RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 11:09:19 PM)

facedown,
To answer you that emergents do not reject absolutes:
quote:

"...there is no univeral human reason. There is no single, universal set of criteria by means of which we can judge definitively the epistemic staus of all beliefs."

"The intellectual genesis for the following chapters lies in our sense of the importance of casting theological method anew in a manner that takes seriously the postmodern context."

"This hermeneutical process occurs in part as the discoveries and insights of various disciplines of human learning inform our theological construction."

"... Spirit's speaking through scripture is always a contextual speaking; it always comes to its heareres within a specific historical-cultural context."


I could give you a lot more of the same; all of which prove that one of the foundational beliefs of the EC is built on the absence of absolute truth. Brian McLaren says Franke and Grenz's book, which is the source of the quotes above, influenced his approach to theology, which is demonstrated in his book "A Generous Orthodoxy" when he admits to the relativism inherent in his theology.

quote:

mushead, you'll not see any argument that *demands* that if one helps their neighbor out is saved.

No you won't see anything that "demands" they are saved, but that is the conlusion of their theology. Kingdom Now theology that says we are participants in God's kingdom when we join God in instituting His intent for humanity.

quote:

10c - what you might see in the soteriology presented is more of a fusion of several atonement theories, not a demanding of the moral theory while whole-heartedly denying a substitution theory (penal....maybe).

If not penal substitution, then what?



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 11:19:33 PM)

a question I forgot to ask in my last post: can anyone provide evidence for the EC claim that evangelicals teach "escapism"?



VCO -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 3:34:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jacobwdowning

Ok so here is the question of our time. The Emerging(emergent) Church, is it good or bad?


U&U

If you have not read the following books, I am sure you will find your answer in them.

"The Seduction of Christianity" by Dave Hunt
"Confronting Casual Chrianity" by Dr. Charles Stanley
"The Gospel According to Jesus" by Dr. John MacArthur

My understanding of the Letters to the Seven Churches in the book of Revelation, is that not only were they seven real Churches; but that they represent in the exact chronological order, the type of Churches that would dominate the generations of Church Age. In the 60's and 70's, my generation dropped the ball, and the Church slipped from the Philadelphia Age into the Laodicean Age.

We went FROM:

A period of time when most Churches were red hot on fire for the LORD, sending out more Missionaries than at any time in history, committed to the inherancy of the Word, primarily focused on teaching their Congregations the Word and to do the work of the ministry, devoted to prayer, solid belief in GOD Created, raising godly Children, more concerned about being Biblically correct than Politically correct, Reverance for God, etc.;

TO:

Being lukewarm about their love for the Lord, Missionaries begging for support and replacements so they can retire, questioning if the Bible is truly all inspired by God, primarily focused on entertaining the Congregations and begging for money to jump on the Electronic Church band wagon, no time for prayer for others (just for self), belief that Evolution is how God created, to "I can't do anything with my kids", MUCH more concerned about being Politically correct than Biblically correct, almost a total lack of Reverence for God, etc.

All in about 2 decades.

I am ashamed to admit that it was my generation that dropped the ball, and I was part of the problem, not part of the solution. There are still Churches out there that are Philadelphia type Churches, that put the FOCUS of feeding the sheep instead of entertaining them, but you now have to look long and hard to find them. I attend one, and find it very refreshing to only have 15 or 20 minutes of singing Praises and Hymns followed by a one hour sermon.

So what does our Lord think about the "emerging Church"?

Rev 3:15-17 (NKJV)
15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked--



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 7:06:48 AM)

mushead
i've never read grenz to be honest. i do have a few of mcclarens books around. but it seems to me, that stating someone has had influence doesn't mean that the quotes you provided are in turn "the" end-all. you suggest that brian demonstrates relativism in his writings - any quotes or excerpts you'd like to share?

no, that is your conclusion. "kingdom now theology" (as used within the emergent church, is taught by jesus in the gospels - any disagreement?

every atonement theory is substitutionary - not everyone is penal. and i'm certain you are well aware of the variety of understandings, both ancient and modern, on atonement.

as to your final question, are you asking for evidence that the ec claims evangelicals teach escapism, or that evangelicals teach escapism?

it seems to be the latter, maybe it's too early; however, when the message is: "if you died tonight, where would you spend eternity?", the primal (and one might argue 'only') consequence of "salvation" is life after death - escaping from this world and all its sinfulness and resting in the goodness of god in heaven - why do you need to be saved? - so you can spend eternity with god in heaven - etc.

vco
i think, it might be awesome to engage with your further, but i do have to run; however, your insinuation that emergents are lukewarm, are unintentional about missional work, and all about "electronic church band wagan" is....of the wagon. in addition, your suggestion that there existed a period of time when most churches were "red hot on fire" and somehow made the lord pleased (while churches today don't) is a bit misleading.

here's the question: what's the consequence, should this label "emergent" fit a person? what does "emergent" mean to you (other than being 'lukewarm') and are there any specifics you would like to discuss?



earthless -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 8:02:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: facedown

earthless
on the 29th there was a response to your postings
and on the 2nd, you posted your link.
and posting "bluntly" isn't "angry"....unless you admit your angry as well?




Ah, I will have to check out the posts made on the 29th, thanks.

As for me being blunt? Not angry, just part of being a cop. [8D]



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 8:46:29 AM)

quote:

i've never read grenz to be honest. i do have a few of mcclarens books around. but it seems to me, that stating someone has had influence doesn't mean that the quotes you provided are in turn "the" end-all. you suggest that brian demonstrates relativism in his writings - any quotes or excerpts you'd like to share?

facedown,
McLaren doesn't demonstrate relativism in his writings, he admitted that his theology is relativistic - see "A Generous Orthodoxy". He then said that maybe relativism is the medicine the church needs to counter the absolutism of the church in the age of modernity.

quote:

every atonement theory is substitutionary - not everyone is penal. and i'm certain you are well aware of the variety of understandings, both ancient and modern, on atonement.

Please, explain what other atonement theories are substitutionary, and how. Which atonement theory do you understand the EC to proclaim? Will you demonstrate where this EC atonement theory is taught in Scripture?

quote:

as to your final question, are you asking for evidence that the ec claims evangelicals teach escapism, or that evangelicals teach escapism? it seems to be the latter, maybe it's too early; however, when the message is: "if you died tonight, where would you spend eternity?", the primal (and one might argue 'only') consequence of "salvation" is life after death - escaping from this world and all its sinfulness and resting in the goodness of god in heaven - why do you need to be saved? - so you can spend eternity with god in heaven - etc.

My bad! I should have been more clear. Your answer however falls short. It correctly describes "escapism" (with the possible exception that you insert the parenthetical statement, "one might argue 'only'". Actually, the criticism of escapism is based on the portrayal of the gospel as only concerned with escaping hell for some future paradise). So, I'll say it again, you do a fair job of explaining the concept, but what I am looking for is someone to provide evidence that evangelicals actually teach this thing called, escapism.

quote:

no, that is your conclusion. "kingdom now theology" (as used within the emergent church, is taught by jesus in the gospels - any disagreement?

What are you saying is my opinion?
Emergents don't call it Kingdom Now theology, but that is what their version of the Gospel is. If you disagree, then I'd be interested to learn what you understand the EC gospel to be. As for your question: Yes, I disagree that kingdom now is taught by Jesus in the gospels. Jesus said the Kingdom is future. When the disciples asked Jesus if He was going to establish the Kingdom at the time of their baptism in the Spirit. Jesus told them that they were not to know the times and dates set by the Father, but they were to be His witnesses in all the world. It is evident from this exchange that is recorded in Acts 1:6-8 that the Kingdom was, and is, a futute event.



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 10:49:27 AM)

quote:

A period of time when most Churches were red hot on fire for the LORD, sending out more Missionaries than at any time in history, committed to the inherancy of the Word, primarily focused on teaching their Congregations the Word and to do the work of the ministry, devoted to prayer, solid belief in GOD Created, raising godly Children, more concerned about being Biblically correct than Politically correct, Reverance for God, etc.;



Yea a lot also did nothing in far as meeting peoples needs. Who were starving to death here in USA. Oh I forgot we have a government do that part.

quote:

What are you saying is my opinion?
Emergents don't call it Kingdom Now theology, but that is what their version of the Gospel is. If you disagree, then I'd be interested to learn what you understand the EC gospel to be. As for your question: Yes, I disagree that kingdom now is taught by Jesus in the gospels. Jesus said the Kingdom is future. When the disciples asked Jesus if He was going to establish the Kingdom at the time of their baptism in the Spirit. Jesus told them that they were not to know the times and dates set by the Father, but they were to be His witnesses in all the world. It is evident from this exchange that is recorded in Acts 1:6-8 that the Kingdom was, and is, a futute event.


Please wait a second did I read that right? You don't believe in the kingdom now. What did Jesus say about kingdom in Luke 17:20-21; " The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say "here it is or there it is. Because the kingdom of God is within you". So there is a kingdom that is here on earth. Either your in the kingdom of good or the kingdom of evil.



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 3:29:43 PM)

earthless
no problem. maybe next time, i can cut to the chase, as they say?


mushead
greetings. i've read AGO fairly extensively, i don't recall brian suggesting that "his theology is relativistic". maybe you remember where? though i'm not certain that the "absolutism" of the church in the age of modernity is an accurate expression of the message of jesus.


christus victor - the death of jesus was an exposure of the cruelty and evil present, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. jesus allows himself to the passion, and defeats the powers of evil and releases humanity from it's sin. god in christ intervenes in the world to stand up to satan and the forces of idolatry, violence, and domination (aka sin). (substitution)
satisfaction - christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind and satisfying the the demands of god's honor or glory (largely developed by protestants as "penal substitution")
moral influence - christs passion was an act of exemplary obedience that affects the intentions of those who come to know about it.
ransom theory - justice requires that god pay the devil a ransom to set us free (substitution)
governmental theory - god publicly demonstrates his disatisfaction with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient son as a propitation. because christs death serves as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received, god is able to extend grace and forgivness.

i think there is much scripture for each of these views, and many of them overlap to some degree or another. as far as the majority of emergents, i might guess the affirmation of christus victor, or some variation of it anyways.

gotta run; however, i understand you to desire some substance to the 'evidence' that evangelicals actually teach this thing called "escapism" which you've defined as "the portayal of the gospel as only concerned with escaping hell for some future paradise".

if that's the case, i don't think it will be an issue to demonstrate that this is what is primarily discussed (though other elements may be present 'behind the scense') therefore acuratley said to be "only concerned" -

there are many differences between the much publicized "kingdom now" ramblings and what emergents discuss. i'll try to further discuss the beautiful news as soon as i can. and maybe it would be beneficial to discuss what the "kingdom of god" is presented as in scripture. a couple thoughts: the place of god - the reign of god - the empire of god - the dwelling of god - the abode of god, etc (you could insert "god's people" in many of these with an adjective or two, though even this phrase "god's people" requires some discussion as well...

gotta go, gotta go



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 5:31:59 PM)

quote:

Please wait a second did I read that right? You don't believe in the kingdom now. What did Jesus say about kingdom in Luke 17:20-21; " The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say "here it is or there it is. Because the kingdom of God is within you". So there is a kingdom that is here on earth. Either your in the kingdom of good or the kingdom of evil.

mcleod,
we are talking about two different things. Yes, the kingdom is present - at least partially - in the community of Jesus' followers. However, emergents believe that the mission of the church is to install - in this present age - what the Bible describes as the future consumation of the Kingdom.



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 6:12:50 PM)

quote:

christus victor - the death of jesus was an exposure of the cruelty and evil present, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. jesus allows himself to the passion, and defeats the powers of evil and releases humanity from it's sin. god in christ intervenes in the world to stand up to satan and the forces of idolatry, violence, and domination (aka sin). (substitution)
satisfaction - christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind and satisfying the the demands of god's honor or glory (largely developed by protestants as "penal substitution")
moral influence - christs passion was an act of exemplary obedience that affects the intentions of those who come to know about it.
ransom theory - justice requires that god pay the devil a ransom to set us free (substitution)
governmental theory - god publicly demonstrates his disatisfaction with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient son as a propitation. because christs death serves as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received, god is able to extend grace and forgivness.

i think there is much scripture for each of these views, and many of them overlap to some degree or another. as far as the majority of emergents, i might guess the affirmation of christus victor, or some variation of it anyways.

facedown,
God employs metaphor and analogy to illustrate different aspects of substitutionary atonement. Each of your atonement theories represent (I must add incorrectly) some of these different aspects of the atonement that are taught in the Bible . For example, "Ransom Theory": the Bible does teach that Jesus paid a ransom to redeem humanity from sin, but it does not teach the ransom was paid to Satan.
quote:


5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 1Timothy 2:5-6
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

The payment of a ransom is not a seperate atonement theory; instead it is another way to describe Jesus' role in substitutionary atonement. That the primary nature of the atonement is substitutionary is unmistakeably clear. Consider the 1Timothy passage (cited above) and the 1Peter 2:24,24:
quote:

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

If you want, I can provide Scriptural evidence for the correct versions of the other items in your list. It seems that most errors occur when people develolp theology by focusing on a few isolated passages. When we treat the Scriptures as a unified whole, we are able to see the proper relationship of all the Scriptural teachings on any given subject. As a side note: avoiding this error in interpretive methodoloy is one of the primary purposes for systematic theologies that emergents claim are so inappropriate.
quote:

gotta run; however, i understand you to desire some substance to the 'evidence' that evangelicals actually teach this thing called "escapism" which you've defined as "the portayal of the gospel as only concerned with escaping hell for some future paradise".
if that's the case, i don't think it will be an issue to demonstrate that this is what is primarily discussed (though other elements may be present 'behind the scense') therefore acuratley said to be "only concerned" -

My point is that emergents misrepresent, and in some cases, intentionally distort evangelical teachings. Yes, we believe that Jesus gave up His life to pay the penalty for our sins - in order to satisfy God's righteousness - so that we can have the forgiveness of sins and spend eternity in the presence of God. This however is not all that we tell people. We also teach that the relationship with God begins now, not in some distant future.

I frequently teach evangelism classes; attended many such classes taught by others; and read many books and discipleship study materials on evangelism methodolody. None - not one! - neglected to highlight that in the "Great Commission" Jesus commanded us to make disciples, not converts. Just in case the meaning of that distinction isn't clear, let me just say that a disciple is a student that seeks to perfectly emulate his teacher through training that is received while in relationship with the teacher. This means that one of the principle componants of our message is that by receiving God's forgiveness, people are entering a life transforming relationship with God.

Just because "Penal substitutionary atonement" is the entrance point of a relationship with God that guarantees the recipient eternity in a future paradise, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that it is "escapism." It is not!



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/7/2008 9:52:52 PM)

quote:

emergent methodology
"target"? i'm not certain about that, makes it seem like a military strategy. that there is resonation, is quite obvious. now point 4 a-j....man mushead, it seems you believe that emergents believe that "traditional christians" are going to burn in hell, is that your impression?

facedown,
Originally I said: "Emergents target disgruntled Christians of every age by distorting the doctrine, the history, and the practices of Christianity."

I don't know if it sounds like a military strategy, but it is definitely a conscious effort to discredit the doctrines of traditional christianity. Let me explain. Emergents are attempting to recreate Christianity in the image of liberal doctrines. To accomplish this they have to accomplish two things:
1-discredit conservative evangelical doctrines that are constructed on the teachings of Scripture
2-convince people that liberal doctrines represent historical Christianity of Jesus

The first act in accomplishing this feat is employing the same strategy as every system of false doctrines throughout history - undermine the authority of the Scripture.
Another tact is to discredit the doctrines of conservative Christianity by distorting them, and then drawing absurd conclusions about the beliefs and practices these doctrines generate. The next step is to offer emergent theology as the logical alternative to the demonstably errant theology of evangelicals.

The other steps in this process are described in post #63 on page #3. I won't repeat them here, but here are a few examples of how emergents malign evangelical theology and the absurd descriptions of the practices those doctrines generate.

quote:

"I guess it is quite central to what we are about really. The idea that the church as an institution was not doing anything for the world and that none of us would want to involve our friends and family in such a mess of an establishment was a big motivator for getting the community functioning..." (Anna Dodridge as quoted in "Emerging Churches"; Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger; pg.79)

"Generally I don't think Christians would like Jesus if he showed up today as he did 2,000 years ago. In fact, I think we'd call him a heretic and plot to kill him too." (Brian McLaren; "A Generous Orthodoxy"; pg. 88)

"The more I study the Bible adn reflect on the life and teachings of Jesus, the more I think most of Christianity as practiced today has very little to do with the real Jesus found there." (ibid. pg. 87)

"We are recovering from a legacy in which religious experience adn devotion have been significantly seperated from the domain of everyday life." (Mark Scandretti; "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope"; pg.27)

"Many of us are rediscovering the social ethics and tangible comapssion of Jesus. This is a healthy development, particularly for those of us groomed in traditions in which the social dimensions of Jesus' life were seperated from His role as Savior. We are developing a more global awareness of needs and opportunities for compassion, justice, and resource sharing. At our best, inspired by the Holy Spirit and motivated by love, we seek justice, reconciliation, healing, and restoration for those who are sick, hungry, thirsty, naked, lonely, or imprisoned." (Ibid. pg. 29-30)

"Because, if there is anything the entrepreneurial church is good at creating, it is compliant cultures - those stepford-like minicities populated with otherwise savvy, creative human beings. Yet, these otherwise savvy children of God somehow missed the memo: they have a brain, a voice, and a Jacobesque call to wrestle, not only with the living God, but with whatever institution claims to hold all truths inside its too perfect confines...Entrepreneurial churches thrive in the most churched areas of the country because they are populated with the already churched, not the unchurched. And their leaders know this, despite their incessant outreach-speak. They know who their real target market is. It is hothouse Christians. And if hothouse Christians are anything, they are passive...it is no wonder that most new world citizens wouldn't put so much as a tire mark on our parking lots. Maybe they get what we refuse to tet: super-sized ecclesia is as much about power as it is about God. With luxurious facilities bordering on the obscene, organizational hierarchies designed to feed pastoral ego, and constituencies of the robotically religious (who else would tolerate living in a machine?) it's not hard to figure out that one's story, creativity, and opinions aren't welcome." (Sally Morgenthaler; "An "Emergent Manifesto of Hope; pg. 181-182

"If the goal of theological inquiry was to extrapolate teh system of propositions the divine Communicator has inscripturated in the pages of the text, it would seem that the systematic theology could - and eventually would - makd the Bible superfluous. why should the sincere believer continue to read teh Bible when bilbical truth -correct doctrine - is more readily at hand in the latest systematic compilation offered by the skilled theologian?" (John Franke and Stanley Grenz; "Beyond Foundationalism"; pg. 63)

"And by bringing these biblical teachings together in a systematic whole, their goal became that of compiling the one, complete, timeless body of right doctrines, which they assumed constituted 'all the councel of God.'" (Ibid. pg. 62)


In the quotes that talk about what the EC is or does. The person making the statement, did so in the context of criticizing the traditional church for failing miserably at the task. I put Sally Morgenthaler's quote in more of context so that you can get a sense of the anger and utter disprespect that emergent have for traditional (modern) Christians and church.



BlackCapnHarlock -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/8/2008 9:10:59 AM)

Paul Edwards, had a debate with an EC dude.

http://www.godandculture.com/

Toward the end of the Thur show.



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/8/2008 3:29:56 PM)

mushead
theologins have written more books about each of these (and other) theories rather extensivly. they are not all simply "another role", but an entirely different vantage or understanding (even while many have overlaping themes) and none are based on just a single passage or two.

as to the "great commission" - the message instructed to those who go "out" is this summarized in one question "if you died tonight, where would you spend eternity" - aka some model of 'escapism', not 'discipleship'. the whole point is to lead people in saying "the sinners prayer" or show folks that they are destined to hell, but that god loves them, and how if they simply repent, they will someday get to escape the sins of this world, and spend eternity with god.

africa is widly considered to be a missionary success story. kenya has 65% affirming christian faith. malawi is 68%. congo has nealry 200 times as many evangelical christians as belgium. africa has been seen as "the white man's burden" - to evangelize and "christianize" the peoples. and through all of this "mission", evangelicals (though they are not alone) have been an utter failure. even rwanda was understood to be a "christian nation".

this might even be conveyed in desmund tutu's quote below
quote:

when the missionaries came to africa, they had the bible and we had the land. they said "let us pray". wew closed our eyes. when we opened them, we had the bible, and they had the land.


you see, the efforts of mission work for the past 150 plus years has been more akin to institutionalization, colonization, and 'conversion' more than it has been to (as jesus described it): to preach the good news of the kingdom of god.

as to your thoughts in post 111, it seems nearly everyone may fit into this characterization...there is anger and utter disrespect between a variety of folks who claim to follow christ. i've never suggested that there were not those within the ec who wouldn't fit this bill. so i do hope that this isn't the crux of any argument.

back to an earlier question: what do i understand the 'gospel' to be?
i think that paul to the greeks captured quite a bit of the beautiful news. it's of course, of our union with, and participation with god. call it justification, diefication, theosis, sanctification - they are all words expressed from a rather cultural atmosphere, this thought that god desires us to live in godself. jesus speaks of abiding in him, and being his abode. paul speaks of this as being the "mystery of ages". and it seems from the four gopsels, that this news isn't just for "them", it's for all, even "us". and i think that's one of the differences (at least perceived differences) - rather than telling a message "about" jesus, we are called to proclaim the message "of" jesus.

jesus, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom in matthew 5 - it's a message of self-denial, of loving our neighbors and god, of service to the 'other', and of the blessings of god. this isn't the message "to us" - but to those from the east and west, and from north and south.

once the "message" becomes about how only a "few who are being saved" is the moment the door is shut, and we find ourselves on the outside knocking, saying "we've lived in your presence", but there will be isolation...

or to put it rather shortly: to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/8/2008 8:06:17 PM)

quote:

theologins have written more books about each of these (and other) theories rather extensivly. they are not all simply "another role", but an entirely different vantage or understanding (even while many have overlaping themes) and none are based on just a single passage or two.

I don't intend to come across as arrogant or combative, but anything anyone teaches about the atonement must be tested against the Scriptures. So, in spite of whatever theologians have written, the indisputable message of Jesus' teachings, which are repeated in the preaching of Paul, and that are witnessed to in the epistles of the Apostles, and that are the fulfillment of OT prophecies, is that Jesus gave His life to pay the penalty for our sins. So, as I said, the items in your list are descriptions of different ways to understand substitutionary atonement. Anyone making the effort to seperate them from that is guilty of lifting passages out of their context.

quote:

as to the "great commission" - the message instructed to those who go "out" is this summarized in one question "if you died tonight, where would you spend eternity" - aka some model of 'escapism', not 'discipleship'. the whole point is to lead people in saying "the sinners prayer" or show folks that they are destined to hell, but that god loves them, and how if they simply repent, they will someday get to escape the sins of this world, and spend eternity with god.

Your correct - that is escapism; however, it is not what evangelicals do. Again, you are correct that Jesus did not say go out and summarize the great commission in one question. But then evangelicals do not summarize the great commission in one question. They tell people what Jesus did and why. This includes telling them that Jesus said that people are currently under condemnation, or to say it another way, they are spiritually dead. It also includes telling them that they cannot do anything to change this situation, but that Jesus did. The reason Jesus made such an incredible sacrifice is because God really loves us and everything He does is in the best interest of people. It also includes telling them that God created mankind to be in relationship with Him, and that sin is rebellion against following God, and living in relationship with Him. And whenever anyone repents and believes this good news, he or she becomes an adopted child of God. We tell people that it is impossible to please God without the leading of the Holy Spirit empowering us, but we cannot have the Holy Spirit without first trusting in Jesus. We tell people that God will change their "want to's" which means He will change them from the inside so that following God is a pleasure, not a chore. Finally, we tell them that Jesus is going to return, and this world is going to be burned up and replaced with a new earth and a new heaven, where all the redeemed will spend eternity in the presence of God.

Different people share this message in different ways, but my description contains the basic elements of the message. We tell people that if they believe this message and want to receive forgiveness for their sins and begin a life transforming relationship, then they can pray and ask Jesus for forgiveness and acknowledge to Jesus that they believe His message. The reason for the prayer is simple. When Jesus walked the highways and bi-ways of Israel, people could go to where He was at any particular time. Now that Jesus has returned to His rightful place on the throne of God, people that want to make a request of Jesus must do so through prayer. So we invite them to approach Jesus and receive the gift of redemption He offers. As I said, not always done the same way, but that is essentially the message we take to the world.

More later.

Edited to add: Even in mass evangelism events, i.e. Billy Graham crusade, much effort and energy is spent training people to assist those that respond to the alter call to connect with a local church and begin taking the first steps of their new life with Jesus. Like I said, escapism is a distortion. If you doubt this, then go to your local Christian book store and browse through the books and study materials on evangelism to see what they teach. Evangelism Explosion, Sharing Jesus Without Fear, F.A.I.T.H., are just a few of the more popular ones I can direct you to.

Evangelicals tell this story



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/8/2008 9:31:33 PM)

mushead
and i don't mean to come across the same way, nor do i intend to say that any lengthy discourse is true; however, it might be said that folks who devote themselves to scripture (including evangelicals), and in turn produce volumes on any variety of topics or issues is in some degree "tested".
some of this may be due to cultural, political, or other parameters, and therefore must continue to be evaluated (including modernist evangelical or protestant interpretations).

and though atonement has at it's core this idea of being one with god, and seems to demand 'substitution', it does not therefore require a "penal substitution".

that is not what evangelicals do? okay....do a google search for "if you died tonight". read tracts created by evangelicals. do evangelicals say what jesus did? sure, with the sole intent of asking a question. sheesh, watch a billy graham crusade taping. ponder the "four spiritual laws". i'm not suggesting that this message is "evil", only that it is not complete, it isn't a holistic interpretation of the message of jesus. it is singularly focused, and often fails exactly where it seeks to win - which is something we should all learn from, and continue to rend ourselves, our community, etc, because none are non-failing. lastly, it seems to be very individualistic.

in briefly looking at evangelism explosion, it seems that one of their main points is that 95% of christians never personally lead anyone to christ. how is this (leading) evidences....by how many folks 'say the prayer'. you see, it's all about "conversion". it even lists "two very important questions" by james kennedy "do you know for sure that you are going to be with god in heaven? and if god were to ask you "why should i let you into my heaven" what would you say? and from their vision file "training soul winners is most important"...how do you 'win souls'? easy, by sharing the four spiritual laws and asking a question.

and i admit, it's hard to comment accuratley on these websites, as they don't "give" their media. and i have a tendency to shy away from "christian book stores", because i always get sick to my stomach at the consumerism, the self-help, and the overt slant towards protestant evanglicalism. there are always like one short rack on "theology", and racks and racks on devotionals, etc. i wonder if anyone actually realizes that such things "are" theological statements? egh.

but it seems that in the gospels there is this primal vision of seeking and serving, and this paradoxical way of the first becoming last, we find this hope...this hope of actually having served/helped/fed/etc christ in the "other". in what we call "baptismal covenant" (the liturgy for when we baptize someone), there is this moment after the celebrant and the canidant respond to each other, that the celebrant and congregation respond with one another, there is a question to the congregation "will you seek and serve christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? (the response is, 'i will with god's help')

and this one element of difference - salvation is not purely an individual rite, and missiology doesn't center around "conversion" - but in seeking and serving.



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/9/2008 3:47:40 AM)

quote:

and i don't mean to come across the same way, nor do i intend to say that any lengthy discourse is true; however, it might be said that folks who devote themselves to scripture (including evangelicals), and in turn produce volumes on any variety of topics or issues is in some degree "tested".
some of this may be due to cultural, political, or other parameters, and therefore must continue to be evaluated (including modernist evangelical or protestant interpretations).

While I'm sure that sometimes politics or world views influence doctrinal development; and while I agree that we must always be willing to test our conclusions, the doctrine of penal substitution has passed the test.
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. 1Peter 2:24,25
Notice that Jesus bore our sins when He was crucified, and it is by this act that we are healed.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord Romans 6:23

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3:18
The wages of our sin is death, and according to Jesus this is our condition until something is done to change it. That change is the gift of God provided by Jesus' death on the cross in to bear the punishment of death in our place.

As for culture influencing intepretation: it is the position of emerging Christians that the only correct theology is the theology that is developed in partnership with culture. If anyone can be called the founder of the emerging church, it is Doug Pagitt. Pagitt wrote an essay in "Listening To The Beliefs Of Emerging Churches - Five Perspectives", in which he proposes that theology is supposed to be influenced by culture.

Pagitt talks about the debate between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius denied orignal sin; claiming that humanity was inherantly good - a theology that Augustine called heresy. According to Pagitt, Pelagius' and Augustine's theologies were developed in response to their particular cultural conditioning:
quote:

"For the Irish of Pelagius' land, the dance that went with the song was Celtic spirituality. This meant finding the goodness in creation and organizing the church to live in harmony with the God of the earth. For the Greeks of Augustine's land, the dance was Roman spirituality. This called for an explanation of how one might appease the removed God living in 'elsewhere heaven.' I am comfortable that different cultures will have different expressions, and to take a Celtic expression to Rome would have met resistance, but so would have the converse" (page 129)

The problem with this cultural theological motif should be obvious - the reason Augusting opposed Pelagius is that his teachings contradicted Scripture, not because of his cultural upbringing. The question we must answer though: is it possible to have two contradictory beliefs about the same God that are both true? The answer is yes for anyone that denies absolute truth and believes instead that truth is relative (called relativism); which aptly describes Pagitt's view of truth:
quote:

"Complex understandings meant for all people, in all places, for all places, are simply not possible. Language, situation, specific issues, and peoples own preferences and insecurity all are involved in any belief system." (Doug Pagitt; ibid. page 137)

Emergents have turned the relationship between theology and culture on its head. Instead of relying upon his culture to determine his theology, Pelagius should have allowed the Scripture to determine which parts of his culture were good, true, and thus, acceptable to God. An example of this is 1Corinthians. Much of this epistle consists of the Apostle Paul's responses to questions raised by people engaged in the task of determining which aspects of their culture - a culture permeated with pagan religious practices and rampant immorality - was acceptable for Christians and which practices should be avoided.

On page 134 Pagitt says that he does not hold to the theology that mankind is seperated from God by sin, which means that he too denies penal substitution. But the only way he can support this position is to rely upon something other than scripture for his theology. For if the theology of the Emerging Church could be found in the Scriptures, emergents certainly wouldn't go through so much trouble to discredit the use of Scriptures as the source of Christian doctrine. Which supports my position that Scripture does not teach any doctrine other than "penal substitution."



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/9/2008 7:37:42 PM)

quote:

sheesh, watch a billy graham crusade taping

I guess you missed this part of my last post:
Edited to add: Even in mass evangelism events, i.e. Billy Graham crusade, much effort and energy is spent training people to assist those that respond to the alter call to connect with a local church and begin taking the first steps of their new life with Jesus. Like I said, escapism is a distortion. If you doubt this, then go to your local Christian book store and browse through the books and study materials on evangelism to see what they teach. Evangelism Explosion, Sharing Jesus Without Fear, F.A.I.T.H., are just a few of the more popular ones I can direct you to.

quote:

in briefly looking at evangelism explosion, it seems that one of their main points is that 95% of christians never personally lead anyone to christ. how is this (leading) evidences....by how many folks 'say the prayer'. you see, it's all about "conversion". it even lists "two very important questions" by james kennedy "do you know for sure that you are going to be with god in heaven? and if god were to ask you "why should i let you into my heaven" what would you say? and from their vision file "training soul winners is most important"...how do you 'win souls'? easy, by sharing the four spiritual laws and asking a question.

I didn't say that we don't tell people that they must realize they are sinners and make a decision to trust in the redemption that Christ provides. Quite the contrary, we do tell people that. My point is that is not all we tell them. Next time you watch a tape of a Billy Graham crusade, watch the people that go forward during the alter call. You will notice that many of them are wearing some type of a badge. Those are the counselors, who meet with the respondents there at the alter and in some cases for months afterwards.

quote:

but it seems that in the gospels there is this primal vision of seeking and serving, and this paradoxical way of the first becoming last, we find this hope...this hope of actually having served/helped/fed/etc christ in the "other". in what we call "baptismal covenant" (the liturgy for when we baptize someone), there is this moment after the celebrant and the canidant respond to each other, that the celebrant and congregation respond with one another, there is a question to the congregation "will you seek and serve christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? (the response is, 'i will with god's help')

and this one element of difference - salvation is not purely an individual rite, and missiology doesn't center around "conversion" - but in seeking and serving
.
Salvation is a personal thing between God and the individual - as Paul wrote the Corinthians, "We preach the cross of Christ..." No one else can make the decision to believe the gospel and trust in Jesus for you. However, the process of maturing in one's faith and knowledge of Jesus certainly involves the community.
It is impossible to serve Christ if one does not have Christ (Read Romans chapter 6). Which makes the emergent theology of salvation (portrayed by Brian McLaren in "A New Kind of Christian" and Doug Pagitt in the previously cited essay; a soteriology that sounds ominously like your description above) a false doctrine. Contrary to their teachings, all people are not going to heaven. While this life is the place to decide to follow Christ's example, it is not a training ground where we prepare ourselves for heaven by how we live; learning to express attitudes of love, compassions, inclusiveness, and selfless sacrificial committment to helping our fellow man - in other words, exhibiting Jesus' attitudes and behavior for our fellowman, God, and all of creation. Neither will the irreligious, unloving, selfish, greedy, materialistic, divisive, heardhearted people, go to heaven simplyh because that is where all people go when they die.. Heaven is not going to be a joyful experience for those who by the way they lived in this spere, will fit right in with the nature of heaven. Heaven is not going to be an uncomfortable place for those who lived selflishly in this sphere. And finally, in heaven, people are not going to be just like they were here in this sphere.

How do I know this, because the Bible tells me so.

Jesus says that whoever rejects Him in this sphere will perish in an eternal unquenchable fire where their worm will never die. Hell is a place partly described in the story of the Lazarus and the rich man. It is a place of torment.



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/9/2008 7:45:47 PM)

quote:

africa is widly considered to be a missionary success story. kenya has 65% affirming christian faith. malawi is 68%. congo has nealry 200 times as many evangelical christians as belgium. africa has been seen as "the white man's burden" - to evangelize and "christianize" the peoples. and through all of this "mission", evangelicals (though they are not alone) have been an utter failure. even rwanda was understood to be a "christian nation".

this might even be conveyed in desmund tutu's quote below
quote:

when the missionaries came to africa, they had the bible and we had the land. they said "let us pray". wew closed our eyes. when we opened them, we had the bible, and they had the land.

you see, the efforts of mission work for the past 150 plus years has been more akin to institutionalization, colonization, and 'conversion' more than it has been to (as jesus described it): to preach the good news of the kingdom of god.

facedown,
I have not forgotten your analogy of the guitar player. I will respond to that story in due time; though I might first need to ask for some clarification. I did want to respond to your post that explains why you believe the biblical gospel is more about colonialism...

You do see the fundamental error in the story; don't you? Missionaries don't take people's lands, soldiers do. Tutu is holding the church responsible for something they did not do - "guilt by association".



VCO -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/9/2008 11:36:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: facedown
vco
i think, it might be awesome to engage with your further, but i do have to run; however, your insinuation that emergents are lukewarm, are unintentional about missional work, and all about "electronic church band wagan" is....of the wagon. in addition, your suggestion that there existed a period of time when most churches were "red hot on fire" and somehow made the lord pleased (while churches today don't) is a bit misleading.

here's the question: what's the consequence, should this label "emergent" fit a person? what does "emergent" mean to you (other than being 'lukewarm') and are there any specifics you would like to discuss?


U&U

Going to try to answer this again. Last night I had it nearly finished, and was proof reading, when my internet went down, and lost it all. [:(] I know I should save a copy elsewhere periodically, but didn't.

I would describe myself as being an Independant Fundamentalist. In fact the majority of the Churches that I have been associated with since I was born again in 1978, have been Churches associated with the I.F.C.A. (Independant Fundamental Churches of America).
http://www.ifca.org/

So my beliefs are very Baptist-like, in fact a Chaplain at one of the Prisons where I was a Volunteer used to say, "Oh, you are just a Baptist incognito.", lol. As for what exactly do I.F.C.A. Churches teach and believe, here is the Doctrinal Statement of Faith from one that I agree with whole heartedly:
Indian Hills Community Church's Statement of Faith - link

You asked what meaning I use for "Emerging Church", I think Wikipedia has a very good one:

quote:


Wikipedia definition: Emerging Church - link

The emerging church (also known as the emerging church movement) is a controversial 21st-century Christian movement whose participants seek to engage postmodern people, especially the unchurched and post-churched.

"Emerging Christians" deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, certain culture norms, and methods.
. . .

Conservative, evangelical theologians and pastors believe the movement's embrace of a postmodernist philosophy leads to unorthodox theology, relativism, antinomianism, universalism, and syncretism. These critics frequently equate emerging church theology with the liberal theology that has historically been at odds with Christian fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. . . ."


Do I think it is wrong to change what the Church has taught for over 1900 years, to conform to Society, or what is considered Politically Correct instead of what is Biblically Correct. ABSOLUTELY, it is wrong. It is not just my opinion either, that is what Scripture says and the "Falling Away" from what the Church has always taught was prophecied:

2 Tim 4:3-4 (NKJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

2 Thess 2:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

Jude 1:3-4 (NKJV)
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:11 (NKJV)
11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

There are MANY in this modern age that have decided to go the way of "self-styled" worship like Cain abandoning what the Church has always taught. There are MANY (especially on TV) that think the teaching of the Word of God is for profit like Balaam. AND there are MANY that think you can mix something (even pagan ideas) with Christian Teachings and come up with a better Religion just like Korah. These MANY all think they are Christians, but they have changed the definition from what GOD says to what they want. The Parable of the Gates, IS NOT about unbelievers and believers, it is about two groups that call themselves Christians:

Matt 7:13-23 (NKJV)
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

As for the fact that during the Philadelphia Age (approx. 1800-1960) more Missionaries were sent out than the rest of the Church age; that is a historical fact you can look up. As for the cooling off of the Church in this Laodicean Age, again the facts speak for themselves. Church giving is rapidly decreasing, Church attendance is rapidly decreasing, Church Volunteerism is at an all time low, and even elderly Missionaries are having great difficulty finding replacements and continued support. A hundred years ago if a Pastor asked his Congregation to come help fix and clean things in and around the Church on Saturday, the MAJORITY of the congregation showed up. How many show up today?



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/10/2008 2:21:45 AM)

quote:

As for the fact that during the Philadelphia Age (approx. 1800-1960) more Missionaries were sent out than the rest of the Church age; that is a historical fact you can look up. As for the cooling off of the Church in this Laodicean Age, again the facts speak for themselves. Church giving is rapidly decreasing, Church attendance is rapidly decreasing, Church Volunteerism is at an all time low, and even elderly Missionaries are having great difficulty finding replacements and continued support. A hundred years ago if a Pastor asked his Congregation to come help fix and clean things in and around the Church on Saturday, the MAJORITY of the congregation showed up. How many show up today?

VCO,
good post! I enourage you to continue posting scriptures to support your positions. That said, can we discuss the seven churches of revelation for a moment. I wonder if the assertion that the churches described in revelation represent different church ages is as obvious as it appears at first glance. I am undecided, but I wonder if this theory is based soleley on the American church, or even the church in the western hemisphere. My concern is that the church in other parts of the world are not experiencing the same problems as the American or western church. For example, the church in China seems to coincide with the church in Smyrna or maybe Philadelphia, or some mixture of the two. It is experiencing tremendous growth, the working of amazing miracles, such as the raising of the dead, and incredible committment and sacrifice. The same things are happening more or less in other churches in parts of the world where Christianity has not traditionally been strong (it is not wise for me to mention the names of those countries on the internet). You mentioned the time when the most missionaries were sent out, but for the church in some countries the height of missionary sending is right now. Some of them are sending their missionaries here to the United States. I guess I am wondering if the description of the church in different ages is unintentionally limited to the history of the American or western church.

What do you think?



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/10/2008 11:35:47 AM)

quote:

we are talking about two different things. Yes, the kingdom is present - at least partially - in the community of Jesus' followers. However, emergents believe that the mission of the church is to install - in this present age - what the Bible describes as the future consumation of the Kingdom.



What in the world would be wrong with that? You got to be fooling yourself if you think that evil is good to live in. Yes the writer in Revelation writes about an later time in which Jerusalem come down from the sky.

But think in this term that "your will be done on earth as in heaven". So for some reason, Jesus told us to ask for it in your prayers. So if there is joy in heaven then there can be joy here on earth to.



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/10/2008 2:52:08 PM)

quote:

What in the world would be wrong with that? You got to be fooling yourself if you think that evil is good to live in. Yes the writer in Revelation writes about an later time in which Jerusalem come down from the sky.

mcleod,
the problem isn't the desire to insitute the characteristics of God's kingdom on earth, but the claim that working toward that end is how people are saved; even if they hear that Jesus is the son of God who paid the penalty for our sins when He was crucified, but are not convinced. In other words, anyone that demonstrates even the slightest character traits that are similar to the character of Jesus; and anyone that desires to advance justice and end human oppression and suffering is a disciple of Jesus, even if they do not believe Jesus is the son of God; even if they don't want anything to do with Jesus; even if everything they do is in the name of some false god, such as Buddha or Mohammad.

The issue with the EC is not the desire to implement the Kingdom of God - for that is a noble desire. The issue is that emergents desire to reject much of Jesus' message; going so far as to call Jesus' message evil.

quote:

But think in this term that "your will be done on earth as in heaven". So for some reason, Jesus told us to ask for it in your prayers. So if there is joy in heaven then there can be joy here on earth to.

I'm not sure why you think anyone is suggesting that joy is not availabe here on earth. One thing I do know is that joy is not produced by circumstances - either good or bad. Joy is something the Holy Spirit produces in the person who has submitted himself to the lordship of Jesus - in spite of the circumstances of one's life. For a list of all the fruits of the Spirit, see Galatians chapter 5.



Sammy_S -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/10/2008 4:40:39 PM)

I am a bit confused on this topic.I understand that the Emerging Church is full of heresy but is the Emergent Church full of Heresy as well?I heard a sermon of Mark Driscoll and he seemed very biblical and preached true christianity to me.I also understand that John Piper is a freind of his so he seems to be alright?

His preaching seems very true to the faith so far but I just don't understand his Emergent Church Theology.Another concern of mine is that his style and his church seemed to be too focused on being relevant to the world.

Can someone explain this to me?



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/11/2008 7:14:45 AM)

mushead
there are several images in scripture, several metaphors if you will, about the atonement. it seems as though, you prefer that the primary one is the cultic (hebraic) understanding of the "scapegoat". is that accurate?

i was raised in a lutheran church, and i recak this being the message - every week, that "jesus died on the cross", but rarely, if ever conveyed the importance of "god with us" (the incarnation), or the resurrection or ascension (even while portraying an empty cross). catholics, on the other hand, seem to focus on the resurrection, even while using the imagry of christ on the cross, and eastern churches focus heavily on the incarnation.

it seems, that perhaps all three have everything to do god's redemption story....

"...
quote:

is it possible to have two contradictory beliefs about the same god.
.."
certainly, christians from all spectrums do it all the time, even while affirming "absolute truth"

it's interesting that you should discuss 1 corithians, in the light that some practices should be avoided, when paul clearly deems acceptable many practices that are deemed as unacceptable - heretical - false in churches today.

as i mentioned, i don't have any of pagitt's books, so i can't turn to page 134 and read it. you say that he says mankind is not seperated from god, what exactly does he say? what book are you referring to again?

and again, scripture certainly teaches things other than penal substitution.
ireaneus writes "the work of christ is first a foremost a victory over the poers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil". read 1 john 3:8, col 1: 13, or hebrews 2:14. john 1 suggests that the reason jesus came into the world was to reveal god's heart by what jesus did and who he was. col 2:15 says that christ "disarmed the powers and authorities". col 2:14 says jesus cancled the written code, nailing it on the cross. romans 8:1 suggests that there is no condemnation in christ, because of the freedom, or liberation, from sin and death. and we are compelled to follow christ - to crucify ourselves - gal 6:14, and many others. romans 5:6-10 says that we did not "get what we deserve". jesus' entire message was the "kingdom of god", and liberating people, setting the captives free, binding up the broken hearted, giving beauty for ashes, healing infirmities.


post 117
oh, i read it, even just after i wrote it (but prior to posting), and chuckled a little. but training folks doesn't mean that the observation is incorrect. being counseled doens't replace the message.

"false"? seeking and serving christ in the other is 'faslse'? prey-tell, how so.....
or maybe you meant that 'salvation' is purely an individual rite, and community has no bearing on the word.
or maybe you meant that missiology is indeed centered around "conversion" rather than in seeking and serving.
which one, or was it all three?

post 118
no no no, not "biblical gospel"....how shall i say this, the 'gospel' often presented by folks in these western, modern times, portrayed acurately by many folks in evangelical circles. *note- you see, when you suggest 'biblical' you then suggest that all other thoughts are 'unbibilical'.

missionaries may have 'taken lands', indeed probably quite often. now, in these days, most missionaries don't take lands, but they utilize the same philosophy found in colonialism, even the same business plan as establishing a mcdonalds, setting up a franchise to offer religious goods and services, though really "offer" may be too light of a word.


VCO
now i have no problem with wiki; however, it's interesting to note that when wiki is used against evangelicalism, the reponse is "oh, you can't source a user inputed reference" or something similar.
now, it's interesting that you label yourself as a fundamental with very close ties to what i might understand a 'baptist' to be; and use this phrase "what the church has taught for over 1900 years". lets be clear, what the church "teaches" today is rarely what the church taught 600 years ago, let alone 1900 years (though i don't want to have this viewed as some argument for reconstructionism either).

so, the consequence then, is that "they" (emergent type folks) are false, heretical, and damned?

sammy
there are many understandings about things called 'emergent' or 'emerging', and yes confusion is in there. my apologies should this thread have caused any of this on your end. driscoll was present in the forming years; however, has seperated himself from the movement for the most part, and piper is defintely more 'fundamental' and 'calvinist' than 'emergent'

i might suggest going to itunes, and subscribing to mars hill, should you desire some insight into what this is all about. imago dei has many, many podcasts there as well.



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/11/2008 12:15:49 PM)

Dear Mushhead,

You wrote:
quote:

The issue with the EC is not the desire to implement the Kingdom of God - for that is a noble desire. The issue is that emergents desire to reject much of Jesus' message; going so far as to call Jesus' message evil.



I need to know where that is written, because I will write to teaching pastor of where I attend and confront him on that.

It has been forty seven years in a lot different of churches. Saying that if I say a sinners pray and just believe. that I would have eternal life. I have no problem with that. Except when it came to helping other humans who were being missed treated or starving to death or were do to things beyond their control found themselves out on the streets. They missed the mark and quite frankly. Think is nothing but keeping the law wasn't requirement to do it at all. It's funny that those peopled have made up a bunch of rules (which there is a thread on it) that has nothing to do with a relationship with the creator of the universe.

It just amazes me to know that if someone wants to put into practice what Jesus said and what Isaiah wrote. Then they in so-called christian circles, think those people are evil. I know been there and done with my dad. Back in the sixties and seventies and even in the eighties. Go and ask a church to help someone here in America and sorry, but no luck. The reason we would do that because the need was great, but the building projects was more important.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI