The Emerging/Emergent Church

[grape on the vine]

No, I'm not hearing what I want to hear.

I read his book, Velvet Elvis, which is what he spends an entire chapter claiming.

As to why Bell encourages people to "follow Jesus," and why does it matter if he really teaches that Christ died to save us, whether we affirm it or not, is exactly what HE SAYS in HIS OWN BOOK. Ask him, not me, why his stuff his hopelessly contradictory, at least to those who ponder it carefully!
Um... Christ did die to save us whether we acknowledge it or not. He died to save the whole world. Salvation hinges on accepting that gift. It's there for everyone regardless of affirmation. Does that make more sense?


Furthermore, his entire book and everything else is hopelessly vague nice sounding syrup that never really says what salvation really is, other than comments about salvation being the culmination of the Creator unifying itself with it's creation, and hopelessly vauge flowery type of concepts that can mean or not mean just about anything.

Doctine, is bad, what matters is "THE TRUTH?" Are you kidding? Since they don't seem able to even begin to discus what "the Truth" is, other than in the vaguest possible terms, what good is an assertion like that?
I thought you could see it for what it was really saying if you pondered it carefully.

Show me from Bell, Mclaren or others how "The truth" means anything even remotely specific, other than the usual Jesus being a good example, teaches us a "better way" stuff that sounds nice, but can also verify Buddha as a "Christ follower," (McCLaren) as much as you or I or anyone else.
I can't speak to McClaren as I'm not familiar with his work.

As for Bell, I've already shown you this before, but since you asked:

It has been a gradual realization that at the center of the Christian church for thousands of years has been this risen Christ who invites people to trust him; trust him with life, trust him with death, trust him with sin, trust him with future, trust him with hope, trust him with everyday.
If you are desperate to meet this risen Christ, you meet him in a way that destroys and previous categories you had. I keep finding that this Christ, whatever things I’ve built, destroys them and shows himself to be bigger and wider and deeper and more loving.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/172/story_17290_2.html

TRUTH!

[Harley]

Well, now, I don't know if I would call changing the presentation of the Gospel a heresy.

Changing the substance of the Gospel would be wrong, but the format in which it is presented? No, I can't agree with that. Paul said he became all things to all people so that he could preach the Gospel to them all. Paul quoted Greek philosophers in order to present the Gospel to the Greeks. He recognized that the Gospel could be presented in a language his hearers would understand. He didn't change the essentials of the Gospel - he changed the presentation.

Anyway, we don't "do" church the way they did in the first century - that's a historical fact. So, how can we say that the way we do it now is the only acceptable way?

The problem I see is not that the Emergents are changing so much... but that the Church has already changed to keep up with the times. We've already been influenced by the world around us. We've already adapted our message to be more palatable to the World. And, imo, the Catholic church is the biggest cause of this adaptation - you should check out their methods of gaining converts, especially those that they used in South America.

As far as being afraid of post-modernism in the church... The only reason, imo, that it is so feared is because the church has already embraced the world's "modernism". Modernism is equally as worldly as post-modernism. At least post-modernism allows for spiritual experiences and doesn't dismiss them as superstition. This is at least a bit closer to the culture of the early church that we read about in the NT.

IMO, the church should pay heed to the Emergents in some things. Neither reject it out of hand, nor accept it out of hand. But the Emergent movement is raising a lot of questions that each Christian should be asking. Mostly: what about the way we do church is man-made tradition, and what is the heart of the Gospel? We have allowed a LOT of traditions to creep in. We have all been influenced to a great extent by the modes of worldly thinking around us. We need to ask ourselves what things can we lose and what things should we hold on to for dear life.

For example, is it really necessary to have a building to go to church? Why do we have sermons and is there another way we could learn (besides the lecture format)? Is the modern-day "church" really equipping the saints to preach the gospel? Is leading a person through the "sinner's prayer" really the best evangelism technique?

These are some of the things I've seen Emergents asking... I think they are valid questions and in many instances are evidence of spiritual maturing.

In short, I think people are jumping the gun with labelling Emergent as heretical. Some of the people in it have surely expressed heretical ideas, I am not disputing that. But many haven't. And if people in the movement love Jesus, then we shouldn't be so quick to marginalize them into "heretic" status and thus stop our ears from hearing them.

JMHO.

Kudos.

[cinderellie]

Grape,

Bell says on page 146 in VE, " Heaven is full of forgiven people.
Hell is full of forgiven people.
Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for.
Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for."

Explain that because from what my bible says, hell is full of people who rejected Christ. How can you be forgiven by God without Jesus?

[grape on the vine]

Grape,

Bell says on page 146 in VE, " Heaven is full of forgiven people.
Hell is full of forgiven people.
Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for.
Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for."

Explain that because from what my bible says, hell is full of people who rejected Christ. How can you be forgiven by God without Jesus?
Because Christ died to forgive everyone. Every sin ever, has been forgiven on the Cross. That's the truth of Jesus' death. Forgiveness of sins does not come when we accept that gift. If that were the case, Christ would have to be crucified every time someone decided to receive that gift. Forgiveness is already there, and has been there all along when we accept it. It's the accepting of that gift on which salvation hinges.
For example, if you smack me in the face, I need to forgive you for that. If I do, but you don't accept it, aren't you still forgiven? Same concept with Christ.

That's actually a really good question though. I wrestled with that one for a while.

[Harley]

...Explain that because from what my bible says, hell is full of people who rejected Christ. How can you be forgiven by God without Jesus?

I don't think he's using "hell" and "heaven" in a literal sense in this pericope. Not that he doesn't believe in a literal hell or a literal heaven, but the context indicates he referring more to the literary device - the the famous quote "War is hell."

On the bottom of 147 in VE he illustrates this with an example of a trip to Rwanda... which he culminates with the line "Hell on earth." he goes on to say that Hell is a place absent from God - which is true. He just takes the eternal nature of this and plays it back into the here and now.

[Harley]

Anyone who believes in unlimited atonement would say that their are people in Hell for whom Jesus died.

[Sing4Him]

There are also many who are labeled "Emergent" who are not perverting God's word, who are preaching the Gospel

Please show me some examples now.


Because Christ died to forgive everyone. Every sin ever, has been forgiven on the Cross. That's the truth of Jesus' death. Forgiveness of sins does not come when we accept that gift. If that were the case, Christ would have to be crucified every time someone decided to receive that gift. Forgiveness is already there, and has been there all along when we accept it. It's the accepting of that gift on which salvation hinges.

Grapes.. that is right out Blasphemy and antiBiblical!

What does this read?

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rms.6:23

That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Rms 5:21

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Rms. 6:6

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Rms. 6:6

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 John 2:1

Dale Van Dyke of Reformation 21 correctly states in his very thorough review of Bell’s book Velvet Elvis:

According to Bell, Jesus’ death actually and really accomplished the forgiving of everyone’s sins and the reconciliation of everybody to the Father. In other words, God’s wrath has been propitiated for everyone. He now loves everybody in the same way and seeing everyone as robed in the righteousness of Christ. All that is left is for people to “live in this new reality”…
This doctrine is not only erroneous, it has disastrous results. Bell’s error here is precisely what has lead to the abysmal decline of missions in the mainline churches. After all, if the nations are already reconciled to God because of Christ, why bother them with pesky, fundamentalist missionaries who demean them by telling them they still need to be saved from the wrath that is to come?

[Sing4Him]

Sure, emergents make some good points. So did Karl Marx. So did Nietzche.

So did Anton Lavay of the First Church of Satan. So did Satan when challenging Christ.


:pound:pound:pound :thumb:thumb

This is too good!!! Thanks WhitemoonG! :pound:thumb

[funmudder]

Considering the Emerging Church is a minority within Christendom, doesn't using the "narrow path" verse make you stop and think just a little bit?

:spew :lol

Just because an emerging cult calls itself "Christian" does not really make it so now does it?

When people repeatedly point out the outright lies in the emerging church blather using the scripture CHIRSTIANITY is based on, doesn't that make YOU stop and think just a little bit?

[funmudder]

Anyone who believes in unlimited atonement would say that their are people in Hell for whom Jesus died.

Jesus died for everyone.

Those people who will end up in hell will be there because they rejected the gift of salvation.

No one is in hell yet btw. Judgement Day has yet to happen.....of course you would have to really read that Bible the emergents call "a good book, but not the whole truth" to learn that. Not really something Bell seems to want you to do.