|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 6:56:11 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
But as you say Mush, we are only concerned about small matters and not inviting others to join us in know a Almighy God who loves us as we are and wants to change us for his glory.
Mcleod,
when did I say that? Issues of eternal life and having a legitimate relationship with Jesus on His terms, rather than trying to create a humanistic version of Christianity is no small matter. I don't doubt the sincerity of many emergents, but I do question why they refuse to take God at His word. Changing the core teachings of Jesus about how a relationship with God is even possible in the first place, is not a good way to introduce people to the Jesus of history. It however a good way to introduce them to the jesus created in the image of man's philosophical musings, thus making him socially acceptable to the masses. Which version of Jesus do you think brings real glory to God?
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 7:08:58 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
But as you say Mush, we are only concerned about small matters and not inviting others to join us in know a Almighy God who loves us as we are and wants to change us for his glory.
Mcleod,
when did I say that? Issues of eternal life and having a legitimate relationship with Jesus on His terms, rather than trying to create a humanistic version of Christianity is no small matter. I don't doubt the sincerity of many emergents, but I do question why they refuse to take God at His word. Changing the core teachings of Jesus about how a relationship with God is even possible in the first place, is not a good way to introduce people to the Jesus of history. It however a good way to introduce them to the jesus created in the image of man's philosophical musings, thus making him socially acceptable to the masses. Which version of Jesus do you think brings real glory to God?
I just don't know. Do not want to have a relationship with your family/ Or just have them to fill up space in your life?
God time after time has it written in the book..I mean library. That he is not far away. That he will come to us when we call on his name.
Again what books are you reading that God is mean and cracks a wipe all the time at us?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 7:20:16 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
I don't mean to answer for Group, but if I may say something to the "gut" thing you bring up, mushhead, I would say that it is not an all or nothing proposition. Acts 15 is a prime example of those following Christ going with their gut (or experience). They knew Jesus. They knew what Jesus was like. Thus, they could say that the "orthodox" way of looking at the OT and who is actually God's people was not complete. In fact, Peter does not cite scripture as proof that the Gentiles are now saved but he cites his own experience. James, who does cite scripture, quotes from Amos and uses the LXX, not the MT - the LXX being far more universal than the MT and allows him to line up their experience with the God they knew as revealed in Christ.
I believe when Group is talking about our "gut" he does so with a great sense of humility and dependence upon the Holy Spirit. Either we believe the Spirit still speaks today and leads us or we do not. This is an awesome task and a mind-blowing responsibility God has given us as Christians. To us who have been given much much will be required. Bell nor I and I would venture to say Group and others who know Bell's method of teaching would not presume to "follow our gut" willy-nilly or without earnest prayer, communal discussion and scripture searching.
peace.
emerging,
apparently I missed this post from you...sorry. Let me respond by saying that I agree with the contention that the Holy Spirit must be involved and I get it that GroupW is saying just that. The trouble with using that terminology is the way Group described using one's gut. Someone that is trained in the ways of God might interpret his statement in a purely Biblical way, but someone that is not so trained will likely misunderstand. And since Group is largely making an argument that we need to rephrase Biblical truths for today's unchurched society, I think it is valid to take issue with Group on this one.
Also, a serious issue that has come up in this entire discussion (one that is inseperable from the EC) is the effort to redefine Scripture. It is difficult to follow one's "gut" in a Biblical way, when emergents are trying to use that very methodology to lead people to draw utterly new interpretations of the Scripture (See my post #197 on page 8 of this thread).
One of the sermons by Bell that I listened to redefined virtually all of the Book of Revelation. He cited things from history that I never learned in Seminary, or have read anywhere, and after spending [only] an hour on the internet looking for confirmation of his teaching, I could only find one web site that said the same thing. That site offered no references to support the position. After reading his book and listening to some sermons, I think Bell is quite clear about what he believes, and that belief is predicated on a "new" reading of Scripture. Until someone can provide me a source that clearly proves me wrong I cannot accept any other conclusion. If someone does provide me a source, I'll happily recant.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 7:30:54 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
But as you say Mush, we are only concerned about small matters and not inviting others to join us in know a Almighy God who loves us as we are and wants to change us for his glory.
Mcleod,
when did I say that? Issues of eternal life and having a legitimate relationship with Jesus on His terms, rather than trying to create a humanistic version of Christianity is no small matter. I don't doubt the sincerity of many emergents, but I do question why they refuse to take God at His word. Changing the core teachings of Jesus about how a relationship with God is even possible in the first place, is not a good way to introduce people to the Jesus of history. It however a good way to introduce them to the jesus created in the image of man's philosophical musings, thus making him socially acceptable to the masses. Which version of Jesus do you think brings real glory to God?
I just don't know. Do not want to have a relationship with your family/ Or just have them to fill up space in your life?
God time after time has it written in the book..I mean library. That he is not far away. That he will come to us when we call on his name.
Again what books are you reading that God is mean and cracks a wipe all the time at us?
Again, when did I say that?
To answer your question: yes I believe God wants to have a relationship with people. But He spells out very clearly the terms upon which that relationship begins. We do not have the authority or the power to change those terms. One final point: God is very clear throughout His word that not everyone is part of His family. We are adopted into His family through faith in the redemption provided by the blood of Jesus. McLaren and friends don't like that teaching and are definitely trying to negotiate new terms.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 7:43:26 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
quote:
I'm not necessarily taking issue with you on the above quote. I am asking for clarification. Are you saying that by doing good deeds for people you can make your life better? Are you saying that by doing good things for people you can be considered a follower of Jesus because those are the types of things He did? Or are you limiting this to say that authentic followers of Jesus can't help but to do good deeds for people, and if they don't it will effect the legitimacy of their worship?
Iam saying that by doing good things for peopleyou can be considered a follower of Jesus, because those are types of things he did.
So Gandhi, who heard the gospel and rejected it is a Christian because he did things similar to the ways of Jesus? Or my good friend who leads AA meetings at the State Prison and elsewhere, giving time and support to help people win daily victories over a devestating addiction, is a Christian even though he doesn't want anything to do with Jesus? I could give more examples, but I've made my point.
I must say that your statement is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar when He said that whoever rejects Him remains condemned, is not a child of God, is not one of His sheep.
Two more questions: Is this what Bell teaches you in church? And if you believe this, then why do you respond with "Oh Mush" when I say that this is what emergents in general, and Bell specifically, teach?
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 7:52:53 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
To answer your question: yes I believe God wants to have a relationship with people. But He spells out very clearly the terms upon which that relationship begins. We do not have the authority or the power to change those terms. One final point: God is very clear throughout His word that not everyone is part of His family. We are adopted into His family through faith in the redemption provided by the blood of Jesus. McLaren and friends don't like that teaching and are definitely trying to negotiate new terms.
That sir is a lie and your opinion of it what you think they say. When comes down to just to simple that little children can get right all the time. That is believing in Jesus the Christ who created everything. Trusting in him to show you the way. That what he say is the truth and the light.
Why do you like those nut cases pharsees. Want to make it harder to have eternal life?
To justify just what I wrote you is "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven Therefore who ever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in Heaven".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 7:55:56 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
Mushhead,
I am just joining this conversation but as one who has listened to just about every sermon from Mars Hill for the past 4 years, read both of Bell's books and taught from the NOOMA series 3 different times to different groups I can say without hesitation that the cross and the resurrection are central to Bell's theology. Everything he teaches stems from the historical fact of Jesus's atoning death on the cross and victorious resurrection from the grave.
peace.
Many of Bell's sermons are online. Can you direct to me one or two of those sermons? I'd like to be wrong about Bell.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 8:05:44 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
quote:
To answer your question: yes I believe God wants to have a relationship with people. But He spells out very clearly the terms upon which that relationship begins. We do not have the authority or the power to change those terms. One final point: God is very clear throughout His word that not everyone is part of His family. We are adopted into His family through faith in the redemption provided by the blood of Jesus. McLaren and friends don't like that teaching and are definitely trying to negotiate new terms.
That sir is a lie and your opinion of it what you think they say. When comes down to just to simple that little children can get right all the time. That is believing in Jesus the Christ who created everything. Trusting in him to show you the way. That what he say is the truth and the light.
Why do you like those nut cases pharsees. Want to make it harder to have eternal life?
To justify just what I wrote you is "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven Therefore who ever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in Heaven".
Mcleod,
yes, we must become like little children, but in what way? Are we supposed to be immature, reliant upon adults for substanence, lack self-control? Probably not what Jesus meant, wouldn't you agree? So what is it about children that Jesus was talking about?
Children are trusting and teachable. We must allow Jesus to change the way we think about God, salvation, and the world (teachable), and we must first and foremost trust Him. Trusting Him means that we believe everything He says. Jesus says that not everyone who calls him or herself a disciple is one. Jesus said that some will spend their lives doing all kinds of good things in the name of Christ, but when they die, they will hear Jesus tell them to go away from Him because He never knew them.
Finally, I don't lie. I have on more than one occasion mapped out very carefully the teachings of emergents. I'm confused though, because in one post you chastise me for saying they teach the very thing you say you believe in the next post. Which is it? And please answser my question: Does Bell teach you in church that you can be a Christian because you do the things Jesus does?
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 9:17:54 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/4/2008 9:59:47 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/4/2008 10:07:31 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
quote:
First, the Bible does contain timeless truths.
Mushhead,
I suggest you are setting up a strawman. You have not shown how McLaren denies that the Bible contains timeless truths. Of course it does. What you seem to miss is that McLaren is reclaiming (not inventing) something about scripture that has long been forgotten. Story and truth are not mutually exclusive of each other. Just because McLaren emphasizes the narrative function of the text does not mean he doesn't think the text contains some timeless truths. The question becomes: how do we appropriate those truths?
If the Bible is ONLY a set of propositional, timeless truths (as some erroneously claim) than we don't really need the Bible. Just extrapoloate from it all the nuggets of truth, let Grudem put them in a systematic theology book, and viola, we can all just read that. None of us would want that though. Why?
peace.
emerging,
McLaren said, and I included the statement, that the Bible is not to be used as a source of timeless truths. He said that interpreting the Bible that way is a modern era methodology; he said that is not how Jesus used Scripture (I did not include this statement), and he said to do it that way is wrong (included).
Please don't miss the very dangerous and blasephemous conclusions about God that McLaren drew from his interpretive method. Please don't miss that the only way he could draw those conclusions is to dismiss the timeless elements of the scripture. NOWHERE does McLaren even hint that the scripture contains timeless truths other than the priniciple that flow from the narrative interpretive methodology.
Finally, your mention of Grudem and putting the timeless nuggets in a systematic theology is very informative...it is right out of McLaren's, Franke and Grenz, and the entire emergent "how to" manual (they even use Grudem as their example). It is an tired argument that ignores...well, just about everything that is actually true. I know that probably sounds a bit harsh - and I certainly don't intend to come across as harsh - but the first time I read that argument in "Beyond Foundationalism" I wasn't sure if I should laugh hysterically or be angry at the attempt by supposedly serious scholars to elevate an already disproven scenerio to the status of serious argument.
the church has been using the Scripture as a source of timeless truth for 2000+ years now, and the Jews were doing it with the OT for centuries before that. Yet, people still read their Bibles and few - very few - even own a systematic theologies. So, it makes for an interesting theory of what might have happened, but we have too much history to actually promote it as a possibility. Also, God speaks to us through reading and meditating on His word. I doubt people who trust what God says about His word are ever going to trade in the daily reading of their Bibles for a systematic theology. I am interested in someone...anyone...that can demonstrate with something other than their "say so" that McLaren's narrative methodology is something the church used to do. I can tell you where that theory got its start (apparently McLaren is aware of it as well), which is why he acknowledges that it is a new methodology, not an old one.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/5/2008 10:27:21 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Mush
quote:
So Gandhi, who heard the gospel and rejected it is a Christian because he did things similar to the ways of Jesus? Or my good friend who leads AA meetings at the State Prison and elsewhere, giving time and support to help people win daily victories over a devestating addiction, is a Christian even though he doesn't want anything to do with Jesus? I could give more examples, but I've made my point.
I never wrote that he was in heaven. Don't know if accepted Jesus words or not. Or a person who does AA mettings is or is not a christian. Even Jesus said the pagans know better than do somethings you do. (what a slap in the face)
quote:
I must say that your statement is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar when He said that whoever rejects Him remains condemned, is not a child of God, is not one of His sheep
Again you seem to put words in my mouth. Guess who could be called a liar on that part?
quote:
Two more questions: Is this what Bell teaches you in church? And if you believe this, then why do you respond with "Oh Mush" when I say that this is what emergents in general, and Bell specifically, teach?
Because you are liken to a pharisee who thought his way was right also. When Christ showed them how they were falling short in their thought pattern. Proceed to call him everything under the sun also.
Maybe just may be there is some truth in what they say and you can't stand it like every human that is alive doesn't want their dirty laundry shown.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/5/2008 10:45:11 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
I go through a lot of thought on the words. That Jesus set as the ground rules for etenal life. Not once does every mention in his early teaching (at least I think early). Does he say that you go and believe that I am dying in here in the near futer and if you believe in my blood for remission of sin then you may have eternal life? Why would have not said that and only that if that was. Just the case for eternal life?
Yet he went and said things like this" If you don't forgive someone when they have wrong you. The Father won't forgive you. Guess for not accomplishing that act no heaven. Why would Jesus say that the road is narrow. When the main stream Baptist, Reformed, and Pentitcostal. State that it basically a blood issue. Or a very wide road and all you have to do is just believe in the blood matter.Jesus said that the Father watches over the sparrow and he watches over me.I believe those words trust him at those words. You seem to think Rob teaches it is some pie in the sky religion and sorry you very sadly mistaken on that thought.
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/5/2008 12:02:33 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/5/2008 2:04:20 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
Mush-
Also, I am still interested to hear what "long standing biblical teaching" McLaren is going against when he talks about inspiration. Thanks.
peace.
emerging,
this thread was going at a rapid fire pace yesterday, so please bear with me. I'll eventually respond to everything...unless I missed something along the way.
There are three basic theories about the "God-breathed" process described in 2Timothy 3:16:
1-Inspiration theory
2-Dictation theory
3-Combination of the first two.
I think a casual reading of the Scripture reveals which of the three is correct, but that isn't important to this discussion. What is important is the one thing the proponants of each of the three theories agree on: God supernaturally produced the Scripture through human agents. The Scriptures are His words.
McLaren's theory is completely different. He says man recorded the stories of how they saw God at work around them. In that sense they are the sole product of human storytelling. Building on Franke and Grenz, McLaren says that God-breathed means the Spirit "vitalized" or appropriated these stories. This means that the Spirit has chosen the stories we now call Scripture to teach us about God.
McLaren's (Franke and Grenz's) theory might seem like just another way to say the same thing about the Scriptures, but the differences are striking. In this theory the words themselves are not God's. By seperating the words from their source, emergents, can and do, seek to redefine the meaning and intent of virtually every aspect of Scripture. They do this by claiming that the words themselves are not important, but the lessons that the Spirit teaches - and more importantly the good deeds He inspires us to do - through reading the stories. The words are nothing more than human stories, told with acceptable accuracy, but not historically accurate (IOW's they wouldn't hold up under historical or archeological scrutiny). The stories only have value as tools in the [figurative] hands of the Holy Spirit. The details in Scripture were never meant to be construed as doctrine, as they are nothing more than the product of storytelling by people who are describing events thru the eyes of their cultural conditioning and biases. This understanding of Scritpure leads McLaren to dismiss timeless truths, ignore passages like those that tell us God was judging the sin of the Caananites, and...well...just about every other important doctrine.
I know I didn't post a single reference - that is because I wanted to get your question answered, and because I am going to include those quotes in the next post about Scriptural authority and the EC.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/5/2008 2:10:39 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/5/2008 6:19:06 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
Mush-
I was afraid that was where you were going with that. When you said he negates a "long standing BIBLICAL tradition" I was hoping you might have come accross some textual, scriptural definition of how God inspired scripture. That would have been neat to see!
What you have offered is nothing more than other options to what McLaren is offering and then declaring your option as "biblical." I think you can see why that is unfair. And we need not even get into the whole debate about when those definitions or modes of inspiration came into being and why.
So frankly, it is unfair to say McLaren denies a "long standing biblical tradition." It would be fine of you, however, to say that McLaren is pushing against some long-standing traditions .
peace.
emerging,
You want neat. I can do neat. I hope the following will help to demonstrate for you that the theories I listed are more than just "traditions," they are based on God's revelation in Scripture.
Please read the following:
quote:
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. (Luke 4:20,21)
38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. (John 7:38)
If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken... (John 10:35)
What do these three passages have in common? They demonstrate the Scriptures are more than just stories that are vitalized by the Spirit. They contain specific revelations about God, mankind, and the Messiah that could never be broken. If they were just stories they would not contain specific unbreakable truths. I hope I don't have to demonstrate that only God can reveal an unbreakable truth and/or prophecy.
Read the following:
quote:
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 8:3)
Let me ask an obvious question: How do we live on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord if the Scriptures are not actually God's words? Fortunately, this question is answered for us.
Please read the following:
quote:
“All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. 7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the LORD blows on them. Surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:6b-8)
Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. 90 Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures. 91 Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you. (Psalm 119:89-90)
Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. (Joshua 1:7b-8a)
Clearly these passages tell us that the Scriptures are the very words of God. Two of these three passages demonstrate God's own description of and intent for the Scriptures. God tells us that His words are to be meditated upon and obeyed. He also tells us that His word will never fail or pass away. He describes the Law given through Moses as His own words, for that is what they are. Words that are to be obeyed completely, not just a trajectory found in ancient stories. Which brings me to the three theories I mentioned in the previous post.
Personally, I perscribe to the third theory - a combination of dictation and inspiration theory. The Bible clearly contains evidence of both of these methods.
dictation theory: God used the Biblical writer as a scribe, telling exactly what to pen. We do see this method used in the Bible. Jeremiah was commanded to write down everything God told him. Moses recorded the Law exactly as it was given by God. God even penned (or should I say "fingered") the original Ten Commandments Himself.
Inspiration theory: God inspired the writers to record His words, but allowed them to do so using their own communication skills. Inspiration theory does not allow for inaccuracy because God oversees the process to insure its correctness. One good example of this is found in 1Peter 1:21.
Taking all of the above into account is required when interpreting the phrase Spirit-breathed found in 2Timothy 3:16. Spirit breathed means that the words come from God - in one way or another. They are actually His words, His truth, and are accurate, correct, trustworthy, unbreakable, and most importantly, authoritative.
As I said, this is more than tradition, it is Biblical. However, McLaren's theory is not!
EDITED TO ADD: I forgot to include Jesus' own description of Scripture. In an earlier quote He said that the Scripture cannot be broken. Here Jesus tells us that the Scripture - the word of God - of His day (other than His own words) was the OT. The Law, Prophets, and the Psalms (or books of Wisdom) are the three sections of the Hebrew OT.
quote:
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44)
Just a bit of additional information.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 9/5/2008 7:11:44 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 9/5/2008 8:10:36 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
quote:
emerging,
McLaren said, and I included the statement, that the Bible is not to be used as a source of timeless truths. He said that interpreting the Bible that way is a modern era methodology; he said that is not how Jesus used Scripture (I did not include this statement), and he said to do it that way is wrong (included).
And he is right about this. The Bible, while it contains timeless truth (McLaren does not deny this) is not something to be used as some minefield to be plundered and used in such a way. The Bible is first and foremost a story, not an encyclopedia.
quote:
Please don't miss the very dangerous and blasephemous conclusions about God that McLaren drew from his interpretive method. Please don't miss that the only way he could draw those conclusions is to dismiss the timeless elements of the scripture. NOWHERE does McLaren even hint that the scripture contains timeless truths other than the priniciple that flow from the narrative interpretive methodology.
I disagree. Stories ARE timeless truths. That is the point. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?
quote:
Finally, your mention of Grudem and putting the timeless nuggets in a systematic theology is very informative...it is right out of McLaren's, Franke and Grenz, and the entire emergent "how to" manual (they even use Grudem as their example). It is an tired argument that ignores...well, just about everything that is actually true. I know that probably sounds a bit harsh - and I certainly don't intend to come across as harsh - but the first time I read that argument in "Beyond Foundationalism" I wasn't sure if I should laugh hysterically or be angry at the attempt by supposedly serious scholars to elevate an already disproven scenerio to the status of serious argument.
You are well read and I like that :) However, just because you say it is a tired argument does not make it so. The argument is that the logical conclusion of making the Bible out to be what you claim it is (and only is) would mean that one could make a concordance of these truths and just run with that. That is what Grenz was saying. The bigger point, I think, and the one that is pertinent to this discussion, is that we all can agree that this is not something any of us should do or even could do adequately. We are really getting at the heart of what scripture is when we ask ourselves: Why is that? Why should we NOT just extrapolate the "timeless truths" from scripture and put them in a systematic book and just read that? Answer: Because the Bible is MORE than just a book that dropped from the sky with a set of propositional, timeless truths.
peace.
Emerging,
Point 1 - yes, McLaren does deny the presence of timeless truths. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. I can, and have, provided quote after quote proving his dismissal of such truths. Yes, the Bible does tell a story, but not in the way McLaren suggests. I have to disagree that the entire Bible is a narrative. Narrative is a specific literary genre. The Bible is sixty-six books that contain many different types of literary genre. I do agree that the Bible tells the story of God and His creation. But as 2Timothy 3 tells us that includes specific instructions - commands - as well as telling the story of God's interractions with people. As for an encyclopedia...I don't think anyone calls it an encyclopedia outside the EC, but it does contain doctrines that can and must be learned from - read Jesus' response to the Sadducees challenge of the resurrection.
Point 2- stories are not themselves timeless truths, but they do contain timeless truths. Read Jesus' use of the Creation account to teach about marriage. The stories are true and accurate (don't tell McLaren that) the details found in the story are where the timeless timeless truths are found.
Point 3- We can agree that the Bible should not be used that way. But the point I made included much more than my say so. I have thousands of years of history on my side. It simply isn't a valid argument. We know the Bible is useful teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for good works. Teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness involves specific doctrinal truths. Those truths are found in Scripture. Sometimes in the form of commands, in the words of poetry, in didactical prose, in pithy proverbs, in letters, and yes, in narrative (the Gospels).
Evangelical's do not treat the Bible like a dictionary or encyclopedia of doctrine. Doing so would require ignoring the doctrines found in Scripture. So the argument falls short of...reality; the questions of why are irrelevant. Posing the argument though, raises a relevant question: Why do emergents seek to misrepresent how the Bible is used?
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/5/2008 8:31:49 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
< | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
