Ken Says: Watch Your Language
John on September 22, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Beloved, even though we will have differences may we be careful to honor our Lord in how we express those differences with fellow believers in our personal conversations with each other. Let us remember that it is written: “Let your speech be always with grace” (Colossians 3:16). Here is another very good reminder from A.W. Tozer on the grave importance for all of us who are in Christ to be in unity.
With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:2-3)
Well, it’s good to know that we have Ken on record as strongly against uncharitable speech. It does make one wonder though…
When Ken called Rob Bell a “tool of Satan” and a “viper” (even while saying he may or may not be a brother — which is it, man of discernment?), was he “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit?” He has at one point or another called almost everyone on this blog “spiritually blind.” Was that “lowliness and meekness?” Reading almost any post on his own blog, Apprising Ministries, one would be hard pressed to describe it as “seasoned with grace.”
Even some of Ken’s defenders (Tony R. and Henry F. come to mind), have suggested that we “look past” the “zeal” and focus on the real issues. Of course the verses Ken cited above don’t say anything about looking past the zeal, do they? Rather they seem to be saying “reign in the zeal.”
Ah, but that’s the gimmick isn’t it. Rick Warren and Rob Bell are not real believers. Most of the people at their churches are not real converts. Therefore there is no need to watch our words about them. So it’s not as if Ken has excused himself from doing what these verses say. Oh no, beloved. They simply don’t apply to his unique ministry. The sooner we all realize it, the sooner we can get it straight and make sure our comments to him are seasoned with grace.
Drifting back to earth, I’d say Ken is the last man in 10,000 to be offering this sort of advice. Long ago, I wrote that I had not accused Ken of hypocrisy (though I did accuse him of legalsim). At least with regard to this one post, I’m forced to revise my assesment. There is simply no other word for it.
Category: Religion & Faith |
Wow…
Where’s Scott’s Costco pallet when you need it?
September 22, 2006 @ 2:30 pmI for one have never said that Warren and Bell are unbelievers, if pressed I believe thay are. But I strongly believe they are retooling the message in a well meaning but significantly misguided attempt to be relevant to certain hearing groups. And if I have to narrow it down to one main teaching it is the diluting of the way we view the New Testament Scriptures which gives birth to many dangerous doctrines.
The teaching that a person can be saved AFTER he dies by a sovereign act of Almighty God based on that person’s nebulous monotheistic belief system is EXTREMELY dangerous and has many dangerous siblings. There are no orthodox teachers from church history that espoused that teaching, so, that is either a departure from the truth or it is an expansion of the truth(which is what they claim).
But you absolutely cannot come to that from the New Testament, period. Romans two? The Da Vinci code has a more coherant reasoning(satire). But your post is a rebuke of Ken but I would like you to espouse and defend that teaching that both Warren and Bell openly believe. And the “I’m not sure about it” is unconvincing and is not what they say, they are sure about being unsure.
But do you not think that a doctrine that has such ETERNAL implications ought to be searched for now, because if we cannot know that what can we know? If there suddenly has become an uncertainty about what Scripture teaches about that truth, let’s call for prayer, fasting, and worldwide conferences to once and for all decide on that truth. But no one seems overly moved by our uncertainty, as a matter of fact some wear it as an enlightened badge of Spirituality.
It is time to fully address these siamese questions.
How does a person become a follower of Jesus Christ?
Can a person go to heaven if he dies without becoming a follower of Jesus Christ(not by another name that the person knows doesn’t mean Him)?
I would love to deal with these questions and their implications without dealing with Warren, Bell, Silva, etc., and only dealing with me in the most favorable light.(again, satire)
September 22, 2006 @ 2:49 pmWhen I read Ingrid’s note over at Slice (re: comments posted by those not agreeing with Slice’s opinions), “I am frankly sick of some of the bickering and nastiness that is once again becoming a problem from readers… ” and then Ken’s , “Amen, Ingrid!!!” well, that just had hypocrisy written all over it.
September 22, 2006 @ 3:10 pmAs soon as Ken’s admonition was brought to my attention (thanks, Blondie), I left Ken a short comment. It said something like:
Oddly enough, my comment wasn’t accepted.
I wonder why. : – (
September 22, 2006 @ 3:22 pm[...] In the mean time, Ken’s hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed in the Christian blogosphere. I am all for church unity, and if Ken is stepping to the front of the line and not just he and his ‘beloved’ mendicants cover from which to cast bile-soaked stones at “false Christians” (i.e. anyone who disagrees with them), my skepticism is sadly out of line here. [...]
September 22, 2006 @ 3:40 pmHenry,
I’ve already gone over all this territory at Tony Rose’s site. In short, we don’t know. We know that Old Testament saints were saved apart from the name of Christ. Before going further, do you agree this is so? If not, why not? If so, can you explain how it happened?
September 22, 2006 @ 3:49 pmHenry,
According to his sermon posted this week, Rob Bell will be preaching on the subject of “Hell” this Sunday. It will be posted here on Monday evening or Tuesday morning.
In the mean time, if you follow that link, you will hear his preaching on the topic of Repentence (September 10) and its followup last Sunday.
September 22, 2006 @ 3:50 pmOK, the OT saints who truly believed in Jehovah(Yahweh) , the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were believers who died and were in Paradise until the cross and then believed on the Messiah, Yeshua, and were escorted to heaven. Post crucifixion, saints who die go directly to the presence of the Lord. Those who die in Christ.
Do you believe that any OT monotheists, not just Jews, were saved after death? But how the OT people were saved does not substantiate how people are saved now. Only the New Testament Scriptures are authoritative on that subject, as well as only the NT Scriptures explain how the OT saints were saved.
And all the implications of that “without Christ” theology is clearly dealt with in Romans 10, and if you still insist “we don’t know” then we don’t read the Scriptures the same. And that is something that Bell and I would agree about.
But let us be clear, when you say we don’t know, John, the emergent group and people like yourself are not saying that they are struggling with personal doubts. No, they are laying out a historical and reasonable argument to convince the entire body of Christ that logically and Scripturally – we cannot be sure about the certainty of the exclusivity of salvation which they, in fact, are now teaching inclusivity.
So you must already accept the fact that millions of committed Christians not only disagree with that view, but we consider it a departure from historical Christianity. And while refraining from personal attacks, we will Scripturally attack their ministries and accompanying teachings. And why do you think that we quote a lot from, as you put it, dead theologians? Because as the dead theologian Paul put it, “…the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine…”.
Humbly, I believe that time has come. Keep seeking Him Scott, John, Chris, and the rest. I pray that I have been used to speak words as apples of gold in pictures of silver. I am an unprofitable servant of the Lord Jesus.
September 22, 2006 @ 4:26 pmActs 17:30, 31 – And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth ALL men EVERYWHERE to REPENT: Because He hath appointed a day in which He will JUDGE THE WORLD in righteousness BY THAT MAN whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead.
September 22, 2006 @ 4:32 pmHenry,
First of all, please provide scripture to back up this statement:
That’s not how I read Romans 4 and Hebrews 11.
Almost certainly. Melchizidek for one.
No one — not me or anyone I have defended — is trying to lay siege to the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. To do so would be to accept universalism. Universalism, as I have already said here and elsewhere, is completely contrary to scripture. To accept universalism (BTW, as Origen did — one of the fathers of trinitarian doctrine) is to dismantle the faith.
Inclusivism, on the other hand, does not suggest that all roads lead to heaven. It only says that some (children, those ignorant of the Gospel) may be saved as were the Old Testament saints. Since we know that this exact thing has happened for thousands of years prior to Christ, it is clearly not against God’s character to act in this way. If you want to say that it doesn’t fine. But please don’t act like the suggestion is the end of Christianity.
And I am not saying it is certain or that all should believe it. I am saying it may be true based on what we do know of God’s actions in the past. Does this mean all are saved? No. Does it mean any are saved apart from Jesus? No. I hope even you would agree that threre are some (infants) who fail to meet your Romans 10 standard of belief and verbal confession and who yet avoid hell. But perhaps you don’t believe that.
September 22, 2006 @ 5:23 pmOne thing I DO know for sure is that All Dogs Go To Heaven. I saw it in a movie once, so it must be true. “)
September 22, 2006 @ 9:00 pmJohn – read Hebrews 7 and tell me if you still believe Melchisedec was a common man.
If you noticed my quote from Acts you will see that God has dealt with man in different ways. Adam was saved by coats of skin. Noah was saved by grace without the name Jehovah. The thief on the cross just by his generic confession.
But today God’s redemtive plan has completely unfolded in the Lord Jesus Christ and by Jesus’ own commission to tell the world it is clear that no one today can be saved by coats of skin, or building an ark, or by saying remember me, or by praying to Allah, no, today there is only one name under heaven given among men whereby we MUST be saved.
This is supremely non-negotiable and a reading of the church epistles in one sitting will unmistakeably underscore that truth.
One last point, John. If you take your church theology from the gospels you will find salvation by works. Jesus in the gospels was speaking to the Jews and His mission was the cross and to prove He was a worthy Lamb, the Son of God. But Jesus Himself called the Pharisee Paul as the Apostle and revelator to the Gentile church. Blurring those lines of rightly dividing the Word causes confusion and error. Justification by faith is almost exclusively found in Paul’s epistles and was revealed to Paul by Jesus Himself (Gal.1:12).
If you read the first 16 chapters of Acts in one sitting you will see that Paul had to correct the Jewish believers(Peter, James, etc.) about works and the law. Look at Acts 2:38 – you will see what Peter said on Pentecost as an invitation. He never mentions “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” no, he says be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. That is wrong, but in the embrionic church God the Holy Spirit used that flawed statement to save thousands. Later Paul had to correct them about having to be circumsized to be saved.
My point is that today the epistles to the church are complete and God’s final plan is now in place. Remember, there were two times in history when the entire world was saved, Adam and Eve, and Noah and his family. So who’s fault is it that some have not heard? Not God’s. Ours.
September 23, 2006 @ 6:56 amHenry,
“Repent and be baptized” is part of the Word of God. It is not a flawed statement.
Acts 2:38 says “Repent and be baptized.” The people who did this already obviously believed. They had heard the message and they were”cut to the heart.”
NT believers did not seperate baptism from repentance and belief. They simply obeyed what God told them regarding baptism without analyzing it. They did not see it as a “work” but as obedience to Christ.
Somehow, since then, in the traditions of men, baptism has become separated, so that it either becomes “the thing that saves one” or “merely a symbol,” sometimes with the implication that we can ignore it if we choose to do so, or that we can turn it into some kind of “dedication service.”
September 23, 2006 @ 8:08 amHenry,
Several points:
1) Melchizedek was not a common man. Abraham deferred to him. He is called a priest of God. Yet he lived at a time before the law existed (as did Abraham). Clearly, in the past at least, the written code was not necessary for salvation. We can assume that Melchizidek the priest also had followers, though they aren’t mentioned.
2) You did not respond to my rather pointed question about infants and hell. Are those who die before being able to speak saved and held unaccountable for sin today or not? If so, please note that this doctrine is largely based on an Old Testament verse. We assume that what God did in the past, he does still today with regard to infants.
3) I asked you to back up your claim that those dead in faith (Hebrews 6) later believed on Jesus and were saved. You did not support this claim. why not?
3) You seem to be misreading Hebrews 6 and Romans 4 rather significantly.
Noah was not saved for eternity by building an Ark. He was saved by faith, exactly as we are today. Building the Ark was a work based on faith, but as with our own works it had no eternal salvific power. Noah was saved by faith.
Similarly, those who marched around Jericho were also saved, not by marching, but by faith. None of them knew the name of Christ, but God justified their faith in response to what they did know. They were saved by faith.
The thief on the cross was saved by faith. He did not know of the resurrection, but he threw himself upon Jesus. That was enough. I believe you are taking liberties with scripture to suggest that his example no longer holds for us, because exactly like us he was saved by faith.
I could go on. But it is clear that no one is saved except by faith in God. In the past, God has clearly accepted this faith as saving though the people who held it did not know the name of Jesus.
4) If God did it then, it is not against his nature. Therefore it is not non-negotiable as you suggest. It is within the realm of God’s Biblical behavior. We can argue the merits, but don’t try to sidline it as out of bounds. It is something God has done.
5) In Romans 1, Paul says that general revelation leaves all men “without excuse.” To be without excuse, one must have had a genuine opportunity to respond appropriately. If general revelation has no ability to lead men to salvation, then men are NOT “without excuse.” In fact, they would have a very good excuse, i.e. God gave them no opportunity to respond. Paul says they did have such an opportunity through general revelation. Therefore general revelation has the potential to save.
6) Paul makes it clear that the response to general revelation was no better than Israel’s response to special revelation. Most reject it. Therefore, inclusivism is no excuse for laziness in evangelism. The good news is by far the best hope for people to repent and believe, but based on Romans 1, it is not the only hope.
7) As far as the law, it was not only for Israel but for the whole world. God always intended the Israelites to spread his message around the world, just as Jesus ordered his followers to do in the great commission. See God’s promise in Genesis 12:3. God never changed his intent, which was to make himself know to the whole world.
September 23, 2006 @ 10:20 am1. Many scolars believe Melchisidec was a Christophony, not a man.
2. The New Testament does not give any teaching on infants. Period. So all such beliefs are conjecture.
3. Although it is a mystery, I Pet.3:19 and I Pet.4:6 give us some light.
4. Everyone is saved by grace through faith. I never meant to imply differently only to show that the level of Messianic knowledge was “winked at” in former times.
5. God’s nature remains the same, His methods sometimes change. Heb.1:1
6. The Romans one “without excuse” is meant to judicially place everyone as guilty, not to allow the Scriptural extrusions that you suggest.
7. You say the good news is the best hope, not the only hope, that John is apostacy.
8. Your Gen12:3 rendering is incredibly expansive, sacrificing the context.
Gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to converse but I will not waste my or your time anymore. I believe you are concrete in your new beliefs. Keep seeking Him, and may the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!
September 23, 2006 @ 10:45 amHenry,
1) Talk about “expansive” readings.
2) The new testament does not, but the old does. That should count for something. The age of accountability is a Biblical concept which was not abandoned at the cross. We are not without teaching in this area. Do you deny it?
3) Martin Luther is said to have believed 1Peter 3:19 was the most difficult verse in the New Testament. It most likely refers to disobedient angels, not to Old Testament saints. See second Peter 2:4 as a possible parallel.
4) You are twisting Acts 17 out of context. Paul says God is overlooking ignorance related to the worshipping of idols. This is very clearly the ignorance he is referring to in this passage. You are twisting it to fit your interpretation.
5) His methods do change, but are you suggesting that after Christ Romans 1:19-20 no longer applies? Are men no longer “without excuse?” Jesus fulfilled the law and thus did away with the shadow of Old Testament sacrifice. However, general revelation through creation still stands. Do you disagree? On what basis?
6) Yes, but you seem not to understand how law works. One can not be held guilty unless there was some sign that warned you not to trespass. This is Paul’s whole point. Men are without excuse because they should have seen the truth from what was made. Creation testified to the truth, therefore no one can claim ignorance. This is no “extrusion” it is how God revealed himself to all men through creation.
7) Men are still without excuse. Therefore they all have been given a chance to respond through general revelation whether they hear the Gospel or not. This is not salvation apart from Christ and is therefore not apostasy. I have repeatedly said that this is not something we can say definitively. I do believe that it is not something we can definitively rule out, as you wish to say.
8) Acts 3:25-26 specifically says that Jesus was the fulfillment of Gen. 12:3. Is that too expansive for you? Take it up with Luke.
Galatians 3:6-9 specifically says that Gen. 12:3 was God’s promise to all who are saved by faith (that includes all of us). Is that too expansive a reading for you? Take it up with Paul.
It seems both you and Ken have plenty of time to denigrate other believers (spiritual pedophiles was your term), but time is always short when someone challenges you. Why is that?
September 23, 2006 @ 12:14 pmSorry, but I got here late on this one, and I’m a little bit confused on where we started and where we’re going. I see things I agree with in both sides of the discussion here, and some things I don’t. How they’re connected, I’m not sure, but let’s try this, anyway.
1) Melchizedek, from my understanding, has been understood primarily in two different ways:
a)one, as Christ, himself, pre-incarnate (or in symbol) to his first century ministry.
b)two, as symbol from a d’rash by Paul in Hebrews, showing that his line is not broken by death (as was Aaron’s) but has everlasting life, and that Aaron’s priesthood came after him, and because Melchizedek was “greater” than Abraham, he was, therefore, greater than Aaron.
In either case, I think that using Melchizedek as a proof in this discussion probably does not work.
2) Jesus, as a first century Jew, understood the practice of “age of accountability”, and most likely was using this in his “little children” sayings, as well. There is no record of him refuting this teaching (which would have been a big deal).
In both his and Paul’s teaching “belief” (an action) is a requirement of His followers. In that culture, all responsibilities of children are deferred to their parents until the age of accountability. So, if children were to now be held accountable for their actions (belief, repentence, etc.), that would have been a major change to the religious system and I cannot believe the teachings of Jesus’ disciples handed down to us would have neglected such an important thing, were it different from the norm.
Yes, Henry, the Bible does not say that children are not accountable from the time of their birth. However, it is reasonable to infer that the Bible would have to teach that children ARE accountable from the time of their birth, rather than expect it to prove the negative – which would be different from the cultural norm.
3) God is independent from time, and we only experience it in one direction, so it is almost certain that we don’t and can’t understand exactly how it was, that those who came before Christ were saved.
However, it is also appropriate to say that, prior to Christ, faith in YHWH was required, and that the evidence of that faith was proof that the faith existed.
As James tells us, faith without works is dead. Henry, if you understand the gospels, which are further expounded upon by Paul, James and a few others – if you understand them in their context – you will NOT come away with the impression that one is saved by works. That is not was Christ taught. What He taught, and what most Jews understood from their first school lesson, was that if you have faith you will be compelled to act in a way that proves your faith exists. It is not through the “works” that you are saved. It is through the “works” that you show to others the evidence of your salvation, but it is only through faith in fully accepting Jesus’ grace that you are saved.
The answer to the question of the thief on the cross may likely lie in the Jewish belief about capital punishment. When one was sentenced to die under Jewish law, he/she was taken to the top of a cliff at least 18 feet high. Two+ witnesses of his crime would push him off the cliff and those who thought he was guilty would each be able to drop/throw one stone on him. Before he was pushed off, the guilty party could confess his guilt and repent of his crime, and – according to the teaching – he would be saved (but he was still stoned). If he did NOT confess his crime and repent, he would not be saved. So, when the thief confessed his guilt to Christ, Jesus’ reply was perfectly in line with this teaching.
4) Via the “unfolding of truth” (the Jewish belief that God’s truth unfolds over time, rather then being absolute and static), it would be undrestood by Jewish listeners that those who came at an earlier time would only be held to the “standard of truth” at the time in which they were living, and such would be “credited to them as righteousness”. Because God’s Truth, God’s Salvation (in Hebrew, Yeshua) has been revealed to us in full, and so we are held to the full level of accountability (Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father).
With that said, it is truly wishful thinking on our part that the “unreached islander” can be saved apart from knowing Christ. True, with God all things are possible. However, to our understanding, these “unreached islanders” are our responsibility to reach – via a direct commandment from our Rabbi, Yeshua.
As an aside, the “unreached islander” question, itself, is a loser. It is most often asked by someone trying to avoid a larger question (much the same way the Samaritan woman changed the subject with Jesus when the questions got too close to home), and for someone to ask it about themself is too late, because to ask it you already have to know the message. When I am asked this question, I give a simple, Biblical answer (see here), without granting “judgement” (i.e. that person will/won’t go to hell), since that is God’s and God’s alone to decide, and then get back to the topic at hand.
5 & 6) “General revelation through creation” may or may not still stand. Paul’s words seem to be in past tense and are in line with the “unfolding of truth”, but it is unclear from the text if that past tense ended when Paul spoke to his audience about Christ, or if it ended upon His resurrection, or somewhere in between. Why does it really matter? In light of the Great Commission, our course of action is clear, and we must assume that everyone is to hear the gospel of Christ. It is not up to us to judge is a man is ‘saved’, it is up to us to spread the Word and to act in a manner that demonstrates our love for God and our neighbor.
7-8) It was the teaching of the hasidim (particularly the pharisees) that the Torah was to be spread to the ends of the earth, and it was through their missionaries in the 1st and 2nd century B.C. that many of the God-fearing communities existed for Paul to reach in the first century AD. Jesus came from the tradition of the hasidim, and gave even more expansive instructions to his disciples. This is reaffirmed in Galatians 3:6-9, and does fulfil Genesis 12:3, quoting it directly.
Everyone – I’m really failing to see how this discussion of an “unreached islander” has created such a wedge here.
John & Scott, while it has seemed clear to me from your argument, perhaps you should explicitly say that the only way we know of that anyone can be saved TODAY is through Christ, and that any other answer (“revealed through creation”, etc.) is only conjecture, but is ultimately up to God whether the “unreached islander” is saved or not. Also, as followers of Christ, the only valid action we’ve been given in this matter is in the Great Commission. (You might also define ‘unreached islander’ as not being a devout muslim/hindu/buddhist/etc. who has heard a “twisted” message about Christ.)
Henry, please stop trying to split hairs and make these gentlemen “apostates” because they leave open a possibility that – if God so desires it, and based upon His past action – He may decide to save the “unreached islander” based upon the same reasoning He had in the past – or something totally new we don’t understand. They are not making a ‘new teaching’, but basing a belief they hold upon God’s demonstrated actions and some admittedly difficult sections of scripture.
EVERYONE – can we please agree that this particular line of discussion is no longer all that helpful, as we can’t really know the answer of God’s final judgement AND we only have one valid response (the Great Commission)?
Henry – I don’t understand why you have been so quick to “shake the dust from your sandals” here. I’ve had several questions/responses to you that you’ve not responded to, and I didn’t think we disagreed on anything “essential”… It seems to me that Ken’s post yesterday – whether an act of abject hypocrisy or repentence on his part – is important, and that we seek unity…
September 23, 2006 @ 5:46 pmChris,
I have said repeatedly that as for TODAY this can not be established as certain doctrine. Nor can the age of accountability. Nevertheless I think there is some reason to believe it likely. As you say, it does not detract from our responsibility to follow the great commission. It is not an excuse for doing nothing.
The witness of creation decidedly did not end with Jesus, nor could it without God re-creating the world to hide his glory and power. As I said to Henry, if general revelation is not in effect, then men are no longer “without excuse.” This makes no sense to me. If we expect God to hold everyone accountable, including that lost islander, the general revelation has to be in effect.
Henry has repeatedly tried to turn the topic of discussion to those he deems “truly important.” He has no interest in politics or science and dismisses anyone who feels differently as part of a conspiracy. He recently said this on Slice:
I don’t know that Henry was talking about me, but as someone who is studying science as part of a Masters program and who has written about these topics, I certianly think his “naive sheep” was intended to apply to me.
Star-hugging? John Denver? Frankly, Henry has no idea what he’s talking about. Like Ken, to whom he wrote this, he seems to value his own ignorance as if it were some sort of virtue. Sorry, but I don’t see it that way.
September 23, 2006 @ 7:40 pmChris,
I don’t know about your dog, but Buddy is definitely going to heaven ’cause he is without sin, even if he has reached the age of accountability (He’s about 14). “)
All (myself included),
One more time…
September 23, 2006 @ 9:07 pmHave nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. ~2 Timothy 2:23-25
Wow, Tim – that is the exact verse I was getting ready to look up when I got back here (I’ve been out picking up my younger son from band competition)…
I think that was the point I was trying to get to. The whole question Henry is trying to force as an issue of brotherhood is so foolish because the answer is immaterial to the action required on our behalf.
September 23, 2006 @ 9:12 pmI can’t help but post this over here – Brendt added this comment to my article on Ken’s chutzpah:
http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=42#comment-92
I couldn’t have summed it up any better. Thanks Brendt!
September 23, 2006 @ 9:17 pmJohn,
I suspect Henry’s also talking about me there, as well. Or, he’s talking about Bell’s EIS lecture. Or both…
I like how Suzanne summed it up on the big thread:
It’s funny – at one end of the spectrum, I’ve got Ken accusing me of stupidity because I couldn’t understand his use of scripture (because I’ve never seen someone prooftext Jesus’ authority upon themselves like Ken loves to do), and at the other end, I’ve got Henry spouting that idiotarianism is the way to go, and I’m saying that Christ’s followers need degrees in astrophysics…
I’m also struck by the irony of Ken out on the street corner begging for money, when maybe God is trying to send him a message to cease and desist and find a different “ministry”… I wonder if he’s thought of that…
September 24, 2006 @ 5:11 amChris and John,
I came across this and thought you might find it interesting: http://www.sharperiron.org/2006/09/19/shall-we-reason-together-part-one-the-challenge-of-alogicality/#more-700
September 24, 2006 @ 1:49 pmamy,
Excellent article! Thank you…
September 24, 2006 @ 4:15 pmChris, because you made a comment on my site and for some reason I cannot get logged in on yours let me reply. I purposely did not name John and no one would have surmised it was him until your comment. If I misrepresented what his position is I apologize, that was not my intention. You failed to mention that I described him as a sincere Christian who desired to know the truth.
Additionally I reproved all of us at the end not to get personal and not to neglect our personal relationship with Christ and to remain broken and humble. I did not desire to continue an endless discussion about issues that I believe are intransigent. In any future posts of mine I will address the issues without referencing any of you guys either openly or by innuendo.
And since you bundled several people groups together let me address this one thing. I can agree that retarded people and babies are not dealt with in Scripture and one might surmise that they are covered, but it is still conjecture. That is not at odds with Scripture.
But the “adult islander” is dealt openly in Romans 10 and many other places. They are not covered and need to be reached. Shame on us, but that doesn’t change the truth.
September 25, 2006 @ 6:48 amHenry,
Thank you for the clarification – I just thought it seemed that you were painting the situation differently than it was.
Do you need me to reset your account/password on my site?
Grace & peace,
Chris
September 25, 2006 @ 6:52 amYes, tell me how at my e-mail on my site.
September 25, 2006 @ 7:25 amHenry,
Had you said what you said in #25, that would have been different. Instead you called me an apostate here and a naive sheep on Slice.
Do you really expect us to believe that your paragraph about science, which I quoted above, was not about Rob Bell’s tour? Both Chris and I attended that lecture and wrote about it favorably. So how does this paragraph not apply to us? Just to be clear, why don’t you just explain who you did have in mind with those comments. Who are the “well organized intellectuals” who write about “quantum physics” and who are the “naive sheep” who take up for them? Show me a list of names and how I don’t fit in to that list. Or be honest and admit it was directed at us.
September 25, 2006 @ 9:21 amI called that position apostacy, not you. Chris said you didn’t espouse that so you are not one. Listen John, great peace have they that love thy law and nothing shall offend them. Take a deep breath and relax, by attacking me we both get off the issue.
For your own peace of mind I was referring to Bell and MacLaren when I referred to “well organized intellectuals”(hardly a personal attack) because you only qualify as organized (before you get mad that was a joke). Also the “star huggers”(a humorous attack – Ha?) was aimed at Bell’s presentation minus the gospel, but I did not know you either attended or wrote about it. (unless you wrote about it on slice, I’m 54 and I forgot) By the way I am an amateur astronomer so I am not against using my intellect as you guys have suggested.
OK, naive sheep included you, Scott, and Chris. There, I admitted it. But if you read my latest post I called you a sincere Christian who was seeking the truth, so we’re even. Paper covers rock! So I do not want to leave with bad feelings, but when I feel so strongly about certain issues then I am in a position that sometimes will be aggressive. I want to allow the Holy Spirit to keep me humble throughout because its God’s Word anyway.
By the way, John, I’m a little hurt that you didn’t mention the “president of Mensa” referrence on my slice comment. I thought that was an especially nice touch that you have snubbed!
September 25, 2006 @ 11:43 amHenry,
My mistake. The fact that I was studying Science and Religion has been noted in one of these threads. That info is also on our “About” page. I have also pasted a link to one of my posts about a Christian view of cosmology (Amy brought it up at one point) in these threads. Finally, I’m certain I posted a link to my review of Rob Bell’s “Everything is Spiritual” tour, which did mention quantum physics and string theory into a thread. Again, my apologies if you had missed all that. I wrongly assumed you were directing that at me based on all the above.
In any case, it wasn’t too hard to figure out you were talking about Rob Bell and that would make us the sheep. I do appreciate your clarification very much. As you may have noticed, Scott, Chris and I have been accused of many things during this discussion. In fact, early on you accused us of being spiritual pirates who were “raping and pillaging!” I think the tone of some of that has left me feeling a bit sensitive to further attacks.
I used to be something of an amateur astronomer myself. In fact, I took all the money I earned from my first job and bought astronomy books. There was a time when I could name about 30 constellations and knew the names of most of the brightest stars in our hemisphere and several dozen of the Messier objects. Some of those details have faded, but my respect for anyone who loves astronomy has not. Do you have a scope? I’ve wanted to own one for years but sadly there is too much light pollution in town to make it worthwhile.
Thanks again for clarifying and my apologies for over-reacting.
September 25, 2006 @ 2:21 pmhttp://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/07/spiritual-astronomy.html
I was an amateur astronomer before I was saved, and it was the incomprendible magnificense of the universe that convinced me of a Creator who I later embraced as Jesus.
I currently have a small tasco but I used to have a larger one years ago. I do have a presentation about the universe that I use to bring people beyond themselves and then present Jesus as the Creator and Redeemer. I have sent you one post months ago you might find interesting.
September 26, 2006 @ 8:15 amHenry,
That’s a great post. I’m completely sympathetic to every word of it.
This is why I found your earlier statement about quantum physics and string theory puzzling. I think these issues present the very same witness, pointing us toward a benificent creator.
I gather you were being humorous in your earlier comments, but are you sure Ken got the joke? The type of argument you made in that post is identical to the kind Rob Bell presented in the Everything is Spiritual Tour. And we know what Ken thinks of Rob Bell.
September 26, 2006 @ 9:52 amBalance, Balance, Balance…
Dan Kimball at Vintage Faith has an excellent post this week, which in some ways dove-tails with my recent post on the emergent church and balance. He says:
October 13, 2006 @ 12:45 pmBut my growing theory of most churches is that when churches become so inwardly focused, we c…
[...] Source: Verum Serum [...]
December 23, 2006 @ 7:35 am[...] this type of behavior “leading with your glass chin”. Perhaps this is a lesson that could have been taken into account before choosing “research” as part of the title of your “ministry” (as [...]
April 10, 2007 @ 8:46 am