Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
DEFINITIVE
Available now from Kress Biblical ResourcesWestminster Bookstore
Search This Blog
Finding THAT article
Must-Have Books
DEFINITIVE
Available now from Kress Biblical Resources
Amazon also has it. See details at Kress
Also available at Logos
WTG at Westminster
Available on Kindle and in Logos
View readers' favorite Kindle excerptsThe Rules
|
Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.
See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.
If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(388)
-
▼
August
(52)
- Emerging Church: bad as Gutless Grace Girliemen? W...
- Appreciated
- L'Abri or not L'Abri
- Mystery quotation: shrinking from telling unwelcom...
- Answer the Question
- Clanging symbols
- What are "conservatives" doing in the Emerging Chu...
- More Signs of the Times
- Regarding the "Polite" Tolerance of Heresy
- Creativity, and how nobody really has it
- By Special Request
- Proverbial pairings, triplings
- There's No God like YHWH
- The Conversation Continues
- One last last look at Elijah in Zarephath
- Night-Caps Recommended
- Open Mike Friday: publishing, self- and otherwise
- Yes, We Do NEED Sarcasm
- Raising the Dead
- Oil and Water
- A Response to David Aikman
- Preaching the Cross to those without the categorie...
- New BlogFeature
- A Story Full of Surprises
- PS
- God's Love Known and Believed
- How God Loves the World
- God’s love-gifts
- Universalism? Nope.
- Let's get this over with, OK?
- Ahem.
- God's loving patience
- "50,000 Volts and a Body Slam"
- The Plain-Sense Meaning of "World" in John 3:16
- God Loves
- Today's Comic Relief
- Breadth of love
- How God Loves the World
- Calvin on John 3:16
- Two Words:
- Chief display of God's love for the world
- How God Loves the World
- The Well-meant Offer of the Gospel?
- Proof that God loves the world
- Common Grace
- How God Loves the World
- Tastes Great, Less Filling
- About Those New-Model Theologians. . .
- Social Construction
- Divine Providence in Disaster
- Book titles for which I'm still waiting
- "Something in Her"? I Think Not.
-
▼
August
(52)
- "tone" (48)
- 50 words or less (75)
- apologetics (95)
- apostasy (49)
- atonement (33)
- bible (61)
- blogspotting (31)
- book review (77)
- bumpable (51)
- Calvinism (59)
- catholicity (sic) (11)
- centuri0n (539)
- Classic posts reposted (47)
- Commercials (20)
- compromise (38)
- contextualization (32)
- da Gifts (118)
- Dan Phillips (952)
- death (15)
- depravity (20)
- Detritus from the combox (11)
- discernment (37)
- discipleship (98)
- doctrine (22)
- Dose of Spurgeon (636)
- doubt (23)
- Elijah (17)
- emerg* (33)
- emergent (81)
- epistemology (2)
- evangelicalism (37)
- evangelism (79)
- fads (42)
- faith (43)
- gambling (11)
- Gospel (185)
- grace (30)
- heresy (55)
- hermeneutics (49)
- household chores (15)
- Jeff Williams (16)
- justification (31)
- like ministry (22)
- local church (154)
- love of God (29)
- mawwiage (42)
- merciless beatings (42)
- missiology (19)
- Mystery Quotation (15)
- Next (44)
- paradigm-shifting (17)
- pastoral ministry (121)
- pastoring (17)
- PCRT 2009 Sacramento (13)
- Pecadillo (27)
- penal substitution (10)
- Phil Johnson (614)
- Po-Motivators (35)
- politics (46)
- PostModernism (100)
- preaching (92)
- Proverbs (64)
- redneck atheism (15)
- resurrection (18)
- Sanctification (86)
- sin (27)
- sola fide (20)
- sola Scriptura (65)
- stay or go (23)
- temptation (14)
- The Truth War (33)
- theology (69)
- Titus + Timothy (32)
- TIWIARN (128)
- truth (61)
- unity (25)
- wisdom of God (27)
- worldview (25)
- WYWTWIWYWTT (34)
Disclaimer
 |
| The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always. |
Copyright Notice
©2006-2018 by Phil Johnson and the PyroManiacs. All rights reserved.
69 comments:
Mr. Johnson, if a picture is worth 1000 words, you are out of the game :)
Good posters!
I think the philosophical and ideological meat chubs are now in-play, and it's not going to be pretty.
BTW, I think the top one with the woman in purple is the one which really puts the ECM over a pragmatic barrel. The rest of this stuff is philosophical cotton candy.
Two more tomorrow, then I'll prolly quit for awhile.
Incidentally, the posters have been the most-linked, most noticed, most appreciated—and most criticized feature on PyroManiacs ever.
...which is kinda sad, given that virtually no one from the Emerging side of the "Conversation" even bothered to respond seriously to the detailed series of posts that preceded the posters.
Why is it that people who are all about deconstruction and critique so often seem unable to process incoming criticism?
I really liked the first one.
...And only because where once I thought elderly churchgoers were stuck-in-the-mud, superstitious fuddy-duddys, I now joyfully join our elderly Elders (er...) with their years of wisdom, experience, joy and suffering in prayer for the church.
Now that it sinks in, the second one is pretty good, too. The sentiment also applies to outspoken atheists of the Richard Dawkins variety. I can imagine him asking himself in exasperation, "Can't you silly Christians see the truth!?"
Why is it that people who are all about deconstruction and critique so often seem unable to process incoming criticism?
{ holds up hand }
Ooh! I know!
Because they're really all about avoiding and evading criticism?
I agree with DJP's response, and would go so far as to say it's rather tough to process incoming criticism when you don't have firm, non-negotiable convictions that serve as reference points by which you can build a credible response.
From the first link: "They are post-doctrinal."
Run Away!
Funny :)
Now I am getting a bit scared. The guy in the second poster looked an awful lot like Mr. Bean.
Rowan Atkinson and the Emergent Church. Yeah. I'm liking it. Watch the "Mr. Bean in Church" sketch and you'll see what I mean.
I think the lady in purple photo raises a good question for any church - not just emerging types. But as a newly planted church, by the nature of who started the church and approach it is primarily younger people who have become part of the church. But we then found an aging Presbyterian church and have partnered with them. So it has joined 80 year olds and 20 year olds together. We just have been teaching a membership class and it was wonderful seeing in the same small group discussion time, an 89 year old woman and 22 year old sharing their stories together.
The whole multi-generational issue isn't an easy thing to figure out, especially for church plants. But I find it critical we see generations connecting.
Dan
I thought the man in the second one was Andy Serkis.
Chassssstened Epissstemology *gollum* *gollum*
"Chastened espistemology"? I thought you just made that up until I read the linked article by McKnight. Sheesh, these guys can come up with an infinite number of terms to obscure whatever it is they might be thinking they are actually trying to say.
And the Gollum thing? Love it! Precioussssss!!! They are tricksy and falsssssse! Good Smeagol!!
After looking at the picture again, I think it's Bilbo when he wanted to grab the Ring from Frodo.
I've got chills...
I'm really happy, btw, that the thing with which we raised the biggest stink [a] was almost entirely piloted and authored by Phil, and [b] was not some doctoral dissertation on the fundamental contingencies of pericopes in the book of Micah, but editorial cartoons.
Nobody will read that high-brow stuff in 10 years. The posters will be stuff of legend.
All your base are belong to us, obey giant, Strongbad, and Emergent-See. It's like the wonders of the virtual world.
Also, the fact that they got nothin' in reply -- they can't even field a team -- makes me wonder where all the creative types they allegedly minister to are in all this.
Apparently they have better things to do, like ministry.
(c;<
Throwing down the gauntlet are you, Frank? (smile)
I seem to remember that some EC-friendly site somewhere began responding with posters of their own, but I didn't bookmark it. But now that you're giving them a gentle prod with an electrified meat chub, perhaps they'll begin producing material of their own aimed our way. It's a good thing Peter Max has assumed room temperature, or he'd probably give them some psychedelic assistance. Watch closely for a run on blacklight bulbs, Boone's Farm wine, jasmine incense and Jefferson Airplane CDs.
Let the games begin.
Meanie:
here's my guess -- they can't do it without vulgarity, pornography or blasphemy.
And for the record -- I'd love to eat my words here. I'd love it if someone really, really went through the archives and made some "PyroMedia" posters which went after our many foibles.
Of course this kind of thing isn't any fun when the other guy is saying, "oh gawsh -- that's HILARIOUS!"
Hands down, "Chastened" wins first place in "Best Abs-Buster" category!
Also, the fact that they got nothin' in reply -- they can't even field a team -- makes me wonder where all the creative types they allegedly minister to are in all this.
Many people are obsessed with image rather than reality. For example Phil Johnson IS extremely creative yet he doesn't seek the image of what many self-styled "creative" people project. Adopting the coffee-shop, counter cultural image, with the stoner voice, baggy , string ridden clothes and so fort h doesn't mean such a person is creative. It just gives them a false excuse not to articulate clearly and consistently.
Also, the fact that they got nothin' in reply -- they can't even field a team -- makes me wonder where all the creative types they allegedly minister to are in all this.
I think you'll find they're here.
Variable quality, but "INCARNATIONAL LIVING", "GENEROUS ORTHODOXY" and (especially) "TRUTH" are all excellent.
Plus these ones here are probably even better, especially "CONTEXTUALIZATION".
Ah, yes; the derivative nature of the obsessively "creative" on display.
Frank,
someone did respond to the posters here:
http://emerginggrace.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-generous-view.html
and also blogged about the posters here:
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/08/04/hurting-people-hurt-people/
Ah, yes; the derivative nature of the obsessively "creative" on display.
*** gawp ***
Well done to Phil for inventing the Demotivator format. I hope Despair.com are keeping up to date with the royalty payments.
And we just know the Pyro-guys would throw a BHT-style tantrum if anyone ever responded in kind, right?
*crickets*
Oh, wait. I guess not. I just noticed the first comment at that link you posted, JohnH.
Hmm.
You really have hit the nail on the head with your first poster. Thanks for being willing to create it... and speak to that issue.
It really is a wake up call to the church. It is so easy to want to be current and hip and speak to a younger generation... and try to keep moving fast...but who are you throwing away in the process? What theology just went down the drain?
It's hard to say... but I have been guilty of this to some degree (let it go when I saw it and was a part of it??) and now I look back and am so appalled at my thinking.
I think the older generation has been labeled as Pharisees... it's all so wrong!
This is the first time I have seen your page! I think I am going to like it! :-)
Chastened epistemology. Yah, das goot!
My former pastor, Max Janzen from a modified conservative SBC congregation in a paper titled, get this, Approach to Truiths and Heresies in Calvinism and Arminianism, May 9, 2006, said "...yet so little was directly addressed...God gave none of them a "TULIP" outline or one contrary to it. Men of today purport to complete in their systematic theological frameworks what our Savior and the writers of the New Testament left mysterious or undefined...When one insists that he has complete knowledge pertaining to any aspect of theology, one deceives oneself...Reason should never lead faith, for faith is the substance of what we do not know."
Now John Murray would say Faith has three aspects: Knowledge, conviction and trust. I think I will go with Murray. Calvin spent an entire book and more defining faith.
When blind faith theology becomes the teaching of pastors, it is no wonder that the EC emerged. When epistimology becomes a-epistimology, wees in truhaaable. Let's just hope the EC doesn't submerge below the surface of what is left of orthodoxy.
Nuff said. Got my anti-verbosity button fixed, hallelujah!
tt
I failed to see how Donn Johnson's post berates elderly church members. Enlighten me.
How come the Hermeneutics and Deconstruction posters lack links to posts?
Thank you.
David Cho: "I failed to see how Donn Johnson's post berates elderly church members. Enlighten me.
1. Who ever said anything about "berating" elderly church members?
2. Did you read Donn Johnson's article? And do you actually get the point of the poster? If not, Donn Johnson's article does a fair job of highlighting the same point, but you have to read to the end.
3. I agree with Donn Johnson's perspective, BTW. You might have read too much into the fact that I linked the poster to him.
David Cho: How come the Hermeneutics and Deconstruction posters lack links to posts? "
I got lazy. (I wasn't sure anyone was paying attention anyway, what with so many people pretending I was just making stuff up out of thin air.) But since you asked, I've fixed it for you (See HERE). Enjoy.
"Your confidence is driving me crazy!"
Ain't this the truth. I know it is. Even a humble confidence in the Bible drives some people crazy.
I've heard people say, "Even if Jesus is the Savior, why not check it out. If you're wrong, well. But if I'm wrong, well, I've got nothing to lose."
I don't know about anybody else, but it just don't seem right to me, I actually hate hearing that kind of stuff. There's such uncertainty, and apathy.
One other thing:
I apologize for the tortured syntax in the article I linked the "Hermeneutics" poster to. English is obviously not that guy's first language, and I'm not making fun of him for that. (Although the irony of such butchered language in a post belittling the importance of a single-meaning hermeneutic is both delicious and mildly funny.)
But I linked to that article because of the crystal-clear way he makes his point, even despite the many linguistic felonies he commits:
"The danger by doing interpretation is if someone do it as an oppression for some people. Recently people recognize Bible words are Gender bias because the words are Patriarchal, so the Bible is used to oppress the women. Or some Feminist made the argument for the Bible interpretation only for the benefits of women and gives the oppression for men. It's also dangerous to do the interpretation if we do it 'so exclusive.'"
John H --
you are, in fact, killin' me, both here and at my blog (such as it is, on hiatus and all).
I am sure those responses have completely vindicated the ECM, and have completely devastated Phil. He'll never be the same again. He can never return, he's closed the door. He will walk apart, he'll run the race, and he will ne-ver be the same again.
Fall like fire, soak like rain,
Flow like mighty waters, again and again.
Sweep away the darkness, burn away the chaff,
And let a flame burn to glorify Your name.
... sorry ... I broke into song there ... I'm sure those were much more creative than Phil's posters, and he'll never be the same again. They even addressed all his complaints. Stunning.
...and how exactly does this further the kingdom of God or contribute to the conversation? It seems to me all this does is add fuel to the fire (no pun intended). Since when is attacking other viewpoints or groups a "christian" thing to do?
Maybe I'm missing something. I just remember Jesus saying something like love others--that's the sum of all the law and the prophets.
But I guess that doesn't make for a good "post."
Like he said. Read the previous posts.
John H — Well done to Phil for inventing the Demotivator format.
Wow. You actually think Phil invented the format? Wow!
(Irritating when someone bullheadedly insists on misreading you, isn't it?)
And Blake, how did Jesus "lovingly" respond to those who were leading people away from true salvation with incorrect theology?
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much as son of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness...
--Matthew 23:15, 27 (see 13-36)
Thanks Phil
dr. bill:
Yes, the same one's that reduced religion to legalism; adhering to rigid rules and regulations rather than serving others and meeting human need. Setting aside the commandment of God to maintain tradition. There are disturbing similarities between the Pharisees in the 1st century and the religious "groups" of today.
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. But that's just me.
Maybe I'm missing something. I just remember Jesus saying something like love others . . .
Wow, where to start. Like Dr. Bill said, how "loving" was Jesus when He confronted doctrinal error? How "loving" will God be when He judges sinners?
Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)
J. Blake Huggins:
Here's an even better example of the pot calling the kettle black. I looked at your blog, and you've got LOTS of posts that don't "advance the kingdom of God" in any discernable way.
Plus, you're hardly uninvolved in the ECM debate; you're just on the other side. After some of the stuff you have posted, the Rodney King t-shirt doesn't really look so good on you. It makes your hypocrisy look big. I'd go for something with out the big yellow stripe if I were you.
And therein lies the problem...the bible can be used to proof text just about anything.
Can anyone riddle me this: Why does the ECM seem to delight in pitting Jesus against Paul? Donn Johnson's comment about being "pro-Jesus" as opposed to evangelicals being "pro-Paul" reminded me that I had seen this type of attitude emanating from the ECM before.
Do they even understand what a "false dichotomy" is?
Huggins: "I don't know how being on the 'other side' . . . makes me 'not part of the debate.'"
I think what he actually said is that you are part of the debate. Put that together with the fact that your blog's subtitle-description begins with the word "rants"; plus, you have at least one post whose title starts with "Ignorant and Altogther Uniformed Assertions . . ."
And that makes this statement:
"Since when is attacking other viewpoints or groups a 'christian' thing to do?"
ring rather hollow.
You might want to quit while you're still ahead.
Speaking of things that ring hollow:
I thought this was quite funny, and a very effective parody of an all-too-familiar problem.
Oddly enough, though, it was posted by one of the guys who has complained loudest and longest about the Po-Motivators (and is still complaining about them even now) because of our use of parody to "[mock] others for what we (mis)perceive them to be."
Go figure.
Complaining?
Pshaw...
Frank made a challenge and I took him up on that. You're dinging me for that?!?!
Or is it that I use sarcasm to make a point about how you use sarcasm to make points???
Can't win with you can I?
bob,
dust on sandals.
shake.
Phil:
I suppose I will quit now, especially now that I know you're not really interested in a different opinion, much less one that holds the mudslinging up to the light.
As for the ad hominem directed toward me--had you taken time to read the post (whose title you took out of context, as you were looking for ammunition) you would've realized that the phrase "ignorant and altogether uniformed assertions" was referring to my own opinion on a subject I don't know much about.
I had no intention of starting a battle of the words, I just posed a simple question had I know I was going to be attacked I probably wouldn't have even done that. I'm no ECM kool aid drinker, I'm just critical of the mudslinging from BOTH sides. It doesn't seem to do any good. Talk abou things ringing hollow.
Huggins and others,
I personally find the posters to be quite loving, in that they effectively caricature something so deceptive and subtle as to bring its danger to the light.
And Jesus did come out that way against the Pharisees, and the Pharisees were indeed legalists. But just because the current threat to the Truth we're talking about isn't legalism like it was at that time, but more towards even antinomianism on the other end, doesn't mean we can't respond with the same authority and conviction. That'd be like saying if the Pharisees were antinomians and Jesus dealt with them that way, we couldn't come down as hard on legalists because Jesus only "was that way" with antinomians.
The ECM has always been picking and choosing, which is why I think the "Tradition" poster makes so much sense.
Thanks Phil. Pictures are really worth a thousand words that don't even have to be deconstructed and redefined.
Bob Hyatt:
Yes, complaining. Read what you have written in your own comment-thread.
The parody part of your post is fine, and funny. But you spoiled your own parody by making so many supercilious and hypocritical remarks along with it. You can't go both ways. And (sadly for you) if you're going to try to stand on the principle that our posters are inherently cruel because we should never make fun of other religious opinions we disagree with, then you're going to find it hard to justify your own cartoon.
I suggest you stop writing about it for a few days and think it through.
Hey, while we're on the subject of things that ring hollow, didja see where the guy who posted this last week claims today that he is "incredibly" disappointed in CT for linking to to "the open ridicule of a person's appearance"?
Something about "bullies" and his preference for his own un-funny style of bullying.
Well, to be fair, that was a picture that Phil himself had posted a few months ago, if I'm not mistaken. The caption and the image imply, "Of course I'm so discerning—look at my freakishly huge brain!" That was a good tit-for-tat for Phil's poster series, actually. ;)
Sewing:
huh?
I know Phil. That's not even phil's picture. And while the other guy's satire might be really good tit-for-tat, you can't very well complain that "tat" is so incredibly evil and uncharitable after you have already posted--um--
your own version of "tat."
H in Sic: Good point.
Anyhow, maybe I'm totally mistaken. There's this blog and one secular blog that I frequent on a daily basis, and I might have got them mixed up. On one blog or the other a few months ago, the man in charge posted photos from some kind of tricked-up Mac or PC cam that distorted his face, hall-of-mirrors-style. My attempts at searching are turning up nothing on either blog now. Phil, can you help out...?
Whomever is responsible for those pictures is lame. The people who laugh and praise the messages the pictures convey are lame. Anyone who doesn't see how it might be insensitive, ignorant and judgmental to blather on about a "conversation" you don't know anything about is lame. To those of you who fit into that category this is for you:
You're not part of the conversation. You're not part of any conversation sitting there with your delusions and snide comments about how important the thoughts in your head are, as opposed to everyone else's. You're like that guy who screams at the homeless drug addicts sitting on the street that they're all going to hell, all the while swinging his Bible all over the place so as to give the impression that he has some power.
On the one hand I want to support you because I know that the book you're reading from (the Bible just in case you're too wrapped up in the "conversation" going on in your head to pick that up) is the same one I'm reading from and I agree with that book. But, then you have to go and be pointing fingers at groups you just don't understand or see the value in .
Why does it concern you people so much that another group chooses to practice christianity in a way that's different from you? Why do you care what traditions we practice? Why do you need to make fun of the fact that some groups like to think about why they believe what they believe? Why does it matter to you that I have no interest in speaking for my church or my brother, and therefore have not memorized a set of meaningless words to spew out whenever someone such as yourselves comes to ask what I stand for?
Maybe someone who actually cares about communicating with me could answer some of these questions. Or maybe that's too much of a "conversation" for you.
P.S. responding to haters and "processing" incoming criticism are not the same thing. And you know what...I've never heard anyone of my church leaders or anyone else from my congregation "deconstruct" anything having to do with another denomination. As a matter of fact, this blog is my first real experience with tearing down someone's faith. Thanks.
"You're like that guy who screams at the homeless drug addicts sitting on the street that they're all going to hell, all the while swinging his Bible all over the place so as to give the impression that he has some power."
Talk about "ignorant and judgemental".
That's quite an accusation km.
Why does it concern you people so much that another group chooses to practice christianity in a way that's different from you?
Because we are told to RIGHTLY divide the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Far too many sects, cults and isms are teaching heresy with no objection from those who know better. Are we to remain silent while the "Lord, Lord" people of Matthew 7 are headed to hell, all the while sincerely believing they are bound for heaven? I can't think of a more frightening scenario. . . .
km:
Whoever is responsible for that comment you made is lame. The people who laugh and praise such comments are lame. Anyone who doesn't see how it might be insensitive, ignorant and judgmental to jump into a "conversation" you have no part in with an anonymous like that is lame. To those of you who fit into that category this is for you:
You're not part of the conversation. You're not part of any conversation sitting there with your delusions and snide comments about how important the thoughts in your head are, as opposed to everyone else's. You're like that guy who yells at the lady anointing Jesus' feet with expensive oil, just so he can give the impression that he is more interested in the poor than anyone else.
On the one hand I want to support you because I know that the book you're reading from (the one that tells us to test all things and hold fast to what's good, and tells us to contend for the faith) is the same one I'm reading from and I get the sense you don't really understand or appreciate that book. But, then you have to go and be pointing fingers at blogs you just don't understand or see the value in .
Why does it concern you people so much that another group chooses to practice christianity in a way that tries to be faithful to Scripture? Why do you care what human traditions we reject? Why do you need to make fun of the fact that some individuals are uncomfortable with the way people in a certain movement like to play fast and loose with truth? Why does it matter to you that I have no interest in hearing you rant and rage and refer to other people's beliefs as "a set of meaningless words to spew out"?
Maybe someone who actually cares about communicating with me could answer some of these questions. Or is that too much of a "conversation" for you?
P.S. If you hate people who express disagreement and concern so much, why are YOU trying to pick apart MY faith?
i think the posters are funny.
i've got one in return if anyone wants to check it out.
www.xanga.com/slimfastcrusader
Sewing: "photos from some kind of tricked-up Mac or PC cam that distorted his face, hall-of-mirrors-style. My attempts at searching are turning up nothing on either blog now. Phil, can you help out...?"
I dunno. My new iMac has a feature that distorts a person's head. I don't think I have posted any of those online yet, but I've taken a few that are pretty funny.
For the record, Habitans is correct; the photo in his link is not a photo of me.
But, look: I'm not offended if the iMonk wants to make fun of me or something I've posted. He was doing it long before I started blogging. It's kind of nice to see occasional flashes of humor (or attempts at it) from him, and it might keep him from some worse kind of mischief.
I realize his remark about Christianity Today's link to the Po-Motivators prolly wasn't intended to be humorous. But anyone who has spent any time reading the BHT should easily see through the hypocrisy. If you think about it, it is amusing, in a melancholy sort of way.
in response to this:
"P.S. If you hate people who express disagreement and concern so much, why are YOU trying to pick apart MY faith?"
I don't know you. I don't know your faith. If you would like I could simply generalize and assume that you and the majority of contributers to this blog believe pretty much the same thing. Either way, I don't have a problem with YOUR denomination. It is you who have a problem with mine. In fact, I happen to enjoy this blog because I find the "teachings" interesting and thought provoking.
But, day after day of stupid pictures attempting to insult and misinform is boring. It's not Biblical. It's not Christian. It's lame.
In response to this:
"Because we are told to RIGHTLY divide the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Far too many sects, cults and isms are teaching heresy with no objection from those who know better. Are we to remain silent while the "Lord, Lord" people of Matthew 7 are headed to hell, all the while sincerely believing they are bound for heaven? I can't think of a more frightening scenario."
So you happen to think that Jesus has assigned you the job of pointing out heresy so as to save those who SINCERELY believe they're going in the right direction from hell. Well, I can't think of a more frightening scenario than putting humans in charge of such a task.
Oh but wait....didn't we do this once...twice...perhaps throughout the entire existence of the Christian faith? Weren''t there groups who thought they were "saving" the misguided from hell when they called them witches and killed them. Please explain to me how putting up a bunch of cheesy pictures with ridiculous captions fights against heresy. It doesn't. It's just name calling.
KM writes:
"lame. . . lame. . . lame. . .lame. . .You're not part of any conversation sitting there with your delusions and snide comments about how important the thoughts in your head are, as opposed to everyone else'.
. . . I don't know you. I don't know your faith. If you would like I could simply generalize. . ."
*sigh*
The quality of the Emerging Conversation sometimes leaves me speechless.
Maybe not often enough. But sometimes.
So you happen to think that Jesus has assigned you the job of pointing out heresy so as to save those who SINCERELY believe they're going in the right direction from hell.
Exactly the argument I get from non-believers. I'll try once more.
Doctrine is not determined by one's opinion, nor is it up for debate. Scripture is perspicacious (I love that term!). And we have a mandate from God to be "fruit inspectors."
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).
"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall" (2 Peter 1:10).
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
et al.
In response to this:
"Doctrine is not determined by one's opinion, nor is it up for debate. Scripture is perspicacious (I love that term!). And we have a mandate from God to be "fruit inspectors."
Arent't you determining through someone's opinion, if not yours, what the scripture means? Aren't all of you believing the opinions of the people you respect such as Spurgeon, Calvin, or whoever fits into that list, as far as interpretation of scripture? Don't you put your trust in your pastors and other spiritual leaders to use the Word appropriately as a spiritual teaching tool? If "doctrine is not determined by one's opinion" why are you trying to convince me that your opinion is right and mine is wrong? Do you even know my opinion?
It seems to me the big difference between your opinion and mine, from what has been revealed to me through this conversation, is that I understand that it's all just opinion. If you think that your, or any other, denomination has an unfallible understanding of all Biblical scripture, it's just your opinion. There's always going to be someone who can point out, just as effectively as anyone here, the truthiness of their faith.
I don't really have time for arguments about whos' opinion is right. If the Bible says it I believe it, no matter what. If you don't agree with this then it's not my opinions you should be concerned about.
You're right: our opinions as sinners don't matter. Only God's opinion matters.
In his infinite grace, God has guided his prophets, apostles, and evangelists of old to create a Bible that has its own internal framework for understanding, that mercifully does not depend upon our flawed and fallacious opinions for illumniation. That understanding is this:
We are sinners who would be utterly without hope, but for the mercy of a God who redeems us through the perfect, substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.
...Best summed up in Hebrews, but foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament, proclaimed in the Gospels and Acts, exegeted in the Epistles, and unfolded in its denouement in Revelation.
There are many churches that do not teach this—including the kinds of fundy (on the one hand) or mega (on the other) churches that so many rightly disillusioned emergents come out of. The solution is not to throw up one's hands in despair at ever knowing any objective truth, however, but to go to the Bible that so many churches do not teach and see what God Himself has said.
And that's not mere "truthiness."
By the way, I write this as someone who spent most of his adult life thinking that the Bible was a gross misrepresentation of the "real Jesus"—until by the grace of God I was reborn in the living Christ. That doesn't make me perfect, or remove my sinful nature. I deserved nothing from God—none of us do—but it makes me so grateful for what he has done that I have no choice but to accept what He Himself has taught us through His Holy Writ, and not rely on the opinions of mere humans, no matter how highly I may value their teaching or opinions.
km: "It seems to me the big difference between your opinion and mine, from what has been revealed to me through this conversation, is that I understand that it's all just opinion. . . . it's just your opinion. . . .
"I don't really have time for arguments about whos' opinion is right. If the Bible says it I believe it, no matter what"
Very lucid thoughts, KM.
You've given wonderful proof of the accuracy of the second Po-motivator in the post just above.
Saaaayy.
You're not just a Phil-Johnson sock puppet designed to make his parody look more realistic, are you?
"You're not just a Phil-Johnson sock puppet designed to make his parody look more realistic, are you?" LMTO! ROTFL!
Post a Comment