The Highway
Posted By: D.J. The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:31 PM
Did anyone see Nightline Friday night? They did a brief report on the the Emerging Church movement. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Here's the Nightline homepage

and here's the direct video link
Posted By: Wes Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:50 AM
Dave,

I didn't see the Nightline program Friday night but I opened the link to the video you provided. One of the really sad things about the mindset of this pastor who was being interviewed and those who are attracted to the emerging church is that it's an alternative to the true church. Unfortunately it doesn't have any of the marks of a true church. He seems to feel he's meeting people's needs and judging by the comments of his parishioners they feel it meets their needs too. Isn't that nice. He's found out that there is a market out there for religious consumerism if you just give the people what they want. This kind of thinking is catering to our culture rather than changing it according to God's Word. Generation Xers will only be confused by the variety of churches that emerge which have little resemblance or connection to other churches much less a real church.

This pastor made reference to various movements in the church which have been making changes to the church's identity over the years because of modernism and now post-modernism. I think in the video he said that they've been told that they were a threat to the "traditional church." He flatters himself but I'm sure his opinion is based on numbers, peoples comments, the culture, and has nothing to do with what the Scriptures have to say about the church.

The emerging church is concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Protestant Christianity in a postmodern cultural context. Isn't it interesting how Nightline highlights the emerging church movement which is just another example of misguided attempts to satisfy the human need, call it a religious experience, and market it to the consumer?


Wes
Posted By: D.J. Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:59 AM
Yeah they cater to everyone. Someone even had their dog with them!
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:37 AM
Quote
David W. said:
Yeah they cater to everyone. Someone even had their dog with them!

I noticed that, too. Wow! I hope they didn't give the DOG communion.
Posted By: Adopted Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:06 AM
Kyle,

Quote
Wow! I hope they didn't give the DOG communion.

The emerging church does indeed cater to people who want a "feel good" gospel. I think Isaiah puts it best in Isaiah 30:9-11.

Quote
That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of the Lord. Who say to the seers, "Do not see" and to the prophets, "Do not prophesy to us right things; Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits. Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us."

Denny

Roms 3:22-24
Posted By: Peter Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:26 PM
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
David W. said:
Yeah they cater to everyone. Someone even had their dog with them!

I noticed that, too. Wow! I hope they didn't give the DOG communion.

There you go you just had to say it didn't you! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> If a woman can "marry a dolphin" then its just a matter of time before someone thinks dogs can take communion cause "they're people too". But its too late now its out in the internet. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: doulos Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:57 PM
I saw some of that special. It was just flat creepy.

So CAN the elect be decieved? Or are all these folks lost or what?
Posted By: D.J. Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:39 PM
Quote
So CAN the elect be deceived? Or are all these folks lost or what?

That's a question that keeps coming to my mind. I think it's a bit of both. I don't come from a seeker sensitive or emerging church, but I do come from a church that also taught heretical doctrine and God saved me in spite of that.

Also, there are undoubtedly unbelievers in churches that faithfully preach God's Word, so likewise why couldn't there be a remnant of believers that are in churches that do not? I guess the logical conclusion would be if there are true believers that are in churches like these then they would eventually leave.

Maybe the answer is the elect can be deceived for a season? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: janean Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:20 AM
Yes if one doesn't keep on top of things like I didn't for a while in my church, one can be deceived for a season. The Holy Spirit is going to lead that person out of a church eventually. The elect person should have "red flags" and feel a "disconnect" with the error around them at some point. They should want to leave in their heart at least. That's my opinion.

Something I pondered about my prior church was are these pastors saved? Well I really don't know for sure, but then I concluded does it really matter or not? If saved (and they themselves are being deceived) they are still in error and I cannot stand with them. My trust in their discernment was lost either way. Maybe if they are in the kingdom, God is using our family leaving against them to help correct them. Who knows except the Lord of course. All I knew is that I didn't belong there. And honestly I don't miss our church at all after being gone over a month. Actually after visiting another (more biblically grounded) church in the last two weeks and hearing some "meat" in the sermon it kind of makes me more angry all the "wasted" time we spent at the prior church. Well no use crying over spilled milk. I am just thankful that we are gone.

My church wasn't quite like the one on the Nightline Show. Our church did have candles around and a "band" for worship (which I didn't like because I could never hear myself sing). And we did have new art on the walls with the new pastor though. And his response to why we had this art is that it is there to help those who find art as a way to connect with God. Hmmm.....how does that hold water with the 2nd and 3rd commandments?? (at least that was one of my thoughts to his statement). To me that is one of the disturbing things I saw in the Emergent Church movement and in my church - the issue of catering to people's ways they want to connect with God. The Bible becomes just one of the ways to connect with God.
Posted By: BrimstonePreacha Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:50 AM
Let me preface myself by saying that I only saw the video David provided a link to. Let me also say that I have no stance at this time about the Emerent Movement, I'm still assessing and gathering information to make my all purpose judgement to embrace or condemn this segement of Christianity because that is, of coarse, what we are called a Christians to do, we're to make judgements that those who preach Christ crucified but have a different tradition, doctrine, or methodology are either acceptable (a.k.a. they are really our own general tradition) or they're not. I personally try to rejoice at the preaching of Christ even if it's for the wrong reason because I respect the tradition set out by the Apostle Paul.

Anyway, David didn't really ask a question beyond "Did we see it?" To which I have to say I didn't but appreciate seeing this video clip. Thanx David.

Unfortunately I feel like contributing something to the discussion which I'm told is usually bad for me to do, but anyway, here go's.

Not all emergents are lost and not all non-emergent Christians are saved!

Yeah, really. And I didn't think the video was all that creepy either (except for the offering, but just about every church I've ever been to has one of those except for this methodist church who I guess believes in letting their giving be in secret so that they can be rewarded in the open). Really and truly it seemed as though they weren't all that different from a lot of "Low Church" people today in many established mainstream/evangelical/protestant/conservative/ whatever denominations. I should ammend that, the last time I saw candles used in a baptist or charismatic church (which I would never go to or enter, wink wink) was either a wedding or a Christmas Eve (afternoon) service.

Seems kinda scary to me that they use things like tires and drinks and loud music to praise God because of coarse we see in Acts and in the writings of Paul how only consecrated and "clean" or "holy" items can be used to praise God. Even scarier is that they remind me of this monk I once heard about, Brother Lawerence (some book called the Practice of the Presence of God) who's said to have washed dishes and praised God at the same time (while he was working!). It's scary that "these people" are reaching out to an age group which has typically not gone to church due in part to a lack of activities and that they're getting people into their churches. It's scary that they don't hold to a specific soteriology or ecclessiology or eschatology or methodology or something like that (in fact, some of them released this statement
http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000429.html
in which they clearly admit to making mistakes in their churches). Obviously anyone who doesn't get bent out of shape with their critics and who seeks peace with other Christians and acknowledges their sin and mistakes, who encourage people to follow their own leaders leadership and their own conscience, who say "Brothers, we are not professionals", who deny being epistemological relativist and instead claim to seek truth, who encourage direct conversation about the issues at hand, who acknowledge a division of opinions in one movement and accept only personal accountability instead of accepting accountability one individual for the entire movement; obviously such people are not to be trusted or even considered. Obviously, at the first sign of questionable doctrine or practice we can make this an open and shut case that these people aren't reformed and therefore aren't saved. Oh, but wait, there's that one Mars Hill Church or Mars Hill Bible Church or something like that which says they do believe in the 5 points, and monergism.com even points that out. But since God didn't spare sodom for 1 right on guy, we shouldn't spare a movement for one right on church and a few who're still trying to figure it out.

You know what's even scarier, these guys see themselves as part of the church universal, they don't necessarilly see themselves as a church alternative because they think that simply believing in Christ makes them a part of the church which the WCF (which as a Baptist I don't consider inerrant) says "which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof;". Wow, pretty scary. Really and truly, I think the WCF Chapter 25 has stuff to say about Emergent, perhaps I'll post on it sometime, or maybe someone will go back, dust off a copy, read it, and post before I get around to it.

And of coarse, we also have the issue of the sacred sacrimentology and the possibility that some creature other than a human had some bread or juice used in the ordinance. We all, knowing exactly the meaning and the power and the rules for the Sacriment, Euchrist, Lord's Supper, Communion, yeah, we all know so why don't they know that you're only to proclaim the gospel to humans (not all of Creation). Here's hoping that the crackers or the cookies or whatever they use didn't go to the dogs but the extra's were left to either rot in storage or to fill up a garbage can, cause that would definitely be more honoring to God, don't you think?

It is interesting that they seem to have reason to think that they've met the needs of people, I mean, come on, the United States Government in accordance with Scripture I'm sure, is taking care of widows and orphans and other people who have needs, why would a church have to meet people's needs? There's no need for needs in church!


All that aside, I've never heard of any of the people in this video clip except McLaren (a friend let me read some of his writings because I suggested that it was better to disprove a belief from within than from without, by knowing it instead of just randomly striking against it) and this clip is obtained through ABC and I think we all know that that station has nothing to do with Admitting, Believing, or Confessing. I think Mr. McLaren has seen hostility, a hostility and hatred which he may expect due not because he know's he's preaching against the Bible but because he's preaching the Bible (in his mind at least) and in doing so he expects what we so rarely get these days, attacks. He's probably read online in a message board not unlike this one, or on some blog or in a book or heard from some friend that he's considered a threat to the church. Personally I would find that discouraging, but he seems convinced that he's preaching truth and so he's expecting based on the teachings of Jesus which are supposed to be at the central focus of what he speaks, that persecution will come for Jesus Name sake. He may even be so "delusional" as to think that persecution from religious officials is a blessing.

Sipmly put, if Emergent is misguided, then there are several other groups who aren't exactly on coarse either because there are plenty of people out there trying to pitch the gospel as a product to fill up a felt need for a religious experience.

I was really impressed with Denny's two verse citations. Seems to me that in Isaiah 30:18, the next paragraph, that "therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you(the ones who were blind and deaf); therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him." and Romans 3 talks about there being "no distinction" in that all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God".

I'm so glad to know that God will judge the ignorant as the intellectual and that even though there's no distinction of us apart from the law, that some christians are far enough along that they not only can work out their own salvation with fear and trembling but they can do it for entire groups of "Christians" in completely different cities and circumstances and traditions etc. It really gives me something to aspire to.

Well, I think I've said enough and then some, cause this really is a scary movement full of really different ideas from the Bible. I sincerely hope that we can deal with this before we get to heaven and God has to get involved.

-Bro. Luke

Please take all comments with 2 pinches of salt and a happy thought and respond in the morning, and if you read this in the morning, I mean, respond tomorrow morning after you've had time to fully lay out my errors. I thank you all for any and all criticism because I'm sure any sarcastic statement I made herein is going to be terribly hard to find. NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS WERE MEANT PERSONALLY (so if you take them as such, they're not, get over it).
Posted By: doulos Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:29 PM
Whew!

Well I'm sure there's some Catholics that are saved too but I'm not going to jump on their bandwagon anytime soon. These folks scare me the most because they're just that much (fingers nearly touching) off plumb--half a bubble, maybe an eighth. But part of a lie is still a lie. Would you eat a brownie if it only had a "little" dog poop in it? No way.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:52 PM
Quote
BrimstonePreacha said:
. . . I'm still assessing and gathering information to make my all purpose judgement to embrace or condemn this segement of Christianity because that is, of coarse, what we are called a Christians to do, we're to make judgements that those who preach Christ crucified but have a different tradition, doctrine, or methodology are either acceptable (a.k.a. they are really our own general tradition) or they're not. I personally try to rejoice at the preaching of Christ even if it's for the wrong reason because I respect the tradition set out by the Apostle Paul.
One must first assess whether or not those in the Emerging Church movement are, in fact, "preaching [teaching] Christ". Personally, I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to. (Gal 1:7, 9)

Secondly, "methodology" isn't a matter of personal preference (adiaphora) or expediency (pragmatism)!! The Bible not only sets forth the truth objectively (dogma/doctrine) but also the principles of application of that doctrine. God hates vain worship, aka: "will worship" (cf. Gen 4:3-7; Ex 20:25; Ps 127:1; Isa 1:12-15; Ezk 20:39-42; Mal 1:6ff; Matt 15:7-9; Col 2:6ff; 1Jh 2:15-17; et al)

Quote
Luke quips:
It is interesting that they seem to have reason to think that they've met the needs of people, I mean, come on, the United States Government in accordance with Scripture I'm sure, is taking care of widows and orphans and other people who have needs, why would a church have to meet people's needs? There's no need for needs in church!
I'm assuming here that the above quote was made in sarcasm, right? But let me set the biblical record straight for you since you have admitted that you are still assessing the situation, which means you have not been able to discern the evil that is driving and has totally engulfed the Emergent Church movement and its adherents. The Church's primary responsibility is to "feed the flock", i.e., to offer up spiritual food so that the children of God may be complete. Secondarily, it is to reach out to the world with the proclamation of the great salvation which is in Christ. Eternal life takes precedence over temporal life. (cf. Lk 12; Matt 6:33) This is not to say that the people of God should not have social concerns, e.g., feeding the poor, helping those in physical need, etc. But it is NOT the primary concern. What good does it do to clothe one who is naked yet speak nothing of that which will effect that person's eternal destiny? The Emergent Church has bought into the Liberal's "Social Gospel" to a great degree, which is no gospel.

Quote
You further wrote:
Sipmly put, if Emergent is misguided, then there are several other groups who aren't exactly on coarse either because there are plenty of people out there trying to pitch the gospel as a product to fill up a felt need for a religious experience.
Misguided? To state that the Emergent Church is "misguided" necessitates that a judgment be made as to its reasoning for doing what it does, no? My conclusion is that they are not "misguided", which infers that they are basically "good" or even believers who have been somehow deceived and/or that their intentions are good but they are simply mistaken in how to carry out those intentions. What McLaren &co. are doing is deliberate, calculated and well planned. They know exactly what they believe and what they hope to achieve, both of which are contrary to sound biblical teaching. In short, they firmly believe that they have a "better way" and thus reject the historical biblical doctrines of the Church and the manner in which the Church should conduct itself in the world.


Jeremiah 6:16-21 (ASV) "Thus saith Jehovah, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls: but they said, We will not walk [therein]. And I set watchmen over you, [saying], Hearken to the sound of the trumpet; but they said, We will not hearken. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing unto me. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will lay stumbling-blocks before this people; and the fathers and the sons together shall stumble against them; the neighbor and his friend shall perish."



In His grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:56 PM
As I've read this post, I have a couple of questions that come to mind. The first few are in response to Pilgrim. I will post other questions in another response to the original post.

Quote
Pilgrim said:
One must first assess whether or not those in the Emerging Church movement are, in fact, "preaching [teaching] Christ". Personally, I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to. (Gal 1:7, 9)

As far as I can tell, they proclaim Christ crucified and that He came to save sinners. What is unbiblical about that? My question in response here is: What is your understanding of the Biblical Christ? I don't ask this as a point of debate, I am just curious as to where you are coming from and how you can say that "I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to".

Quote
Secondly, "methodology" isn't a matter of personal preference (adiaphora) or expediency (pragmatism)!! The Bible not only sets forth the truth objectively (dogma/doctrine) but also the principles of application of that doctrine. God hates vain worship, aka: "will worship" (cf. Gen 4:3-7; Ex 20:25; Ps 127:1; Isa 1:12-15; Ezk 20:39-42; Mal 1:6ff; Matt 15:7-9; Col 2:6ff; 1Jh 2:15-17; et al)

What constitutes vain worship though? Just because something doesn't look like how we think it should look doesn't make it vain. What if a liturgical service is vain worship? What do we do then?

Quote
I'm assuming here that the above quote was made in sarcasm, right? But let me set the biblical record straight for you since you have admitted that you are still assessing the situation, which means you have not been able to discern the evil that is driving and has totally engulfed the Emergent Church movement and its adherents. The Church's primary responsibility is to "feed the flock", i.e., to offer up spiritual food so that the children of God may be complete. Secondarily, it is to reach out to the world with the proclamation of the great salvation which is in Christ. Eternal life takes precedence over temporal life. (cf. Lk 12; Matt 6:33) This is not to say that the people of God should not have social concerns, e.g., feeding the poor, helping those in physical need, etc. But it is NOT the primary concern. What good does it do to clothe one who is naked yet speak nothing of that which will effect that person's eternal destiny? The Emergent Church has bought into the Liberal's "Social Gospel" to a great degree, which is no gospel.

I will agree with this assessment, but the emerging church doesn't tell people to not share Christ with those they are helping. They just emphasize the importance of Jesus' social teachings. They are important, and all of us in the Christian community (even emergents) could stand to be a bit more charitable. If we don't clothe and feed homeless people, then we can't properly share the gospel with them because we aren't giving them what they need at that moment. It is possible that they are already Christians in the first place.

Quote
What McLaren &co. are doing is deliberate, calculated and well planned. They know exactly what they believe and what they hope to achieve, both of which are contrary to sound biblical teaching.

I really highly doubt that they are out to destroy us and our faith. This is nothing more than an unfounded personal attack on the men, and these have no place in the Christian community.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:00 PM
Quote
David W. said:
Yeah they cater to everyone. Someone even had their dog with them!

Has anyone even considered the fact that the person with the dog could have been BLIND?????

I don't mean to be rude, but, not knowing that person's situation, we have no right to judge this person because they had their dog with them. What if they have a mental handicap and they "need" their dog with them? There are many reasons they may have had their dog, and it is very unChristian of people, ESPECIALLY on a Christian website, to be making light of someone's possible health issues.
Posted By: Adopted Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:52 PM
Kalled,

Quote
I don't mean to be rude, but, not knowing that person's situation, we have no right to judge this person because they had their dog with them.

If we do not righteously judge (with Scripture, John 7:24) this "person" will never know truth. It really doesn't matter whether he has a dog with him or not. The rest of what you said is mere sophistry and tripe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:19 PM
Though I am sure Pilgrim will reply, I desire to post a word or two here;

Quote
Kalled2Preach states,

As far as I can tell, they proclaim Christ crucified and that He came to save sinners. What is unbiblical about that?
Which Christ, which saviour? For example in Leonard Sweet’s, (an Emergent theologian), Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic we have him saying;

Quote
A surprisingly central feature of all the world’s religions is the language of light in communicating the divine and symbolizing the union of the human with the divine: Muhammed’s light-filled cave, Moses’ burning bush, Paul’s blinding light, Fox’s “inner light,” Krishna’s Lord of Light, Böhme’s light-filled cobbler shop, Plotinus’ fire experiences, Bodhisattvas with the flow of Kundalini’s fire erupting from their fontanelles, and so on.
It is exactly this “inner light” and the “union of the human with the divine” that Brian McLaren views in a “new kind” of Christian! This is the God of the ECM, is it your god, Kalled2Preach? (Isa 5:20).

Moreover, the depravity of this sect is seen in its pantheistic worldview. Sweet again reveals the poison of the ECM saying,

Quote
Quantum spirituality bonds us to all creation as well as to other members of the human family. New Light pastors are what Arthur Peacocke calls “priests of creation”--earth ministers who can relate the realm of nature to God, who can help nurture a brother-sister relationship with the living organism called Planet Earth. This entails a radical doctrine of embodiment of God in the very substance of creation.
Thus, again we must ask which christ, which god, which mystic of the day?

Quote
Kalled2Preach states,

I really highly doubt that they are out to destroy us and our faith. This is nothing more than an unfounded personal attack on the men, and these have no place in the Christian community.
Statements such as these reveal your immaturity in Christ and your lack of knowledge of the very enemies of the Church. This is one of the reasons young Christians are to submit themselves to older mature Christians, so they will not fall prey to such heresy! (1 Peter 5:5). The ECM is as Pilgrim stated, “deliberate, calculated and well planned.” Satan is not stupid!

Kalled2Preach, what is the purpose of false theology other than to divide and attempt to conquer the Church? What has no place in the Christian community in New Age blasphemy which is expounded by McLaren, Sweet, and “others.” The Scripture obligates true Christians to resist such blasphemy (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

On McLaren’s own website he is asked, “What do you believe about the Bible? Do you believe that it is the inerrant word of God?” His answer is: “About your last question, I believe the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians.”… Do you see a problem? Is the Bible authoritative for non-Christians, Mr. McLaren? What does uniquely mean Mr. McLaren? Do we really need to add to the Word of God, “extra-biblical paraphernalia, extra-sensory images, sounds, smells of candles and incense, silence, mystical meditation, making the sign of the cross, touching icons, statues of saints, rosary beads for Protestants, liturgy, yoga-like deep breathing—all for a full sensory immersion with the divine.” They borrow liturgical practices from the Orthodox, Lutheran, and Catholic Church and heavily from the traditions and views of Catholic Church Fathers. McLaren states, that not all people need to be Christians to follow Jesus. Some may be able to be "Buddhist or Hindu followers of Jesus.” As Ken Silva states, “It seems almost incredible to believe but the twin pythons of deception are attempting to strangle the Church of Jesus Christ in America by denying the very Word of God. On one side there is the Emergent Church Movement (ECM), wrapping itself around the Evangelical Church from within, and then there's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), holding more and more Evangelical leaders in its grip from without.” If the ECM erodes the foundation of the Church--the Word of God--it is rightly called, “The Purpose-Driven Heresy.” We could go on and on, but time does not permit.
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:14 PM
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
David W. said:
Yeah they cater to everyone. Someone even had their dog with them!

I noticed that, too. Wow! I hope they didn't give the DOG communion.
The Episcopal's have clown communion.

Attached picture 58338-clown2.jpg
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:19 PM
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
One must first assess whether or not those in the Emerging Church movement are, in fact, "preaching [teaching] Christ". Personally, I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to. (Gal 1:7, 9)
As far as I can tell, they proclaim Christ crucified and that He came to save sinners. What is unbiblical about that? My question in response here is: What is your understanding of the Biblical Christ? I don't ask this as a point of debate, I am just curious as to where you are coming from and how you can say that "I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to".
Rarely will you find anyone in the Emerging Church movement, who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, which is the "truth once delivered unto the saints". I am including those who profess to do so but in practice deny it. But allowing for the possible exception, I would therefore boldly say that 99% of those involved in this heretical movement teach and/or preach semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism and worse.

What is my understanding of the Biblical Christ and the Gospel? Well, that is easily answered by referring you to all the articles which I have online on the main website. But here are a few that deal with this matter specifically:

Quote
Kalled2Preach asks further:
What constitutes vain worship though? Just because something doesn't look like how we think it should look doesn't make it vain. What if a liturgical service is vain worship? What do we do then?
"Vain" worship is anything which is offered as worship to God which He Himself has not required, either by direct command or by inference in the Scriptures. "Vain" worship can be said to be anything which is not in accord with God's revelation of Himself, i.e., His person and attributes. Thus all worship must in "spirit", i.e., from a regenerated heart, and in "truth", i.e., in accordance with His divine revelation. Here are some salient articles on this subject of worship:
  • Do You Worship God? by George Swinnock
  • Pleasing God in Our Worship by Robert Godfrey
  • Worship by A.W. Pink
  • Church-o-Rama or Corporate Worship by Monte E. Wilson
  • Impatience and Idolatry by Ligon Duncan
  • A Consuming Fire by R. Kent Hughes
  • The Contemporary Church by John H. Armstrong
  • Worship in the Melting Pot by Dr. Peter Masters

    Quote
    Kalled2Preach suggests:
    If we don't clothe and feed homeless people, then we can't properly share the gospel with them because we aren't giving them what they need at that moment. It is possible that they are already Christians in the first place.
    And where did you get the idea that to "properly share the gospel" necessitates giving someone what the "need" at the moment? Who determines what a "need" is? It would seem that you are equating "need" with something physical and/or emotional. But the Scriptures teach that man's more fundamental NEED is to be reconciled to God; God Who is wroth with man for his constant and deliberate rebellion against Him and all that is good. Thus it is the message of the Gospel (see the first part of my reply above) which man needs most. And what if one doesn't have that which would meet the physical need(s) of the person met, e.g., clothing, food, money, etc? Is it therefore forbidden to speak of that person's need for repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are only those who are active in social concerns qualified to speak of Christ?

    As I clearly stated, the Church should be concerned with the temporal needs of those around them. But this is NOT the primary responsibility of the Church. To totally ignore and/or refuse to help those in need is against the teaching of Christ to be sure (cf. Jam 2:14-17), but such a thing is indicative of one's faith and not some qualification to proclaim the Gospel.

    Quote
    I remarked:
    What McLaren &co. are doing is deliberate, calculated and well planned. They know exactly what they believe and what they hope to achieve, both of which are contrary to sound biblical teaching.

    Quote
    Kalled2Preach protests:
    I really highly doubt that they are out to destroy us and our faith. This is nothing more than an unfounded personal attack on the men, and these have no place in the Christian community.
    The "attack" is anything but unfounded. What McLaren believes and is teaching personally and through his books is antithetical to historic biblical Christianity. He is spreading his venom for the sole purpose of CHANGING/EXCHANGING that which has been believed and taught in the Church for something far different; something which he has fabricated and believes to be "good". These teachings don't exist on their own. They come from McLaren &co., and thus it is they who are responsible for foisting them on people. This false outcry of "intolerance" has always been and will continue to be one of the Devil's ploys in order to gain entrance and/or influence in the Church. However, the Church is to be "intolerant" of anyone or any teaching which is contrary to that which is true. (cf. Gal 1:6-12; 2Cor 11:3, 4)

    In His grace,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:01 PM
Quote
Adopted said:
If we do not righteously judge (with Scripture, John 7:24) this "person" will never know truth. It really doesn't matter whether he has a dog with him or not. The rest of what you said is mere sophistry and tripe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Jesus healed the blind. He didn't condemn them. In John 9, there is a blind man and the disciples ask, "Who sinned that this man became blind. Him or his parents?" And Jesus said, "No one sinned, but he was made this way so that the works of God could be made manifest in him."

Jesus told a parable too along the same lines. He said,

Quote
"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you took care of Me; I was in prison and you visited Me.' "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or without clothes and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and visit You?' "And the King will answer them, 'I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.' Then He will also say to those on the left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger and you didn't take Me in; I was naked and you didn't clothe Me, sick and in prison and you didn't take care of Me.' "Then they too will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick, or in prison, and not help You?' "Then He will answer them, 'I assure you: Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.' "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46 HCSB)

Also, "righteous judgment" doesn't involve making fun of someone.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:20 PM
Quote
J_Edwards said:

The Episcopal's have clown communion.

Yep, I've seen that before!
Posted By: Paul_S Rational discussion gone to the dogs - Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:54 PM
At the risk of violating Proverbs 26:17 (He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own Is like one who takes a dog by the ears.), I must point out that a possibility you raised as justification both for your rebuke of David and your sidestepping of Denny's exhortation to you--namely, that the above-mentioned dog was employed as a guide dog for a blind person--is simply not true.

In the several video scenes where the dog appears, it is always unharnassed; which would never occur to a guide dog in a public setting. More telling, in the final scene in the communion distribution line, is the fact that the dog is clearly being led by its person, rather than guiding her. That is no guide dog for the blind.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:29 PM
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:

Has anyone even considered the fact that the person with the dog could have been BLIND?????

No, quite simply because if you watched the video you can see that the woman with the dog is obviously not blind, and that her dog is not a seeing-eye dog:

1) The woman is wearing glasses. [EDIT: I have learned that many blind people also wear eyeglasses in order to protect their eyes from projections like tree branches. So on it's own, this would not be a worthwhile criterion. However, in conjunction with the other observations made, it is clear the woman in consideration was not blind.]
2) The woman is looking around and clearly visibly aware.
3) The dog is on a normal leash rather than a blind halter.
4) When the woman goes to the front to receive communion, the dog is actually walking behind her.

Even if the woman was blind, and the dog was a seeing-eye dog, it's not like she's ALONE in the church! She doesn't need the dog in the service.

Quote
I don't mean to be rude, but, not knowing that person's situation, we have no right to judge this person because they had their dog with them. What if they have a mental handicap and they "need" their dog with them?

Okay, what on earth mental handicap is there where the person has some psychological "need" for his dog? You're just making things up as you go along, kinda like the "emerging church" is doing with doctrine and worship. You show me a person who "needs" his dog in a church service, and I'll show you an idolater.

Quote
There are many reasons they may have had their dog, and it is very unChristian of people, ESPECIALLY on a Christian website, to be making light of someone's possible health issues.

It's unchristian of you to be tossing around backhanded accusations.
Posted By: D.J. Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:42 PM
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
There are many reasons they may have had their dog....
Other than a handicap (which is highly questionable in this case), what are the "many reasons" one would have to bring their dog into worship?
Posted By: Adopted Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:56 PM
Kalled,

Quote
Jesus healed the blind. He didn't condemn them.

We're not talking here about condemnation, but about teaching the truth concerning the emerging church!

More tripe. [Linked Image]

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: Anonymous Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:10 PM
So, the person wasn't blind. I was wrong, and I will admit to being so in this case.

BUT,

That doesn't give us a right to judge the person because of this one thing. It still seems very unChristian to me to just sit and make fun of someone because they brought their dog to church. Making fun of people is simply not Christian and not proper.

Quote
Be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you; a good measure--pressed down, shaken together, and running over--will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." (Luke 6:36-38 HCSB)

Also, where in Scripture does it say we can't bring our dog to church? And where in Scripture is having a pet with you considered idolatry?
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:22 AM
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
That doesn't give us a right to judge the person because of this one thing. It still seems very unChristian to me to just sit and make fun of someone because they brought their dog to church. Making fun of people is simply not Christian and not proper.

Who made fun of whom? What I saw was some surprise that a pet dog was in the service. I didn't see anyone in this thread make fun of the woman who brought the dog.

Quote
Also, where in Scripture does it say we can't bring our dog to church? And where in Scripture is having a pet with you considered idolatry?

Pets are not people, are not part of the church, and should not typically be brought into a worship service because orderliness and decorum are commanded of our corporate worship. And I said that anyone with a psychological "need" to have their dog with them is idolatrous.
Posted By: BrimstonePreacha Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:16 AM
Joe, you know, I really couldn't decide if I wanted to respond to you or to Pilgrim to maybe Kyle (CovenantInBlood) who seems to have been a bit rude to my friend Kalled, but you won out cause you had some really good verse references and because you have shown me in other threads that you do give thought to what's being said and I think you treat the younger men as brothers instead of lording it over as some are apt to do.

I'm actually going to skip the Leonard Sweet comments because I don't know him and I haven't read his stuff. I have read the article I've linked to with my original post (of which I'm sure everyone on this thread has read and carefully considered) and a few things by McLaren and a blurb or two from a few others, as I said, I haven't looked at all this as in depth as I'm sure each and every one of you have.

So, you said something about Isaiah 5 and specifically verse 20. This is a good passage to keep in mind, for all of us. I really like verse 13 but that's 2 paragraphs before and I don't think it needs expounding here. Someone of less tact might suggest that in warning and saying woe to a bro, someone might wish to remember the following verse, Isaiah 5:21 "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!"(ESV). Someone might say that. Of coarse, someone of lesser tact would say something about the next verse and stereotypical Presbyterians, but hopefully we don't have anyone on this board who is so crass as to make comments about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Certainly, I would not ever want to be such a person.


Statements such as these reveal your immaturity in Christ and your lack of knowledge of the very enemies of the Church. This is one of the reasons young Christians are to submit themselves to older mature Christians, so they will not fall prey to such heresy! (1 Peter 5:5). The ECM is as Pilgrim stated, “deliberate, calculated and well planned.” Satan is not stupid!


It is interesting that you should say this. I seem to recall something about judging not lest I be judged but you are older and you desire the position of or claim the position of overseer so I trust that as an older brother to a younger brother you're not trying to quarrel and I trust that you aren't writing with a craving for controversy and quarrels about words (I Timothy 3 & 6). Because I am sure that you and these other older brothers are not out at all for controversy or for quarrels or any of that, I'd have to agree, the devil isn't stupid, he's just stubborn. He's obviously been smart enough to make sure you and Pilgrim and Kalled and I don't get our hands on any of those hell sent memo's to emergent leaders. I mean, if you had articles showing the clear connection between all of these emergent leaders and the devil I'm certain you would go to great lengths to publish them to discredit these "false and heretical teachers". I simply hope that you elders are submitting to the eldest so that we are not the blind (or the sighted) being lead by the blind.

Now, I really ought to respond to the man Pilgrim. I admit, he's far more learned than I, he's written articles and spent countless hours sitting in front of the computer telling people via cyber space about the doctrines of grace (which is the gospel in its entirety, we know this because Spurgeon said so). We all know how important it is that all of cyber-space hear the good news, especially in these dark days when young whipper snappers are using these infernal machines to spread the venom and bite of heretical teaching to countless people who are not at all seeking for it or for truth. I really wish though that Pilgrim had commented on Jude over in the End of the Spear thread cause that might have been slightly more appropriate. Pilgrim instead chose to express the spirit of Jude to use here using verse three. I know that Pilgrim is always ready to write about our common salvation but like Jude he must continually remind us to contend (which I guess is different than quarreling) with people who pervert the gospel. Pilgrim no doubt wishes to remind us that it is God who judges and that like the archangel Michael we ought not to presume to pronounce blasphemous judgment. Pilgrim has so eloquintly layed out how Emergents are "grumblers, malcontents, followers of their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favortism to gain advantage."

Beloved, if you think there might be a bit of sarcasm in the above statements, you might, might, be correct. What do I see when I contrast the emergents I've read and met and the calvinist I've read and met? There are plenty of people calling themselves Christians who give Christianity a bad name. There are plenty of people professing the doctrines of grace and ignorant of the simplest application of them. There are likewise numerous people claiming to be emergent who do not represent the entire movement. That is one thing that must be acknowledge and I would hope is admired. These people don't claim to be bound by any other member of the movement and it gives them incredible flexibility which is lacking in certain groups. The emergents I have seen have not loved simply in word but also in deed. They do not claim infallibility or the equality of tradition with scripture and they do not get into meaningless quarrels about nonessential doctrines but they work together to discover what they believe and hope to be true.

What is it that draws so many people to emergent? The Post-Modernism? I don't think so, it's as hard as the movement is to define. The music? I again, don't think so, they seem to use the same songs youth use in countless "low church" services around the nation. What does draw people and what the average joe on the street is looking for is a faith that shows itself out in actions as our dear brother and epistle writing James once put forth, "Faith apart from works is dead." The thing we can say about emergent is that their faith is not dead, can that always be said of us (You and me, us)? We have a sacred responsibility to love God and obey His commandments. The greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God (and notice this), that Jesus answering the question of what is the single greatest commandment gives what appears to be two! But no, it's not Jesus volunteering extra information but it's that we can't separate the two and yet the church has! IF we love God we will obey His commandments, we will NOT hate, we will NOT envy, we will NOT lust, we will NOT covet, etc. What we will do is demonstrate the love of God which has been shown to us. How can we who have received grace not also show grace?

You know that I love good preaching and I love good doctrinal reading and quotes from great Christians of the past, but what good has simply stating an argument or using complex thoughts done for us? Has preserving the church in a timeless bubble from the first century or from the 16th really won us the world? No, few people are won over to the gospel simply because of a mental component of being unable to argue past it. People are won when they see the benefit and the change of the gospel in the lives of those who have already received that free gift of grace. IF we seek Him and if those who are perishing are to seek Him, it must first be believed that He rewards those who seek Him diligently. So many of us are stoic and uptight and unwilling to sully our hands with dirty sinners and with the poor and the pathetic and the "lost causes", we've forgotten that Christ Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost. He was active in pursuing the lost, but we so often times are not.

Are we called to meet people's emotional or physical needs only or as the primary needs? No, I agree, we all agree, the first need we all have is God, but sometimes it is more convincing and is a great tool to help people out with something that's troubling them or something that's holding them back. Irresistable grace doesn't always work in one day. Certainly getting someone a meal or something to warm them up seems a friendly and compassion filled thing to do and I think it just might fool people into thinking that our love is as Paul said it should be, genuine, and that it might fool people into thinking we're actually there for them instead of some petty competetition between Christians for who can get the biggest numbers on sunday morning. Frankly, I can only assume that we've generally as a Christian community collectively bought into the lies around us and we assume that bigger is always better or that we're trying to vastly overcompensate for something we lack elsewhere in life.

Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." I have found few greater examples of how we as Christians are seen by the lost world. We have failed to engage culture and so we are seen as snobby. We add requirements to what must be believed to be saved, we require suits and ties and liking hymns (which I love) and we require full time attendence and all kinds of things (not that suits or attendence or such things are bad in and of themselves) and we many of us (thanks Mr. Finney) require people to only make a response to the gospel at a certain time, it's usually after we've bashed the pharisee's throughout the sermon who added to the law.

WE are great at encouraging each other to serve the Lord with gladness and then to remind ourselves that God is not served with human hands as if He needed anything. That assages our consciences and lets us rest easy, but we forget what Kalled reminded us of, in that you did or did not do it unto the least of these you did or did not do it unto the Lord Jesus.

Emergents aren't looking for great doctrine, you're never going to convince emergents they're wrong by just shouting over the internet "EMERGENTS ARE GOING TO HELL!" All that accomplishes is to create quarrels and fighting and division and to further our (Christiandom in its entirety) image of lacking the very grace we proclaim.

This emergent movement is different than a lot of the other faiths out there. The only way to show their falsehood and our own authenticity is to outdo them in being Christian and acting in a Christ like manner. How appropriate that Christians act like Christ, since Christos was originally defined "little Christ".


Finally, Denny, Kalled wasn't making backhanded accusations but speaking the truth, it is unchristian to make fun of people, or have we all forgotten Paul's words to the Corinthians? "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. . . We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry" (II Corinthians 5:16a and 6:3). Also, I looked it up just to make sure, but I assume when you call his thoughts tripe that you're refering to the second definition, that it has no value and is as rubbish. How is having the 2nd side in what is to be a conversation of no value? Kalled presents us with a challenge and a question and calls us to consider and determine based on the Word of God, I call that something of value. Further, if you are as I think you were, trying to speak ill of Kalled's comments then I would suggest you not use the word sophistry because it carries the connotation that 1. his arguement is plausible (though misleading) and 2. that it displays ingenuity of reasoning (with hope to deceive someone). I trust also that you are not trying to say that Kalled2Preach is delibrately trying to mislead, if possible, even the elect because that to me seems to be lible (since it's in print). Simply put, I believe idolaters need Jesus too & I would be curious to know how much experience you've had with the mentally ill?

Well, I know I look forward to the days when my church and your church and the church universal will be known for its faith and love and good deeds which lead to and show a life of repentence. Christ Jesus came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. If any of us desires to be great He must first be the servant of all.

Grace be with all of us as we seek true consistancy in being Reformed and always Reforming to the Glory of God.

Brother Luke


"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good (or benefit) is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe- and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness"- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messangers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."


Acts 5:27-42







A. W. Tozer is awesome.
Posted By: Adopted Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:53 PM
Brimstone,

I'm not angry but a couple of things caught my eye in your post that I think are relevant to this thread.

Quote
Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

This is certainly true about us Christian sinners, but why didn't Gandhi become a Christian and then be the only "Holy Man" in all the earth. This (what Gandhi said) is exactly the kind of hypocritical judgment that the Scripture forbids! Do you really think you are going to win an argument in a Christian forum by quoting this Hindu man of "peace and love"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Kalled wasn't making backhanded accusations but speaking the truth, it is unchristian to make fun of people

They were hardly making fun of people but justifiably angry that someone would bring a pet dog into a Christian worship service.

Maybe "tripe" was a bit harsh but "sophistry" was not, as Kalled did accuse others of an unloving and judgmental spirit of condemnation, by quoting unapplicable Scripture. And, IMO, Kalled was doing this in a back door attempt to defend the heresy of the Emerging Church.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:54 PM
I am sure Pilgrim and CovenantInBlood will respond to the appropriate sections of this. I will merely say a few words directly and indirectly pointed my direction by the incense of the ECM promoters here.

Quote
BrimstonePreacha states,

I'm actually going to skip the Leonard Sweet comments because I don't know him and I haven't read his stuff. I have read the article I've linked to with my original post (of which I'm sure everyone on this thread has read and carefully considered) and a few things by McLaren and a blurb or two from a few others, as I said, I haven't looked at all this as in depth as I'm sure each and every one of you have.
This is “one” of the problems with those in the ECM, they “haven't looked at all this as in depth.” They have not looked at the end from the beginning. They have not studied the scholars of the movement (Luke 6:39). They haven’t studied history. They don’t understand that their faith may become shipwreck! (1 Timothy 1:19). If one merely looks at the results of mysticism in history he can foretell the end of the ECM. The mystic denies objectivity in God's revelation. They would hold that no one can really know God with any certainty. It makes God and His providence to be always unknowable. To the mystic there is no certain purpose to anything. We must just accept things in our ignorance. This is McLaren and the ECM in a nutshell and the definition of mysticism in history.

A great mass of people moving in a certain direction (ECM), doesn’t make it the right direction (i.e. think of Noah’s day). Narrow is the road Luke (Matthew 7:13-14). If anything it should give one apprehension. IMO many in the Church are moving in the direction of ECM because of three basic reasons: (1) it is the present direction of the spirit of the Antichrist, (2) the naturalistic, atheistic secularism taught in our educational institutions and liberal churches leaves people spiritually hungry and secular humanism cannot satisfy man’s spiritual longings. Thus, individuals embrace New Age mysticism in order to attempt to fill this spiritual vacuum, (3) the non-speaking, non-directive, non-judgmental god of New Age thought allows sinful man to pursue his lusts without guilt and without fear. The New Age concept of god leaves man autonomous. A concept of god without moral absolutes. A god who will not judge sin and wickedness. (Atheism, New Age Mysticism, vs. Biblical Christianity).

Quote
Thus in the ECM mindset you state,

I seem to recall something about judging not lest I be judged but you are older and you desire the position of or claim the position of overseer so I trust that as an older brother to a younger brother you're not trying to quarrel and I trust that you aren't writing with a craving for controversy and quarrels about words (I Timothy 3 & 6). Because I am sure that you and these other older brothers are not out at all for controversy or for quarrels or any of that, I'd have to agree, the devil isn't stupid, he's just stubborn.
You recall the verse, but you go too far with its definition. You failed to mention that the Church and its elders are to “righteously judge” (Deuteronomy 16:18; John 7:24). If there be no judgment at all then the Church is without discipline. However, the three marks of the true Church are: (1) the pure preaching of the Word of God as sound doctrine, (2) the lawful administration of the sacraments, and (3) the exercise of Church discipline pressing a holiness of life and obedience to the Word preached and taught. Thus, you have just announced for all to see that the ECM is not the true Church. If we understand McLaren the Word of God cannot be interpreted with certainty. Thus, again we have another mark of the true Church dismissed with the signature of this New Prophet’s pen. Without the authority of the Word of God, there may be no right administration of the sacraments. Thus, with the non-judgment attitude of the ECM it declares itself not to be the true Church!

Moreover, the Scripture clearly states, "mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them" (Romans 16:17). Part of the duty of any Christian and especially the leaders of the Church is to protect the body from false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 4:6-7, 6:3-5; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9, 2:6-8) and mark the leaders and followers of such heretical movements so they will not, "beguile the hearts of the innocent" (Romans 16:18). Thus, in concert with the Word of God, heretics and those that hold to, promote, and defend their teachings will be marked here.

The ECM is of a spirit, but not the Holy Spirit. Will they incorporate some “good” in their movement? Of course, every cult does. They may feed the poor and meet other physical needs, the Mormons do too. They have counselors and attempt to meet the emotional needs of individuals, so does Hinduism. Cultic good is not biblical good! It is not for the glory of God alone and thus it is but ”a corrupt good.”

While the true Church could do much more (and should be encouraged to do more), in both of the above areas, it does not necessitate the need of joining a cult to do something. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:52 PM
Quote
Adopted said:
They were hardly making fun of people but justifiably angry that someone would bring a pet dog into a Christian worship service.

I did watch the video, and, it seems silly to bring the dog, but I don't think it is that big of a deal. If this is all that can be found in the entire clip that was worthy of posting and commenting, then what is all the controversy? I've seen very little discussion over what the pastors and people actually said and how heretical it is and how it is another gospel. So, maybe I was a bit off in my comments regarding the dog thing, but I did confess to being wrong. Did you not read that post?

Quote
Maybe "tripe" was a bit harsh but "sophistry" was not, as Kalled did accuse others of an unloving and judgmental spirit of condemnation, by quoting unapplicable Scripture. And, IMO, Kalled was doing this in a back door attempt to defend the heresy of the Emerging Church.

I was not making my statements as a defense of the Emerging Church. I was making my comments because it seemed immature and unChristian to be making a mockery of someone bringing their dog to church.

Also, we don't know what was going on in the service. Maybe the dog was an illustrative device used by the Pastor. Who knows. Only God and the people at that service. My point was that we shouldn't be making fun of people or the things they do just because we don't like it. Making fun of people is never appropriate for the Christian.

And, the verses I used are not unapplicable. One of them just isn't a blatant statement. Sometimes we have to apply Scripture on our own rather than have someone do it for us. The story I shared about Jesus was to make the point that Jesus had compassion on the blind. I was using it to show that we should do the same with people who have a handicap. The parable I shared is to make the point that we have a responsibility to help people in need because in doing so we are serving Jesus. Notice the last part of that parable. God tells those on His left that because they DIDN'T help when someone needed it that they did the same to God. I think the connection holds that when we make fun of people or judge them with no knowledge that we are treating Christ in the same way; you would be passing judgment on Christ, which violates the 3rd Commandment (as I understand it), which states,

Quote
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7 ESV)
Posted By: D.J. Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:20 PM
Quote
Kalled said:If this is all that can be found in the entire clip that was worthy of posting and commenting, then what is all the controversy?

The entire video was a testimony of the foolishness of ECM. It didn't require any comment and that's why I posted it without one.
Posted By: Wes Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:46 PM
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:

I did watch the video, and, it seems silly to bring the dog, but I don't think it is that big of a deal. If this is all that can be found in the entire clip that was worthy of posting and commenting, then what is all the controversy? I've seen very little discussion over what the pastors and people actually said and how heretical it is and how it is another gospel. So, maybe I was a bit off in my comments regarding the dog thing, but I did confess to being wrong. Did you not read that post?

K2P,

Before the dog was even brought up in this thread I made these comments. It should concern us all that this church is man-centered not God-centered!

Just like human beings who believe they can make God over in their own image rather than the God of the Bible this is an example of man making the church into a spiritual social club. It becomes a church suited to their needs and comfort level. One that doesn't offend anyone, doesn't demand obedience, doesn't have confessions, doesn't have doctrine, and doesn't have a cross. I hope you can see the distinction.

"Jesus said, "I will build MY Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) This church will have the marks of a true church because He gives her the keys of the kingdom. Namely the faithful preaching of the Gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God and all things contrary rejected.


Wes
Posted By: BrimstonePreacha Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:47 PM
Denny,

I am glad that you are not angry, I wasn't interested in getting into a debate about words, but it seemed in my readings of this thread that you were simply dismissing Kalled's comments without consideration (which definitely doesn't agree with the definitions of tripe or sophistry I know). If Kalled is wrong, and if all emergents everywhere are wrong then they need someone to lay out lovingly and biblically why they shouldn't accept certain people and certain actions into their services (just as you would if you were explaing it to a Charismatic or some of the extreme cases of "Low Church").

The point of quoting Gandhi was not to win an argument but to disply the attitude and the reception that Christians have gotten in this time. It is generally acknowledged that Jesus is good (though most people probably have no idea what Jesus taught) but so many people get turned off to the gospel because they see Christians who don't meet the needs of other Christians, let alone those in distress around us. There's also an economic difference between denominations, Baptist and Charismatic groups are reputed to have more poor and lower middle class people (the common man) while "High Church" denominations supposedly tend to reach mostly upper class persons, or at least thats what I've run into in my studies at university and which has been taught as fact. Now when the lost people around me at school see that we can't even be tolerant to reach people of our own ethnicity but of a different economic background, then how likely are they to think we're willing to reach out to people of other ethnicities or other traditions? I've encountered plenty of people who don't go to church and who don't want to go because of the witness of Christians in their actions. There plenty of lost people who know the Bible, who've read the Institutes (okay, a few less, but still there are people) and there are plenty who have been to church and seen preachers there and on TV and they aren't convinced because Christians aren't much on good works in public.

If laying out an argument was enough then we would have converted the world long ago. If using force was enough, the world would still be ruled by the Pope, but these are not. People (against all that is logical and wise) look at the life and adherents of everyday church going people in order to determine if there's validity and power to a faith. We have a faith which does not require any great sacrifices from us, only to die to self and live in Christ who has set us free and made us acceptable before God. If we as Christians would simply reach people with the means God has given us and with honesty about our struggles as Christians we (I believe) would have growth rates like these "cults" and "heresies" without changing a thing.

Brother Luke
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:50 PM
Brother Luke,

I must first express my dismay over the "path" which you have evidently chosen to travel, which is a path away from the "old paths" (Jer 6:16). There is so much that I could comment on in what you have written in this response and your longer previous one that it would take more time than I have available to me. Thus I will simply make my comments brief and direct.

1) Your overview of mankind is contrary to that which God tells us. In His infallible Word, we are told that the whole world is under the influence and power of the Evil One. (Eph 2:2; 1Jh 5:19) And further, there is an innate hatred of God and toward all those who love Him and seek to live before Him in pure holiness and righteousness. Though unregenerate men will find some of the virtues of Christians commendable, particularly where they are benefited from them, they are certainly not drawn to God because of them.

2) This truth leads to this second point which is that NO ONE seeks God. (Job 21:15, 16; Rom 3:10; 8:7, 8; 1Cor 2:14) Men are NOT drawn to Christ because of how one lives out their lives, although admittedly, men's natural hatred of God and Christ is increased by observing the hypocrisy of professing Christians who live not according to the law of God. What you have expressed as being most lacking in the Church today, e.g., failure to feed the hungry, care for the poor, etc., and which if done would surely bring more into the kingdom is not anything new. It's an old heresy which had its heyday earlier in the last century and which was best known as "Incarnation Theology". It was the Liberals who foisted this error on the world, but particularly on the Church and who taught that men will come to know God when they see "Jesus in you" through your "good work" expressed in the reaching out to the poor, etc., socially. (cf. 2Tim 3:12)

3) Like the Liberals of yesterday, the Emerging Church Movement has cast off the objective truths of Scripture, aka: doctrine, and opted for a more subjective view of God thus making truth something relative, pragmatic and situational. Conformity to either a system of dogma or a set of rules which govern one's actions is not only unnecessary, so we are told, but debilitating to the furtherance of true religion. To them, faith comes by the observation of actions expressed, e.g., kindness, sacrifice, tolerance, giving, etc. However, the Scriptures speak otherwise. What we read in Scripture is that faith comes through the preaching of the objective truth concerning God, Christ, man, judgment, etc. (cf. Rom 1:16; 10:8-11, 13-17; 1Cor 1:17, 18; 2Cor 2:17; Heb 4:12, 13).

4) Reliance on outward programs, expressions of social concern which the world deems laudable, worldly methodologies, psychological influences, etc., etc., ad nauseam to build the church (increase numbers) is a fallacy and in essence a reliance upon man rather than God. Those who do so, e.g., the Emerging Church Movement, Church Growth Movement, et al, are no different than those who built the tower of Babel. Through their own efforts; through uniting together in a common cause, they thought they could reach heaven (God) and thus accomplish the ultimate goal and unite the entire human race.


Genesis 11:1-9 (ASV) And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off building the city. Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Jehovah scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.


But it is the Lord Christ Who is building His Church through HIS means; the preaching of the Gospel and thus calling men to repentance and faith. Men are being called OUT OF this world and INTO a Kingdom not made with men's hands, ideas or efforts. It is by the power of the Spirit that men are called, renewed and transformed into the image of Christ. The Church of the Living Christ is decidedly something different than anything in this corrupt world. Offering an environment which emulates the world to attract those of this world only serves to keep men in their sins and allow them to continue in their rebellion against God. The Church must show forth the glory of God which is totally contrary to everything in this world. It is to be different; not similar or the same as the world. Offering that which the world loves and already possesses is NOT what the Church is to do. Rather, it is to call men to separation from the world. (cf. 1Jh 2:15, 16)


2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (ASV) "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."


I adjure you, Brother Luke, consider seriously the path you are now traveling before you are totally lost and cannot find your way back to the "Old Paths" which lead to eternal life. (Matt 7:13, 14)

In His grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:22 PM
Quote
The point of quoting Gandhi was not to win an argument but to disply the attitude and the reception that Christians have gotten in this time.
One of ECM’s favorite people to quote is Gandhi (i.e. called, The Christ of the Indian Road). The ECM when quoting Ghandi are just embracing what is called, Emerging Dalit Theology (read: James Massey, Down Trodden: The Struggle of India’s Dalits for Identity, Solidarity and Liberation. Geneva: WCC, 1997) over the Holy Scriptures.

Gandhi, who is not a Christian, would have never accepted Christ, if Christ himself was “in person” doing miracles, feeding the poor, etc., etc., etc. You assume that depraved man desires to hear the Gospel when in fact they despise it. Only the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, and that, only if they were elect from the very foundation of the world. The enemies of the Church will always find something to complain about—and some of it is merited. However, in spite of the Churches problems, of which there are many, the Church is still accomplishing the mission God has ordained it to do. It will succeed—this we are promised!

That said, the Church today does need to improve its witness on many fronts. However, we DO NOT need ECM, Gandhi, or another depraved individual’s criticism or interpretation of the Holy Writ to reach that conclusion. We have the Word of God which says—“do it.” We have the Holy Spirit to guide, direct, strengthen, and convict us to “do it.” Why do those in the ECM need these “scholars,” that are enemies of the Church, to direct them in doing biblical truth?

The end game of the ECM is merely: "I can do all the Bible says as Satan instructs and strengthens me!" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:41 PM
Quote
BrimstonePreacha said:
Joe, you know, I really couldn't decide if I wanted to respond to you or to Pilgrim to maybe Kyle (CovenantInBlood) who seems to have been a bit rude to my friend Kalled,

It amazes me that my "rudeness" should be troublesome to you such that you post a long and caustic rant on your own accord.

Quote
There are likewise numerous people claiming to be emergent who do not represent the entire movement. That is one thing that must be acknowledge and I would hope is admired. These people don't claim to be bound by any other member of the movement and it gives them incredible flexibility which is lacking in certain groups.

Why should we admire willy-nilly, make-your-own-way, post-modern relativistic fluff? What's to admire about a claimed total lack of group cohesion? There is no ultimately no standard to which to appeal to make a judgement, because for "emerging" people, we can't really know objective truth.

Quote
What is it that draws so many people to emergent? The Post-Modernism? I don't think so, it's as hard as the movement is to define.

That's because the central idea of post-modernism is that there is no objective truth. Post-modernism can't be defined because nothing is ultimately definable. As a result, judgement is impossible, and truth is really relegated to subjective and mystical experiences. This lack of judgement and consequent subjectivity and mysticism makes the "emerging church" very appealing.

Quote
What does draw people and what the average joe on the street is looking for is a faith that shows itself out in actions as our dear brother and epistle writing James once put forth, "Faith apart from works is dead." The thing we can say about emergent is that their faith is not dead, can that always be said of us (You and me, us)?

I can certainly say their faith is dead, because their faith is not the faith once for all delivered to the saints! Their actions are nothing more than what any "virtuous" non-Christian might do, but those works are not motivated by the pure Gospel, but by socio-philosophical ideas similar to those that motivated the Social Gospel movement of the late 1800's, in addition to the demonic "growth" philosophy of the megachurch movement, i.e., "be relevant to the culture." "Emerging churches" may not be as concerned with bare numbers, but they are just as concerned with "relevance."

Quote
You know that I love good preaching and I love good doctrinal reading and quotes from great Christians of the past, but what good has simply stating an argument or using complex thoughts done for us? Has preserving the church in a timeless bubble from the first century or from the 16th really won us the world? No, few people are won over to the gospel simply because of a mental component of being unable to argue past it. People are won when they see the benefit and the change of the gospel in the lives of those who have already received that free gift of grace.

Luke, no one is won over to the Gospel either by complex argumentation OR by being cared for materially. The Spirit wins people over to the Gospel by convicting their hearts and speaking peace to them through the Word of God!

Quote
We have failed to engage culture and so we are seen as snobby.

Is it because of a failure to engage, or rather a failure to adopt the unbiblical values of the surrounding culture?

Quote
many of us (thanks Mr. Finney) require people to only make a response to the gospel at a certain time, it's usually after we've bashed the pharisee's throughout the sermon who added to the law.

Is this a legitimate criticism of orthodox Reformed Christianity??

Quote
Emergents aren't looking for great doctrine, you're never going to convince emergents they're wrong by just shouting over the internet "EMERGENTS ARE GOING TO HELL!" All that accomplishes is to create quarrels and fighting and division and to further our (Christiandom in its entirety) image of lacking the very grace we proclaim.

The ones dividing the church are not orthodox believers, but those who proclaim a different gospel. "Emerging" folks aren't looking for great doctrine because they fundamentally don't believe it exists. We don't really understand anything at all, they say.

Quote
Finally, Denny, Kalled wasn't making backhanded accusations but speaking the truth, it is unchristian to make fun of people, or have we all forgotten Paul's words to the Corinthians? "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. . . We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry" (II Corinthians 5:16a and 6:3).

I was the one who said Jeremy was making "backhanded accusations." Why? Because he was accusing "people" of "unchristian behavior" for possibly "making fun of" a blind or mentally handicapped peron, instead of naming names and actually proving his case. Really, I didn't notice anyone making fun of the dog's owner. But frankly, I don't see any biblical principle as flatly prohibiting "making fun of people" (check out "The Lighter Side" forum and see if you think none of that is "making fun of people"), but especially not mocking and deriding the stupid actions of people who think they are worshipping God "in spirit and in truth." You need only examine the instances of God's laughter in Scripture to see that is most frequently derisive of unbelievers.
Posted By: Tom Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:45 AM
Brother Luke

Take this from someone who does not like to be harsh in his replies.
It may seem like people like Pilgrim and Joe are being harsh on movements like the Emergent Church, however given the seriousness of the matter, I think it is appropriate.
Joe for instance backed up what he had to say and if you have issue with him, why not go after what he uses as proof?

Something that bothered me about your post is that you talk as though people like Joe, Pilgrim etc... Spend all there time on the internet and don't do things like help the poor, etc...
I doubt very much that this is the case, but we must remember that the Bible is our source for doctrine and out of that flows our works, not the other way around.
This is the problem with movements such as the Emergent Church; they are too subjective in nature.

Tom
Posted By: janean Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:07 AM
Quote
Tom says: It may seem like people like Pilgrim and Joe are being harsh on movements like the Emergent Church, however given the seriousness of the matter, I think it is appropriate.

Harsh? Absolutely NOT.

Jeremy, YOU are the one who is blind (not that woman in the clip!). <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Everybody's talking about that dog in the video clip, what about the tire used for the Advent wreath and candles?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:15 PM
Quote
janean said:
Everybody's talking about that dog in the video clip, what about the tire used for the Advent wreath and candles?

THat was most deffinitely silly. Although, I think the man was right in saying that they were trying to help the people understand the symbols. If we're going to use various symbols, then we need to make sure our people know what they mean and really understand them. Symbols are supposed to connect with people, not confuse them.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:49 PM
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
THat was most deffinitely silly. Although, I think the man was right in saying that they were trying to help the people understand the symbols. If we're going to use various symbols, then we need to make sure our people know what they mean and really understand them. Symbols are supposed to connect with people, not confuse them.
The Church has spoken very clearly about the use of such "symbols" in the worship of God. There can be found myriad passages in Scripture that forbid what was seen on that video, particularly using a "tire", of all things.

[color:"blue"]The Westminster Larger Catechism[/color]


Q108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A108:
The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word;[1] particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ;[2] the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word;[3] the administration and receiving of the sacraments;[4] church government and discipline;[5] the ministry and maintenance thereof;[6] religious fasting;[7] swearing by the name of God,[8] and vowing unto him:[9] as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship;[10] and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.[11]

1. Deut. 32:46-47; Matt. 28:30; Acts 2:42; I Tim. 6:13-14
2. Phil. 4:6; Eph. 5:20
3. Deut. 17:18-19; Acts 10:88; 15:21; II Tim. 4:2; James 1:21-22
4. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 11:23-30
5. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-17; I Cor. ch. 5; 12:28
6. Eph. 4:11-12; I Tim. 5:17-18; I Cor. 9:1-15
7. Joel 2:12-13; I Cor. 7:5
8. Deut. 6:13
9. Isa. 19:21; Psa. 76:11
10. Acts 17:16-17; Psa. 16:4
11. Deut. 7:5; Isa. 30:22

Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109:
The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5] tolerating a false religion;[6] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever;[7] all worshiping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9] the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all superstitious devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,[15] or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title of antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,[23] contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.[26]

1. Num. 15:39
2. Deut. 13:6-8
3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
4. I Kings 11:33; 12:33
5. Deut. 12:30-32
6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17
7. Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25
8. Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
9. Exod. 32:5
10. Exod. 32:8
11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11
12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14
14. Deut. 4:2
15. Psa. 106:39
16. Matt. 15:9
17. I Peter 1:18
18. Jer. 44:17
19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
21. Acts 8:18
22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
23. Exod. 4:24-26
24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
25. Matt. 23:13
26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16

Q110: What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
A110:
The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments;[1] are, besides God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us,[2] his fervent zeal for his own worship,[3] and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom;[4] accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations;[5] and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.[6]

1. Exod. 20:5-6
2. Psa. 45:11; Rev. 20:3-4
3. Exod. 34:13-14
4. I Cor. 10:20-22; Jer. 7:18-20; Ezek. 16:26-27; Deut. 32:16-20
5. Hosea 2:2-4
6. Deut. 5:29




[color:"blue"]The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 35[/color]


Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
A96:
That we in no way make any image of God,[1] nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.[2]

1. Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts 17:29
2. I Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24

Q97: May we not make any image at all?
A97:
God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.[1]

1. Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4; John 1:18

Q98: But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?
A98:
No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols,[1] but by the lively preaching of His Word.[2]

1. Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-19
2. II Peter 1:19; II Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 10:17

In His grace,
Posted By: doulos Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:22 PM
Well if nothing else they've got us all snipping at each other. I didn't know that business about pantheism either. I wonder if CBD knows all this since they have his books prominently displayed in most of their catalogs?

Ah, for a truth we must be wary brothers. These are bad days.
Posted By: doulos Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:09 AM
Here I am responding to my own message because I've been thinking about this since I posted it. I don't want this to sound smarmy or snooty but I love young people in the ministry for the single reason that they don't know there are some things that they can't do. They've read that some folks are going to hell but they're glory bound and full of fire that they're going to give them the gospel anyway. Anyway, I always try to give points for enthusiasm, just make sure you don't "get any on ya".
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: The Emerging Church on Nightline - Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:26 AM
Quote
doulos said:
They've read that some folks are going to hell but they're glory bound and full of fire that they're going to give them the gospel anyway. Anyway, I always try to give points for enthusiasm, just make sure you don't "get any on ya".
doulos,

Enthusiasm is a marvelous thing, although it isn't something restricted to the "young"; perhaps the young at heart however. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But enthusiasm in and of itself can be and unfortunately usually is the cause of much calamity (aka: impetuosity such as exhibited by Peter). Motivation needs to be wedded to knowledge and wisdom if it is to be profitable. Now, in regard to this "Emerging Church Movement", on the whole, they are NOT.... NOT, I say, "giving them the Gospel", but some man-made fictional story with familiar terms which only ends up hardening the hearts of the enemies of God further, thus making it more difficult (humanly speaking) for those of us who do preach and teach the biblical Gospel. The unfortunate recipients of this "other gospel" are deceived and deluded into thinking that they are "heaven bound", when in fact they are still on the road to perdition while carrying Bibles under their arms and singing obnoxious songs.

A little knowledge can do a whole lot of damage!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
© The Highway