Donations for the month of May


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,835
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,501
Posts53,909
Members969
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,207
Tom 4,209
chestnutmare 3,198
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,835
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 22
Pilgrim 16
jta 12
John_C 5
Recent Posts
The Love of God ~ John MacArthur
by Rick Bates - Sun May 22, 2022 5:36 PM
I am mute; I do not open my mouth,
by chestnutmare - Sun May 22, 2022 3:36 PM
“You can’t Legislate Morality”
by Tom - Sat May 21, 2022 2:28 PM
Love is not a rule, but a motive.
by chestnutmare - Fri May 20, 2022 1:04 PM
Travel
by jta - Fri May 20, 2022 7:04 AM
Principles of Conduct
by chestnutmare - Thu May 19, 2022 1:08 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Hop To
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
#28806 Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:01 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
McLaren and others actually talk about and inspire genuine thought and questioning. I don't understand why this is such a bad thing.

Asking questions is not equivalent to genuine thought, most especially when the asking is meant to destroy any possibility of real answers.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#28807 Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Kalled-
Now that you've clarified this question I can respond.
The problem is that Mclaren is not refuting the idea that others of different faiths come to salvation, he's doing just the opposite - he's promoting it. Don't you see a problem here?? He is just making people even more confused (and that's exactly what a false teacher does). He's NOT bringing people closer to the truth, he's keeping them farther away from it. That's why he is dangerous. He's sneaks in universalism, denial of what hell and heaven are, etc. right into the layperson's lap.
What he is doing is a deception and in some ways is worse than that of the cults. At least JWs and Mormons there is more of a "black and white" when it coming to their theology, but in McLaren's case he claims to believe in the basic tenets of the Christian faith and many think he's ok because of this and is thus a brother in Christ.
When I went in front of our elder board at our church , our Sr. Pastor tried to smooth this issue over and surprisingly asked all the elders to come to a consensus that McLaren is a brother in Christ. Needless to say, this (among other things said) made for a very disheartening meeting with the elders.

Last edited by janean; Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:11 AM.
#28808 Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:29 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Kalled said:
Quote
Also, McLaren is not ashamed of what he believes

Not ashamed huh?? Well then how come he can't come out and tell us what he really believes about homosexuality?? Why does he continue to dodge things?
You haven't read enough of Mclaren to see where he's really coming from. (not that I suggest you read any more of him).

janean #28809 Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:19 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
janean said:
Kalled-
Now that you've clarified this question I can respond.
The problem is that Mclaren is not refuting the idea that others of different faiths come to salvation, he's doing just the opposite - he's promoting it. Don't you see a problem here??

I never said I agree with this, but there are probably many people in even the most orthodox of congregations who hold to that. And a lot of them probably will argue for their position in the same way that he does. We need to know the arguments so that we can refute them effectively, and reading what someone says about the arguments doesn't give you a real clear picture of what the argument is really saying.

#28810 Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:57 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
Quote
janean said:
Kalled-
Now that you've clarified this question I can respond.
The problem is that Mclaren is not refuting the idea that others of different faiths come to salvation, he's doing just the opposite - he's promoting it. Don't you see a problem here??

I never said I agree with this, but there are probably many people in even the most orthodox of congregations who hold to that. And a lot of them probably will argue for their position in the same way that he does. We need to know the arguments so that we can refute them effectively, and reading what someone says about the arguments doesn't give you a real clear picture of what the argument is really saying.

First, this doesn't apply to Janean, who has read much of this stuff. Second, what we really need to know is the biblical position; the more we know it, the easier it is to defend against attacks. Third, I don't believe for one moment that you're reading McLaren so you can figure out how to effectively refute his arguments.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#28811 Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:04 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,207
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,207
Likes: 42
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
I never said I agree with this, but there are probably many people in even the most orthodox of congregations who hold to that. [re: people of various religions can be saved] And a lot of them probably will argue for their position in the same way that he does.
Again, I will publicly challenge you to substantiate your claim(s) that "orthodox churches/Christians" are guilty of such things as: failing to preach the whole counsel of God, have failed to preach the fullness of Christ's person and/or work, and now that many who are orthodox hold to the erroneous view that people of other faiths can be saved. WHERE are you getting this stuff? [Linked Image] My guess is that you have read such tripe in McLaren's writings or from some other "Emerging Church" proponent. There is absolutely no truth to these charges whatsoever. Are you familiar with the Ninth Commandment? Exodus 20:16 (ASV) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Either produce evidence to prove your allegations or render a public apology to the saints of God, some of whom have even given their lives for the faith having refused to barter the truth of which you say they have cast off and/or failed to make known. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#28812 Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Kalled2Plunder stated,

We need to know the arguments so that we can refute them effectively, and reading what someone says about the arguments doesn't give you a real clear picture of what the argument is really saying.
So what sayeth the Horse’s Mouth? In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren states, “I am a Christian because I have a sustained and sustaining confidence in Jesus Christ.” However, McLaren goes further saying, there are “Seven Jesus” on pages 43-67:

Quote
The Conservative Protestant Jesus
The Pentecostal/Charismatic Jesus
The Roman Catholic Jesus
The Eastern Orthodox Jesus
The Liberal Protestant Jesus
The Anabaptist Jesus
The Jesus of the Oppressed
Now, he sums up his “impressions” in a table on pages 64-65 and though he states it is incomplete it is worth noting (see attachment).

How does this heretic characterize “Calvinism?” He states, his view of Calvinism [referring to God moving pieces on a chess board], “folds much (not all) of today’s Calvinism into a broader way of thinking called “Determinism,” which says that ultimately our freedom is an illusion, and that we’re just puppets of one sort or the other” (page 186). Though in another place he seems kinder to Calvinism, his misunderstanding of Calvinism is apparent. McLaren sees himself as Reformed, because he claims he is always reforming.

Do we really need more to evaluate him? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Attached Images
56992-McLaren Chart.doc (0 Bytes, 47 downloads)

Reformed and Always Reforming,
Pilgrim #28813 Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:05 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Pilgrim said:
The orthodox writers of the true Church, both past and present, have served up a full-course meal that is beneficial for the mind and the transformation of the soul so that those who eat of it are made in the image of Christ. Why settle for a deadly mix which will eventually bring about eternal death? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Doesn't this imply that those outside of the Reformed camp are going to hell? I don't deny the orthodoxy of these authors or anything like that, but I believe there to be truth found outside of Calvinism within Christianity. Afterall, Scripture doesn't call us to be Calvinists.

#28814 Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:19 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,207
Likes: 42
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,207
Likes: 42
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
Doesn't this imply that those outside of the Reformed camp are going to hell? I don't deny the orthodoxy of these authors or anything like that, but I believe there to be truth found outside of Calvinism within Christianity. Afterall, Scripture doesn't call us to be Calvinists.
No, it doesn't imply that all those outside of the Reformed/Calvinist camp are going to hell, although I do believe that the majority of professing Christians today are hell-bound due to the fact that they have embraced a false Gospel and are still dead in their sins.

My comments were made specifically in regard to the "Emerging Church" camp and not to anyone else.

Why don't you respond to my other more detailed reply where I answered your several questions and in return asked a few of you? See here: My extended reply.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #28815 Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:51 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
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.

#28816 Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Kalled2Preach stated,

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.
Kalled2Preach you made the statement, “How many orthodox writers are writing things on the level of the common man or the common college student or the common anyone?” Apparently, McLaren is not communicating too well, if you believe he is putting forth a true Christ? We need to ask ourselves what kind of Christian McLaren’s 7 Jesus’ produce? McLaren gives us his answer in A New Kind of Christian.

The book follows McLaren’s fictional character, Neo. McLaren develops Neo’s view of Christianity in the book. So what does this new kind of Christian look like?

Neo resolutely holds to a doctrine of Evolution, and rejects any literal interpretation of Genesis. Neo says, "For me, Carol, we can't be faithful to God unless we're faithful to the facts, faithful to the data, if you will. And so instead of hiding from evolution, I think we'd be more faithful to God to look it right in the eye and learn from it" (p. 98). Neo also calls evolution "one of God's best creations" (p. 184). Moreover, Neo embraces a strict view of human freedom. He rejects any form of real sovereignty or predestination. According to him, "God really is much more a companion, a conversation partner with the people, guiding them, but not manipulating them, not robbing them of that gift of freedom" (p. 83). When discussing death Neo contrasts being controlled with being free (p. 150).

Of course, then we can look at McLaren’s book, The Last Word and the Word After That, and note what this new Christian believes concerning “hell.” McLaren asks, if Jesus uses the language of hell, we have to ask, ‘for what purpose does he use the language? What’s his point in working with the construction?’ (p. 71). Essentially, he can make use of it as a metaphor or model for God’s judgment on the oppressors without necessarily endorsing it as a ‘literal’ account of what happens to people when they die. This is an example of ‘rhetorical hermeneutics’ – ‘an approach to Scripture that among other things tells us that we normally pay too much attention to what the writers are saying and not enough to what they’re doing’ (p. 81). As the intersexual poet Pat says of hell: ‘Its purpose, not its substance, is the point’ (p. 26). McLaren sums up his position in his own words saying,

Quote
The language of hell, in my view, like the language of biblical prophecy in general, is not intended to provide literal or detailed fortune-telling or prognostication about the hereafter, nor is it intended to satisfy intellectual curiosity, but rather it is intended to motivate us in the here and now to realize our ultimate accountability to a God of mercy and justice and in that light to rethink everything and to seek first the kingdom and justice of God (p. 188-189).
So this is the new kind of Christian McLaren is seeking to make? McLaren endorses heresy and those that endorse him are heretics that have or are departing from the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" />

The Holy Spirit when He sovereignly regenerates a person according to God's elective purpose gives His people a mind and heart for truth. If as you claim, individuals cannot see certain basic elementary truths without this new modernism, which is just old heresy, then one must wonder if they have ever been regenerated!

PS: there are a good number of Reformed books on every area of ministry imaginable. I am not sure where you have gathered your sources saying there are no books easy enough to read for today's modern reader, but Barna Research claims,

Quote
A new study from the Barna Research Group of Ventura, California shows that half of all U.S. adults (48%) and teenagers (51%) reported reading at least one Christian book in the past year, other than the Bible. Moreover, one-third of all U.S. adults (35%) and teenagers (34%) purchased at least one Christian book (not including the Bible) in that same time period.....The results showed that evangelical adults (86%) and evangelical teens (97%) were the groups most likely to read Christian literature..... Unexpectedly, the study discovered that many people not connected to the Christian faith indicated that they had read at least one Christian book (other than the Bible) in the past year. For instance, one-sixth of atheist/agnostic adults (17%); one-fifth of unchurched adults (20%); one-third of non-born again adults (34%); and nearly half of all adults associated with a faith other than Christianity (46%) indicated that they had read a Christian book in the last year (other than the Bible).
The majority of Christian books are written on the 6th-8th grade reading level. So I find it very curious when you state,

Quote
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.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#28817 Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
As I follow this thread, there seems to be a divergence in the meaning fo "emerging church movement" and "emergent church movement, which has created a bit of confusion. Wouldn't you say there was an "emerging church" movement prior to the Reformation? I am thinking of, for instance, John Wycliffe, and John Huss, both of whom preceded Luther by a century or two. Certainly, there must have been an "underground church", perhaps similar to what we have in China etc. Would you not class them as "emerging churches, which was brought to a head with the 95 thesis nailed to the Wittenburg door?


gil
gnarley #28818 Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:30 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 152
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 152
Yes, Gnarley, you are correct that both "emerging" and "emergent" church are ambiguous terms and could be correctly applied to many church ages. In fact, D.A. Carson recently wrote a book titled Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church and in the forward (I believe, although it might be in his blog) he mentions that when he first began using the term "emerging church" people though he was talking about the first-century church.

Currently the terms are applied to a relatively recent phenomenon in Christianity that is post-modern and post-evangelical, although as you have already learned in this thread and elsewhere, it is frustratingly hard to define since in the Emergent Church each man does what is right in his own eyes.

Relztrah

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (Tom), 89 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Cliniql, John E, ManassehAmerican, jta, DiscipleEddie
969 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Tracylight
Popular Topics(Views)
1,341,675 Gospel truth