tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1695744205879338348..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Some Thoughts on This Week's TempestPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32493817254180570582011-10-10T09:00:00.718-07:002011-10-10T09:00:00.718-07:00Phil
I believe I agree with all you have said.
M...Phil<br /><br />I believe I agree with all you have said.<br /><br />May I venture a "However, in addition"?<br /><br />Greg articles include what you said in your first paragraph, but he goes on to say things like, <br /><br />"The focus of gnostic redemption is not on God, but ultimately upon the individual's self-understanding and the resulting freedom it provides. This accords accurately with the pretensions of the neo-gnostic Calvinists who a priori demand a comprehensively cognitive grasp of Calvinistic soteriology in order for potential converts to be saved. This cognitive grasp fails to take into account what is theologically dubbed 'the noetic effects of sin'." (Further Reflections on Neo-Gnostic Calvinism)<br /><br />My take away from Greg's articles is that we can become extremely zealous for a set of specific words to be spoken about the Gospel and in particular how God saves us. Furthermore, our zealousness for these formulations can be so great that it overshadows the Gospel and causes it to be hidden.<br /><br />Is this how you understand Greg's articles? If so, are his points not valid? Also, are they not pertinent to the context of your post?<br /> <br />Regarding your last point: I do believe we need to encourage all Christians (young or not, but especially pastors) to clearly present the Gospel with accuracy and completeness when they testify of God's grace so that all who hear them will be able to be "firmly attached to the truth which has been presented to you." (2 Pet 1:12, BDS) <br /><br />Under His Mercy<br />JonesyJonesyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15843571634109397074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78897022662818886182011-10-10T06:05:51.948-07:002011-10-10T06:05:51.948-07:00Brian,
I think the parallel between the ER/Jakes ...Brian,<br /><br />I think the parallel between the ER/Jakes association and the youth ministry is that the kids in the youth program seemed to remember the distractions from the Gospel more than the Gospel itself. I personally think that games and goofing off can be done during a separate time if yout ministries want to provide a safe atmosphere for kids to get together, but times set aside for ministry need to be devoted to teaching. That way things don't get confused. Which is what will happen with TD Jakes at the Elephant Room Conference.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-506184220779369152011-10-09T17:31:54.211-07:002011-10-09T17:31:54.211-07:00Jonesy:
A couple of points to note:
"Neo-gn...<b>Jonesy:</b><br /><br />A couple of points to note:<br /><br />"Neo-gnostic Calvinism" in that article is a reference to an ultra-extreme brand of hyper-Calvinism whose adherents believe that if you hold to an Arminian view of the atonement--indeed if you count among the brethren others who hold to a broad view of the extent of the atonement--then you are accursed, cut off from salvation, and not to be embraced as a brother.<br /><br />That's a pretty far cry from lamenting the low level of understanding of gospel essentials in today's evangelical youth groups.<br /><br />Furthermore, I'm making no judgment about the state of anyone's soul, nor have I even suggested that the faith of the young people in that video should be questioned. I'm simply pointing out what seems incontrovertible: all the truly distinctive principles of gospel truth and Christian soteriology are missing from the presentation in the way those testimonies have been edited together.<br /><br />As much as I despise hyper-Calvinism, let it remain unchallenged if the reaction to Neo-gnostic Calvinism takes evangelical minds to the point where we can't even point out when the gospel is missing from our testimonies or our dialogues about evangelism.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27455507085451983612011-10-09T17:04:44.318-07:002011-10-09T17:04:44.318-07:00Don't tell Friel.Don't tell Friel.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61203803116462405602011-10-09T17:03:02.180-07:002011-10-09T17:03:02.180-07:00"I wanted to underline that, because I've...<b>"I wanted to underline that, because I've lost count of the number of people who have referred to them as 'Phil's open letters'."</b><br /><br />You mean there is more than one Pyromaniac?!Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079209570434305168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20019848726334334322011-10-09T16:31:56.402-07:002011-10-09T16:31:56.402-07:00By the way, the comment about Murray's logic w...By the way, the comment about Murray's logic was tongue in cheek. My inability to completely follow him may have more to do with my post-Sunday nap brain than his inability to write clearly. I am not a professional theologian or scholar so he may just be writing over my head. :)Cindy Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339094524089293276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63851036183773618572011-10-09T16:29:30.569-07:002011-10-09T16:29:30.569-07:00Jonesy, I would say that John Murray challenges th...Jonesy, I would say that John Murray challenges the limits of my logic to follow his. I'm hesitant to affirm anyone who makes a statement that we have to be "Whole-souled" in our response to Christ, because that would be the law: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart." <br />Seems more along the lines of Keith Green's definition of a Christian as someone who is "Bananas for Jesus". If I'm understanding him right, he's promoting the the kind of teaching that comes out of Evangelical pulpits that has people convinced that they ought to be re-baptized because their continued struggle with sin has them believing they weren't saved in the first place. I hold the belief that we have been saved on the cross, are being saved in our sanctification and will be saved from the wrath to come. <br /><br />That being said, there is something to be said for not expecting Christians of differing levels of maturity to be on the same page theologically. But... pastors ought to have matured to the point that their theology is solid. I heard it once said of Spurgeon that during his whole career of preaching, he did not waver on one point of doctrine that he held, because he had already nailed down what he believed and why he believed it.<br /><br />I do appreciate Murray at least taking the time to define terms. This is my frustration, that Phil mentioned early in the comments, that pastors talk about "faith" and a "relationship with God" and following Jesus in these nebulous terms. No time is taken to describe the massive disaster our relationship with God is without Christ, sin is referred to generally and never defined (the law is never used lawfully), and we are told to have faith in Jesus. Faith in what? To do what? Many pastors send off their sheep with fortune cookie sermons that could be interpreted a hundred different ways like some strange version of biblical mad libs. Many blanks are left for us to fill in and most of us will not do it well. Shepherds must be held to a higher level of accountability than the sheep. And what are the sheep to think when the shepherds all teach something different and the historical faith is never held up as a standard. Instead we have these Oprah like panel discussions where much is said but no visible progress towards consensus is made.Cindy Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339094524089293276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74439547108370418982011-10-09T15:50:05.628-07:002011-10-09T15:50:05.628-07:00Let's not loose sight of the fact that the iss...Let's not loose sight of the fact that the issue is not the words and the knowledge, but trust, in particular entrusting one's self to Christ as his Saviour. <br /><br />I like how John Murray put these thoughts together(cf Greg's article, "Further Reflections on Neo-Gnostic Calvinism"):<br /><br />"Saving faith is not simply assent to propositions of truth respecting Christ, and defining the person that he is, nor simply assent to a proposition respecting his sufficiency to meet and satisfy our deepest needs. Faith must rise to trust, and trust that consists in entrustment to him. In faith there is the engagement of person to person in the inner movement of the whole man to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation. It means the abandonment of confidence in our own or any human resources in a totality act of self-commitment to Christ. <br />This fiducial character, consisting in entrustment to Christ for salvation, serves to correct misapprehensions. Faith is not belief that we have been saved, nor belief that Christ has saved us, nor even belief that Christ died for us. It is necessary to appreciate the point of distinction. Faith is in its essence commitment to Christ that we may be saved. The premise of that commitment is that we are unsaved and we believe on Christ in order that we may be saved. . . It is to lost sinners that Christ is offered, and the demand of that overture is simply and solely that we commit ourselves to him in order that we may be saved. <br />Faith is a whole-souled movement of intelligent, consenting, and confiding self-commitment, and all these elements or ingredients coalesce to make faith what it is. Intellect, feeling and will converge upon Christ in those exercises which belong properly to these distinct though inseparable aspects of psychial activity" (Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner, 1977), Volume 2, pp. 257-260). <br /><br />If we're enamored more with the words we or others say about Christ than about Christ Himself what does that say about us?<br /><br />(By the way, I can't help but wonder if I haven't fallen for this pernicious neo-gnostic nonesense by even posting these quotes. Hopefully you won't!)<br /><br />Nonetheless, I'm Under His Mercy<br />JonesyJonesyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15843571634109397074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18703891011560422132011-10-09T15:46:47.238-07:002011-10-09T15:46:47.238-07:00I was on "Phil's Bookmarks" looking ...I was on "Phil's Bookmarks" looking for material I had not read when I noticed for the first time (recent post?) the comment about the Monergism website that said:<br /><br />"Don't miss the insightful original articles by Greg Fields arguing against what Fields labels Neo-gnostic 'Calvinism'—a novel and extremely intolerant brand of hyper-Calvinism."<br /><br />I've just read Greg's articles and can't help but think they apply to what has transpired on this blog this week. <br /><br />I hope the following quotes (sorry for their length!) will help bring some measure of clarity to all of us. <br /><br />The first is one from Greg's letter entitled, "True Calvinsim versus Neo-gnostic Calvinism". N. B. Greg is quoting Alexander Carson.<br /><br />"If there is a progress in the Christian's knowledge of the Gospel itself, every step in that progress, he must get rid of a proportional degree of ignorance and error. This proves, then , that perfect uniformity of view, much less of language, even with respect to the gospel itself; is not to be expected among Christians. According to their respective progress, there will be a difference, whether expressed or not. As far as Christians are taught of God they will agree. But even in the Gospel they are not all equally taught of God. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nothing, then, is farther from my wish then to be understood as dooming to damnation all who are not prepared to adopt the whole of my views. . . . . . . . . . . that arrogance that makes a god and saviour of its clear views, that confines salvation to a mode of expressing faith, that looks with contempt on the body of Christians, as a sort of pious infidels, that seems to delight in the fewness of the saved, finds no sanction from the Scriptures, and originates in the pride of human nature, not in godly zeal for the truth. When a man seems anxious to find out something in the faith of professing Christians at which to cavil, when he strains their language to condemn them, there is no ground to suppose that he is influenced by love. Keeping clear, therefore, of a censorious spirit, I would wish to impress Christians with the importance of my views of the subject. They have no sectarian tendency, but address themselves to the candor. . . . . of all Christians. The strength, the beauty, the glory of Christianity will appear in proportion as it is viewed in this light. "<br /><br />It seems to me that Carson is onto something here. If so, then can we really expect the average newly minted Christian, child or adult, to have enough of the right words to suit anyone who has been gripped by the depths of the truth of the Gospel?<br /><br />(continued)Jonesyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15843571634109397074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39349851174106752452011-10-09T15:10:42.572-07:002011-10-09T15:10:42.572-07:00Oh, and I should mention. The SBC has had a few c...Oh, and I should mention. The SBC has had a few conferences in recent years debating Calvinism. So the conversation is ongoing in the ranks of the leaders and educators. But doctrine is little discussed among lay people. Catechesis is definitely not a strong point for Southern Baptists. This is how I believe the discussion of James McDonald's youth group is definitely relevant. If are not teaching doctrine to the children or even to adults, then they will be twisting int he wind, blown about by every fad, since their only doctrinal diet usually consists off of what is on the shelves of the "Christian" book store.Cindy Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339094524089293276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59909179718422969012011-10-09T15:07:09.881-07:002011-10-09T15:07:09.881-07:00Phil, I think this is a good response to the lette...Phil, I think this is a good response to the letter. I feel like I'm reading about my own church on a larger scale sort of. I happen to go to a church where it happens to be the only church for miles where the pastor teaches expositionally, verse by verse. So I suppose you've got to give him credit for that. But I come out shaking my head every Sunday because he's so militantly arminian. He preached Matthew 3 today and made the whole thing about how we have a choice every day whether to choose the way of self or of God. He keeps referring to us as followers of Jesus and I haven't heard about the cross once! And the youth program is quite similar to what he's describing, except this church has historically tried to keep things so that the youth and children attend the service with their parents.<br /><br />But I agree with you that we're creating a mess by trying to keep our feet in multiple camps at once for the sake of "unity". I heard a church historian say that a key question church's must ask themselves is whether heresy or schism is worse. I am Southern Baptist and I'm working on a blog post pointing out the "feet in both camps" nature of the Southern Baptist "statement of faith" and that even though they claim to give a statement for "doctrinal accountability", they also insist that no one has the right to enforce doctrine. Where is the accountability then? especially striking is their stance on the doctrine of God's grace and election, that they give a statement that sounds like Calvinism but throw in a sentence saying that the beliefs they state leave room for a belief in man's free agency. They claim to believe in a doctrine that leaves "no room for boasting". In their FAQ they say the members of the SBC are across the 'spectrum" between Arminian and Calvinist and that's okay. There's another fellow who says that Baptists are neither Calvinist nor remotely Arminian and act like that's no big deal. <br /><br />How can it not be a big deal to not take a stance on core doctrines such as God's sovereignty and the means by which salvation comes? As far as I can tell, they not only think schizm is worse than heresy, I have to wonder what it is that they thing would rise to the level of heresy??<br /><br />What a sad day it is for Christians if they are, when looking for a church home, needing to find the one that's not quite as heretical as all the rest! Regarding the doctrine of the trinity, I recently learned that Phillips, Craig and Dean are Oneness Pentecostals and were asked to sing at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. When a representative of the convention was asked whether this didn't concern him, that they allowed worship to be led by deniers of the Trinity, and the representative said he didn't think that was enough to make a big deal over. If you don't hold to the proper doctrine of the Trinity, are you not then an idol worshiper? How is that not a big deal? (I apologize for the vagueness of this anecdote. I heard this told by James White who was, himself, vague.)<br /><br />Regards<br />Cindy StokesCindy Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339094524089293276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77034950307528146202011-10-09T11:33:51.010-07:002011-10-09T11:33:51.010-07:00Sorry. I meant Tom C's original. Frank just wr...Sorry. I meant Tom C's original. Frank just wrote the introduction.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-92138165202553379202011-10-09T11:33:00.178-07:002011-10-09T11:33:00.178-07:00Sir B,
Oh, I agree with you! The Apostle Paul was...Sir B,<br /><br />Oh, I agree with you! The Apostle Paul wasn't shy about naming names when necessary, and neither was the Apostle John. Contextually, of course, both were dealing with false teachers and countering their errors publicly. I think that's all the more needed when the errors are disseminated publicly. <br /><br />In this particular case (i.e. Frank's original and Phil's follow-up), my point was that I think Tom Chantry's points might have been missed by some who only seemed to focus on the fact that he mentioned a church by name rather than on the substance of what he was saying. Tom was not saying that the church itself was guilty of false teaching. I think that got lost in the weeds.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87545033673241810242011-10-08T20:19:07.158-07:002011-10-08T20:19:07.158-07:00Concerning the 'Open Letter To' concept,
...Concerning the 'Open Letter To' concept, <br />Just because it's called an open letter doesn't really make it a whole lot different than any other post made that isnt called an 'open letter to'.<br /><br />I realize usually it is open letter "to" someone. But isn't that what any post is? (And any reply as well?) It is "to" the person(s) responsible and/or people affected by whatever the post is discussing.<br /><br />It just seems to me like 'open letter to' is merely a kind of a marketing trademark for posts made by Frank Turk on this blog.<br />But if I go to any blog anywhere, I will see similar posts that aren't called "open letter to" but do all the same things. ie. comment on something or someone with a hope that the person responsible or persons affected by the topic will read it and be edified by it, and even reply concerning it, and invite the public to weigh in with their own thoughts on the matter.<br /><br />Maybe its just me.James Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701856303572677206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71828628999303866732011-10-08T19:05:41.015-07:002011-10-08T19:05:41.015-07:00I think the big issue with this open letter was th...I think the big issue with this open letter was the fact that there was a connection being made between JM's questionable invitation to TD Jakes at the moment and the problems with understanding of the Gospel by HBC students in the past (6, 7 years ago?). A more appropriate connection would have been to connect it with current HBC ministry, not something years ago which may or may not be the case now. Then, Phil brings in the videos of the testimonies (current, I assume) to confirm the thesis of Tom. It would have been better for Tom at the beginning to make the connection that Phil did for him. That probably would have saved a lot of back and forth. But not all.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07376641238453884117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91803291083377805752011-10-08T18:30:49.562-07:002011-10-08T18:30:49.562-07:00"..a biblical defence of the use of open lett..."..a biblical defence of the use of open letters in general"-Kaj<br /><br />Have you read Frank's other open letters?<br /><br />I have seen them as a good way for the Body of Christ to see what's going on within the Body of Christ, and in the world. Open Letters are biblical as far as I can see. <br /><br />Have a good Lord's tomorrow.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35514749405301107752011-10-08T18:26:34.656-07:002011-10-08T18:26:34.656-07:00Frank,
Would you delete this comment please, just...Frank,<br /><br />Would you delete this comment please, just so I can hit the Team Pyro trifecta today? Pretty please?<br /><br />I sense a fleeting scrapbook moment here...<br /><br />Help me iturk, you're my only hope!<br /><br /><i>:0)</i><br /><br />In Christ,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1918960097892582402011-10-08T18:18:16.047-07:002011-10-08T18:18:16.047-07:00Kaj, I fully agree with your thoughts. You've...Kaj, I fully agree with your thoughts. You've handled yourself well and have spoken with both truth and grace. Thanks for displaying the heart of pastor in this conversation.Alex Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00356992729032363258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41388028803447103532011-10-08T17:59:10.231-07:002011-10-08T17:59:10.231-07:00wow. Missed much by sleeping well last night and ...wow. Missed much by sleeping well last night and resting with my family during the day.<br /><br />Dac: yes, that is what I'll double down with. When the spiritual disciplines of our churches produce kids identical to the mormons, we have a problem.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67053529006831209032011-10-08T16:24:01.752-07:002011-10-08T16:24:01.752-07:00If anyone is still moderating this blog, can someo...If anyone is still moderating this blog, can someone tell all of us if the Psalms 119 Conference videos will be available for public viewing. I hope so!<br /><br />Thanks,<br />MaryMary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18176075289990901102011-10-08T16:23:05.012-07:002011-10-08T16:23:05.012-07:00And yep ... I get the irony of my public questioni...And yep ... I get the irony of my public questioning of an open letter ... I don't think EVERY critique calls for a private conversation.Kaj Ballantynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06369620871177414476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21941184403180695302011-10-08T16:04:45.013-07:002011-10-08T16:04:45.013-07:00Alright, call me a noob but I still can't get ...Alright, call me a noob but I still can't get my head wrapped around the concept of this "open letter." I am still thinking through a biblical basis for open letters in general but this one in particular ... it's tough to defend biblically.<br /><br />I don't want to derail where you wanted to go in this blog entry (discussing the Elephant Room) and I'm putting aside the opinions based on experience that Tom had (it's what he saw and I'm not going to doubt his discernment as he interacted with these students). Phil, Frank and DJP have defended the type of character that Tom has and the pastoral heart that was behind the open letter. I don't doubt his motives or his heart but I do call into question the wisdom of the action.<br /><br />If I awoke monday morning to a letter to the editor from another local evangelical pastor in my town who was questioning my ministry based on his interaction 2 years ago with youth from my church, I would get on the phone to say, "Dude, why didn't you call me? We could've grabbed a coffe and chatted and dealt with it 2 years ago."<br /><br />HBC was a local church in Tom's town ... Tom had an issue with the fruit of this local church and the students God had placed under his care. I can't help but see this open letter as not only a missed opportunity but as gossip. <br /><br />This isn't coming out as a Harvest pastor defending his own ... if it had been Willow Creek or Grace Evangelical Free Church, or any other local church in Tom's area I would still have to question the use of an open letter. <br /><br />As you can read from my previous comments I am not trying to sidestep the issue that was discussed about the youth ... but would love to hear a biblical defence of the use of open letters in general and this one in particular.Kaj Ballantynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06369620871177414476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22434195149116330372011-10-08T13:27:43.191-07:002011-10-08T13:27:43.191-07:00"There really is a strong strain of nihilism ..."There really is a strong strain of nihilism in some groups of young people, and it's heartbreaking to see."-'meanie <br /><br />Whatever!<br /><br />Always enjoy your input Sola. You have a depth our Lord has granted you. Keep on. Have a great Lord's day in His awesome presence of joy, love, and truth.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86163994863975729842011-10-08T13:05:09.597-07:002011-10-08T13:05:09.597-07:00Wow! Two comments deleted by two Pyromaniacs in t...Wow! Two comments deleted by two Pyromaniacs in the same meta!<br /><br />Message received loud and clear...<br /><br />In Him,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3697482137360554932011-10-08T12:45:13.211-07:002011-10-08T12:45:13.211-07:00dac,
You're still missing the point.
Solamea...dac,<br /><br />You're still missing the point.<br /><br />Solameanie,<br /><br />I know what you mean, but I had a thought as I read your latest response: If you leave out names when in reality you have some specific ones in mind, it is most likely that the very people you're trying to tactfully address and admonish will be the very people who will think, "Oh, that's not us." There is time to be tactful and not mention names, and then there's times to name the names.Sir Brasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01893578064434019702noreply@blogger.com