tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3459417544983116406..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Fire!Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88026347900137369552007-12-06T17:59:00.000-08:002007-12-06T17:59:00.000-08:00UncleUncleBrendthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10887039889675340441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30589379780596520572007-12-06T11:41:00.000-08:002007-12-06T11:41:00.000-08:00>LOL. Now THAT gives me an idea >for some fun. The...>LOL. Now THAT gives me an idea <BR/>>for some fun. The Emergent Church <BR/>>and pro wrestling. And who will >the e-vill heel be? <BR/><BR/>"Brother Love"! A WWF mainstay in the 1980s, with ridiculous makeup on to make him look red-faced, and yet would, when the ref wasn't looking (although everyone else in the building and planet could see it), trip up, choke and beat his opponents when the ref wasn't looking.<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnkMjJBy9PcGilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05267525662313103148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12314698418621560942007-12-06T06:45:00.000-08:002007-12-06T06:45:00.000-08:00Gilbert,LOL. Now THAT gives me an idea for some fu...Gilbert,<BR/><BR/>LOL. Now THAT gives me an idea for some fun. The Emergent Church and pro wrestling. And who will the e-vill heel be? <BR/><BR/>Now, as to contextualizing. On second thought, nahh. I've got a headache.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66701133879737028882007-12-06T06:32:00.000-08:002007-12-06T06:32:00.000-08:00I suppose I could save myself the trouble of writi...I suppose I could save myself the trouble of writing the parts that people who want to be offended prefer to ignore, and get right to stuff that makes it easier to strike the pose. Because I've never actually found a way to <I>prevent</I> someone who wants to find offense from succeeding in doing so.<BR/><BR/>So, if that's the extent of your criticism, I'm still okay with the post. If one reads the <I>whole</I> post.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31199424174715566052007-12-06T06:29:00.000-08:002007-12-06T06:29:00.000-08:00DJP: I'm trying to figure out where [that question...<B>DJP:</B> <I>I'm trying to figure out where [that question] could come from.</I><BR/><BR/>From the 3 paragraphs that follow the one you repeated:<BR/><BR/>* <I>Fire-in-the-belly evangelicals don't sign...</I><BR/>* <I>They never condescendingly...</I><BR/>* <I>They see clearly that an abandonment...</I><BR/>* <I>These are the folks who don't view...</I><BR/>* <I>...they don't break out their cameras...</I><BR/>* <I>They don't take heretical blasphemy...</I><BR/>* <I>Their spirits don't soar...</I><BR/><BR/>If those aren't negative statements, then I guess my monitor <I>is</I> upside-down.<BR/><BR/>I actually <B>agree</B> with most of what you said on a slightly higher level -- i.e. I'm not in any way endorsing the actions (at least as you have laid them out) of "fire-sale evangelicals". But it bugs me no end that as many (if not more) ink is spilled on what FitBE's are <B>not</B> than on what they <B>are</B>.<BR/><BR/>The Luke 18:11 reference was unfair, and I apologize for the snark. But in looking more closely at the <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:10-14;&version=50;" REL="nofollow">whole parable</A>, there are some distinct parallels. I'm not saying that FitBE's map to the Pharisee and FSE's map to the tax collector (or "publican" for my King Jimmy brethren), nor am I saying that the parable is <B>directly</B> applicable, but I do note that:<BR/><BR/>* The Pharisee spills as much ink on defining what he is not as he does on defining what he is<BR/>* The Pharisee <B>did</B> cite the "positive" things that he did, but seemingly only in light of the contrast<BR/>* The tax collector's prayer (and one would think, his self-definition) involved only himself and God, and not how he stacked up to others<BR/><BR/>That third point was stated in a different way by Henry (Rick) Frueh, but it got totally lost in discussion of the issue that he raised in the previous paragraph about monikers. Allow me to repeat it, and hope that it doesn't get lost again:<BR/><BR/><I>Let us keep comparing ourselves with those who are falling away because against that backdrop we shine. If we compare ourselves with Christ...well...let's not go there...</I>Brendthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10887039889675340441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8041968869124844232007-12-06T04:00:00.000-08:002007-12-06T04:00:00.000-08:00What an odd question, Brendt. I'm trying to figure...What an odd question, <B>Brendt</B>. I'm trying to figure out where it could come from.<BR/><BR/>Normally, a person reading a whole post would start at the beginning. If you had, you'd have read, "This term would describe those gripped with the Biblical vision of God's holiness and man's sinfulness, humbled by their own depravity to the point where inerrancy is not an inconvenient doctrine but God's indispensable lifeline, awed by the atonement of Christ to the extent that its doctrines are neither periphera nor adiaphora, but life itself."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps your monitor is upside-down?<BR/><BR/>Or maybe you just got your terms mixed up? I could see a fire-sale evangelical trying to comfort himself along the lines of, "At least I'm not like that fanatic over there, weeping and smiting his breast!"DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18585347266632314652007-12-05T23:23:00.000-08:002007-12-05T23:23:00.000-08:00Raja:You win that one. Tell me where to send the c...<B>Raja:</B><BR/><BR/>You win that one. Tell me where to send the check.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31695886830144169462007-12-05T23:14:00.000-08:002007-12-05T23:14:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.one busy momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18087795055010641099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16632366414938825172007-12-05T22:45:00.000-08:002007-12-05T22:45:00.000-08:00Great post. I really wonder if the term evangelica...Great post. I really wonder if the term evangelical has not run its rocky course. Way too much baggage today to have any real meaning.Leshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09490255334731190704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3900668456106804542007-12-05T20:10:00.000-08:002007-12-05T20:10:00.000-08:00Dan, is there a particular reason that almost all ...Dan, is there a particular reason that almost all of the distinctives you cite for "fire-in-the-belly evangelicals" are negative things that they <B>don't</B> do (and, one would imagine, that the "fire-sale evangelicals" allegedly do)?<BR/><BR/>Is it your contention that the FitBE's life verse is <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:11;&version=50;" REL="nofollow">Luke 18:11</A>?Brendthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10887039889675340441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42441284254528988962007-12-05T15:52:00.000-08:002007-12-05T15:52:00.000-08:00Hey, Phil. I went to Sharper Iron and randomly cl...Hey, Phil. I went to Sharper Iron and randomly clicked on a category.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html#5498381077305617448" REL="nofollow">This is the first thing that came up</A>. <BR/><BR/> In any case, I have to say that so far, I'm guessing that your contextualizing is going to cost you 5 bucks. <BR/><BR/>Which should teach you to stop contextualizing this instant.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67925324828739878912007-12-05T13:57:00.000-08:002007-12-05T13:57:00.000-08:00SJ Walker: "Phil's a gambler!"I was just "contextu...<B>SJ Walker:</B> <I>"Phil's a gambler!"</I><BR/><BR/>I was just "contextualizing" for the Blue Raja's sake.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9777900529466421822007-12-05T13:52:00.000-08:002007-12-05T13:52:00.000-08:00Dan,Great post! One comment...A certain "best-life...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Great post! One comment...<BR/><BR/>A certain "best-life today" pastor from texas came up to Chicago this past summer. he and his wife came out on stage to wild cheers...and a puff of smoke.<BR/><BR/>And I think...you know, pro wrestlers do the same thing. But everyone knows pro wrestling isn't real. But the emergent church doctrine is passed off as such.<BR/><BR/>Game, set, match.Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05267525662313103148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27832599284927889382007-12-05T13:01:00.000-08:002007-12-05T13:01:00.000-08:00Phil's a gambler!Sorry, I slipped into "fundamenta...Phil's a gambler!<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I slipped into "fundamentalism" there for as moment.<BR/><BR/>Rick, I am pretty sure that Jesus used labeled Himself as the Son of God. I am also recalling that Paul advised people to follow his example. <BR/><BR/>Pretty puffed up words right? Well, perhaps look at it this way:<BR/><BR/>"But the LORD is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail.They will fail and be thoroughly disgraced; their dishonor will never be forgotten." --Jeremiah 20:11<BR/><BR/>We must be ruthless within ourselves, Rick; "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?"--2 Corinthians 13:5<BR/><BR/>If we pass that test, we should and will have confidence in our condition, not pride, but confidence. Paul was the least of the apostles, he was the chief of sinners, as am I and you. Paul was also the "beloved of God"; Ephesians 1:1-6.<BR/><BR/>And he also explained why he and the other believers were indeed the the beloved and why unbelievers and false teachers are not.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>It all matches.S.J. Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922550763548455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2978718408384518942007-12-05T12:00:00.000-08:002007-12-05T12:00:00.000-08:00Phil,I am waiting for a certain segment of fundie ...Phil,<BR/><BR/>I am waiting for a certain segment of fundie to jump all over your five-dollar bet. Have any graphic art of a slot machine just to stir the pot? <BR/><BR/>I'm kidding...I'm kidding....Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33387547821247196872007-12-05T11:09:00.000-08:002007-12-05T11:09:00.000-08:00In other words, as I've suggested before, the fail...<B>In other words, as I've suggested before, the failure of 20th-century evangelicalism and the failure of 20th-century fundamentalism are mirrored opposites. Both failed ultimately because they were reactionary. And after 1950 (or thereabouts) they were reacting primarily to one another--which made the worst tendencies of each movement worse and worse with the passing of time.</B><BR/><BR/>That's an insightful comment - I totally agree.<BR/><BR/><B>If someone comes along who can retrieve the best principles from the two movements and cast a vision of reformation that is not primarily reactionary (keeping both evangelical and fundamentalist principles intact and not setting them at war with one another) I think a wonderful phoenix might arise out of the ashes of both movements.</B><BR/><BR/>I guess I see glimmers of that in more places than you do (I'll go ahead and make the connection to the possibility that I'm seeing "Fool's Gold" here so that you don't have to!) - but your comment here is my hope in a very well-said nutshell. <BR/><BR/>Given what it would take for that kind of thing to happen, I doubt I'll play any part in it; but I'll raise my glass to the ones who do (that is, if I have the sense to see who they are at the time - retrospect is always so much easier). I have to admit, though, that the ones in whom I tend to see such promise aren't the academicians or popular pastors as much as the seldom seen category of <B>pastor-scholars</B> like John Piper, Neal Plantinga, and "he who must not be named" (speaking of whom, Piper's new book critique belongs on your reading list if you haven't read it yet).<BR/><BR/><B>I've got too much to do today to answer blog comments.</B><BR/><BR/>Yeah. Thanks for reminding me to get back to work.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78037487924396813702007-12-05T10:32:00.000-08:002007-12-05T10:32:00.000-08:00Raja:I'm not sure what you mean by "modern fundame...<B>Raja:</B><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean by "modern fundamentalism." But if you want a lively discussion and need something to fill your spare time at year-end, you should mosey over to SharperIron.org and tell them what you think are the characteristics of "modern fundamentalism." I've got five dollars which says that before that conversation ends they'll explode a few of the caricatures of fundamentalism you are carrying in your head.<BR/><BR/>My own perspective would be that "fundamentalism" as a <I>movement</I> (including the 1920s version of it) never actually gelled into any kind of viable force (and I think that's profoundly sad).<BR/><BR/>I've suggested many times before that fundamentalism's failure was probably guaranteed from the very start, because the earliest fundamentalists failed to invest enough energy and passion into arriving at a firm and workable consensus on the difficult question of what should be <I>included in</I> and/or <I>excluded from</I> a list of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It's not an easy question, but it should not have been bungled as badly as the mid-twentieth-century fundamentalists bungled it.<BR/><BR/>Carl Henry had a lot of excellent things to say, but to be honest, I see him as a major player in the cadre of evangelical leaders who made such an idol out of academic respectability that they practically guaranteed the failure of their own movement.<BR/><BR/>In other words, as I've suggested before, the failure of 20th-century evangelicalism and the failure of 20th-century fundamentalism are mirrored opposites. Both failed ultimately because they were reactionary. And after 1950 (or thereabouts) they were reacting primarily to one another--which made the worst tendencies of each movement worse and worse with the passing of time.<BR/><BR/>If someone comes along who can retrieve the best principles from the two movements and cast a vision of reformation that is not primarily <I>reactionary</I> (keeping both evangelical and fundamentalist principles intact and not setting them at war with one another) I think a wonderful phoenix might arise out of the ashes of both movements. That's what I wish smart young guys like you were devoted to, rather than chasing whatever neo-fadodoxy is currently academically stylish.<BR/><BR/>And don't get me started on ETS and the currently-in-vogue apathy about inerrancy. I've got too much to do today to answer blog comments.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71474185747857099402007-12-05T10:31:00.000-08:002007-12-05T10:31:00.000-08:00Bubba — ... to assign yourself as a "Fire in the B...Bubba — <I>... to assign yourself as a "Fire in the Belly" Christian is to use that moniker as a public commentary that you must be recognized as a Christian whose surrendered discipleship is of such magnitude that it elicits such a tag</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that'd be pretty bad.<BR/><BR/>Did you read that somewhere?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5709874307482080652007-12-05T10:24:00.000-08:002007-12-05T10:24:00.000-08:00Fitbees.Fitbees.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49657311361814989132007-12-05T10:21:00.000-08:002007-12-05T10:21:00.000-08:00Great Scott! Were now gonna be known as FIBS-Whoa ...Great Scott! Were now gonna be known as FIBS-<BR/><BR/>Whoa NellyStrong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36385619019062606422007-12-05T09:46:00.000-08:002007-12-05T09:46:00.000-08:00I completely accept the fact that the idea confess...I completely accept the fact that the idea confessional evangelicalism existed before the 20th C. movement - but would you agree that the debate about <B>engagement</B> and what constitutes the "central principles" that must be confessionally retained (the topics taken up in this post) can be helpfully contextualized by the 20th C. debate between fundamentalism and evangelicalism? <BR/><BR/>It seems like the battles fought by someone like Carl Henry epitomize the confessional centrality of the older evangelicalism together with the spirit and concerns of the neo- evangelicalism of the 50's from which the modern movement derives its impetus (e.g. the place Henry gives inerrancy in his theology, for example -- in <I>Is Inerrancy Enough . . . or Too Much?: A Consideration of Carl Henry's Position</I>, a paper given by George M Coon at the 2005 ETS, it's detailed how Henry didn't view inerrancy as the defining characteristic for who should be counted an evangelical).<BR/><BR/>To clarify, then - what's the difference between modern fundamentalism and the older evangelicalism? And are these differences highlighted at all illuminated by the 1950's divide? And where do these modern evangelicals, such as EJ Carnell, Harold Ockenga and Carl Henry fit into the older evangelicalism of the Reformed confessions (i.e. are they evangelicals?)?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reply.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58673371437041909212007-12-05T09:34:00.000-08:002007-12-05T09:34:00.000-08:00Rick - clearly, Dan is not trying to elevate himse...Rick - clearly, Dan is not trying to elevate himself with his somewhat tongue-in-cheek nomenclature. He is merely pointing out that there are a lot of people who call themselves by various Christian terms, who are all-too-willing to trade the truths of Scripture for a season of cultural popularity.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I didn't hear Dan addressing anything about the <I>obedience</I> level of the FITBE's. He was referring to their commitment to <I>believing</I> God's unchanging truths. Whether you like it or not, there is a big difference between those who are willing to lean unto God's understanding as revealed in His word, and those who want to discover truth via a conversation with other relativists. It is the difference between heaven and hell.<BR/><BR/>As far as your drawing a distinction between Calvinist & Arminian labels, and Dan's new labels, would you have felt better if he had simply descriptively called the FSE's "non-Biblical Evangelicals"? I doubt it.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66514962940615725702007-12-05T09:27:00.000-08:002007-12-05T09:27:00.000-08:00My, that was good.My, that was good.Kristinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09208753353162363484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70234008203756624822007-12-05T09:14:00.000-08:002007-12-05T09:14:00.000-08:00Raja: "Whoever truly fits the second description h...<B>Raja:</B> <I>"Whoever truly fits the second description has it coming - but it seems like you're saying that evangelicals should be fundamentalists if they want to be true evangelicals."</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's absolutely true—if you're using the word <I>fundamentalist</I> in its historic sense (as opposed to all the post-1950s corruptions of the idea). An "evangelical" who is not committed to defending the fundamental doctrines of Christianity is no true evangelical.<BR/><BR/><B>Raja:</B> <I>"My understanding was that the evangelical movement was a middle way between accommodating theological liberalism and the isolationist fighting separatism of the fundamentalist movement."</I><BR/><BR/>A lot of people make that mistake, Raja. But you've confused historic evangelicalism with the <I>neo-evangelicalism</I> that hijacked and gradually gutted the evangelical movement. See <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/03/sendin-some-love-to-imonk.html" REL="nofollow">this post,</A> where I tried to straighten out the very same confusion in the iMonk's thinking. I don't think he ever really got it. You might.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30585456320579481082007-12-05T09:06:00.000-08:002007-12-05T09:06:00.000-08:00Rick,As this blogs masthead states. APPLY DIRECTLY...Rick,<BR/><BR/>As this blogs masthead states. <BR/><BR/>APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD<BR/><BR/>Jeremiah 23:29.<BR/><BR/>Now there is a label for ya!Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705877767308031358noreply@blogger.com