You are hereLet's Hide! The Emergent Church is Coming!

Let's Hide! The Emergent Church is Coming!

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 02 April 2009

The rejection of a pre-tribulational Rapture is a characteristic of the emerging church in all of its aspects, including the more conservative side. Mark Driscoll refers to it as “pessimistic dispensationalism” (Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, p. 146). He has said that eschatology-minded Christians are not welcome in his church (“Mark Driscoll Rejects McLaren but Embraces Contemplative,” Jan. 11, 2008, http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=931&more=1&c=1). In the book Confessions of a Reformissional, Driscoll mocks the idea of the Rapture and a one-world government with an Anti-christ who makes people wear a mark to buy, sell or trade (pp. 49-50). He claims that this was not a message from Jesus but rather one ‘concocted from a cunning Serpent’”You can read all the (critical) notes and "warnings" about the Boogie Church here: http://www.wayoflife.org/

Virgil's picture

My favorite quote: Another foundational error of the emerging church is its rejection of the imminency of Christ’s return. This is why they can have long-range goals to save the earth, solve the AIDS problem in Africa, do away with poverty, and perform other “kingdom works” to renew society.

Amen to that - it's so encouraging and rewarding to see Dispensational fundamentalist Christianity fading away while kicking and screaming.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

I, too, am delighted to see the impact that contextually-oriented, truly Biblical eschatology is having on dispy fundamentalism, Virgil. I hope their collapse is accelerated by all of this controversy and the utter lack of Scripturality in the foundations of their faith.

tom-g's picture

Virgil,

That isn't "Dispensational fundamentalist Christianity fading away". That's Christianity being replaced with atheistic humanistic socialism.

Tom

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Oh man,

I was doing fine, well, borderline fine, till I came to this:

"He wanted to drink beer and watch raunchy movies and talk trashy and run around with atheists and other rebels."

I just lost it. Maybe it is just that I'm working on preparing a sermon from Mark 2:13-21 for Sunday...

Fundamentalism is anti-Christ.

Tim Martin

Virgil's picture

I loved Blue Like Jazz - until I read this article, I couldn't imagine who would pick on that book, but now I know.

Barry's picture

Hey Tim,
Qutoe:
Fundamentalism is anti-Christ.
end quote.

Indeed.
Fundamentalism is 1 part hate, and 3 parts egocentricity.

Barry

we are all in this together

SuperSoulFighter's picture

I'm reminded of some lyrics by one of my fave alt rock Christian bands, The Choir:

Everybody drinks the water from the murky pool
Surely as you think you're well
You know your belly aches
Everybody learns religion at the blind man's school
Will you reach for heaven
When the preacher charms the snake

Is your faith so right
Are you so blessed
Everybody wanders in the forest
Is your heart so true

Count the butts and bottles
In the morning when we're gone
Fools agree reality is more than we should bear
How do you gaze into the sun from dusk to dawn
We love the truth enough to die but we won't swear

Is your faith so right
Are you so blessed
Everybody wanders in the forest
Is your heart so true
Are you so good
Everybody wanders in the woods

Everybody begs the juror be more than merciful
For the crime we celebrate, for bigotry we learn
Everybody drinks the water from the murky pool
Surely as it heals your soul you feel your body burn

Is your faith so right
Are you so blessed
Everybody wanders in the forest
Is your heart so true
Are you that good
Everybody wanders in the woods
Everybody wanders in the forest
Everybody wanders in the wilderness ("Wilderness", from the album Speckled Bird, 1994

flannery0's picture

In addition to what I already wall-papered your facebook page with...

I found his blatant misrepresentation of "The Shack" to be unconscionable. Not that I take it personally, or anything. ;)

Furthermore, the entire thing is exemplary of LAZY thinking, imo.

Virgil's picture

I still need to read that book...

flannery0's picture

Yes, you do!

It's a great read! Great discussion starter too, my friends and I took a weekend retreat to discuss it. (Not to mention, the author is an Oregonian, and it's set in OR! Always a good thing. :))

Driscoll didn't like it, though. There is a rant from him on youtube about it, lol. Or, I should say, it's his rant against his own distortion of it.

Virgil's picture

Hehe - Driscoll doesn't like many things which fall outside of his own paradigms. That's not a surprise.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

My own response to The Shack was unfortunately negative also. I critiqued it here quite thoroughly some time ago in a couple of articles.

The primary problem I had with it was the underlying theology defining the God of the Bible according to half-baked misinterpretations based on counter-contextual treatments of the relevant Scriptures. God's Person was badly misrepresented by William Young in his novel, and thus his explanations concerning the evil that happened to one of God's own People fall far short of Biblical truth and reality.

Young’s god is the god of the emerging church. He is cool, loves rock & roll, is non-judgmental, does not exercise wrath toward sin, does not send unbelievers to an eternal fiery hell, does not require repentance and the new birth, puts no obligations on people, doesn’t like traditional Bible churches, does not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and does not mind if the early chapters of the Bible are interpreted as “myth.”

I don't know where the author of the above article discovered all of these details about Young's "god" (because I don't recall them in the book, which I read cover-to-cover myself a year or so ago) but I would, of course, concur that the God of the Bible doesn't care one way or the other about rock and roll music as a genre, most certainly does NOT damn people to an eternity in hell (due to the fact that hell no longer exists), and that He mostly likely DETESTS "traditional churches" (due to the fact that they are a misrepresentation of His Kingdom and its true fulfillment and establishment 2 millennia ago).

The author of the article above has an extremely warped and limited understanding of God's Word and the its Divine Author. His tragic finger-pointing where the Emergents are concerned only serves to highlight his own delusions and cultic inability to acknowledge error.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

There are so many things in Cloud's response to the Emergent Church that disgust me from a doctrinal, theological perspective. His nausea-inducing invective and rant simply serves to highlight the utterly distorted, false "gospel" so prevalent within mainstream Evangelicalism as promoted and enshrined in dispy fundamentalism.

Here are just a few of the low points from his article:

In fact, the conference took its own survey along this line. Attendees were asked, “What percentage of your congregation is trying to actively live what the Bible teaches?” [TRYING TO LIVE WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The New Nature supernaturally implanted within spiritually reborn Christians makes conformity to Biblical attitudes and thinking instinctive over time. Cloud's thinking is a load of legalistic TRASH.] An overwhelming majority of the pastors, nearly 80%, replied that fewer than one-fourth of their church members are trying to obey the Bible! [TRYING to obey the Bible? And FAILING MISERABLY undoubtedly, as all legalistic hypocrites have done for generations]. What is that if not a lack of biblical salvation? [THIS guy wouldn't know Biblical salvation if it kicked him in the face.] As the apostle Paul said, “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” (Titus 1:16). [Another text brutalized and ripped completely out of context as an act of gross arrogance and disrespect for God's Word] And the apostle John added, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). [Cloud is a liar and the lover of a lie. The Truth is not only not in him...he wouldn't recognize - or be drawn to - the Truth if it was an oasis and he was dying of thirst right beside it in the desert].

God’s people are, for the most part, common; they don’t need intellectualism; they need simple and practical Bible truth. The truth has a basic simplicity that the common man can understand. “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Mat. 11:25).

In effect, Cloud is stating that God's people (i.e. the independent Baptists under his "care") are stupid and he hopes to keep them that way. The followers of Christ to which He was referring in Matt. 11 were not all well-educated necessarily, but they were not expected to REMAIN "babes" in their thinking and belief either. They were expected to mature and grow in their knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures and of God Himself, rather than expect to be spoonfed the Truth all of their lives by "trusted leaders".

This guy has a total misunderstanding in relation to the Scriptural meanings of terms like "world", "flesh", etc. etc. He obviously has no interest in adopting a revised, more historically and contextually accurate understanding of these terms either. He's a blowhard clinging to the fundy Titanic as it sinks beneath the waves. The sooner they go down and lose their public influence.

I categorically reject Cloud's theology, doctrine and thinking. He is a disgrace to Biblical Christianity and has done a huge disservice to the Scriptures and Kingdom.

Parker's picture

"They [the early christians] were expected to mature and grow in their knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures and of God Himself, rather than expect to be spoonfed the Truth all of their lives by 'trusted leaders'."

Though the Dispies are absolutely nuts, this statement is plain wrong. It's anachronistic. Mass literacy didn't exist until modern times, nor could people obtain "bibles" prior to the printing press and modern retail distribution methods.

To the point, Jesus Christ created a Christianity that is based on ordained ("trusted") leaders who pass on the gospel generation by generation through oral channels of communication (preaching and instruction).

The "me-and-my-bible alone" approach to Christian truth is a product of ignorant fundamentalism.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

You and I have had this discussion before, Parker, but to further clarify my position here, I will quote none other than the apostle Paul.

"20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature." (1 Cor. 14:20, NKJV)
What was the source and basis of their expected, mature understanding? The Scriptures obviously.

"1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal..." (1Cor. 3:1-3)
The teaching Paul presented to these people had a developmental characteristic to it. They were expected to move on from a basic, "babe" understanding of God's Truth (represented in the metaphor of the mother's milk upon which an infant is reliant for growth and development) to the meatier Truth intended for those who have a mature, adult understanding.

"12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5:12-14)
Believers were expected to develop and mature in their understanding to the point that they became teachers themselves. The "first principles of the oracles of God" references the basic Scriptural principles of the Christian faith. These believers were expected to BECOME SKILLED IN THE WORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS - see v. 13. Clearly, they had access to the Scriptures individually and developed literacy as their part of their adoption of the Christian faith.

Once again, Parker, you demonstrate your lack of acquaintance with the Scriptures themselves and your primary reliance upon supplementary (and uninspired) sources. Your faith has a foundation of sand.

These First Century believers CLEARLY had ACCESS to the apostolic epistles, as well as the other existing inspired writings of that period. I'm not saying they had printed copies of those texts such as our printing presses produce today. But each Church had copies and these were accessible to every member of that local Church body. The believers who were illiterate were undoubtedly taught to read using these texts.

To the point, Jesus Christ created a Christianity that is based on ordained ("trusted") leaders who pass on the gospel generation by generation through oral channels of communication (preaching and instruction).

The First Century structured "Body of Christ" was taken to dwell with Him forever in 70 AD at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. There is absolutely no perpetuation of that structure and leadership whatsoever in this realm OR that one. I have presented and discussed the texts revealing this to be the case previously in articles presented here and you and I have have haggled over them ad nauseum in the past, Parker. My position on this will never change and, clearly, yours won't either. Happily, the Scriptures clearly support my view and reveal yours, by contrast, to be a delusion of a rather pathetic, insidious nature. The Scriptural support for your beliefs is non-existent, and your handling of the sacred text has been consistently (to borrow your own term) "anachronistic". Your interpretive approach is counter-contextual and governed solely by the traditions of your so-called "church" authorities and Creeds, whose authority I wholeheartedly reject (according to the wisdom, grace, guidance and blessing of Jesus Christ).

The "me-and-my-bible alone" approach to Christian truth is a product of ignorant fundamentalism.

Your "we need a generational chain of trusted, ordained leaders to dispense the Truth to us" approach is, in fact, a product of godless, deceptive, corrupt, bureaucratic chicanery hiding behind a veneer of spirituality and a misapplication (and abuse) of all of the labels and titles/roles exclusive to the one, TRUE pre-AD 70 Christian Church.

JM

Parker's picture

SuperSoul, very few people could read texts, and copies of scripture were not widely available prior to Gutenberg. Your perception that St. Paul expected people to read the bible and arrive at their own conclusions (whatever conclusions that may be) is nonsense. Paul and the other apostles preached, and all were expected to accept their teaching or be excommunicated from the people of God (Gal 1:9). Jesus never wrote any scripture, but instead preached His message that all were to accept without dissent. The New Testament "bible" wasn't widely available or even canonized until long after the apostles were dead. So, the early Christians were not "sola scriptura" folks and could not have been even if they had wanted to be.

The true content about the kingdom of God was entrusted orally to ordained men who were authorized to instruct the flocks through preaching and teaching. That's the real history of early Christianity. There simply weren't bibles around, and few people could read anyway.

Converts came to maturity by accepting what the apostles and bishops were teaching/preaching. Christianity is not primarily a religion of the book, but of the spoken Word. Few had any ability to read for themselves anyway, and so all relied upon the bishops and teachers who had responsibility for true doctrine (1 Tim 5:17; James 3:1; Heb 13:17).

Next, the Body of Christ that existed on earth at AD 69 also existed on earth at AD 70 and AD 71 and AD 72. It didn't vanish into thin air as your fantasies would have you believe.

Next, the reason my interpretive approach is governed by the spoken word/oral tradition is because such was the case for the early Christians (2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15)--it was never otherwise. Church authority (the pillar and ground of truth - 1 Tim 3:15) is central, as is shown all throughout the NT writings. At the Council of Jerusalem true doctrine was determined by ordained elders and apostles and was then imposed by them upon all the congregations of the empire (Acts 16:4; Acts 15:1-31). As we see there, knowing the truth was not a matter of every man reading the bible for him or herself.

In contrast to the early Christians, you accept only your own personal interpretive reading as a final authority (which wouldn't even have been possible prior to the advent of literacy). Furthermore, you fail to see the crisis that emerges when your interpretation conflicts with another person's interpretation. The N.T. simply doesn't allow that sort of subjectivism in matters of the Gospel truth. There is only one truth, and God has not asked every individual to figure it out for themselves.

Next, the body of ordained elders (bishops) is the final authority appealed to at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 16:4). The bishops are the "overseers" of the flocks and the final arbiter in doctrinal disputes. The flocks are to honor and abide by the authority of the bishops in whose care they were entrusted (Heb 13:17; 1 Tim 5:17). These biblical concepts are entirely contrary to your way of thinking.

In sum, *personal* bible reading and study (everyone reading the bible for themselves), along with the discipline of hermeneutics, is a modern phenomenon. It arose after Gutenberg and the advent of literacy. It is alien to original Christianity, which was passed on primarily through oral communication by a group of authorized men.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

SuperSoul, very few people could read texts, and copies of scripture were not widely available prior to Gutenberg. Your perception that St. Paul expected people to read the bible and arrive at their own conclusions (whatever conclusions that may be) is nonsense. Paul and the other apostles preached, and all were expected to accept their teaching or be excommunicated from the people of God (Gal 1:9).

Let's see if your assertions hold water here, Parker, in the light of the sacred text. Because as far as I'm concerned, your argument is with God's Word, not just my personal viewpoint (which happens to be in conformity with the Scriptures, unlike yours). I'll just keep shining the light of Truth on your false ideas and watch them evaporate.

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12, NKJV)

Clearly, these believers' faith was the direct product of BOTH the teaching of Paul AND their personal examination of the Scriptures. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10 points. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, 9 for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. (2 Timothy 2:8)
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Hmmm. The "unchained Word of God" was to studied and carefully divided by diligent "workers" who engaged in the interpretive endeavor characterized by effort and the application of reason to the text. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me...45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:37-39; 45-47)

Here we see that Jesus Himself tied His own preaching and ministry in closely to the existent Scriptures which the Jews of His day were carefully studying. He didn't discourage this practice, but instead pointed out that if their hearts were truly open to the Truth (had the Father's word abiding in them), they would readily acknowledge Christ as their Messiah, etc. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. (Luke 24:44,45)

Obviously, Christ's desire was for His followers to continue to study/examine the Scriptures for themselves, but with clear understanding. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

Your false assumptions concerning the desire of God for continued illiteracy and ignorance among His People (those that WERE illiterate) is far from Scripturally accurate, Parker.

None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:10-13)

We, the TRUE "house of Israel", currently enjoy this relationship with God. Obviously, YOU are NOT a member of our "house" and spiritual Nation, so these discussions will not prove productive where your own spiritual state is concerned. You deny the Truth and you impose false authoritarian structures upon people to maintain spiritual control over them. Disgusting. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

Next, the reason my interpretive approach is governed by the spoken word/oral tradition is because such was the case for the early Christians (2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15)--it was never otherwise. Church authority (the pillar and ground of truth - 1 Tim 3:15) is central, as is shown all throughout the NT writings. At the Council of Jerusalem true doctrine was determined by ordained elders and apostles and was then imposed by them upon all the congregations of the empire (Acts 16:4; Acts 15:1-31). As we see there, knowing the truth was not a matter of every man reading the bible for him or herself.

Yes, the EARLY CHRISTIANS endured this primitive state of affairs up until their gathering to heaven. The full canon of Scripture was completely in existence by the time of their removal and marriage to their Bridegroom, Christ Jesus, and their writings endured for our benefit. But to pretend that this limited, primitive state of affairs (pre-AD 70) continues to the present day according to the Will of God in terms of the full manifestation and establishment of His Kingdom is contrary to His Word and the full, complete revelation.

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1Cor. 15:24-28)

Where in there do you see any allowance for the continuance of "church authority", Parker? WHERE? Christ's OWN authority was made subject to that of the Triune Godhead. Your lies and false ideas are repulsive. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. 5 And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
6 Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. 8 The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:

“ Holy, holy, holy,
Lord God Almighty,
Who was and is and is to come!”

9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
11 “ You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.” (Rev. 4:4-11)

Well well well well. The "elders" submitted their authority to GOD ALONE, just as prophesied in 1Cor. 15 (see above). ALL AUTHORITY was made subject to God alone. The casting down of their crowns indicated this subjection of their authority to God. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:14-19)

Clearly, you are one of those who loves and practices a lie, Parker. The Word of God is incontrovertably preserved in WRITTEN FORM for the admonition and benefit of ANYONE who is "thirsty" for spiritual Truth. This is the eternal situation revealed at the conclusion of the dissolution of the OC "world" to which your thinking and beliefs are attached. You are a perpetuator of Old Covenant legalism and human authority. I repeat, you love and practice a lie. GOD'S WORD and me - 10/10. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/10.

The final score? GOD'S WORD and me - 80/80. 100%. PARKER AND THE RCC - 0/80. 0%.

You and the RCC fail, Parker. Miserably, indisputably, utterly and pathetically. Please refrain from embarrassing yourself any further here.

Parker's picture

SSM: Clearly, these believers' faith was the direct product of BOTH the teaching of Paul AND their personal examination of the Scriptures.

Parker: A few rabbis in the synagogues could read and had access to OT scripture. The NT wasn't a body of work for more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. Moreover, one was not permitted to disagree with the apostles' messages (which were mostly taught orally), for there is but one truth. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

SSM: The "unchained Word of God" was to studied and carefully divided by diligent "workers" who engaged in the interpretive endeavor characterized by effort and the application of reason to the text.

Parker: The "Word of God" is not a synonym meaning "written bible"---it simply means the revealed message of God. Next, Paul can only possibly mean Old Testament books, since the NT bible wasn't a determined body of work until long after the apostles were dead. In addition, few could read written texts, and so ordained men were made the authorities on Christ's and the apostles' message, and these men determined and imposed the truth upon the flocks throughout all cities (Acts 16:4). These men were ordained "bishops" over the flocks. Early Christianity was comprised of ordained shepherds and the flocks who were subordinate to the shepherds (Heb 13:17; Acts 20:28; James 3:1; ). Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

SSM: Here we see that Jesus Himself tied His own preaching and ministry in closely to the existent Scriptures which the Jews of His day were carefully studying. He didn't discourage this practice...

Parker: The rabbis were the authorities, and they were responsible for binding and loosing (saying what was forbidden or permitted by The Law of Moses). The Pharisees sat in the Seat of Moses (Matt 23:2-3) as the authority for the people in matters of doctrine. And for sure, those people didn't yet have the four gospels, Paul's letters, etc. So, this idea of every man studying the bible for himself and seeing the truth is fundamentalist fantasy. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

SSM: Obviously, Christ's desire was for His followers to continue to study/examine the Scriptures for themselves, but with clear understanding.

Parker: Since few people could read texts, and since no New Testament was available until long after the death of the apostles, it is obvious that Christ's desire was NOT that his followers would all "examine the scriptures for themselves." If you can't read, you can't read the scriptures. And if the New Testament scriptures aren't available, you can't be expected to read them. Therefore, the first Christians didn't learn truth the way you suggest. They learned it from ordained teachers who were authorized preachers/teachers of Christ's oral message (Jesus didn't write any books; he taught and preached and ordained men to preach and teach). Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

SSM: We, the TRUE "house of Israel", currently enjoy this relationship with God. Obviously, YOU are NOT a member of our "house" and spiritual Nation, so these discussions will not prove productive where your own spiritual state is concerned.

Parker: Your interpretation of Hebrews 8:11 about no need of teachers is refuted by the fact that you are here teaching others what is the correct interpretation of scripture (according to you), and is further refuted by the fact that many others here disagree with your interpretations. But your view of "no more teachers" is also refuted by Hebrews 5:12 and James 3:1.

SSM: You deny the Truth and you impose false authoritarian structures upon people

Parker: Note that the following authoritarian structures are the final authority by which men are judged: Matt 16:18-19; Acts 15:2, 16:4, 20:28, 2:42; Gal 2:7; 1 Tim 3:1,5; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; Heb 13:17. Christianity was never an egalitarian society of people having bible studies with printed bibles. Jesus published not a single word of written text, and the apostles never canonized a New Testament bible. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

SSM: Yes, the EARLY CHRISTIANS endured this primitive state of affairs up until their gathering to heaven.

Parker: It was the ONLY state, not a mere "primitive state." Neither the apostles nor Jesus ever spoke about a different state than the one they themselves used. So, why don't you use the state they used, given that no other state was discussed or authorized?

SSM: The full canon of Scripture was completely in existence by the time of their removal and marriage to their Bridegroom

Parker: The apostles never wrote down what "the canon" was, so you can't possibly know what the canon is. And since the apostles did not write down what the canon was, you cannot say that the "full canon of scripture was completely in existence by the time of their removal..." You're stuck. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

SSM: Clearly, you are one of those who loves and practices a lie, Parker. The Word of God is incontrovertably preserved in WRITTEN FORM for the admonition and benefit of ANYONE who is "thirsty" for spiritual Truth.

Parker: If this is so, please show me from scripture where a New Testament bible is gathered and canonized prior to AD 70. You can't, because it's not information which can be found in the WRITTEN WORD. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

Without a valid authorized Church Tradition, you don't even have a New Testament bible to cite. Your fundamentalism is silly and ignorant.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Another disingenuous response from an individual unconcerned with the authority of God and His Word if they seem to be in conflict with the traditions of his "church".

In reference to the Berean believers' examination of the Scriptures for themselves (they became believers post-examination) you wrote: A few rabbis in the synagogues could read and had access to OT scripture. The NT wasn't a body of work for more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. Moreover, one was not permitted to disagree with the apostles' messages (which were mostly taught orally), for there is but one truth. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

Let's just review that text again and see if either the full canon of the New Testament is mentioned in it anywhere OR rabbinical authority and a literacy exclusive to them.

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. (Acts 17:10-12)

Shame on you Parker. The SCRIPTURES are clearly identified as a text readily available to these Jews (obviously, the Old Testament/Torah is in view here). NOWHERE do we read that the rabbis alone were able to study these texts. NOWHERE does the question of the full canon of Scripture arise. You are reading into the text what you want to see there. Have some respect for the Word of God.

Parker: The "Word of God" is not a synonym meaning "written bible"---it simply means the revealed message of God. Next, Paul can only possibly mean Old Testament books, since the NT bible wasn't a determined body of work until long after the apostles were dead. In addition, few could read written texts, and so ordained men were made the authorities on Christ's and the apostles' message, and these men determined and imposed the truth upon the flocks throughout all cities (Acts 16:4). These men were ordained "bishops" over the flocks. Early Christianity was comprised of ordained shepherds and the flocks who were subordinate to the shepherds (Heb 13:17; Acts 20:28; James 3:1; ). Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

Many people had direct access to the Scriptures for themselves in those days (e.g. the Ethiopian eunuch) besides rabbis and "ordained church authorities". The Early Church was rife with conlicting beliefs and ideas, and your continued reference to it as being the "ideal" is naive AND an attempt to validate the supposed perpetuation of that spiritual relationship with God post-AD 70 in the false institution known as the RCC. You continue to love and practice a lie. Early Christianity was exactly that. First Century, pre-AD 70 Christianity was exclusive to the Christians of that period, and they formed the highly unique FOUNDATION for the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. They were the founding generation. Their structure and handling of the Scriptures was, in many respects, unique to them and their historical situation. It's just that simple and your continued denials and attempts to twist the Truth don't change those facts at all. They just highlight your self-deceived state.

Parker: Your interpretation of Hebrews 8:11 about no need of teachers is refuted by the fact that you are here teaching others what is the correct interpretation of scripture (according to you), and is further refuted by the fact that many others here disagree with your interpretations. But your view of "no more teachers" is also refuted by Hebrews 5:12 and James 3:1.

I present my views here and people are welcome to accept and agree with them or disagree. I don't "impose" them autocratically and demand conformity to them, as is the case with your false "church". With regard to Heb. 5:12, it is evident that the average Christian was expected to achieve a spiritual maturity level and understanding of Scriptural truth whereby they were able to go on and teach others (no mention of "ordination" here). But again, that was for THEIR period of history. This does NOT negate the reality expressed in Heb. 8.

You were born a couple of millennia too late, Parker. You love the Old Covenant authoritarian structures, not the God of the Bible. You would have made a great First Century Jew. Your heart is locked in the Old Covenant. You have no part in the New.

Parker: The apostles never wrote down what "the canon" was, so you can't possibly know what the canon is. And since the apostles did not write down what the canon was, you cannot say that the "full canon of scripture was completely in existence by the time of their removal..." You're stuck. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

We've had this discussion many times before. I'll rephrase my statement to assist your exceedingly limited understanding. The TEXTS that were acknowledged as inspired and EVENTUALLY were canonized formally (post-AD 70) were all in existence pre-AD 70. The internal textual evidence clearly indicates the timing and chronology of their composition.

Parker: If this is so, please show me from scripture where a New Testament bible is gathered and canonized prior to AD 70. You can't, because it's not information which can be found in the WRITTEN WORD. Parker, God's Word, and the RCC 10/10 points. SSM 0.

Without a valid authorized Church Tradition, you don't even have a New Testament bible to cite. Your fundamentalism is silly and ignorant.

As always, you place the emphasis on the canonization process as if that grants your RCC full authority over the texts and their interpretation. Since the Scriptures themselves do not mention the canon and that process of collection and identification of the texts, we are free to conclude that one way or another God ensured that the inspired Scriptures were preserved and disseminated among mankind. The process of preservation and dissemination is infrerior, by far, to the inspiration process and the actual message God sought to communicate thereby. Those people who were blessed in being guided to identify which Scriptures belong in the New Testament etc. were never granted - ANYWHERE - full authority over their contents interpretively. That is an ASSUMPTION made by you and the RCC, Parker. Your rigid Catholicism is antiquated and tragic.

Parker's picture

SSF: Shame on you Parker. The SCRIPTURES are clearly identified as a text readily available to these Jews (obviously, the Old Testament/Torah is in view here).

Parker: First, the Bereans were leaders of the synagogues (Acts 17:10), one of the few places where scriptures could be found. It was Paul's custom to go to the synagogues to reason from scripture (Acts 17:2). Second, the Old Testament alone is in view, for the New Testament canon was not a body of work until long after the death of the apostles, and even that NT canon was decided by Church authority, not scripture. So, you don't know what books make up a so-called New Testament without trusting post-AD 70 Church authority on the matter.

SSF: Many people had direct access to the Scriptures for themselves in those days (e.g. the Ethiopian eunuch) besides rabbis and "ordained church authorities".

Parker: Almost no one had direct access, except for leaders of synagogues and people of great riches, like the royal Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27). A single copy of scripture cost a fortune, and most people of the empire were illiterate. God would have been a complete bumbler to make salvation dependent upon books when nearly all humanity couldn't read. God made the oral channel of communication the primary means of the gospel's transmission, for all humans have the ability to hear spoken language.

SSF: I present my views here and people are welcome to accept and agree with them or disagree. I don't "impose" them autocratically and demand conformity to them

Parker: But the apostles and elders imposed them autocratically for all believers (Acts 16;4) and demanded absolute conformity. Moreover, when you teach one thing and another protestant teaches another, at least one of you is teaching falsehoods, and perhaps both are. So how can one know which view is true? Who decides?

SSF: The TEXTS that were acknowledged as inspired and EVENTUALLY were canonized formally (post-AD 70) were all in existence pre-AD 70.

Parker: Where does scripture tell you which texts are the inspired ones you are to follow? Hint: scripture doesn't say a word about a New Testament canon. The New Testament canon is something that comes to us via authorized Church tradition. The apostles never bothered assembling a sacred list of books.

SSF: Since the Scriptures themselves do not mention the canon and that process of collection and identification of the texts, we are free to conclude that one way or another God ensured that the inspired Scriptures were preserved and disseminated among mankind.

Parker: LOL. The canon we have was determined by post-AD 70 churchmen in church councils. Those men pulled together a list of books and told everyone else it was "authentic." If you reject their authority, you have no New Testament bible. If you accept their authority on the books, then you admit the validity of inspired church tradition in the post AD 70 world. Checkmate.

SSF: Those people who were blessed in being guided to identify which Scriptures belong in the New Testament etc.

Parker: What was God doing inspiring church councils in the centuries beyond AD 70? Didn't God know that such authorized and inspired teachings by men ended with the death of the apostles??? You fundies are funny.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

SO tedious and pointless. That sums up all dialogue with you, Parker. So these are my final comments on the matter. I have much better uses for my time.

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. (Acts 17:10)

Parker: First, the Bereans were leaders of the synagogues (Acts 17:10), one of the few places where scriptures could be found.

You persist in embarrassing yourself here, Parker, with no conscience whatsoever. Once again you put your foolish, arrogant, godless abuse of the Scriptures on display for all to see here. Tragically disgusting. NO mention of "leaders of the synagogues" being the only ones to whom Paul ministered in these synagogues. NO mention of these mythological, exclusively literate leaders being the only ones capable of examining the Scriptures. Rather, we discover the following, in v.12, 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

SO. NO mention whatsoever of the examination of the Scriptures being conducted solely by Jewish religious leaders. NONE. A bald assumption made by you, Parker, based on no textual evidence of any kind.

Second, the Old Testament alone is in view, for the New Testament canon was not a body of work until long after the death of the apostles, and even that NT canon was decided by Church authority, not scripture.

I pointed out myself that the Torah were the Scriptures they were examining. Thank you for needlessly reiterating my point. The canon was determined by GOD, first and foremost. He used scholars who were living at the time for this purpose, but presumably he could have just as easily used ignorant shepherds or fishermen for that task. This "church" you have enshrined in your heart and mind as being on par with God Himself (in terms of authority) has no Scriptural right to governance over ANYONE. Period.

Parker: Almost no one had direct access, except for leaders of synagogues and people of great riches, like the royal Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27). A single copy of scripture cost a fortune, and most people of the empire were illiterate. God would have been a complete bumbler to make salvation dependent upon books when nearly all humanity couldn't read. God made the oral channel of communication the primary means of the gospel's transmission, for all humans have the ability to hear spoken language.

You refer to the primitive, imperfect situation that existed 2,000 years ago as though this was God's ultimately intended plan for His People and Kingdom in perpetuity. You have no textual basis for such an assertion and assumption.

Parker: But the apostles and elders imposed them autocratically for all believers (Acts 16;4) and demanded absolute conformity. Moreover, when you teach one thing and another protestant teaches another, at least one of you is teaching falsehoods, and perhaps both are. So how can one know which view is true? Who decides?

The individual decides for him or herself what is true, as part of their interaction directly with God. God confirms within them, ultimately, what is true and what is false. It is a process and requires NO governance of any kind to be carried out on behalf of the individual. The spiritual maturation process includes the development of a deep-seated awareness and understanding of Truth. Of course, in your own case this may seem unreasonable because you are light years away from this kind of relationship with God.

Parker: Where does scripture tell you which texts are the inspired ones you are to follow? Hint: scripture doesn't say a word about a New Testament canon. The New Testament canon is something that comes to us via authorized Church tradition. The apostles never bothered assembling a sacred list of books.

Because we are discussing the inspired Word of God here, and I know that God is fully capable of ensuring the preservation and anthologizing of these supernaturally composed texts - I also believe that these texts are represented in the volume known as "The Bible", today. My belief is in the God of the Bible, not in the imperfect, limited human vessels He used as His instruments in bringing this book into being.

Parker: LOL. The canon we have was determined by post-AD 70 churchmen in church councils. Those men pulled together a list of books and told everyone else it was "authentic." If you reject their authority, you have no New Testament bible. If you accept their authority on the books, then you admit the validity of inspired church tradition in the post AD 70 world. Checkmate.

Any scholastic "authority" these men exercised in determining which texts belonged in the canon NEVER included interpretive governance over those texts, nor did it include sole access to them. The RCC found that out the hard way, via the Reformation.

Parker: What was God doing inspiring church councils in the centuries beyond AD 70? Didn't God know that such authorized and inspired teachings by men ended with the death of the apostles??? You fundies are funny.

You RCs would be funnier if you actually understood half of the terminology you toss around so haphazardly. "INSPIRING"? Are you kidding me? The Scriptural process of INSPIRATION involves a word-for-word, Holy Spirit-breathed transmission of the sacred text from God to man in conjunction with the human scribe's mind and personality. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with simple guidance in determining which texts are inspired and which aren't. The divine inspiration of Scripture CEASED forever at 70 AD. The canonization of Scripture had absolutely nothing to do with any "inspiration" experienced by the scholars involved. Once again you embarrass yourself publicly and unashamedly. Enough said.

Parker's picture

SSF: NO mention of "leaders of the synagogues" being the only ones to whom Paul ministered in these synagogues.

Parker: Paul's custom was to go to the synagogues because that is where the rabbis met to teach the people and read whatever scrolls were available. The masses didn't have bibles to study on their own. The only place scripture existed was at the synagogues, and then a few very rich rulers might own a scroll or two, which were as expensive to make as automobiles.

People listened to the preaching of the apostles and either believed or didn't. They didn't consult their King James leatherbounds, and the closest copy of any scroll was only to be found at the nearest synagogue.

SSM: The canon was determined by GOD, first and foremost.

Parker: Please show me the scripture God determined the canon. I look forward to your answer. (Hint: councils of men determined the canons, not the apostles or Jesus.)

SSM: He used scholars who were living at the time for this purpose

Parker: The word for God supernaturally using scholars to produce infallible truth on various topics is known as "sacred tradition." The canon of scripture is one of these vital aspects of the Christian faith that is known NOT by the written word but by sacred tradition.

SSM: You refer to the primitive, imperfect situation that existed 2,000 years ago as though this was God's ultimately intended plan for His People and Kingdom in perpetuity.

Parker: God's too smart to have created a message and plan for salvation that would be useless to 95% of humans who can't read or afford scrolls.

SSF: The individual decides for him or herself what is true, as part of their interaction directly with God. God confirms within them, ultimately, what is true and what is false.

Parker: There is only one truth, and all must accept it and must not make up their own. Protestants using the method you describe arrive at contradictory views, which proves that God is not confirming anything within individuals (unless you believe God tells you one thing and then He tells the next protestant a contradictory thing).

SSF: Because we are discussing the inspired Word of God here, and I know that God is fully capable of ensuring the preservation and anthologizing of these supernaturally composed texts - I also believe that these texts are represented in the volume known as "The Bible", today.

Parker: You are describing what Catholics call "sacred tradition"---i.e., infallible truths that are not in scripture but are nevertheless taken to be infallibly true based on the Church's authority.

SSF: Any scholastic "authority" these men exercised in determining which texts belonged in the canon NEVER included interpretive governance over those texts

Parker: If the canon was the product of mere scholarship, then you are free to reject the New Testament bible as nothing more than one group's opinion about various writings floating around in the first centuries AD. Nothing divine, just merely one group's list of their favorite books. But if you accept that those scholars were inspired by God to determine a New Testament list of holy books, then you admit that (1) inspiration took place in the Catholic Church in the post AD 70 world and (2) it is an example of inspired tradition.

SSF: [Inspiration] has NOTHING whatsoever to do with simple guidance in determining which texts are inspired and which aren't.

Parker: A bunch of Catholic churchmen of the 300s came up with the claim that they had a new set of holy books. Why do you believe that their opinion is infallibly true?

Sapai's picture

Thank you. I'm enjoying the conversation, and would only pitch in my pragmatic observations.

If all were illiterate, why would there have been LETTERS WRITTEN to the Churches? Much of their received Word came via written letters, even in the Revelations.

The Ethiopian on the road, was READING Isaiah. An Angel of the Lord sent Peter to expand and answer the question which the Ethiopian had in his heart as a direct result of READING the scriptures.

This is how I understand revelation today. When I have a question in my heart, I live with full expectation that the Paraclete will provide a way for an understanding. God will facilitate the answers in His own timing and in whatever method He chooses.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

And welcome! Very nice having you join our conversation here. As you can see, your objections to Parker's false ideas will most likely fall on deaf ears in his case, but I agree with you...mass illiteracy in those days is more of an assumption than a verifiable reality. I believe, with you, that the reading of Scripture was more wide-spread and not limited exclusively to the rich and the spiritual leaders.

I believe it was Philip that ministered to the eunuch, but your point is valid nonetheless.

Again, welcome! May your spiritual quest and adventure find fresh interest and insight here.

JM

Sapai's picture

Agreed. In fact, the RCC probably did more to contribute to illiteracy than any other kingdom in the history of the world.
Fifteen hundred years... hard to beat.

Sapai's picture

Reminds me of this church sign:
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/we_arent_going_to_kiss_and_ma...
(the site was found via google, no affiliation)

So, when YAHWEH said, "Come let us reason together"... he was attempting to defeat faith?
:sarcasm:

Hi! New here.
What a relief to be among fellows who aren't all 'en-Raptured' (the most damaging teaching of all history including the present time).

SuperSoulFighter's picture

Again, we are definitely in agreement on this. Cloud and his ilk capitalize on the gullibility and ignorance of the "flock". Sadly, that mentality is part of a well-established tradition among the leaders of "Churchianity" going all the way back to the origins of the RCC.

Islamaphobe's picture

This article dovetails nicely with the lengthy defense of the futurist approach to Daniel (and attack on preterism) by Thomas A. Howe, which I am currently reading with the intention of offering a review at this site. Our futurist opponents love to portray themselves as defenders of the integrity of the Bible against those who would destroy a Christianity based upon what the Bible actually says. The situation reminds me quite a bit of the circumstances that led to the Reformation, but our "fundamentalist" opponents lack the political and military resources that the Catholic Church was able to amass against the Reformers.

IMO many futurist authorities perceive that they are losing the struggle against their varioua perceived foes and have adopted a tone of desperation. Consequently, they withdraw from the world and try to insulate themselves and their loved ones from the evils they see everywhere, and they place their hopes for deliverance upon a great Second Coming that brings the rapture and all the rest. What a contrast to Paul and the other Apostles who sought to bring the message of God and the Bible to both the Jews and the Gentiles of their world!

The world at large is full of spiritual hunger, and the Emergent Church is striving to respond to its need. Its chances of success will be proportional to the degree to which it is able to instill and restore respect for the integrity of the Bible as the source of guidance for religious belief. I very much doubt that those in the Emergent movement who tend to hold rather liberal views on how the Bible should be interpreted are going to be able to fill the void. It is vital that preterists work as hard as they can to fill it.

John S. Evans

Virgil's picture

The world at large is full of spiritual hunger, and the Emergent Church is striving to respond to its need. Its chances of success will be proportional to the degree to which it is able to instill and restore respect for the integrity of the Bible as the source of guidance for religious belief. I very much doubt that those in the Emergent movement who tend to hold rather liberal views on how the Bible should be interpreted are going to be able to fill the void. It is vital that preterists work as hard as they can to fill it.

John, I don't believe anyone has said it better than you have in this paragraph. If the integrity and authority of the scripture is missing, the EC will not be a success, although I try not to think of it in terms of failure/success. EC is only another step in the right direction, and probably 5,000 years from now nobody will even know it existed.

Islamaphobe's picture

Thanks, I love to receive psychic income--almost as much as the taxable kind.

JSE

Writerx's picture

I don't really know anything about this latest Christian civil war, but in reading this article, my head had shook more than I thought physically possible. This is the thing I love about Christianity today: everyone seems to have all kinds of time to smear other factions of the faith and tell anyone who disagrees with them that they're hell-bound heretics, but rarely are able to articulate their own doctrine sensibly, much less demonstrate how it's having any impact on anyone except the hundred or so people sitting in their congregation (half of whom are just there because it's what they've always done and aren't about to change now).

These jokers are still whining about rock n' roll and rated R movies? To paraphrase Ed Wood, "These Baptists are driving me crazy!" Let's face it, my dispy friends, you lost both wars, and we're not talking a defeat resulting in the loss of the Gaza Strip; we're talking Hitler in the bunker, 1945, screaming as he's overrun by Russians (rock n' rolling Russians who watch Rated R movies). Before you make your ***** about worthwhile music and film, why not try actually producing some of quality yourself?

I know I sound like a cynic most of the time, but is it any wonder with crap like this that atheists stare blinkily at Christianity and shrug? There are things about the emergent church I have no use for, but the same can be said for every single lock-step dogma. The thing is, you get exhausted after awhile trying to hate everyone who disagrees with you.

-A.J.

Virgil's picture

AJ, the gag reflex you are experiencing is quite common among younger people when they encounter modern Christianity. All us emergent/postmodern folks are saying is: let's model Christ in life and in spirit and maybe we can offer the world a more real picture of what our faith is about. It doesn't all have to be about doctrine being right or wrong, or going to the right place after you die.

tom-g's picture

Virgil,

I am interested in how YOU emergent/post modern folks are modeling Christ whose kingdom is not of this world. Are you going out preaching the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel? Or are you preaching the kingdom of God is already here and his kingdom is the world therefore there is no longer any need to repent and believe the gospel that his kingdom is not of this world?

Tom

Sapai's picture

The Kingdom is not the "world".
Greek kovsmoß - an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

It isn't the governments OF the world.
Note, Christ didn't say his Kingdom was not of this TIME - nu'n - present time.

tom-g's picture

Sapai,

I do not understand your point. Are you saying with the use of the double negative, that produces a positive statement, that Christ said that his kingdom was a material kingdom of that present time?

Tom

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43