MacArthur says emerging church dangers go far beyond 'style issues'

[Harley]

One final thought then I'll rest a bit - if we want to talk "Emergent" and McClaren and Paggitt, and their like - I'll join the "amen chorus" on denouncing their beliefs and what effect they will probably have on the church. But as long as posters continue to ignore the differences and use generic terms that are basically meaningless (if not deceptive) in their broadness... I'll continue to beat the drum a fairness and accuracy.

[Rondaben]

Thank you for the resources on emerging vs. emergent. i'll try to use those terms more appropriately in our discussions. We seem to meet a lot in threads :)

I agree with your point that there are two states. But I do not think that our fallen nature erases or counterfeits our dignity and value. The logical conclusion of this position is that only believers have dignity and value as humans and I don;t think that is what the Bible teaches. All humans, based on being created in the image of God, have value and dignity.

I just wanted to make one last point of clarity on this and then I too will take a rest. When I talk about value and dignity, I am doing it from the perspective of God to a fallen man, not in how we see one another. God, I believe, sees fallen man as a broken vessel that is not worthy or physically able to perform any beneficial service for him and therefore is inherently worthless. Once saved, God uses these broken vessels and repairs the "holes" caused by sin so that we are able to bear the Holy Spirit within us. We as men should see others as equals--not less or more worthy than we are. We are all fallen and salvation and restoration is not done by us, but by the grace of Jesus.

Thanks!

[Harley]

Thank you for the resources on emerging vs. emergent. i'll try to use those terms more appropriately in our discussions. We seem to meet a lot in threads :)



I just wanted to make one last point of clarity on this and then I too will take a rest. When I talk about value and dignity, I am doing it from the perspective of God to a fallen man, not in how we see one another. God, I believe, sees fallen man as a broken vessel that is not worthy or physically able to perform any beneficial service for him and therefore is inherently worthless. Once saved, God uses these broken vessels and repairs the "holes" caused by sin so that we are able to bear the Holy Spirit within us. We as men should see others as equals--not less or more worthy than we are. We are all fallen and salvation and restoration is not done by us, but by the grace of Jesus.

Thanks!

From this perspective I'd say we have even more in common then... thanks for the clarification.

[Sing4Him]

Emergent's statement of faith on salvation?

please post:

Emerging's statement of faith on salvation?

You have not answered my questions AGAIN and then you point fingers at the person asking them.


:rolleyes.. ..'beat'in a dead horse.

[kenod]

From my reading, I gather that the 'emerging church' is a reaction to the intellectual hermeneutics of traditional Christians - "I'm right because I believe the Bible and the Bible says this ..." with endless debates about who is right. So why not just take the Bible, dispense with the doctrinal disputes, and allow it to be a guide to the way one lives his/her life: Jesus' death is not about atonement, it is more about integrity and sacrifice; sin is no longer specific acts that are wrong, it is anything that does not show love and respect for fellow beings; the Bible is not a book of absolute truth, it is a guide book of suggestions.

I don't agree with that approach, but one can hardly blame them. We have made salvation dependent upon a specific understanding of Scripture, rather than a work of personal regeneration. If one does not line up exactly with our definition of "born again" then you ain't baby! Sometimes we use our doctrinal stance as an excuse to accuse and bludgeon all who disagree. No wonder many in the 'emerging church' chose to adopt "by their fruits you shall know them", rather than "by their theology".

I believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word, and is absolute truth, but my own personal understanding is not infallible ... nor is yours!

[Christy]

Sin isn't a failing to live by God's standards, it is a rebellion against the will and directives of God

Very true. The Bible defines sin as follows:

Kakos, bad - Romans 13:3
poneros, evil - Matthew 5:45
asebes, godless - Romans 1:18
enochos, guilt - Matthew 5:21
hamartia, sin - 1 Corinthians 6:18
adikia, unrighteousness - 1 Corinthians 6:9
anomos, lawlessness - 1 Timothy 2:9
parabates, transgression - Romans 5:14
agnoein, to be ignorant - Romans 1:13
planan, to go astray - 1 Corinthians 6:9
paraptomai, to fall away - Galatians 6:1
hupocrites, hypocrite - 1Timothy 4:2

From the above we can see man's responsibility in this regard is rather clear-cut.

[Buzzardhut]

From my reading, I gather that the 'emerging church' is a reaction to the intellectual hermeneutics of traditional Christians - "I'm right because I believe the Bible and the Bible says this ..." with endless debates about who is right. So why not just take the Bible, dispense with the doctrinal disputes, and allow it to be a guide to the way one lives his/her life: Jesus' death is not about atonement, it is more about integrity and sacrifice;

Jesus' sacrifice was all about atonement

sin is no longer specific acts that are wrong, it is anything that does not show love and respect for fellow beings;
Sin is missing God's standard of righteousness, and rebellion against a three times Holy God.


the Bible is not a book of absolute truth, it is a guide book of suggestions.

The Truth of scripture delivers inside information, the way out of sin, and the way to heaven.

I don't agree with that approach, but one can hardly blame them. We have made salvation dependent upon a specific understanding of Scripture, rather than a work of personal regeneration. If one does not line up exactly with our definition of "born again" then you ain't baby! Sometimes we use our doctrinal stance as an excuse to accuse and bludgeon all who disagree. No wonder many in the 'emerging church' chose to adopt "by their fruits you shall know them", rather than "by their theology".

I believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word, and is absolute truth, but my own personal understanding is not infallible ... nor is yours!
Scripture points to our full dependence upon Jesus and His sacrifice for us on the cross.
This is more than doctrine but the difference between eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell.

Anyone can play a good works game, especially the religious, but Jesus separates the sheep from the goats and tares in the end.

[JoelH]

From my reading, I gather that the 'emerging church' is a reaction to the intellectual hermeneutics of traditional Christians - "I'm right because I believe the Bible and the Bible says this ..." with endless debates about who is right. So why not just take the Bible, dispense with the doctrinal disputes, and allow it to be a guide to the way one lives his/her life: Jesus' death is not about atonement, it is more about integrity and sacrifice; sin is no longer specific acts that are wrong, it is anything that does not show love and respect for fellow beings; the Bible is not a book of absolute truth, it is a guide book of suggestions.

I don't agree with that approach, but one can hardly blame them. We have made salvation dependent upon a specific understanding of Scripture, rather than a work of personal regeneration. If one does not line up exactly with our definition of "born again" then you ain't baby! Sometimes we use our doctrinal stance as an excuse to accuse and bludgeon all who disagree. No wonder many in the 'emerging church' chose to adopt "by their fruits you shall know them", rather than "by their theology".

I believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word, and is absolute truth, but my own personal understanding is not infallible ... nor is yours!

A friendly prodding: in the context of Matthews, what Jesus meant in "by their fruits" He meant "by their teachings" rather than "by their physical works/accomplishments" as is so commonly believed, so yes, Jesus told us to watch over Bible teachers' theologies. :heh

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1998/98may1.html

I'm afraid the approach you have just suggested smacks of extestinentialism. Theology is extremely important because it requires a correct understanding - belief something does not make it right - if we believe in the wrong Jesus then we are by definition not saved.

Our Reformed/Calvinist friends got it all wrong on Israel and eschatology and the atonement system, but the way they approach the belief is worth our attention. Let me quote from a fellow member on this board Save_by_Grace_06 from an older thread:

http://www.rr-bb.com/showpost.php?p=69845&postcount=24

A system of theology entials your presupposition about scripture and what you believe about it. ... I know today most people say "I dont like labels" and things like that, but up until about the 1900, this wasnt the case. For a Christian to be labeled by a particular system of theology actually served as a good things when men contended for the truth and hersey was at a high. Christian systems, e.g., Arminism, Calvinism, and Semi-Pelegainism (orthodox Arminianism), served as means to differentiate between the many cults who also claimed to the unsaved world that they too were Christian. Theology, though seemingly a "taboo" subject today by many, is really a good thing and will serve as a means of knowing God more and understanding the Bible better. I should say here, however, that many unsaved people study theology for the fun of it and as a result store up a great wrath. Studying theology as an end of itself is not the goal. Rather, the goal is to use it as a means to knowing God more and understanding his word better. Personally, I believe the Calvinistic view is best, but the other two are so much better than what you hear in most churches today and what you see on "Christian" television. Most people's theology today is based on "TBN ish" teachings and that seems find with many. Thats a sad case.

YBIC,

Joel

[kenod]

Jesus' sacrifice was all about atonement

Sin is missing God's standard of righteousness, and rebellion against a three times Holy God.


The Truth of scripture delivers inside information, the way out of sin, and the way to heaven.

Scripture points to our full dependence upon Jesus and His sacrifice for us on the cross.
This is more than doctrine but the difference between eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell.

Anyone can play a good works game, especially the religious, but Jesus separates the sheep from the goats and tares in the end.

You do know I agree with you ... right?

The point I was trying to make (and this is based on experience within my own family) is that all the disputes among the theologies of different Christian churches, has led to a move to eliminate doctrine and replace it with "love".

[Sing4Him]

Kenod.. that is EXACTLY what Emergent/ Experiential, PDL churches are about.

Love, love, Going into the world, culture WITHOUT the gospel message--as Buzz stated above.

That is why we are adament on here to show it is the TRUTH of the gospel message that is pertinent otherwise people ARE condemned to hell without forgiveness of sins and receving Jesus as their Savior.

Hell is a topic people don't want to hear about.. so many preachers just shove this under then table.. NOT good.