tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116183239619300875..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: How Men LovePhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162479828414706512006-11-02T07:03:00.000-08:002006-11-02T07:03:00.000-08:00"people need the Bible preached"pastor-sort-of-guy..."people need the Bible preached"<BR/><BR/>pastor-sort-of-guy,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing your heart. Keep on.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is the Father sanctifying His elect children, so that we bring glory to His name.<BR/><BR/>This is by living a life of worship, service, and gospel preaching, motivated by His love for us. Always being fervantly loyal to the Cross, where we do all our boasting; at the foot of His glorious Cross.<BR/><BR/>As I survey the wondrous Cross,<BR/>On which the Prince of glory died,<BR/>My richest gain I count but loss,<BR/>And pour contempt on all my pride.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162456822824768372006-11-02T00:40:00.000-08:002006-11-02T00:40:00.000-08:00paul:the point i was trying to make with that vers...paul:<BR/>the point i was trying to make with that verse is that no one is perfect. on a contextual note, James follows that verse with how we use our tongue in sinful manners. and he does mention using it to intentionally curse others (James 3:9). all that to say, i believe the verse was used in the correct context since James talks about intentional and unintentional uses of our tongue that tend to be dishonoring to God. "no human being can tame the tongue" (James 3:8). that is not to say that we should just let it loose and not train ourselves to be disciplined (since through Christ's strength, we can do all things), but it is to say that no one uses their tongue perfectly.ljhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136585438030234137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162230118843572152006-10-30T09:41:00.000-08:002006-10-30T09:41:00.000-08:00i'm only about halfway through the meta, but i fel...i'm only about halfway through the meta, but i felt compelled to stop and comment: <BR/><BR/>Thank you, Phil and Cent. Thank you. <BR/><BR/>Lots to think about here. Lots to pray over. Lots to excavate.<BR/><BR/>Peace and grace.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00901333597476456521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162225063987351372006-10-30T08:17:00.000-08:002006-10-30T08:17:00.000-08:00What about Philippians 3:8 (skubalon)?If it is goo...What about Philippians 3:8 (skubalon)?<BR/><BR/>If it is good enough for Paul, is it good enough for us?David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162220015053685272006-10-30T06:53:00.000-08:002006-10-30T06:53:00.000-08:00to feed more fuel into the fire... Mark's Next Ser...to feed more fuel into the fire... <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/061022_VintageJesus3.mp3" REL="nofollow" TITLE="http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/061022_VintageJesus3.mp3">Mark's Next Sermon</A><BR/><BR/>If the first one caused a hubbub I can even imagine this one...Daniel Portelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14773421593795741532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162198937287991342006-10-30T01:02:00.000-08:002006-10-30T01:02:00.000-08:00i don't feel quite as strongly or at all about his...i don't feel quite as strongly or at all about his speech as you do. sometimes something he'll say in the sermon bugs me, but i get down to the heart of the message--Jesus. anyway...<BR/><BR/>mark driscoll is not Jesus. ::gasp::<BR/>James 3:2<BR/>We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. <BR/><BR/>with that i'd like to say... mark does love Jesus. mark preaches 4x on Sunday. he is open to a lot of shots... all the time. it's no easy job. he loves the Lord and is convicted by Him. mark shares with us (MH) the ways in which the Lord has convicted him of sin. and many (including myself) have witnessed him grow in the area of the delivery of his message. in the end, you can trust the Holy Spirit to continue to change him (as you trust Him to change yourself or others). in the end, no book (except the Bible) is perfect, no person's words (except Jesus') is perfect....but we still read good books and listen to good sermons with discernment. God is awesome and faithful in using imperfect people to communicate the Truth. Doesn't it astonish you how much He uses us despite our wretchedness? If his delivery bothers you so much, I hope you spend more time praying for mark than you do writing an extensive blog on it..because i believe the former is more productive than the latter.<BR/><BR/>technically, i'm not supposed to have bothered to write this post. and in my opinion, if you're going to gripe about someone, gripe about someone NOT on your team. i take it you love the Lord and you love His Word. take shots at someone who doesn't--it it is really worthy of your time and honoring to Christ.<BR/><BR/>you don't have to take my word for it, but if there is one thing i know about MH and the way mark preaches is that people walk away thinking "Jesus should be my Lord." we (people of MH) might have a lot of differences between us, but the one thing that unites us is our love for Jesus and His Word and a continual seeking after Him to change us. Him, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior--not mark driscoll.<BR/><BR/>that's all. thanks for reading.ljhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136585438030234137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162167011452594222006-10-29T16:10:00.000-08:002006-10-29T16:10:00.000-08:00jwI know I sound like a broken record - my last co...jwI know I sound like a broken record - my last comment on this issue. <BR/><BR/>I've been listening to Piper's excellent sermon on Spurgeon, "preaching through adversity". <BR/><BR/>He notes that the 1855 Essex Standard said the following about Spurgeon - <BR/><BR/>"His style is that of the vulgar colloquial, varied by rant....All the most solemn mysteries of our holy religion are by him rudely, roughly and impiously handled. Common sense is outraged and decency disgusted. His rantings are interspersed with coarse anecdotes."Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162010352756775122006-10-27T21:39:00.000-07:002006-10-27T21:39:00.000-07:00Before long the "shock" preachers will have desens...Before long the "shock" preachers will have desensitised everyone and one day he will become the norm and a new generation of Howard Stern preachers will float in over the horizon and everyone will welcome them not even knowing any differant and calling you a legalist if you disagree. This is the way it always works.Bhedrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08091896907803479900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161991814015163112006-10-27T16:30:00.000-07:002006-10-27T16:30:00.000-07:00JSB, not that we should continue to keep it off to...JSB, not that we should continue to keep it off topic, but you should pick up MacArthur's book titled <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Book-Leadership-John-MacArthur/dp/0785288384/sr=1-2/qid=1161991361/ref=sr_1_2/104-6300831-3129506?ie=UTF8&s=books" REL="nofollow"><I>"The Book on Leadership"</I></A> or <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Believe-Infinite-Value-Following/dp/0785287981/sr=8-2/qid=1161991333/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-6300831-3129506?ie=UTF8&s=books" REL="nofollow"><I>"Hard to Believe"</I></A> I think those two go where you are asking. And I also believe it goes where the owners of this blog would go.Frank Martenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962831912421867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161981267194840212006-10-27T13:34:00.000-07:002006-10-27T13:34:00.000-07:00solameanie:Your words are filled with the reverenc...solameanie:<BR/>Your words are filled with the reverence due to His Holy Name, as given from one who knows He has given you eternal life through the price He paid.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for honoring Him well with your words. May we all be careful to see Him in this Light in our every word of Him.Dennis Elslagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02062505999764363210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161980642535834032006-10-27T13:24:00.000-07:002006-10-27T13:24:00.000-07:00solameanie:Excellent word. Amen.solameanie:<BR/>Excellent word. Amen.jenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362216258784981618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161975245350497462006-10-27T11:54:00.000-07:002006-10-27T11:54:00.000-07:00One poster here noted the holiness issue in all of...One poster here noted the holiness issue in all of this, and I think that is indeed where we have to look. <BR/><BR/>Read through the Gospels and see how Jesus was treated by His disciples. We never see them treating the Lord in an overly familiar manner. The Apostle John was the closest to Him, and that was shown by leaning back on the Lord's breast, not by "finger pulling." <BR/><BR/>Look in the Old Testament and see how keen God was (and is) on His holiness. If the High Priest did something by mistake in the Holy of Holies, he was struck dead. Moses was denied entry into the Promised Land because he did not treat God as holy before the people. All he did there was strike a rock instead of speaking to it, but God nailed him for it. <BR/><BR/>Just because Jesus experienced certain bodily functions common to humanity when He walked the earth is not carte blanche to be vulgar when referring to Him. After all, this is our Lord and God - sovereign Creator of the Universe. He died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification. We owe Him our all, our love, and especially our reverence. When He appeared to John in Revelation, did John slap him on the back and say, "Hey, Lord! Whazzup?" No, he did not. Instead, John fell on his face "like a dead man." <BR/><BR/>I would hate for the Lord to have to strike a few pastors dead in the pulpit to get the point across, but I could well see Him doing it. And before I get chided, yes, I am fully aware that the pulpit is not the equivalent of the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That is not my point. My point is that we serve a holy God, and Jesus is God the Son. <BR/><BR/>How about we start treating Him like that again, okay?Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161957513214763712006-10-27T06:58:00.000-07:002006-10-27T06:58:00.000-07:00Note to TeamPyro: I would very much like to see a ...Note to TeamPyro: I would very much like to see a post on what to look for to see if a ministry is doing a "great work." We all know that numbers alone don't show that. A 5000 member church is not a sign of a "great work," or else the greatest work in the country is being done by Joel Osteen. I know this is off topic, so I just pass it along because it's an issue I'm interested in exploring.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161926730634377442006-10-26T22:25:00.000-07:002006-10-26T22:25:00.000-07:00RE: Driscoll and F.SchaefferIf you want to compare...RE: Driscoll and F.Schaeffer<BR/><BR/>If you want to compare Driscoll to Schaeffer you better stick with Franky not his father. Franky and Driscoll do have some significant things in common.<BR/><BR/>Francis A. Schaeffer advocated a serious engagement with modernism for the purpose of speaking truth to a world that didn't believe in truth. Schaeffer became conversant with cognitive architecture of late modernism and attempted to make this intelligible to evangelicals in his three early works Escape From Reason, The God Who Is There and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. <BR/><BR/>I what sense did Francis A. Schaeffer "contextualize" his message? By understanding the tensions within late modernism he was able to highlight the unstable predicament of modern man. He advocated pressing home the hopelessness of this predicament thus increasing the tension (angst?) in the man without god. All of this was done in the hope that the modern would come to a point of crisis and would be willing to listen to the gospel.<BR/><BR/>The point of this sketchy overview is to show why I don't think Driscoll his has much in common Francis A. Schaeffer.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161924368028194592006-10-26T21:46:00.000-07:002006-10-26T21:46:00.000-07:00I said..."And yet in those sermons graphic languag...I said..."And yet in those sermons graphic language nearly undercut his message."<BR/>Let's cut 'graphic' out and paste 'overly colorful' in its place.Jeremy Weaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02552780649310262425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161923152066947482006-10-26T21:25:00.000-07:002006-10-26T21:25:00.000-07:00To be clear: I like Driscoll, too. I've heard him ...To be clear: I like Driscoll, too. I've heard him preach some fine sermons. The problem is not that his language is graphic, either. I like graphic language. The primary issue I have raised is one of propriety, piety, and reverence for Christ. The secondary issue is one of philosophy: I think the whole idea of "contextualization"—and especially the postmodern perversion of it—is both worldly and sinfully man-centered.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161921553470386162006-10-26T20:59:00.000-07:002006-10-26T20:59:00.000-07:00Somehow you beat Gummby to the punch, and for him ...<I>Somehow you beat Gummby to the punch, and for him I am ashamed.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, no. Gummby's gratuitous suck-uppance was deleted, along with your "Oops, I Didn't Mean to Post That" post. If I remember right, it said something about reading the draft (thanks, Bloglines!), and being glad that unity at the Pyro blog doesn't mean groupthink, like it seems to these days in the world and the church. <BR/><BR/>Sorry you didn't see it. I'll try to do better--right after I get my 90 page Appraisal done so I can pay some bills. <BR/><BR/>Oh, if only I had <A HREF="http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/08/bonus-double-post-two-issues-i-might.html" REL="nofollow">WordPerfect for DOS</A>.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161919634258541532006-10-26T20:27:00.000-07:002006-10-26T20:27:00.000-07:00Frank,I'm wondering what you see as the crux of th...Frank,<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering what you see as the crux of the difference (assuming you think there is one) between what you take to be be Driscoll's cultural accomodation and someone like Francis Schaeffer's method of apologetics/evangelism.<BR/><BR/>Schaeffer was big on this thing he called 'cultural exegesis'; he felt that Christians need to be up on where the culture's at in order to reach them most effectively. This might be different than what Driscoll's up to; but it might not be that different. I guess I'm issuing a plea for the man on Schaeferian grounds.Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161916500652227882006-10-26T19:35:00.000-07:002006-10-26T19:35:00.000-07:00Now I have to go give a beating to NJOY ministries...Now I have to go give a beating to NJOY ministries or something to get this taste out of my mouth. Is that hot coal? phleh.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161915869506908852006-10-26T19:24:00.000-07:002006-10-26T19:24:00.000-07:00Take that last comment as a question, I'm curious ...Take that last comment as a question, I'm curious to know the thoughts...Frank Martenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962831912421867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161915779511720942006-10-26T19:22:00.000-07:002006-10-26T19:22:00.000-07:00C. Stirling Bartholomew: "I agree that Piper is nu...<B>C. Stirling Bartholomew:</B> <I>"I agree that Piper is nuts if he really means what he said about the right and left hands. Both hands matter. The attempt to divorce the medium from the message is wrong headed. Snuff flicks do not represent a genre which lends itself to presenting the gospel."</I><BR/><BR/>I keep reading comments like this and keep thinking of the methods in the other hands.<BR/><BR/>Here's my thought: Isn't this what the whole Lordship debate was about? Whatever is in the left hand (the theological understanding of Christ by the inner working of the spirit) produces good works, sanity, selflessness, cleanliness, etc... in the right?<BR/><BR/>So when people say that it doesn't matter what's in the right hand if the left hand is solid. That doesn't make sense. Because if the right hand isn't lining up with what the left hand is doing (i.e. going the other direction), isn't that like being double tongued?<BR/><BR/>OK... but I can see this question coming up now... what is the good stuff that the left hand produces out of the right hand? Which it seems is the issue here. But I don't think it should ever get said that it doesn't matter what's in the right hand. Because it does! Because the right hand are the "methods" or "deeds" or "work" or whatever ya want to call it.Frank Martenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962831912421867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161913854065781092006-10-26T18:50:00.000-07:002006-10-26T18:50:00.000-07:00Frank. Excellent. You were honest, took your own w...Frank. Excellent. You were honest, took your own weaknesses into account (which lent a graciousness to the post), but did not back down from the issues.candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088593538648596769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161913141884476872006-10-26T18:39:00.000-07:002006-10-26T18:39:00.000-07:00It seems to me that the point Frnak is making in t...It seems to me that the point Frnak is making in this post has been universally missed by all Driscoll defenders.<BR/><BR/>I'm with Frank, I like Driscoll. I've heard him preach some of the best sermons I've ever heard. And yet in those sermons graphic language nearly undercut his message.<BR/><BR/>If this is what Mark Driscoll is holding in his 'context' hand, thinking that he must use this language to be relevant to his culture, then what's to keep any other sin out of that same 'context' hand? That is, of course, assuming that Phil's interpretation of Eph. 5:3-4 is correct (which it is).<BR/><BR/>So, if crude joking is a sin that is out of place among Christians, and yet Mark disregards this in his efforts to be missiologically-minded, what other sins prohibited by Scripture may not also be contextualized and framed as an effort to reach those who are guilty of the same sins? Did Christ come to save them from their sins, or to redeem their sins by making them a means for evangelization?<BR/><BR/>I think Frank summed it up well with this sentence, "Remember that those things are not the Gospel, nor are they vehicles for the Gospel: they are the symptom of our need for the Gospel."<BR/><BR/>And for good measure, here's a quote by James Petigru Boyce on the relevance of the Gospel in all ages,<BR/>"The truth is that no one age is so peculiar that the ministry of that age needs to be greatly different from that of any other. The work, like the man, is in all its integrity the same, and he who is well fitted for it in one age and clime would not find himself out of place were he transferred to another. The preaching of God's truth is governed by grand and general principles which are connected with God and man and which must, therefore, be as broad as humanity itself and as the relations sustained by it to God." <I>Thus Sayeth The Lord</I>, An Ordination Sermon by James Petigru Boyce.Jeremy Weaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02552780649310262425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161912669905514002006-10-26T18:31:00.000-07:002006-10-26T18:31:00.000-07:00In case anyone was confused--I said: As I said in ...In case anyone was confused--<BR/>I said: <I>As I said in Phil's last post, it never entered my mind until then about our Lord's bathroom situation.</I><BR/><BR/>Hah! Excuse my lousy writing skills. The placement of this sentence makes it sound like I never thought about this until my conversion. What I meant was I never thought about this until Phil's post. loljenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362216258784981618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161911287048124462006-10-26T18:08:00.000-07:002006-10-26T18:08:00.000-07:00DAN!!! (DJP)We are melting here...WHAT IS YOUR VIE...DAN!!! (DJP)<BR/><BR/>We are melting here...<BR/><BR/>WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? <BR/><BR/>We know you know... <BR/><BR/>Brazilian greetings,<BR/><BR/>DanielDaniel Portelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14773421593795741532noreply@blogger.com