|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 1:34:51 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 1502
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
ORIGINAL: SD456
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
Except that a large part of the church believes it's an allegory.
If a million people believe the wrong thing is it still wrong?
Song of Solomon is clearly about sex between a married couple, to appy it to God and Israel, or Christ and the Church is just sick and not to mention bad hermenutics.
Yes, I understand that is your opinion.
An Opinion I that many theologians I have great respect for believe.
But if you want to believe that a love story/poem about married love and sex is about God and you fine. But don't be shocked and outraged when people call you on a eros love view of God.
As my opinon is one that many theologians I greatly respect believe. Sorry, Sue. There are lots of secondary issues that are disagreed upon by the body of Christ. The greatest theologians in history have disagreed on a lot of points. That's doesn't make one view heretical and the other not, it simply means we all know in part and will forever come to different conclusions on secondary issue.
God Bless,
Stace
quote:
Eldridge has elevated man to basically good, and devalued God to a love sick puppy wringing his hands while waiting to see if his risk will pay off.
I didn't get that from his books at all. It's an interesting interpretation of his writings, but I didn't see that in them.
< Message edited by SD456 -- 4/30/2008 1:43:03 PM >
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 1:38:57 PM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 331
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SD456
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
ORIGINAL: SD456
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
Except that a large part of the church believes it's an allegory.
If a million people believe the wrong thing is it still wrong?
Song of Solomon is clearly about sex between a married couple, to appy it to God and Israel, or Christ and the Church is just sick and not to mention bad hermenutics.
Yes, I understand that is your opinion.
An Opinion I that many theologians I have great respect for believe.
But if you want to believe that a love story/poem about married love and sex is about God and you fine. But don't be shocked and outraged when people call you on a eros love view of God.
As my opinon is one that many theologians I greatly respect believe. Sorry, Sue. There are lots of secondary issues that are disagreed upon by the body of Christ. The greatest theologians in history have disagreed on a lot of points. That's doesn't make one view heretical and the other not, it simply means we all know in part and will forever come to different conclusions on secondary issue.
God Bless,
Stace
Yes which is why it is instersting that you are ignoring the open Thesim being taught/implied by Eldridge.
Or do you think Open Theism is a secondary issue as well?
_____________________________
"It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian Church have had a decided tendency to 'dishonor God and to flatter man.'"
Spurgen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 1:47:54 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 1502
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sue
Now I know that Eldridge has said he is not an open theist
Then I think we should believe what he says. He knows what he believes better than we do.
As JE put it, God did allow this creation of his (us) into the story, knowing there would be consequences with allowing us to have a free will that could choose whatever we wanted.
I can understand his terminology in calling it a 'risk'. As a creative writer, I probably would have used the same terminology to describe it because I understand what he's getting at in saying it. But I might not have. I might have chosen a different terminology. I see no problem with using the word 'risk'.
If you are calvinist and I am not, then we will have fundamental differences in our understanding of free will and God's sovereignty. (I'm not saying that you are calvinist, but if you are then you shall of course have a difference of opinion with writers and thinkers and theologians who espouse more of an Armenian thinking.)
< Message edited by SD456 -- 4/30/2008 2:04:44 PM >
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 1:58:54 PM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 331
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SD456
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sue
Now I know that Eldridge has said he is not an open theist
Then I think we should believe what he says. He knows what he believes better than we do.
As JE put it, God did allow this creation of his (us) into the story, knowing there would be consequences with allowing us to have a free will that could choose whatever we wanted.
I can understand his terminology in calling it a 'risk'. As a creative writer, I probably would have used the same terminology to describe it because I understand what he's getting at in saying it. But I might not have. I might have chosen a different terminology. I see no problem with using the word 'risk'.
Oprah also says she is a Christian but I know from your blog you don't take her at her word so do you pick and choose arbatrily who you believe?
So you have no problem with a god who can take a risk. No thank you. I will stick with the God of the Bible where nothing is a risk since He is in control.
That is someone that is worthy of worship and love.
Not this love sick puppy god that edlridge has created.
_____________________________
"It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian Church have had a decided tendency to 'dishonor God and to flatter man.'"
Spurgen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:10:25 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
(Playing referee for a moment)
The Oprah comment wasn't particularly fair. We all make choices on whom we trust at face value and whom we don't.
(Continuing on...)
As far as the word risk goes, there are connotations to the term that fit and those that don't. In our human relationships, we know in advance that entering into a relationship with another person will at some point involve some degree of pain. We know it in advance, yet we proceed forward. We often use the term "risk" to encompass that thought. This is imperfectly similar to God's position in that creating us, he no doubt knew he was entering into a relationship where we would ultimately stray from him. He knew it in advance, yet proceeded forward.
"Risk" in this case has nothing to do with uncertainty or lack of foreknowledge but rather with perfect knowledge beforehand entering into a relationship he knew would fail and require redemption.
It would seem that we're getting a bit crossed up in language and metaphors/words that are imperfect or partial reflections of the ideas we're dealing with.
Edit: When JE says he's not an open theist, I would tend to believe him. I also think he doesn't necessarily have a theologian's sensitivity to the logical conclusions of some of his statements.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 4/30/2008 2:20:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:25:21 PM
|
|
|
AoibhinnGrainne
Posts: 103
Status: offline
|
Sue,
You said:
"An Opinion I that many theologians I have great respect for believe.
But if you want to believe that a love story/poem about married love and sex is about God and you fine. But don't be shocked and outraged when people call you on a eros love view of God."
Which theologians?
And does your opinion and your respect for them makes them correct? Have you searched out their theology to ensure it is without error (ie, infallible)?
Well, I offer you this from CRTA (reformed.org):
Notes on Song of Solomon
From the Original 1599 Geneva Bible Notes
Song 1:2
1:2 Let {a} him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love [is] better than wine.
(a) This is spoken in the person of the Church, or of the faithful soul inflamed with the desire of Christ, whom she loves.
Song 1:3
1:3 Because of the {b} savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the {c} virgins love thee.
(b) The feeling of your great benefits.
(c) They that are pure in heart and conversation.
Song 1:4
1:4 {d} Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his {e} chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.
(d) The faithful confess that they cannot come to Christ, unless they are drawn.
(e) Meaning the secret joy that is not known to the world.
Song 1:5
1:5 I [am] {f} black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of {g} Kedar, as the{h} curtains of Solomon.
(f) The Church confesses her spots and sin, but has confidence in the favour of Christ.
(g) Kedar was Ishmael's son, of whom came the Arabians that dwelt in tents.
(h) Which within were all set with precious stones and jewels.
Song 1:6
1:6 Look not upon me, because I [am] {i} black, because the {k} sun hath looked upon me: {l} my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; [but] my own vineyard have I not {m} kept.
(i) Consider not the Church by the outward appearance.
(k) The corruption of nature through sin and afflictions.
(l) My own brethren who should have most favoured me.
(m) She confesses her own negligence.
Song 1:7
1:7 Tell me, {n} O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest [thy flock] to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of {o}
thy companions?
(n) The spouse feeling her fault flees to her husband only for comfort.
(o) Whom you have called to the dignity of pastors, and they set forth their own dreams instead of your doctrine.
Song 1:8
1:8 {p} If thou knowest not, O thou fairest among women, go forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents.
(p) Christ speaks to his Church, bidding them that are ignorant to go to the pastors to learn.
Song 1:9
1:9 I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's {q} chariots.
(q) For your spiritual beauty and excellency there was no worldly treasure to be compared to you.
Song 1:12
1:12 {r} While the king [sitteth] at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth its fragrance.
(r) The Church rejoices that she is admitted to the company of Christ.
Song 1:13
1:13 A bundle of myrrh [is] my wellbeloved to me; he shall lie all night between my {s} breasts.
(s) He will be most dear to me.
Song 1:16
1:16 Behold, thou [art] fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our {u} bed [is] green.
(u) That is, the heart of the faithful, in which Christ dwells by his Spirit.
The above clearly shows that Song is an allegory about the Church and Christ. The Reformers knew that and taught that and have continued to teach that for, what?, 400+ years? I am going to guess you've not read much Puritan literature.
Song is also a marriage manual. And a love poem. Scripture is like that. Let him who has eyes, see.
Some folk are fearful of loving God with all their everything whilst keeping that love as pure, holy, and undefiled as possible. They demand Song cannot be anything but human, carnal (albeit married...although there seems to be a third party in there later on...) love.
Marriage exists as a picture of Trinity...relationship...Christ and His Church. It exists for more than "Man being alone" because Man wasn't alone! Man walked in the Garden in the cool of the evening with God. Was God telling Adam He wasn't enough?
Or is marriage only for procreation...be fruitful and multiply and make lots of little Christians?
No.
There is much more to marriage than that. Everything in all of life points to God.
Even this...
You are mistaken that the Song of Solomon is only a marriage manual.
Now, to the Open Theism thing:
A) Yes, it sounds as if Eldredge is an Open Theist. I would hesitate to call someone a liar when they have clearly answered a question asked of them. Eldredge says he is not an Open Theist. We must take his word for that, regardless of our personal thoughts about that, or else we are slandering him and calling him a liar. Same with Oprah.
If the Church wishes to condemn him (and Oprah, for that matter) as a heretic, then convene an Ecumenical Council. But only God can judge the heart. We are called to look at teachings...and fruit. Not individuals as such.
In our desire to grasp ahold of "right doctrine" with all our might, we have become very judgmental folk; drawing the wagons 'round tighter and tighter and tighter to the point where Protestants in the US have created 25,000 denominations. How sad!!! Ye we continue on our merry chase for "right doctrine" whilst killing each others reputations...not to mention hearts.
It's wrong. It promotes gossip...talking about others when they cannot respond, and slander...besmirching another's reputation because they have ben judged to be outside someon'e interpretation of "right doctrine".
Where has the Church come to???
Let me ask you something: are you a supralapsarian or an infralapsarian?
In other words, did God create Adam and Eve to fall; that was His Plan all along and the rest, shall we say, is history...the unfolding of redemptive history.
OR...did God give Adam and Eve the opportunity NOT to fall, but when they did His plan kicked into gear and redemptive history continued?
2. Did God create evil?
The presuppositions you hold, your world- and life-view has a lot to do with how you read and understand things.
I am not saying this to be difficult. Or to defend Eldredge. At this point, I honestly don't care about this argument at all.
But I do care about things taken out of context, folk getting hurt by all this, Christians acting unChrist-like over something so small in the larger scheme of things, and having at each other at each other's expense.
This is NOT how Brothers in Christ are to act...IMNSHO.
Grace. We are to act in Grace with and towards each other even as we dig after the truth in all things. We are not supposed to be adversaries. We already have one. We are supposed to be on the same side.
How beautiful it is when Brothers dwell together in unity. Psalm 133:1
Aoi.
_____________________________
Be a woman so wrapped up in the Heart of God, that a Man of God has to search the Heart of God to find you...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:36:26 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 1502
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
ORIGINAL: SD456
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sue
Now I know that Eldridge has said he is not an open theist
Then I think we should believe what he says. He knows what he believes better than we do.
As JE put it, God did allow this creation of his (us) into the story, knowing there would be consequences with allowing us to have a free will that could choose whatever we wanted.
I can understand his terminology in calling it a 'risk'. As a creative writer, I probably would have used the same terminology to describe it because I understand what he's getting at in saying it. But I might not have. I might have chosen a different terminology. I see no problem with using the word 'risk'.
Oprah also says she is a Christian but I know from your blog you don't take her at her word so do you pick and choose arbatrily who you believe?
So you have no problem with a god who can take a risk. No thank you. I will stick with the God of the Bible where nothing is a risk since He is in control.
That is someone that is worthy of worship and love.
Not this love sick puppy god that edlridge has created.
That's fine, sue. You can take whomever at their word that you choose and not take whomever at their word that you don't choose. That's between you and God.
And if you choose to interpret JE's writings (if you have read any of his books, that is) in the way you do, that's fine also. I don't read that into his writings at all. God is not a love sick puppy, He is a God profoundly in love with the people He created and pursues them with this amazing love. But that's your spin on it, not mine.
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:41:35 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 1502
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
(Playing referee for a moment)
The Oprah comment wasn't particularly fair. We all make choices on whom we trust at face value and whom we don't.
(Continuing on...)
As far as the word risk goes, there are connotations to the term that fit and those that don't. In our human relationships, we know in advance that entering into a relationship with another person will at some point involve some degree of pain. We know it in advance, yet we proceed forward. We often use the term "risk" to encompass that thought. This is imperfectly similar to God's position in that creating us, he no doubt knew he was entering into a relationship where we would ultimately stray from him. He knew it in advance, yet proceeded forward.
"Risk" in this case has nothing to do with uncertainty or lack of foreknowledge but rather with perfect knowledge beforehand entering into a relationship he knew would fail and require redemption.
It would seem that we're getting a bit crossed up in language and metaphors/words that are imperfect or partial reflections of the ideas we're dealing with.
Edit: When JE says he's not an open theist, I would tend to believe him. I also think he doesn't necessarily have a theologian's sensitivity to the logical conclusions of some of his statements.
I think I shall be praying that God gives me the ability to write out my thoughts as succinctly as you do. You always say exactly what I want to say but can't get across!
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:42:24 PM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 331
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
(Playing referee for a moment)
The Oprah comment wasn't particularly fair. We all make choices on whom we trust at face value and whom we don't.
(Continuing on...)
As far as the word risk goes, there are connotations to the term that fit and those that don't. In our human relationships, we know in advance that entering into a relationship with another person will at some point involve some degree of pain. We know it in advance, yet we proceed forward. We often use the term "risk" to encompass that thought. This is imperfectly similar to God's position in that creating us, he no doubt knew he was entering into a relationship where we would ultimately stray from him. He knew it in advance, yet proceeded forward.
"Risk" in this case has nothing to do with uncertainty or lack of foreknowledge but rather with perfect knowledge beforehand entering into a relationship he knew would fail and require redemption.
It would seem that we're getting a bit crossed up in language and metaphors/words that are imperfect or partial reflections of the ideas we're dealing with.
Edit: When JE says he's not an open theist, I would tend to believe him. I also think he doesn't necessarily have a theologian's sensitivity to the logical conclusions of some of his statements.
God didn't 'fail' in His relationship with Him. the Cross and redemption of mankind was planned from before the foundation of the world. 1 Pet 1:19-23
_____________________________
"It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian Church have had a decided tendency to 'dishonor God and to flatter man.'"
Spurgen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:43:22 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Absolutely not. He did not fail.
We however did. This is my point. We failed Him, such that we require his redemption. We agree here too. His redemption was indeed planned before the world began - he knew we would fail him. And yet he created us. That's the point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:46:08 PM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 331
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
quote:
if you have read any of his books, that is
To answer the unspoken quesiton, I have said before I read the first few chapters of wild at heart, got sick of the open Theism being permoted. Scanned through Epic when my old church was doing a 'bible' study on it. Rolled my eyes at the idea of God being compared to the illict affair between Jack and Rose in Titanic. Couldn't get past the low view of God I saw in the book.
_____________________________
"It is a remarkable fact that all the heresies which have arisen in the Christian Church have had a decided tendency to 'dishonor God and to flatter man.'"
Spurgen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:53:36 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 1502
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aoi
It's wrong. It promotes gossip...talking about others when they cannot respond, and slander...besmirching another's reputation because they have ben judged to be outside someon'e interpretation of "right doctrine".
Very true and so very sad. 
quote:
Grace. We are to act in Grace with and towards each other even as we dig after the truth in all things. We are not supposed to be adversaries. We already have one. We are supposed to be on the same side.
How beautiful it is when Brothers dwell together in unity. Psalm 133:1
You are correct. We have an adversary and he is not of flesh and blood. Grace, grace and more grace is what keeps unity in the church. We are fractured by the divisions on 'perfect doctrine' and 'how' perfect one can get in their doctrines. Again so very said.
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 2:55:16 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
I can understand why it may have put you off. I wouldn't characterize JE's view of God as low, and am reasonably confident his own view of God is actually quite high. Nonetheless, I can and do appreciate that it didn't give you the warm soft fuzzies. It doesn't speak to me either, but it does for some.
BT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 3:16:14 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 595
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AoibhinnGrainne
The above clearly shows that Song is an allegory about the Church and Christ.
There's a big difference in "the Church and Christ" and those who think Jesus is their personal romantic boyfriend.
_____________________________
"There is no work better than to please God; to pour water, to wash dishes, to be a cobbler, or an apostle, all are one as touching the deed, to please God."-William Tyndale
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 3:19:57 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
We all appear to agree that Christ is not our romantic boyfriend. The only disagreement would seem to be whether or not that's an appropriate metaphor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 3:41:46 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
God is Soverigin, Predistination is clearly taught in the Bible. But man has a choice and is responsible for the choice he makes. Greater theologians then I (and I by no means am even pretending to be theologian let alone great) have tried to reconcile the two. I perfer to leave them as they are. Both taught in the Bible, and some how they work out in how God does things.
That's about as good an answer as I've stumbled on. A bit like a favorite movie line of mine from "Shakespeare In Love".
"I don't know. It's a mystery. It all works out in the end."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 4:10:52 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 595
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
We all appear to agree that Christ is not our romantic boyfriend. The only disagreement would seem to be whether or not that's an appropriate metaphor.
Hello GroupW,
The thread is about the RH ministries as well.
I was surfing Eldredge's forums earlier--the boyfriend concept is not being overstated here - it is on his own forum.
I don't think it's healthy to replace God with a personalized concept. That would be a false god.
_____________________________
"There is no work better than to please God; to pour water, to wash dishes, to be a cobbler, or an apostle, all are one as touching the deed, to please God."-William Tyndale
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 4:14:02 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Actually, you'll notice a fair amount of disagreement and qualification in the forums on that topic. At least I did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 4:27:47 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 595
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
Actually, you'll notice a fair amount of disagreement and qualification in the forums on that topic. At least I did.
Just to start over, someone posted about song of solomon being Christ and the church, and i replied that's far from the personalized boyfriend concept--then GroupW said there is agreement that Christ is not our boyfriend and I answered indicating that on the very board this thread is about there are some who indeed think of Christ as their personal boyfriend in what I think may be an unhealthy way. Now you tell me there are other views on that forum. Well, that's Eldredge's board, presumably those who "benefit" from his ministry post there, and the boyfriend concept is certainly there.
So, as I watch the 'exoneration" of Eldredge's concepts on this board, it does nothing to remove the boyfriend concept on his own board. Therefore, those who point out this erroneous concept certainly have reason to do so, even though Eldredge defenders on this board may not get the same thing out of his teachings that those on Eldredge's own board may.
_____________________________
"There is no work better than to please God; to pour water, to wash dishes, to be a cobbler, or an apostle, all are one as touching the deed, to please God."-William Tyndale
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 4:39:13 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
I think that's the issue with his metaphor that people over here have rightly pointed out. It's true only in part and can clearly be taken too far. The fact that a few on that board may have indeed taken it too far is rightly noted. I think it's also fair to point out that in at least one particular thread, the majority view was consistent with our position over here. The majority over there (at least in the one thread I read) has reservations over that metaphor as well.
Aren't we in agreement on this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 5:00:23 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 595
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
I think that's the issue with his metaphor that people over here have rightly pointed out. It's true only in part and can clearly be taken too far. The fact that a few on that board may have indeed taken it too far is rightly noted.
If it were my "ministry", I would hope that by post 18 of artistic rendering of boyfriend Jesus, I would be saying something...IF I disagreed.
_____________________________
"There is no work better than to please God; to pour water, to wash dishes, to be a cobbler, or an apostle, all are one as touching the deed, to please God."-William Tyndale
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 5:16:55 PM
|
|
|
AoibhinnGrainne
Posts: 103
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
Yes, it sounds as if Eldredge is an Open Theist
Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, can't possably be a duck right? 
Perhaps...unless is grows up to be a Swan... 
quote:
quote:
then convene an Ecumenical Council
Sorry your talking to someone who doesn't believe in being ecumenical fyi.
Somehow, I already knew that. You don't have to be ecumenical to convene a council of The Church to delcare something a heresy and/or someone a heretic. Jesus gave the Church the keys of the Kingdom...the authority to bind and to loose. Not individual denominations or Believers. There are no lone rangers in the Kingdom of God.
quote:
quote:
In other words, did God create Adam and Eve to fall; that was His Plan all along and the rest, shall we say, is history...the unfolding of redemptive history.
Well there is an entier tread on Calvinist vs Arminist so I won't get to much into it.
God is Soverigin, Predistination is clearly taught in the Bible. But man has a choice and is responsible for the choice he makes. Greater theologians then I (and I by no means am even pretending to be theologian let alone great) have tried to reconcile the two. I perfer to leave them as they are. Both taught in the Bible, and some how they work out in how God does things.
Fair enough. And thank you for answering my question. So, if Adam and Eve had a choice, then they could have chosen NOT to sin.
My Pastor used to explain it like this:
God
_________________________
Us
God is above the line, outside of time. He knows all, sees all, is sovereign over all. Nothing exists apart from Him. To God, outside of time, it's all a done-deal.
Not so much us. We live inside of time, below the line. We have a beginning and an end. God sees it, we don't. We live in a straight line. Our choices are real. But God, Who is above the line, is able to infinity reconcile those choices so that it is all pre-ordained.
I don't get it. But then, I don't have to. It's true Truth regardless of what I think about it!
Back to Adam and Eve: had they chosen to NOT sin, God would have already been expecting that to happen and had a Plan for that.
But they DID sin. And God, in His infinite wisdom and knowledge, was already ready for that.
Yet, Adam and Eve had a real choice.
To me, in my very finite understanding, that involves God appearing to take something of what I call a risk because He gave them a real choice in real time. He neither compelled them, manipulated them, coerced them. If Adam's choice is real and not manipulated by God, God, although knowing what his choice would be and ready for it, still was allowing for a different choice...a real choice...from THIS side of the line; the finite, real-world, real-time one where Adam HAD to choose.
Or else, God is a puppet God and our choices are mere illusions.
I find this confusing because I live below the line because I am NOT God, yet I am trying to think His thoughts after Him. 'Tis a mystery, indeed!
I've heard Eldredge speak about this sort of thing. He is NOT a theologian by any stretch of the imagination. And I think he treads dangerously close to Open Theism. One of the reasons (and a bad one, perhaps) is to encourage Men, specifically, to be willing to take good, healthy, Biblically-based risks because they've been created in the Image of God...Who also takes risks. A real stretch. But I try to take people at their word rather than second guess them. I figure they know themselves better then I do...
In any case, the whole purpose of this thread was to answer the implied question as to whether JE and RH was a cult and to offer REDCAPE any info about them.
I do believe we have done that...in spades!
Aoi.
_____________________________
Be a woman so wrapped up in the Heart of God, that a Man of God has to search the Heart of God to find you...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 5:23:23 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wintery
If it were my "ministry", I would hope that by post 18 of artistic rendering of boyfriend Jesus, I would be saying something...IF I disagreed.
Could well be part of the confusion here.
The forum adminstrators rarely intervene there. There's a philosophy of ministry over there that allows forum members to hopefully police themselves. It doesn't always work, but they abide by that philosophy. In the end, on the one thread I had read they ended up about where it should have. It just took a while to get there. In my book, that's ok.
I like that aspect of the forums there. When I went to college, I avoided some of the Christian schools due to all the rules they put in place. I was mature enough at the time to manage my own behavior. I instead went to a college that had only one rule - "act like a gentleman at all times." I did. Not everyone did, but the opportunity to fail was part of the learning.
Not that different than what God does with us, no?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? - 4/30/2008 5:32:08 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
