw – even though incomplete i agree with it – am i accursed? (not expecting an answer)
226: You keep calling him the Bishop. I guess I am just a pawn when compared to his intellect. In my pawnish opinion, the Bishop perverts the Gospel of grace.
If you are referring to #217 it was a little sarcastic, so I could not tell.
#228 No, but when you are incomplete and out of context (like with Rob Bell’s narrative theology) I can say amen to a portion of what is written but when taken in context of the whole ministry, it can be wrong. So I will not bite.
interesting, i have called him by his name, his position, and various biblical metaphors employed to describe those who share our common position in christ – yet you respond to just the one…
230 – thank you. i find it interesting that you judge truth by the source not the content. but i guess we all have our grids. mine are just less ad hominem.
the only sarcasm was that which was assumed by you. i asked a simple question – you made it into something different. at least you treat me the same as tom.
OH, Rick. I’m not bashing you. I just don’t like you because you are smug and condescending. There’s a big difference.
And John, you are just misguided and hopeless.
Neil, I should listen to myself.
Neil, I didn’t see it. What comment is it?
Jeremiah 23:1-2 {KJV}
1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.
2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.
Ezekiel 34:2 {KJV}
2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
#234 I have the hope of the resurrection, thats all I need!
Navin R. Johnson: Well I’m gonna to go then! And I don’t need any of this. I don’t need this stuff, and I don’t need *you*. I don’t need anything. Except this.
[picks up an ashtray]
Navin R. Johnson: And that’s the only thing I need is *this*. I don’t need this or this. Just this ashtray… And this paddle game. – The ashtray and the paddle game and that’s all I need… And this remote control. – The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that’s all I need… And these matches. – The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control, and the paddle ball… And this lamp. – The ashtray, this paddle game, and the remote control, and the lamp, and that’s all *I* need. And that’s *all* I need too. I don’t need one other thing, not one… I need this. – The paddle game and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches for sure. Well what are you looking at? What do you think I’m some kind of a jerk or something! – And this. That’s all I need.
[walking outside]
Navin R. Johnson: The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, and this magazine, and the chair.
Navin R. Johnson: [outside now] And I don’t need one other thing, except my dog.
[dog growls at him]
Navin R. Johnson: I don’t need my dog.
217
physician, heal thyself!
#234 – Smug and condescending? That isn’t bashing? That is a personal attack and has nothing to do with any issue.
= bashing.
That is a personal attack and has nothing to do with any issue.
Ok, I’m going to try something dangerous here. I agree with you that those are personal things but what if someone believes that a person is those things? How do you work those into your beliefs about the need for correction of the church? This is a serious question that I wonder about a lot. In our society we seem to always think it is wrong to say that someone is mean, or dishonest, or smug, or condescending or whatever. How do we fit those things into the conversation or do we just ignore them?
A fool uttereth his wjole heart. Forbearing one another.
There are some things better left unsaid.
If we only show grace to those who we deem deserve it then we do exactly as do the publicans. Being truthful can sometimes be an excuse to vent carnal frustration.
Even PB almost always sticks to the issues and never descends into personal attacks.
phhhhttt… i wish you’d not make such comments just when i take a sip of coffee! now i gotta wipe of the screen, keypad, desktop, etc. etc. etc.
Neil – Please provide me the quotes where PB said anything like condescending or smug. False teachers, heretics, etc. are all about issues.
Rick #194 – I think that was a pretty low blow. Had you no friends you could call on to help you walk through these same type of moments?
Sometimes writing can be cathargic and because this is a blog we (Jerry’s cyber family) are along for the ride. Though Jerry and I disagree on some (not all) things, and I probely have more sympathy with your world view than his, I’ve appreciataed Jerry’s transparancy and have done a lot of self inspection reading these gleanings from his journey.
That was a low blow. It was.
Jerry, you asked me what lesson you are to learn from Rick — how about “is God’s grace sufficient?” Rick, for you, is a microcosm of your ex-church a real live “Ground Hog Day”.
Rick, you too have recently suffered a major betrayal. I would think these similar events might bring you two together.
Perhaps it’s the pain speaking instead of heart for you both.
On a lighter note:
Dallas Willard ?!!?? DALLAS WILLARD!!!???!!!!
**********!!!!!!!!!!***********
FRIEND OF FOSTER ALERT!
**********!!!!!!!!!************
Please hold while I get my GBAG (guilt by association gallows). Won’t take long. Should have it right here somewhere.
#241, I know.
#217, no he didn’t. I included three parts in that sentence. He extracted one. I got his point.
re 246:
rick,
i find calling someone a leader on the way to hell a rather personal attack.
i find twisting clear statements to mean something else a rather personal assault
and the fact that he judges truth based on source not content to be the very definition of personal.
Yes. Tis true. For example, “Jerry is carnal.”
And, “A bit pollyannish.”
And, shall I go on?
The point Rick, is that you feel free to take shots whenever you like at whoever you like. You only get offended and outraged when someone turns the tables on you…then you are all about how grace and mercy and love and blah blah blah should rule the blog.
All I’m doing, Brother Rick, is pointing out to you what you so willingly point to out to others about themselves.
What?!?!?!?!?! I hope you are being sarcastic.
John – My point was that whenever I point out what I see as legitimate issues with the western church I am labelled as self righteous and negative. But I have never couched those concerns in things that have been personally against me, which were many.
There is a double standard. However I wish that we could air our perspectives with passion, confrontation, but refrain from personal invectives. I have no genuine hope to that end.
#194 wasn’t a low blow. It was typical. It came from his heart.
But thanks John.
BTW, I’m curious to know how you know you disagree with my worldview since, as far as I know, I have never really divulged what my worldview is. I think you are overstating the case of our disagreement.
#251 – In full disclosure I am carnal from time to time. Polyannish was about your view. I do not see things in the same way as do you, Jerry.
” It came from his heart.”
Can I borrow your heart looking machine?
Heart meet heart.
Probably.
Neil,
I know you have been completely sincere in your admonitions to PB, but I will have to say your recent rebukes to him gave me an unintended flash back to Gandalf’s the White’s excorism of Grimma Wormtongue in King Theoden’s Hall.
Chris L could we have a graphic please?
Hey, where is Chris L?
what i heard: but I will have to say your recent rebukes to him gave me an unintended flash back to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Hall.
thanks for the benefit. i will confirm it. i have been sincere in my attempt to show pboy his errors. i have lost my composure in the process out of frustration at his unwillingness to acknowledge facts – but that is his loss. thrice he accused our brother and thrice i proved his accusations false.
he remains unrepentant and holds to his falsehoods.
nothing further needs to be added against him.
#259 – True story. I can’t help what pops into my pumpkin’ head.
Twas a little humor Chris. We could use some around here.
Ooops.
ChrisNeal.Oops.
ChrisNealNeil-CH Spurgeon
I am afraid that time has come.
But let us be clear – even the true shepherds feeding a true flock in the west are in desperate need of a revival.
#265
Let it begin with me.