Pilgrim said: I find this statement incredulous!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> What is McLaren's and yours (since you agree with him on this point) definition of "Christian"? Those who adhere, even loosely, to the BIBLICAL definition of Christian would repudiate any such idea that those outside of historic Christianity and its teachings can be saved. Within the milieu of what is currently called Christianity there are millions of individuals who profess to be right with God but who are in need of God's grace, regeneration, and to show forth genuine repentance and a living faith in the Lord Christ. It doesn't take much effort when talking with an individual to find out "where they are" as it pertains to the truth and where they stand in relation to it. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with their lifestyle, although, one's lifestyle certainly is indicative of what a person believes. (Prov 23:7) It's really not that difficult to determine whether or not a person needs to hear the BIBLICAL Gospel in order to be saved or whether the person is in need of sound teaching for sanctification.
I admit here to choosing a bad word in my statement. I believe I meant "church goers" rather than "Christians". The point still stands, though, I think. There are people in the most orthodox of churches I am sure who don't believe "right".
Quote
This implies that the orthodox Christian Church has failed miserably to preach the "whole counsel of God" concerning the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I've pointed out to you before, it just may be that you are woefully lacking in your reading of good books. There has been a plethora of books written over many hundreds of years on the Lord Christ and which, IMHO, have lacked nothing in this regard. There is only "1" Jesus Christ and not "7 different Jesuses". Although the fulness of Christ cannot be fully comprehended by any man, I seriously doubt McLaren has discovered anything new which others have not understood, preached and taught. Can you offer one or two of these "7 different Jesuses" which you think the historic Church has failed to focus upon?
I never implied that McLaren had discovered something "new which others have not understood, preached, and taught". I just thought his chapter about the "7 Jesuses" was interesting. Maybe he didn't pick the best words to make his point, but, I think, if one looks at the church as it is today, different groups put their primary focus on only part of Jesus' life and ministry. This isn't to say that the historic church has failed to focus on these different areas. I never said that they had and never implied that. I just think that what McLaren has to say in that chapter of A Generous Orthodoxy is very good. Here is a quote:
Quote
"Jesus was born to die," I was told again and again, which meant his entire life - including the red, yellow, black, and white children around his knees...Zacchaeus in the sycamore tree (which gave me a lifelong love for sycamores)...Bartimaeus by the road...the one grateful leper returning...the woman by the well...the caring parents who begged him to heal their children - was quite marginalized. Everything between his birth and death was icing at most, assuredly not cake. (Brian D. McLaren. A Generous Orthodoxy. 2004. Youth Specialties. P. 45)
Quote
Again, I find this alleged sweeping "observation" to be groundless.
How many orthodox writers are writing things on the level of the common man or the common college student or the common anyone? I find those kind of writings hard to come by these days. In light of that, it's turning people away from the gospel because they can't understand what's being said amidst all the theological terms and such. I'm not saying that we stop using biblical language, but, we can present biblical language to the people in the language of the people. There is nothing wrong with this. We have the Bible in English that people can actually understand don't we? Why does sharing the gospel and the deep things of God have to be any different?
Quote
And secondly, what is so different about someone in the 18-30 age group than someone, particularly women in the 40's? Are they not all under condemnation before God? Are they all not dead in sins and without hope in this world unless God grants them repentance and faith in Christ? I find nothing in Scripture that would indicate that any of Christ's disciples preached any other Gospel than that which they received. And that one Gospel was preached indiscriminately to all men everywhere regardless of their age, national origin, race, etc. There are no exceptions. ALL have the same problem, needs and thus there is only one remedy offered to them. This is the beauty of the Gospel of Christ; no one is excluded from salvation in Christ, for God is no respecter of persons. The historic Gospel is relevant and applicable to ALL. It makes not a wit of difference whether the person is an 18 year old Punk Rocker or a 60 year old CEO of a large corporation. They are both in the same "boat" and need to hear the ONE Gospel, repent of their sins and believe upon Christ.
But, also, nowhere in Scripture does it say to use the same methods of sharing the gospel with all people. Yes, it says to preach the gospel, but we can preach to different groups in different ways. This is what Jesus did. He didn't always preach sermons. Sometimes he told stories, sometimes he had conversations. Paul was the same way. Sometimes he preached and sometimes he reasoned in the temple. And in both cases, they used the language of the people. They didn't always come condemning. Sometimes they came serving and loving and reasoning and conversing. And, they used different words to convey the same truth to different people.
Quote
Yet another vacuous statement which is based upon fallacy. How can it be said that Orthodox authors reinforce false beliefs and/or practices among people when in fact they clearly and even forcefully urge their readers/hearers to REPENT of their sins, which include false ideas and practices? Can you give me some examples of Orthodox authors who do not challenge wrong thinking but rather reinforce them?
I never said or implied that what orthodox writers are reinforcing was wrong. They are reinforcing right ideas. And they do a wonderful job of challenging falsehood. But they leave no room for thinking about why we believe what we believe. The orthodox things that I've read are all about how their view is right and you should believe their way or your wrong. There isn't any room for a difference of opinion. It makes one feel very condemned if they think differently, and, I really don't think that is what Jesus set out to do when He came to this earth, and, I don't know that it's what we should do either. We can reinforce right beliefs by allowing people to ask questions about them. McLaren and others challenge and allow people to ask questions. I think we should do the same.