|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/14/2008 6:18:13 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
mushead
i am well aware of what hebrews says, and in fact, this is exactly part of the issue. as you well noted, hebrews says that the "ot temple and sacrificial system" was a -type- if you will. the type is a hint, a pattern, a promise of something to come. paul sees abraham's faith as a prefiguring the faith of blievers. abraham is then a type, a foreshadow of the christian. typology treats a story or an object as a symbolic. the antitype, the fulfillment, is then more meaningful than is the type. the type is not simply an allegory, a "higher" reality imperfectly reflected in the story. rather the original, literal story is now superficial. typology doesn't disdain the original, but it adds a more importan and primal meaning to the literal.
it could be said that paul is a typological interpretor. hagar is a type of unbelieving jew, sarah is a type of christ-believer, the water bearing rock is 'christ', and moses and the people were "baptized" in the sea as they passed through it. paul suggests that the paschal lamb was a type of christ. etc etc
pauls metaphors are more than vehicles they provide content to the message. because paul has linked the sacrificial and scapegoat cults as a preconfiguration of christ, people have then conceptualized the significance in terms of what they understand these rites to b. the end result; however, is that many christians have then accepted that the death of christ was a ritual event, was a costly payment, not simply like one of these.
jesus then, is a type - and types need to be re-interpreted. jesus is no longer the teacher, or the proclaimer. he is the subject that we speak about. we then procliam not the message of jesus, but a message about jesus.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that typology works like (I'm not remebering my college philosophy very well - is it Marx) Marx's(?) theory (now I don't even remember the name of his philosophical theory) where we arrive at truth by starting with a thesis; then an antithesis is proposed which leads to a new thesis? Are you saying that now Jesus is the new type that must be submitted to the same process leading to a new interpretation, or as you put it, a reinterpretation.
Whatever you are saying, one thing is true, Jesus is the fulfillment of all types (though some people are guilty of finding types where there are none), and as God tells us in Hebrews 13:8 Jesus doesn't change, so Jesus is not reinterpreted, He is only revealed, discovered, and understood.
quote:
pauls metaphors are more than vehicles they provide content to the message. because paul has linked the sacrificial and scapegoat cults as a preconfiguration of christ, people have then conceptualized the significance in terms of what they understand these rites to b. the end result; however, is that many christians have then accepted that the death of christ was a ritual event, was a costly payment, not simply like one of these
I think you are putting to much emphasis on people engaging in arbitrary interpretation. The reason people understand penal substitution as the source of atonement, rather than just "one of these" is because God makes that unmistakeably clear.
As evidence for this fact, let's take a look at the multiple way that different OT types were used to refer - not only to Jesus - but to His ministry as our substitute. In Hebrews Jesus is referred to as both the High Priest and the sacrificial animal. As the real High Priest, Jesus enters the real tabernacle, not just the earthly copy, to make intercession for us. Then we are told that unlike the earthly High Priest, Jesus did not need to offer a sacrifice to cleanse Himself from His sin. Instead Jesus entered by the means of His own blood to provide eternal redemption.
quote:
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:12-14)
Pay close attention to what this passage tells us about redemption.
1-redemption is synonymous with being saved, and being saved is synonymous with being cleansed from acts that lead to death
2-God tells us in Romans 6:23 that the acts that lead to death are called sin
3-redemption, therefore, is being cleansed from sin.
4-we are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Jesus
5-being cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus makes serving God possible.
6-redemption is eternal
All descriptions of and blessings that flow from the atonement, are the result of Jesus having shed His own blood as payment for our sins. Notice that when God talks about saving, redeeming, cleansing, restoring it is always in the context of forgiving sin and purifying from sin. This is true, even if God is talking about redemption in economic, judicial, or whatever terms. An example of this is found in the following, which is the continuation of the Hebrews chapter nine passage above:
quote:
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15
When God talks about things like serving Him, or being adopted, or whatever, He is talking about the blessings that are the result of our being redeemed.
quote:
jesus then, is a type - and types need to be re-interpreted. jesus is no longer the teacher, or the proclaimer. he is the subject that we speak about. we then procliam not the message of jesus, but a message about jesus.
Actually we do both. We tell people what Jesus said in the process of telling people about Jesus. As I said earlier, Jesus is not reinterpreted because He is the same...same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. We cannot legitimately reinterpret Him, we can only hope to know and understand Him.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/14/2008 6:40:42 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/14/2008 7:58:48 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
interesting thing about galations 2:15-21:
quote:
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"is that it in no way says what you suggest it says. maybe your thinking of a different passage?
I realized later that I did a poor job of seperating my application of this verse from my conclusions about how it applies to our convesation. Let me try again.
In v. 21 Paul says that if righteousness can be gained by observing the law then Christ died for nothing. This means that Jesus died to provide righteousness - cleansing from sin. In other words, Jesus died to provide atonement.
If, as you claim, atonement can be gained through other means, e.g. seeking to liberate people from bondage, helping them to learn how to live as Jesus did, or if atonement is something seperate from substitutionary atonement, i.e. being adopted into God's family, healing of diseases, or whatever; then following Paul's logic, Jesus died in vain because His death was not necessary for atonement. Instead, it is just one of many paths of atonement.
Said another way, if in fact these other atonements are actaully seperate atonements rather than the result of substitutionary atonement, then that means salvation can be earned through the efforts of people seeking said salvation. If, however, Jesus' death is necessary; and if in fact Jesus' death is so intimately tied to penal substitutionary atonement that it would otherwise be meaningless, we can conclude that penal substitution is not just the prime means of atonement, it is the only means of atonement.
quote:
the interesting thing about acts 17 is that paul is in the center of a place where philosphy was argued and discussed on the streets. paul is here, in this place after having being expelled from some other places because of his motivation, and is roaming the streets seeing and listening to folks. and when he finally gets his chance, he speaks in ways that these folks would understand. but - he never elludes to a complicated soteriology - he never even mentions jesus by name.
First: Paul was not expelled because of his motivation; he was expelled because of his message.
Second: In Acts 17:18 we are told that Jesus was taken to the Areopagus because he was preaching the good news about Jesus and His resurrection. When he preached at the Areopagus, we see Paul telling the people about Jesus. So, I am not sure what you are suggesting his not using the name of Jesus tells us about the Gospel.
I think we can learn some things about this incident from 1Corinthians 2:1-5:
quote:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.
When Paul left Athens he went to Corinth. Notice what Paul tells the Corinthians about his preaching when he first arrived in their city.
1-He did not give an eloquent presentation filled with persuasive words
2-He did not use superior wisdom. In other words, he did not try to convince the Corinthians with intellectual arguments, nor did he attempt to use persuasive reasoning to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Gospel.
3-He only preached the message of Jesus
4-He did not present himself in any way that might cause people to be drawn to him rather than the message
5-He did all this so that their faith was a demonstration of the Spirit's power and nothing else.
Why do you think Paul made a conscious effort to avoid trying to employ reason and wisdom in his preaching at Corinth? I think it is safe to conclude that Paul learned a valuable lesson in Athens. At the Areopagus, Paul attempted to talk about Jesus on their terms, rather than just delivering the Gospel. This never works, because as paul learned, and as he also dicisssed in 1Corinthians chapter 1, the message of the Cross, that is life to the believer, is foolishness to the philosopher (remembering that foolishness is the anithesis of the very purpose of philosophy and is therefore repulsive to the philosopher). Whatever the reason, we know that Paul presented the truth about Jesus, because many of them sneered upon hearing about the resurrection of the dead. In other words, some of them rejected the gospel (others wanted to hear more, and a few believed and followed Paul). I am guessing that Paul would have taugt more about Jesus to the few who followed him.
quote:
agreed. is our death a penal substitute? is our burial a scapegoat? is our raising a return for appeasing god?
or do these words not mean what they say they mean? or do they mean something totally different?
The words mean exactly what God says about them. Our dying with Jesus is a metaphor for the death of Jesus being applied to our lives. In other words, Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, but when I died with Jesus, it means that this payment for sins is applied specifically to my life. The same goes for being buried and raised to new life.
quote:
and you can quote paggit - but i cannot respond to an excerpt and provide context for my response, or read into it context that i think may or may not be there.
You can ask, or you can assume that I am not misrepresenting Pagitt - after all, I gain nothing by misrepresenting another man's views. In any case, I too prefer to read things in their full context, which is why I try to choose quotes that are so clear in meaning that it would be difficult for the meaning to change in any context.
quote:
is "streets of gold" a literal picture of heaven? no, i don't think so. if we take this, then we understand that heaven is a cube, i believe if i remember the measurments right, about the land size of the united states. it's foundations are gems, etc.
Maybe heaven is a literal cube. But that said, the clear intent of the description is to describe an incredibly glorious place that is almost too wonderful for words. It certainly is not a depiction of humanity in right relationship with one another, with God, with the animals and with all of creation.
quote:
"Don't you think that God is concerned about saving the whole world? I often think that we are more Platonic than Christian, and here's a case in point. We seem to think that the only thing that God really wants to save is "souls." But to me, the biblicial vision in never a disembodied soul floating in or out of space. No, it's the redemption of the world, the stars, the animals, the plants, the whole show. I feel that especially when I read Revelation. It's like this wonderful dream where there are streets of gold, and gates of pearl - not literally, of course, but the imagery is of something real, substantial, not ethereal. In this deram there are strange creatures full of limbs and eyes and horns and manes - composites of all animals, as I interpret the vision, telling us that even the animal kingdom will be redeemed. And don't forget the plant kingdom adn teh environment as a whole - there are trees, adn there are cities with rivers of crystal-clear (not polluted) water flowing through. And even human culture is redeemed - with human languages being spoken and human songs being sung." (Brian McLaren; "A New Kind of Christian" pg.129)
As a concluding thought, let me point out that we modern conservative evangelicals do not think salvation is about disembodied souls floating in or out of space. This description is a good example of how emergents totally - and I might add, willfully - misrepresent our beliefs so they can then propose their doctrines as a more logical corrective. It seems to me that if emergents want to complain about our beliefs, the least they coudl do is be honest enough to accurately portray what those beliefs are.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/14/2008 8:23:17 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/14/2008 8:38:14 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
mushhead,
I have to say I agree with about 70% of your writings.
When you brought up about the conquering Christians. A lot of those had the christian banner on when they went to war. I agree that a true believer would never do that. Yet because of some bad apples you kind a have a smell with us.
That because the world around us is looking for excuses in which they possible don't want to follow God"s ways. Like at a place I worked at when I would talk about having a relationship with the creator of everything. Or even to live an eternal life. Their excuse were" Well I wouldn't mind going to heaven where you would be, but if I had to go where so-and-so is going then I rather go to hell". Now the reason why they would say stuff like that was because the so-called person, who every week would go to church. Would treat their employees with disrespect and not showing any fruits of the Spirit. So let's put it this way when it comes to the words of Jesus, that we need to be careful in what we do as far the littlest ones, and neighbors. We fail miserable in that aspect of life.
A RCA church, which my family was attending. By gossip drove my daughter out of the church.
We're more worried about a doctrinal statements then we are about a person feeling or needs.
mcleod,
I think I agree 100% with what you said in this post. My wife used to work in the Missions and Leadership Development department of the Utah-Idaho Southern Baptist Convention. One time she was listening to a missionary from one of the countries in the old Soviet Union (I don't remember which country). This missionary said that the United States was the single biggest hindrence to people in Eastern Europe accepting Jesus. Why? Because the U.S. calls itself a Christian nation. People in other countries see how violent, permiscuous, and immoral American society is, and associate that with Christianity. They say things like, "If that is what Christianity is like, I don't want anything to do with it."
I know this type of misunderstanding and guilt by association is unavoidable, but I agree with you that Christians should not confirm this misunderstanding by acting badly. I also wonder if the friends and co-workers you referred to would have a different view of Christians if they knew how many Christians do express the love of Christ (as per my earlier post). That said, I am offended (not by you!) that emergents add fuel to this fire of misunderstanding by portraying the stereotypes as accurate descriptions of the vast majority of the church; and I am offended that they suggest that our beliefs aboiut God cause us to act this way.
quote:
When you brought up about the conquering Christians. A lot of those had the christian banner on when they went to war. I agree that a true believer would never do that. Yet because of some bad apples you kind a have a smell with us.
I am aware that my posts are often too long, and if I explain something about why nations did things under the banner of Christianity, then this post will also be too long. But because emergents distort history as well, I think it is necessary to at least try to explain something about this for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know it already.
Constatine made Christianity the favored religion in Rome in an effort to unite the empire. Some say that he chose Christianity because he converted, but his reason for giving the church favored status was to promote unity. If you study the history around the church councels that led to the creeds, you will discover that the councels were authorized by the emporer in order to preserve that unity - the specific issue, e.g. dispute over the triune nature of God that was resolved at the counsel of Nicea and resulted in the Nicean Creed, was threatening to divide the church which in turn might divide the empire.
Now fast forward a few hundred years. Christians used their new found favored status in the powerful Roman empire to evangelize nations outside the empire. Therefore, a growing number of European, African, and Asian countries were adopting Christianity. Some also gave Christianity favored status. As the Roman empire weakened, some nations that previously were in the empire won their independence, but they continued to give Christianity favored status. As you can imagine, over the course of hundreds of years, Christianity became an integral part of European societies.
Now lets take the information we have covered so far and apply it to some particular circumstance like Spain's attempt to conquer North American natives, i.e. Mayans or the Incas (?). Stories are told of Spanish troops requiring the defeated people to convert to Christianity. The reason wasn't that the soldiers were missionaries, but because conversion was a sign of patriotism. If they were willing to convert, then the defeated people were demonstrating a willingness to become part of the conquering nation. However, many did not understand this, and when they refused, or when they hesitated, they were slaughtered.
Some people try to lay the blame of that behavior on the church. But the church vigorously opposed that practice. I don't remember which pope did this (I think Gregory, but I'm not sure and I don't want to go look it up right now), but one of the popes issued an edict condemning the practice. The church also sent out missionaries to establish frontier missions for the purpose of ministering to the victims of this practice.
So yes, mcleod, I agree with you that in most (not all) cases these soldiers and their Kings did this under the banner of Christianity, which leads to the church being held responsible. I just hope that more people will set the record in those instances for which it is appropriate to do so. I also hope that emergents will stop their practice of confirming the popular, but erroneous, understanding of history.
Mcleod, thanks for participating in this convesation.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/14/2008 9:12:08 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/15/2008 1:03:38 AM
|
|
|
Sammy_S
Posts: 489
Joined: 10/6/2007
From: Brampton,Ontario
Status: offline
|
Mushhead
quote:
Sammy,
I think you touched on the answer to why they choose to identify with emerging, when you talked about relevance. After the 1950's the church's rate of baptism began to nose dive. Christians became increasingly concerned about this trend. I believe that this concern came to head in the mid-1980's. Christians began looking for ways to attract non-believers. Churches increasingly adopted programs in the hopes of recreating someone elses success. Then seeker-senstitive became very popular. While seeker-sensitive is, in principle, a Biblical concept, the way it was practiced became utterly unbiblical. Instead of worship services being primarily a gathering of believers who together bow before the throne of Almighty God, it became all about luring the unbeliever. Many worship practices were set aside in the interest of not offending the seeker.
Seeker-sensitive didn't stem the baptism slide, so about the time I entered the ministry in the early nineties, the new call was for the church to learn how to connect with the larger culture. More and more churches looked to contemporary worhsip services and other practices to connect with people outside the church. Some churches even took down the crosses in their buildings. Next came the call to demonstrate that the Bible has a relevant message for the lives of people in todays world. Preachers increasingly taught felt need sermons that addressed topics of concern in the lives of the congregants. Felt needs sermons are also Biblical (Jesus preached "felt-needs" sermons) but they too were taken too far. Instead of seeking to provide Biblical guidance for the pressing issues facing congregants, these sermons increasingly became the religious version of "successful living techniques." We began to hear messages with phrases like, "What does the Bible say about how to manage your finances?" or "What does God tell you about how to be the best employee and succeed in the workplace?" or "What does the Bible say about how to have a happy life?"
If you listen close enough, you will notice that these messages are all about the individual succeeding in everything he chooses to do. Joel Osteens book title sums up this phenonema well, "Your Best Life Now." Emphasis on it being your life. The problem is that the only truly successful life as a Christian is the one utterly surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus.
This brings me to the EC. An entire generation (at least) has been raised under the rubric of relevance. I believe that even though he disagrees with the doctrine, Mark Driscoll thinks that the practices of the EC are the best way to reach postmoderns. He doesn't seem to understand that in the final analysis there are only two cultures (two worldviews). 1-The worldview of the unbeliever and 2- the worldview of believers. Unbelieving cultures are manifested in many different ways, but ultimately they are based on a view of the world that is different than what God reveals. WE as believers are called to present the truth to the unbelievers and call them to turn away from their worldviews and adopt the worldview presented in the Bible. Remember Paul's message at Athens. He described the truth about creation, God, humanity, sin, and of course Jesus. He called them to repent, but they did not.
As a Calvinist, this won't be an issue for Driscoll, but many Christians seem to think that we have to convince people to accept Christ, when only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of the Gospel's truthfulness. Our task is to deliver the message, not find better ways to convince them. Knowing this might free us to make worship about worshipping God again...whatever style of music we use.
Thank you!
The sad thing for me is that many Christians who should spend more time reading their bibles believe that they are fine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/15/2008 1:54:28 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4085
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
As a Calvinist, this won't be an issue for Driscoll, but many Christians seem to think that we have to convince people to accept Christ, when only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of the Gospel's truthfulness. Our task is to deliver the message, not find better ways to convince them. Knowing this might free us to make worship about worshipping God again...whatever style of music we use.
I keep going back to the parable of the seed. Our job is to plant the Word of God--God will be faithful to make it grow where He wills. We should not expect a full crop from our planting, as the parable explains that there are many reasons why the gospel is rejected.
For those God gives ears to hear, they will hear and receive. To those without ears, the gospel will be foolishness.
We should be giving great attention to making sure we are spreading the pure, unadulterated Gospel message, rather than focusing so much on relevance.
There is nothing new under the sun--"post-modernism" is not news to God, and it doesn't need some new version of the scriptures in order to be saved.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/16/2008 9:03:59 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
mushead
when i write of typology, what i've suggested is that many these days seem interpret the incarnation through this lens, thus offering an interpretation of jesus and his message, rather than understanding that this "is" the message, thus, in turn, one often turns jesus into a "type".
of course, folks would wave off such accusations, and this is to be understood; however, the more one understands the negative consequences of such interpretations, and actually critically looks at the argument presented in the interpretation....
god makes it clear that penal substitution is "the source of atonement"? the passage from hebrews you quoted doesn't even suggest "penal".
one of the most striking consequences of penal subsitution atonement, is it turns god into someone who can be paid off.....and in some interpretations of this theory, a god who can be bribed.
::
post 152
you make it sound as if other atonement theory's suggest that "jesus' death" is not "necessary". i'm not sure such an argument could really be made. in addition, the same is true with your statement about people earning salvation.
the interesting thing about acts 17, is that it contains a 'transcript' of a speech. you and i can look at this speech and understand where he's coming from - we can place over it the entirty of scripture as our source for understanding. from v22 onward we find paul answering a question about his "new teaching" - but not once does paul mention any of the "required" elements we so often demand today.
and so it seems that you believe paul "failed" - he didn't "deliver the gospel" - his message was "repulsive"?
so in your understanding our "death" is purly symbolic and a metaphor?
modern conservative evangelicals may or may think that salvation is about disembodied souls floating in or out of space; however, it's not a perception limited to brian, and many of these observations are coming from those directly impacted by evangelical churches - folks who were born and raised in church. not outside critics.
the interesting thing about the primary question to lead to salvation "if you died tonight" is that odds are - you're not going to. the whole message is about physical death, and not life - and there are consequences (good and bad) of this being "the" question. what would be interesting, is if the question was
"when you wake up in the morning.....?"
"five years from now, when your.....?"
"five minutes after you leave, and your sitting have some coffee wth some friends and....?
"when your boss....."
"after your spouse......"
"even right now, as you sit there thinking......?'
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/17/2008 3:13:29 AM
|
|
|
VCO
Posts: 106
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
. . .
I am aware that my posts are often too long, and if I explain something about why nations did things under the banner of Christianity, then this post will also be too long. But because emergents distort history as well, I think it is necessary to at least try to explain something about this for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know it already.
. . .
U&U
I used to be the same way! And occasionally I still am. Let me tell you a true story about myself, but PLEASE do not take offense. I am trying to share wisdom with you that a elderly Pastor once shared with me.
More than twenty years ago we had the joy and privilege of being fed by an elderly Interim Pastor, whom I grew to have the GREATEST respect for. There is a wisdom that you can gain through intense study of the Word, that can lead you in spiritual growth to be a spiritually mature man/shepard, able to feed the lambs God has entrusted to you. Then there is level of spiritual maturity beyond that, which you cannot learn in text books, or Seminary. It is a level of spiritual maturity that ONLY comes from years and years of "living the Word", a spiritual maturity that I like to call: "a spiritual grandfather". Pastor Neal Beery (whom God called home about 8 years ago) was such a spiritual grandfather.
Back then as a spiritual young man, not only was I full of zeal, but way too long winded. One day I was witnessing to a man downtown, standing on the sidewalk, and my conversation quickly went from Salvation, to Justification, and to Sanctification. About half way through my conversation with the man, I noticed Pastor Beery had come around the corner and stopped several feet away listening to what I was saying. Sadly I have to admit that even a little pride welled up inside me, that "my Pastor" saw I was witnessing as I should.
The following Sunday as I came through the front door, Pastor Beery grabbed me by the right arm, pulling me into his Office. He said, "Come here I need to talk to you." Once the door was closed he said, "I saw you witnessing downtown a few days ago, and I got one thing to say to you. Keep it simple stupid, you were going clean over his head."
That is a lesson I have never forgotten. That is why I try to let Scripture speak for itself, rather than inserting a big bunch of my opinions. I also realize that many more people are just reading here, rather than posting and debating. Therefore I want those readers to be able to see that "Thus says the Word of God" is why we believe, not because I have reasoned it out in my own intellect. I pray this is as encouraging to everyone that reads it, as it was to me the day Pastor Beery pulled me into his Office.
_____________________________
Titus 2:13
VCO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/17/2008 6:48:49 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
this post is not intended to dismantle paul's writings, but share how a worldview based upon a few verses has negative consequences:
it seems that both jesus and paul taught salvation by "faith", leading to spiritual rebirth and union with god. jesus' message says that salvation is freely available from the god who knows how to care for his children and give them what they need (matt 5:6, 7:7-11). in paul's writings, there is often a mechanism of salvation (making christ sin, handed over for our transgressions) - though one must also understand this is not the only element, and in addition cannot be used to interpret all other pauline writings, let alone the gospels.
jesus teaches that faith is primarily trust, and is something that is lived much in the same way that we understand being "faithful" to our spouse regardless of what we may believe about them on a particular day. it's a word that evokes community, relationship, and dependence; yet in paul's epistles there is this element of mental assent, an intellectual component, if you will. this aspect has grabbed hold of many modern churches and is present with much force today as the primal understanding of "faith".
faith and salvation then (in the mental assent awareness notion) doesn't come from jesus' own teaching, life, and message, but from accepting soteriological formulas about one aspect of the life of jesus - his death. christ then becomes the mediator, not the proclaimer of salvation. jesus' own parables about faith, honesty, and growth may be well and good, but they are hardly the essense of salvation for many - quite plainly, they are "milk" not "meat".
paul never says "your faith has saved you" as jesus so often does (luke 7:50, 8:58, 18:42, mark 5:34, etc) since it is the messiah's death that actually saves, faith then m eans accepting certain things, mentally assenting to specific lists of data about this event. faith then is saving, but there is no hint of "blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see god" in paul's writings, let alone in "fundamentalist" churches. there is no free access to god by the meek or the pure.
jesus was willing to use the innocence of children as a sign of the kingdom. for paul, none is innocent and trust itself is not to be trusted (romans 7:19). religion today is about catastrophic conversion; jesus healthy-minded religion is simply not understood, and consequentially brushed aside as something that needs to be shown in children's picture books.
paul is certainly sensitive to the ever-present danger of human pride and sin, but surely he is not more savvy to deceptiveness than is jesus and never speaks of open access to god by the pure in heart, because most are dishonestly say that they are pure. paul is certainly perceptivenot his point, but more so than jesus?
again - this isn't about the entirety of paul's writings, but of a selection of passages that many in modern churches grab hold of.
so, we end up dealing with two different instincts about god, and access to god. jesus - god incarnate - is able to say that a sincere and childlike faith opens the heavens - there really are hungering, merciful, pure, poor in heart folks who will be filled....will receive mercy...will see god.
today's approach is a practical one, but the open hearted message of faith and sincerity that is clearly central in the gospels tends to be brushed aside by intense emotions and repentance and the mental construct of affirming certain formulas.
::
this is the danger of atonement metaphors, as effective as they may be - they all carry baggage and seem to contain little bombs ready to explode with manifestations of feat, suspicion, and scapegoating.
and though paul never expounds upond god being appeased by the death of christ, it certainly is an implication of his metaphors, and later christians have developed such notions based on this in the form of christ bearing some kind of penal substitutionary punishment. 'law' and 'condmentaion' occur like 30 times in romans 7 and 8 alone. some kind of substitution is taking place. we can see in romans 8:3 where calvin got his idea of jesus' flesh becoming the focus of god's wrath. now even if calvin grossly exaggerates one aspect of paul's teaching, it is there in the texts. and paul cannot be blammed for what lesser minds have developed.
most problems with atonement have some basis in biblical texts. appeasement and buyout do have a basis in pauline and deuter-pauline mwritings, and many have picked up on the manipulative psychology of sacrifice and redemption.
however, this bribe recieving image (the timebomb?) has no basis in jesus' father - who is eager to give children what they need without having to be persuaded.
< Message edited by facedown -- 3/17/2008 6:55:02 AM >
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/17/2008 10:49:48 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 659
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
YvonneW,
quote:
mcleod,
I'm new to this forum so please be patient with me but what did you mean by "us" in this statement? I'm a little confused.
Like I was writing in that reply. Just as that person whom I was talking to about and showing them about a better way to live their life, than to be selfish. What they saw was the other so-called Christians, did and how they treated others around them. Because Of those actions of those so-called Christians. I found it hard to get them to understand that is not the way, Jesus the creator, wanted us to live our life's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/17/2008 11:25:44 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 659
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Mushhead,
Hello, may grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, abound with you everyday of you life.
quote:
In v. 21 Paul says that if righteousness can be gained by observing the law then Christ died for nothing. This means that Jesus died to provide righteousness - cleansing from sin. In other words, Jesus died to provide atonement.
If, as you claim, atonement can be gained through other means, e.g. seeking to liberate people from bondage, helping them to learn how to live as Jesus did, or if atonement is something seperate from substitutionary atonement, i.e. being adopted into God's family, healing of diseases, or whatever; then following Paul's logic, Jesus died in vain because His death was not necessary for atonement. Instead, it is just one of many paths of atonement.
Said another way, if in fact these other atonements are actaully seperate atonements rather than the result of substitutionary atonement, then that means salvation can be earned through the efforts of people seeking said salvation. If, however, Jesus' death is necessary; and if in fact Jesus' death is so intimately tied to penal substitutionary atonement that it would otherwise be meaningless, we can conclude that penal substitution is not just the prime means of atonement, it is the only means of atonement.
I try to show people whom I come into contact everyday of a God who in three traits shows us love and grace. Which Paul writes about in 2 Corinth. 13:14. That, when for some reason works quite well in showing others about a God in which we serve and wants to have fellowship with us. Just to coin a phrase from a Lennon and Mccarthy song. All We Need is Love. Just like when Jesus walked the face of the earth and showed love to the crowds.
I'm truly sorry to hear what happen to your wife with that ministry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/18/2008 6:36:04 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
when i write of typology, what i've suggested is that many these days seem interpret the incarnation through this lens, thus offering an interpretation of jesus and his message, rather than understanding that this "is" the message, thus, in turn, one often turns jesus into a "type".
facedown,
sorry for taking so long to reply, but I had to attend to some personal issues.
Maybe some people interpret Jesus through the lens of types, but I don't know of any. The people that I know interpret Jesus based on what He says about Himself, and what God reveals through the rest of the NT. For these people, types provide an added depth of understanding of Jesus' mission and they demonstrate the consistancy of God's redemptive activity.
quote:
god makes it clear that penal substitution is "the source of atonement"? the passage from hebrews you quoted doesn't even suggest "penal".
Yes it does, I just didn't include the entire context that makes that clear. I was relying upon your knowledge of Scripture so that I could keep my post from being even longer than it was (obviously I am self conscious about the length of my posts).
quote:
one of the most striking consequences of penal subsitution atonement, is it turns god into someone who can be paid off.....and in some interpretations of this theory, a god who can be bribed.
Based on this statement, is it safe to assume that you reject penal substitutionary atonement? That said, I must disagree in the strongest possible terms that this turns God into someone who hcan be bribed. Webster's defines a bribe as:
1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
2 : something that serves to induce or influence
A bribe implys unjust or unfair influence. A bribe also suggests improper influence to gain favor or to insure conduct that could not otherwise be expected. Penal substitution does not fit this definition in any sense of the word. Penal substitution does not suggest an effort to influence God to do something that could not otherwise be expected because it is in God's nature to offer grace and mercy. Also, penal substitution does not seek to bribe or payoff God so that He won't punish our sins; to the contrary, it guarantees that our sins are punished. The only thing penal substitution changes is who gets punished for those sins.
quote:
post 152
you make it sound as if other atonement theory's suggest that "jesus' death" is not "necessary". i'm not sure such an argument could really be made. in addition, the same is true with your statement about people earning salvation.
What did I say that leads to you this conclusion?
quote:
the interesting thing about acts 17, is that it contains a 'transcript' of a speech. you and i can look at this speech and understand where he's coming from - we can place over it the entirty of scripture as our source for understanding. from v22 onward we find paul answering a question about his "new teaching" - but not once does paul mention any of the "required" elements we so often demand today.
see my response to the next statement.
quote:
and so it seems that you believe paul "failed" - he didn't "deliver the gospel" - his message was "repulsive"?
I think it is safe to say that Paul thought he failed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a PhD in linguistics and literature to realize that his statement to the Corinthians reveals something about what took place in Athens. He tried to persuade the philosophers at the Areopagus with intellectual arguments. The sermon in Acts 17 is a good lesson on the limits of attempting to integrate cultural considerations into our gospel presentations.
quote:
so in your understanding our "death" is purly symbolic and a metaphor?
No. If you go back and read carefully, you will notice that I said that death is a reality. However, when speaking about the meaning of baptism, I said that the ritual of baptism symbolizes; it is a dramatization of sorts, that Jesus' death has been applied to the individual being baptized. In other words, the person has died to his sins, has been buried, and as a consequence, has been raised to a new life. It symbolizes that the person is a new creation, and it symbolizes how he became a new creation.
I have to go, I'll respond to the rest later.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/18/2008 7:51:40 PM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
mushead
The people that I know interpret Jesus based on what He says
i've seen most folks interpret the gospels from pauline scripture (rather than the other way around) - there have been numerous threads in this forum on the gospels being "milk" and pauline epistles being "meat", as one example...
quote:
Yes it does, I just didn't include the entire context
please forgive me, and share the specific passage you believe does demand penal substitution.
quote:
Based on this statement, is it safe to assume that you reject penal substitutionary atonement?
....yes, and no - i suppose. i believe that "penal substitution" can provide one element or metaphor, or analogy in christs death; however, atonement or salvation is much more than christ paying a "debt".
quote:
Webster's defines a bribe as:
1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
2 : something that serves to induce or influence
and this is what penal substitutionary atonement demands: that jesus death (payment) was given to influence the "judgement" (don't think that only the guilty can offer a bribe - it can be by an associatie - it can be mediated). in addition - the payment serves to "influence" the debtor.
it is "unfair influence" in that penal substitutionary atonement suggests "we" are guilty and "christ" makes a payment - it's our gain based on something we could not otherwise pay. so, it does fit - though this was an anolgy and metaphor, and as such, isn't perfect - certainly it breaks down somewhere, we are speaking of linguistics here, btw...
quote:
Said another way, if in fact these other atonements are actaully seperate atonements rather than the result of substitutionary atonement, then that means salvation can be earned through the efforts of people seeking said salvation. If, however, Jesus' death is necessary; and if in fact Jesus' death is so intimately tied to penal substitutionary atonement that it would otherwise be meaningless, we can conclude that penal substitution is not just the prime means of atonement, it is the only means of atonement. this is what lead to the conclusion that other atonement theory's suggest jesus' death is not necessry and that folks then earn their salvation....
and i don't think it's safe to say that paul failed.
gotta run. hope you were able to take care of everything.
,,,and don't fret the long posts
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/18/2008 9:41:16 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
modern conservative evangelicals may or may think that salvation is about disembodied souls floating in or out of space; however, it's not a perception limited to brian, and many of these observations are coming from those directly impacted by evangelical churches - folks who were born and raised in church. not outside critics.
facedown,
these observations are coming from liberal christians whose doctrinal authority is experience rather than Scripture and as such, disagree with the evangelical belief that Scripture contains the error free revelation of God that is the ultimate authority for determining right belief and practice. The fact is that we do not believe in an disembodied soul floating out there. We believe in the bodily resurrection of everyone, to eternal damnation in hell or eternal life in the New Jerusalem. McLaren's statement that I provided in a previous post, along with his oft repeated attempts to refute an actual hell demonstrates, his rejection of our doctrines. His rejection of our doctrines reveal his knowledge of these doctrines. Which means he knows that he is making untrue statements.
One last point on this subject: what we teach is what we teach; just because more than one person misrepresents our doctrine does not make it any less of a misprepresentation.
quote:
the interesting thing about the primary question to lead to salvation "if you died tonight" is that odds are - you're not going to. the whole message is about physical death, and not life - and there are consequences (good and bad) of this being "the" question. what would be interesting, is if the question was...
As I've demonstrated the whole message is not about death. The point of asking that question is that anyone of us could die at any moment. When we die, we are going be face to face with Jesus who is our judge. How we lived isn't going to determine our eternal destiny. If we are judged by the quality of our lives, then judgment will end badly. The only thing that will effect whether we spend eternity in paradise with Jesus or eternity seperated from Him in hell, is if we truly trusted in Jesus for our redemption. So the question is designed to help people realize that this is not a decision they have the luxury of putting off for another day; because another day might not come.
The whole point of the gospel is redemption. If you continue to focus on that aspect of our presentation, and ignore the fact that we also teach that redemption puts us into a relationship with Jesus that is life transforming then you will continue to misunderstand what we teach. What we teach is can be demonstrated through a plethora of sources. I guess its your choice whether or not to check out what I am telling you to see if it is true. I suppose that if you like making this accusation more than you like accuracy, you can just ignore the facts and continue to make the same mistake over and over again in the future. But whatever you choose won't change the fact that you are wrong about this subject; and that even if you don't check out other sources, your error can be proven by the many posts right here on these forums, that come from evangelicals who are talking about the struggle with the everyday issues of walking with God.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/18/2008 10:45:56 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/19/2008 5:22:09 AM
|
|
|
VCO
Posts: 106
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
. . .
paul never says "your faith has saved you" as jesus so often does (luke 7:50, 8:58, 18:42, mark 5:34, etc) since it is the messiah's death that actually saves, faith then m eans accepting certain things, mentally assenting to specific lists of data about this event. faith then is saving, but there is no hint of "blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see god" in paul's writings, let alone in "fundamentalist" churches. there is no free access to god by the meek or the pure.
jesus was willing to use the innocence of children as a sign of the kingdom. for paul, none is innocent and trust itself is not to be trusted (romans 7:19). religion today is about catastrophic conversion; jesus healthy-minded religion is simply not understood, and consequentially brushed aside as something that needs to be shown in children's picture books.
paul is certainly sensitive to the ever-present danger of human pride and sin, but surely he is not more savvy to deceptiveness than is jesus and never speaks of open access to god by the pure in heart, because most are dishonestly say that they are pure. paul is certainly perceptivenot his point, but more so than jesus?
. . .
U&U
Now I have to disagree with you. I have been attending mostly fundamentalist Churches, that belong to the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, since about 1982. AND have heard NONE teach that there is a difference between what Jesus taught about "Saving Faith" and what Paul taught. The difference is TOTALLY in what the average American means by the word "FAITH" or "I BELIEVE", compared to what Jesus and the believing Jews of His day meant by those same terms.
Zola Levitt, probably explained it best, in a story he told several years ago:
To the Jews "FAITH" or "I BELIEVE", means much, much more than intellectually acknowledging that something is true. It absolutely requires action one's part to demonstrate that "BELIEF" by one's lifestyle. For examaple: If two Jews walked up to a frozen over lake in early Winter and Jew 1 turned to Jew 2 and asked, "Do you believe the ice is thick enough to walk on yet?" And Jew 2 said, "Yes, I believe it is thick enough."; but gingerly put one foot out to test the ice. Jew 1 would say to Jew 2, "LIAR, if you really believed it you would have boldly walked out there and put your whole weight on it."
Jesus was referring to that, "NO HESITATION to put your whole weight on it" definition when he spoke of the "Faith of Child".
Mark 10:15 (NASB)
15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
John 20:28-29 (NASB)
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
If you walked outside and found your two year old son standing on the roof of the garage and said to him, "Jump son, Daddy will catch you." You had better be ready to catch him, because he will jump without hesitation, because without question he totally trusts his Daddy. THAT IS WHAT A JEW MEANS BY "THE FAITH OF A CHILD".
The question then is: "Do we trust God like that?" Or are we like the second Jew testing to see if He will really hold us up. Therefore when Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you."; it was because that person acted on that faith, demonstrating by their actions, that their faith was genuine.
Luke 7:44-50 (NASB)
44 Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.45 "You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 46 "You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47 "For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."48 Then He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven." 49 Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this man who even forgives sins?"50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
James 2:14 (NASB)
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
James 2:26 (NASB)
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Are we then saved by "faith" or demonstrating that faith?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT, we are saved by GRACE.
Eph 2:8-9 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
If we have that genuine faith, that "faith of a child", it was given to us by the Holy Spirit; AND it was "by GRACE we were saved", something TOTALLY UNEARNED, by our actions. BUT THAT GIFT OF "GENUINE SAVING FAITH" will produce a reaction of living that "FAITH" out in our lifestyles.
John 14:15 (NASB)
15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
That intellectual acknowledgement that the stories about Jesus are true, with NO lifestyle of desiring and striving to keep His commandments; is nothing more than those on the "Broad Road that leads to destruction".
Matt 7:13-14 (NASB)
13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Matt 7:21-23 (NASB)
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?'23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness
James 2:18-20 (NASB)
18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
Genuine saving faith then is not something we thought up, but rather a "gift of God", that changes us from the inside out, and will produce "good fruit". If you have it, it came from the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot claim by any means, "I was intelligent enough to decide to believe in Jesus." NO, we can only fall on our knees and cry out, thank you Lord, for saving a wretch like me."
"Amazing Grace - link"
_____________________________
Titus 2:13
VCO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/19/2008 7:32:28 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
mushead
you know what's interesting....your primal argument seems to be that they (emergent, me, liberal) misrepresent evangelical doctrine. and it seems to me that most evangelicals misrepresent the things they are arguing against (emergent, me, liberal)....maybe the whole problem is communication on the part of the sender, not necessarily the receiver? who know....
that being said - i believe your first paragraph in post 163 to contain many broad sweeping and over arching assumptions.
the "hole message" may not be about death - however, as i've demonstrated this is the message one hears - should one turn on the tv, listen to christian radio, read books from a christian book store, or do even a minute amount of browsing. are other messages in and around? i'm sure they are.
"How we lived isn't going to determine our eternal desitny"
to some degree i agree and disagree. because it is how we live - a life of faithfulness to god. a life of participation with god. this has nothing to do with "quality" as preached by the worlds empires and structures.
vco
i've no doubt that you've never heard a difference. what does "average american" mean?
now, i just googled "saving fatih" and like the first document that came up was a speech by mcarthur who quotes a "well-known" speaker at a bible conference speaking of salvation who says "Salvation may or may not alter a persons behavior. Transformed character is desirable but even if no change in life style occurs the one who has believed the facts of the gospel and received christ can rest in the certainty of forgivness and heaven"
*note - mccarthur does not agree with this statement - but he notes that this pervasive. john, like you, seems to demand that "works" are the evidence of salvation - thus you say you believe but do not do, you don't believe and if you say you believe and you do, then you must really beleive.
in the end; however, it all comes down to mental assent.
and your insinuation that when jesus says your faith has saved you is because a person demonstrated their faith is incorrect - unless one just looks for this specific phrase, that is.
it also seems that in the end, this sort of "reaction" based relationship is nothing more than a relationship based on works - it's a relationship dealing with our salvation, so we come back to a sotierology based on works....how interesting!
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
