tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3394818147093406493..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Wow. Wow. Wow.Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8510568015884127262008-05-06T13:06:00.000-07:002008-05-06T13:06:00.000-07:00EXCLUSION and/or INCLUSION of anyone, any group, a...EXCLUSION and/or INCLUSION of anyone, any group, any subgroup, any church, etc, BY ANY TRUE FOLLOWER OF CHRIST, IS ON THE BASIS OF EITHER THEIR EMBRACE OR THEIR REJECTION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH--THE TRUE GOSPEL. <BR/><BR/>To borrow from Don Carson, "Jesus told us not to cast our pearls before swine; that means we need to figure out who the pigs are". I'll take the liberty to answer that question: those who reject the true gospel and teach other (false) gospels are the swine we are warned against throught the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>In your inclusionary view of any and all who identify themselves as spiritual, or who believe they are "generously" giving God the privilege of their intellectual ascent to deism, or who appreciate the good moral/relevant teaching of Jesus, etc. I'm curious as to just how large your net, or pen (to continue with Carson's construct) actually is? For example, you are probably familiar with the fine bunch of emergent ecumenicalists, who likewise claim the name of Christ, at the recent "Seeds of Compassion" conference in Seattle? They believe themselves to be "open minded" and/or "evolved" enough to embrace the Dalai Lama and his lies. In other words, their pen is large enough to include just about anyone (swine) who seems progressive enough in their spiritual journey and teachings. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps at the next ecumenical conference, you can all sing "yellow submarine" together? I mean, The Beatles were devout ecumenicals as well....and ever so spiritual.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50849780459688643462008-05-06T11:15:00.000-07:002008-05-06T11:15:00.000-07:00Love to hear everyone's thoughts on this passage f...Love to hear everyone's thoughts on this passage from Bishop Neill:<BR/><BR/>"Schism and disruption followed in the wake of the Reformation and the process has multiplied the number of autonomous units in non-Roman Christianity. Critical observers of this trend have often drawn the conclusion that Protestantism has at its heart a divisive principle by which it is irresistibly driven to complete disintegration. Many Protestants have acquiesced in this view, justifying it on the grounds of an unqualified religious individualism, which, with more rhetoric than research, they have professed to derive from the teaching of the Reformers. On the other hand, those who have really studied Reformation sources have found in them a consistent affirmation of the reality of the one Holy Catholic Church and a clear avowal of the principle of ecumenical unity.<BR/><BR/>. . . This revival of ecumenical concern accords with the spirit of the Reformers. They sought the renovation, not the disruption, of the Church, and hoped for its reunion. They unhesitatingly accepted the ecumenical creeds . . . "<BR/><BR/>A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, page 29-30, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Neill]Andrew Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14605531312115198662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62407577038797613242008-05-06T11:14:00.000-07:002008-05-06T11:14:00.000-07:00EITHER you are an ecumenicalist . . . OR . . he h...EITHER you are an ecumenicalist . . . OR . . he he he!<BR/><BR/>thats a tricky question. I know the word always triggers the negative bells in the world of fundamentalism.<BR/><BR/>But sectarianism is a negative word in other circles.<BR/><BR/>Some people think the reformers started the ecumenical movement by their inclusion (luther included the Hussite heretics) of non-catholics and there unhesitating acceptance of the Christian creeds. To be ecumenical is therefore to follow the desire of Jesus in John 17.<BR/><BR/>ecumenical is a biblical word - meaning "the whole earth". You can find it in Romans.Andrew Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14605531312115198662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61380488543906972008-05-06T10:13:00.000-07:002008-05-06T10:13:00.000-07:00Bryan (and Dan, TUAD, ST): I usually regret missin...Bryan (and Dan, TUAD, ST):<BR/> <BR/>I usually regret missing the blog for several days, but this time(after reviewing this particular thread of exchanges) I'm actually quite glad I never saw this one in real time, or dove into it, because I can literally feel the frustration comiing through the words of those who are graciously and patiently and thoroughly trying to clarify their position to you, Bryan. <BR/><BR/>As I've mentioned before, you are a smart guy, so there's no doubt you do not have any sort of cognitive inability to grasp what these brothers are saying to you; rather, this seems to be a matter of the will. <BR/><BR/>With all due respect (and please do not interpret what I'm about to say as "labeling" you because it is not a label), the only other times I have personally experienced the same degree of frustration we have had with your comments has been in my exchanges with Mormons, JW's, Catholics, New Agers, and, most recently, emergents. Before you say I am labeling emergents as cultists, I am not...; however, if the shoe fits in any dimension of their movement then perhaps this crowd just might eventually and openly throw off the only remnants they have of "inhereted" Christianity. <BR/>I make this comparison between discussing things with you and those I've mentioned because you seem determined to challenge every assumption that even hints of "either/or" binarisms. However, Jesus and the apostles and the prophets and the psalmists all understood, lived by, and used the structure of binary opposition to convey Truth. But, such thinking is soooo very unpopular today, so politically incorrect, so exclusionary, and so "elitist" (or so THEY say).<BR/><BR/>For the sake of clarity, and to help those of us who spend so many words trying to explain things to you, won't you at least admit that you are an ecumenicalist at heart (it is ever so obvious)? Or, to avoid the label, let me word it this way: won't you admit that you more readily embrace an ecumenical (broad road) form of Christianity over one that is narrow and "exclusionary", particularly of the world and its ways?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44851224373925110462008-05-05T20:02:00.000-07:002008-05-05T20:02:00.000-07:00I've had the priveledge of getting to know Pr. Kev...I've had the priveledge of getting to know Pr. Kevin DeYoung over the last year or so, attending URC and even having he and his wife for dinner. I would like to heartily testify that both my wife and I have truely been blessed by his preaching ministry in East Lansing! He is a straight shooting Bible expositor and preacher, knowing his congregation, well read and culturally relevant. I can't tell you how many times I've sat under his preaching and gotten the "this sermon had its sites aimed on my conscience"! May God continue to bless him locally and more broadly through this book.Josh Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06395333723715860599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63028273762239282272008-05-05T17:42:00.000-07:002008-05-05T17:42:00.000-07:00Thanks...I'm really glad to know about this book. ...Thanks...I'm really glad to know about this book. I know at least one person--a young man--who has already become really disillusioned with the emergent movement, and I know he'll find it very interesting.<BR/><BR/>And Phil, you? snide??? :):):)Cindy Swansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14090693362997103412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6446628366685232462008-05-05T16:12:00.000-07:002008-05-05T16:12:00.000-07:00Finally Bryan, you need to read the next post by P...Finally Bryan, you need to read the next post by Phil and think, that when you are admonishing people not to be sarcastic and causticly bitting and unloving, that you don't do it yourself.<BR/><BR/>But, I would also ask you to review what it means to be gentle, because from a biblical perspective, when you take up the law as you did to try to direct your brothers into the righteous path, don't cry foul when they carry a bigger stick. You have offered yourself as a teacher. I suppose you would have corrected Jesus' use of sarcasm and his less than gentile manners when handling his opponents who included his disciples.<BR/><BR/>What it is exactly that is being said about the emergent jello gauntlet, is that they think it is fine to throw it down until someone calls it jello and stomps on it. Then the argument shifts to why someone should not be so mean as to don their jellow stomping boots as if the only legal way to wage a war is by emergent rules of engagement. They become what they think they are denouncing; dogmatic. The point, as has been said before, is to win, not to fight to a draw. Or so that is the way the Bible puts it. It is war and the war is a war of doctrine and in the end Truth wins. It builds strong towers against enemy assaults. It is red meat for soldiers who do battle. It is the armor we must put on.<BR/><BR/>So, please spend time. Read, and not just through the rose colored lenses of the effeminate Christ paradigm. Think of him as a man under control, gentle and strong, compassionate and passionate, riding a donkey and yielding a whip, a shepherd and a warrior mounted upon a white steed. He's not a mythical creature singing a siren's out of some obscure fogginess, but the perfect image of God whose sharp clear sword flames glistening with anger as it burns with jealousy for his bride. Any sweet talking stranger approaching his bride is immediately suspect and prey.<BR/><BR/>And yes we have gone away from the discussion of Wow. But it was not we who went there, you did. We were just more than happy to accomodate.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.oneplace.com/common/player/oneplace/CustomPlayer.asp?bcd=05/04/2008&url=http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/swn/oneplace/wm/wi/wi20080504.wax&MinTitle=White+Horse+Inn&MinURL=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/the_white_horse_inn/&MinArchives=http://www.oneplace.comhttp://www.oneplace.com/ministries/the_white_horse_inn/archives.asp&Refresh=&AdsCategory=MINISTRY.WI&Show_ID=26" REL="nofollow">Check this out.</A>Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71481101014757932592008-05-05T14:53:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:53:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley,I'm delighted to post again. Here's y...Bryan Riley,<BR/><BR/>I'm delighted to post again. Here's yet another statement that you make which I think needs further clarification: <I>"But, as we've noted, the words of man often get in the way of Truth.</I><BR/><BR/>Such a statement seems to make an equivalency argument between the words/doctrine expressed by historic evangelicals such as TeamPyro with the words/doctrine expressed by the leaders in the Emerging Church.<BR/><BR/>To this, I say a thousand times "NO!" It's like making a moral equivalency argument between a Palestinian homicide/suicide terrorist and an Israeli soldier. <B>One is better than the other.</B><BR/><BR/>Not all doctrine is the same or equivalent. There is correct doctrine and there is incorrect doctrine. Correct doctrine matters. Eternal souls are at stake.<BR/><BR/>What gets in the way of Truth are hardened hearts unwilling to listen and to think about the Truth and to accept the Truth because of an unthinking acceptance of a postmodern epistemological approach to Scripture and to doctrine as espoused by the Emerging Church.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71257288509828409472008-05-05T14:35:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:35:00.000-07:00TUaD, it seems to me that if you believe what you ...TUaD, it seems to me that if you believe what you just wrote about me you would try to encourage me and not be sarcastic with me. Even if I were being sarcastic in my last comment, which is not what I was trying to be, then a Christian response would not be in kind - it would be to gently correct in love and truth. you did ask me to read (or re-read) Psalm 119, as though you weren't sure if I ever had. You did so because you took out of context something I had said. I LOVE PSALM 119. I LOVE GOD'S WORD. I live by it every day, read it, study it, memorize it, teach it, ponder it, meditate on it, and pray that I will grow in my knowledge of it by the Spirit of God every day. I shouldn't need to say that. I wouldn't care so much about this if I didn't. I love the Lord my God. I'm sorry if my words in some way persuade you to believe otherwise. But, as we've noted, the words of man often get in the way of Truth. <BR/><BR/>Please feel free to comment again here if you want, but I am done here. I think we've more than wondered off topic, but we have proven a great many excellent points, none of which are about your, or my, faith in Jesus Christ or character or love for the Word of God.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73551806772406826222008-05-05T14:28:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:28:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley - Thank you for showing us how deeply ...Bryan Riley - Thank you for showing us how deeply you misunderstand the purpose of theology and doctrine (and even the Bible itself!) with your statement: "I believe that when you try to call people to a set of beliefs you are making the set of beliefs God."Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66294954769794850092008-05-05T14:18:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:18:00.000-07:00TUaD - thank you for showing how important context...TUaD - thank you for showing how important context is.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65069681927842129392008-05-05T14:13:00.000-07:002008-05-05T14:13:00.000-07:00TUaD: "Bryan Riley, if you have time, please read...<B>TUaD</B>: "Bryan Riley, if you have time, please read or re-read Psalm 119."<BR/><BR/><B>Bryan Riley</B>: "I didn't realize, given the context of our discussion, that I needed to say words (and interpretations) OF MAN."<BR/><BR/>Well, if you don't want to give your words (and interpretations) of Psalm 119, well then.... that's up to you.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67590799726274348552008-05-05T13:49:00.000-07:002008-05-05T13:49:00.000-07:00I didn't realize, given the context of our discuss...I didn't realize, given the context of our discussion, that I needed to say words (and interpretations) OF MAN.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57572147009047846622008-05-05T13:40:00.000-07:002008-05-05T13:40:00.000-07:00Strong Tower,I don't know much about Dan Kimball. ...Strong Tower,<BR/><BR/>I don't know much about Dan Kimball. All I've heard is that he's not as bad in terms of being an Emerger as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren. People like C. Michael Patton regard Dan Kimball as a "good" emerger.<BR/><BR/>With regards to Bryan Riley, I think he's somewhat confused about doctrine, "love", and salvation.<BR/><BR/>Bryan, think of 2 x 2 matrix. On one axis we have Correct doctrine and Incorrect doctrine. On the other axis we have Heaven and Hell. Got it?<BR/><BR/>So one square we have Correct doctrine leading to Heaven. Yay!!! In the square next to it we have Correct doctrine leading to Hell. (I think this is what you're concerned about.) Then we have a square with Incorrect Doctrine leading to Heaven. (Again, you seem to think that this is the case). Lastly, you have one square with Incorrect doctrine leading to Hell.<BR/><BR/>Got It?<BR/><BR/>Okay. What many Christians will stipulate is that there are more people in these 2 squares (Correct Doctrine leads to Heaven and Incorrect Doctrine leads to Hell) than in the other 2 squares. Doctrine matters for the vast majority of people.<BR/><BR/>For me, if someone holds wrong doctrine and is still heaven-bound, then I'm clapping halleluah! God is Good!! And if someone holds correct doctrine and is still hell-bound, then that's sad news.<BR/><BR/>But the overall point is that correct doctrine matters. How can anyone read the New Testament epistles and come to any conclusion that correct doctrine did not matter to the apostles? Or if any Christian reads church history, they'll have to conclude that correct doctrine matters. Creeds were crafted and martyrs sacrificed because souls depended on standing up and affirming correct doctrine.<BR/><BR/>Correct doctrine matters. Souls are at stake. To pooh-pooh correct doctrine and the spiritual warfare that's required to stand firm in faith is utterly disappointing to witness in the Emerging Church and their leaders.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, doctrine is required to distinguish between biblical, holy, sacrificial love and the media-influenced, worldly cultural Satan-counterfeited "love" that's widely believed by postmoderns.<BR/><BR/>So to even understand, practice, and to live out Gospel Love, you still need correct doctrine. Bryan Riley, if you have time, please read or re-read Psalm 119.<BR/><BR/>Peace in Jesus,<BR/><BR/>Truth Unites... and DividesTruth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30113206466417132702008-05-05T11:51:00.000-07:002008-05-05T11:51:00.000-07:00Hey TUAD-Kimball seemed to say that there was an E...Hey TUAD-<BR/><BR/>Kimball seemed to say that there was an Emergent Position. I thought it strange that he would say: "Orthopraxy needs to matching with one's orthodoxy." As if emergnats had an orthodoxy. Elsewhere he infers that there is some overarching apologetic. He does have "an orthodoxy", which is expressed in his church's confession. But, then comes the jello effect. They are willing to tell you what they believe until you ask them what it means. Then if you hold them to account for what they tell you it means they get mad that you believed they really believe it...<BR/><BR/>In reading the comments you linked I thought it disingenuous that he would say that he was not taking them to task when it appears he did. And as far as calling Pagitt his good friend? To the conscientiously heretic sensitive, that would be a faux pas, but not to Kimball?Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46768591306764301622008-05-05T11:26:00.000-07:002008-05-05T11:26:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley: "This discussion appears to prove th...<B>Bryan Riley</B>: <I>"This discussion appears to prove that words don't matter."</I> <BR/><BR/>The Bible is comprised of Divinely Inspired Words. The Bible is also referred to as the Word of God. Jesus is referred to as the Word of God. Consequently, it is quite disappointing to read a comment whereby a Christian states that words don't matter in a dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Doctrine (Strong Tower): Words Matter<BR/><BR/>Opposing Doctrine (Bryan Riley): Words Don't Matter.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8976290584698317312008-05-05T10:58:00.000-07:002008-05-05T10:58:00.000-07:00ST,This discussion appears to prove that words don...ST,<BR/><BR/>This discussion appears to prove that words don't matter. <BR/><BR/>May "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father ... give [us] the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that [we] may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of [our] heart[s] may be enlightened in order that [we] may know the hope to which he has called [us], the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe."Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30742019844119037752008-05-05T10:51:00.000-07:002008-05-05T10:51:00.000-07:00So, when are you going to stop using the doctrine ...So, when are you going to stop using the doctrine of the Cross?<BR/><BR/>"I think dying to myself includes dying to my right to be "right" sometimes."<BR/><BR/>No one is speaking of your right to be right, but of the Scriptural command to be right.<BR/><BR/>I think you had better go back and read that scripture about the leavening of the Pharisees again. What Jesus was saying is that the fruit of the lips has to line up with the tree that produced it. You said: "This isn't about words that teach someone what to believe; this is about what's in one's heart." But that Scripture is explicit that it is about: "for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." And of course it matters what is in your heart, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and if it speaks what is true but decieves the hearer as to what is in the heart, then the speaker's condemnation is justified. But, that has nothing to do with the person whose heart is right. They are are required to speak the same truth. And by that they are justified. You might not like the idea, but right doctrine is requisite in salvation for no man can say Jesus is Lord (truthfully) except by the Spirit in him.<BR/><BR/>You worry about bringing people to doctrine, so what is your answer when people ask you who God is. Surely you do not shrug your shoulders and say "Depends". Which is a nice offer to the incontinent, but for those who appear earnest, wouldn't you give them doctrine?<BR/><BR/>You seem to think that what is argued over doctrine is a some requirement to implicit faith. It is not. But Jesus' requirement is that we speak Truth. It therefore matters what our apologetic is to the eternal degree. To say that you are bringing people to the Cross, or to Jesus, or to God without defining them, that is, without giving doctrinal reasons to believe, is to deny the Gospel of Truth. It might sound all soft and touchy feely, but as a preacher/teacher of the Gospel you are required to speak as an oracle of God, not as some *gent whose confession is, "Who knows?". For that would put you in the position of the 50 year old who speaks truth, and does not know it to be so.<BR/><BR/>Kimball's church doctrine throws you for a loop? You cannot see anything wrong with the denial of original sin? It does not strike you odd that it is the RC position his church holds, one that we, the protestation, reject? That which drove the nails at Wittenberg?<BR/><BR/>I am beginning to understand...Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33162176947606203502008-05-05T10:07:00.000-07:002008-05-05T10:07:00.000-07:00ST,I have no clue what to say. I have no argument...ST,<BR/><BR/>I have no clue what to say. I have no argument with Kimball's statement (I assume that's what you've quoted). Perhaps you do. <BR/><BR/>I've never said doctrine isn't important. I've asked myself (out loud and thus to others who read it) to examine what the writers of the NT called doctrine really meant by their use of the word. <BR/><BR/>I believe that when you try to call people to a set of beliefs you are making the set of beliefs God. I believe when you call people to the Cross of Jesus Christ, you let God be God. I think dying to myself includes dying to my right to be "right" sometimes. <BR/><BR/>Out of the mouth flows what is in one's heart. This isn't about words that teach someone what to believe; this is about what's in one's heart. A preacher could preach doctrine you believe in for 50 years, never having been a Christian at all, and they would be judged hell bound regardless of all the "great words" of "doctrine" they spoke. What matters, as Jesus taught time and time again, was what was in the heart. And a heart can't be made righteous apart from the cross of Christ. <BR/><BR/>And then as to people who really are Christians there is always 1 Corinthians 13 that tell us about doing all kinds of great things without love.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3574741826872622272008-05-05T09:30:00.000-07:002008-05-05T09:30:00.000-07:00"We believe...through our sin (failing to live by ..."We believe...through our sin (failing to live by God’s guidelines and moral standards), we break our intended relationship with God and we experience the sad consequences of that broken relationship, both spiritually and socially. However, because of God’s love for us, He sent His Son, Jesus, to rescue us from those consequences, which is the “good news” (the gospel). Our broken relationship with God is restored through Jesus’ death on the cross, a perfect act of redemption for each of us. We receive the free gift of forgiveness and are spiritually reborn through repenting (changing our mind and heart) of our sin and placing faith in Jesus alone."<BR/><BR/>Such is the Pelagian/Semi-Pelagianism of Dan Kimball's church. Surely, why would anyone impugn the brother's faith, Bryan? Does Dan ever use cleaverness of speech to defend this, hmmm?<BR/><BR/>Of course the typical emergent does not want to discuss this. You know, if you're ignorant you cannot be held responsible for your leaders, now can you?<BR/><BR/>“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”<BR/><BR/>Just how vital is doctrinal truth?Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84731304833921352532008-05-05T08:46:00.000-07:002008-05-05T08:46:00.000-07:00Bryan-So when are you going to stop using doctrine...Bryan-<BR/><BR/>So when are you going to stop using doctrine to convince others to stop using doctrine?<BR/><BR/>When you present Jesus, which Jesus do you present and how do you do that without doctrine?<BR/><BR/>Is a statement like: Do not be unbelieving, but believe, doctrinal or neutral, that is without meaning. And if the later, what does it mean to present the gospel of meaninglessness?<BR/><BR/> <B><I> I can really be clever with my words and methodologies to try to evangelize others, but if God doesn't illuminate the darkness for those others... well, it's not very useful. It seems the Kingdom of God is like a treasure hidden in a field.</B></I> You have already said this in reference to the simply word preached. So, I am wondering what's the beef. If it is worthless without the gift of faith first given, it matters not the intricacy of the argumentation.<BR/><BR/> <B><I> I don't have to try to sell the field; it will sell itself when people see the treasure.</B></I> How can it be avoided? The moment you open your mouth, are you not trying to sell what you believe. And as you have already said, if faith comes by hearing, what does it mean for people to see the treasure except that they have been sold on it?<BR/><BR/>We agree that the value of the object is not within man to understand, that understanding is given by the Spirit through the preaching of the word. And Scripture says that somethings are hard some, things are easy, and though it is not with man's wisdom it is still a wisdom spoken by those who are mature and not children in understanding. The Word is not without power, but we are speaking of the Word of God, and that surely is not without cleverness of speach: <I>"Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. </I> Thus putting to silence the wisdom of the world through a cleaver device; a doctinal riddle. <BR/><BR/>We are given weapons to tear down every argument lofty thought that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. They are weapons of war and Paul makes it clear that it is doctrine where the battle takes place within and without the church (Ephesians). As Jesus said the kingdom is taken by force and forceful men are those who take it.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58681155399695680592008-05-05T08:34:00.000-07:002008-05-05T08:34:00.000-07:00Did you get to meet Ulfo?Did you get to meet Ulfo?Rich Barcelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737056106185097562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44625577371108620602008-05-05T06:43:00.000-07:002008-05-05T06:43:00.000-07:00Dan, I appreciate your response, also. it was ver...Dan, I appreciate your response, also. it was very gracious and it helped me understand your point by giving me the correct context. I'd note that my original statement that you questioned was in the context of someone writing some things that appeared to me to be unwholesome and unedifying toward someone who appears to be a brother in Christ. In that context I thought it important to try to remember that cleverness of words and "right doctrine" don't save. I can really be clever with my words and methodologies to try to evangelize others, but if God doesn't illuminate the darkness for those others... well, it's not very useful. It seems the Kingdom of God is like a treasure hidden in a field. I don't have to try to sell the field; it will sell itself when people see the treasure.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13084141612304974312008-05-05T06:33:00.000-07:002008-05-05T06:33:00.000-07:00Dan, I think I might understand why you question w...Dan, I think I might understand why you question what i wrote, but we know that the devils believe in God and shudder. We know that someone can say all the right things about God, read their bible daily, preach, teach, do a whole lot of stuff, but if they don't place their faith in Christ, they aren't saved. God, in His grace, through faith in Christ, alone saves. And even that faith isn't from ourselves. <BR/><BR/>So, my point is, when we focus on "right doctrine" we are misplacing our focus. Jesus called us to Himself and to His kingdom. Jesus and His rulership must be our focus. I'm not sure that when we fight each other about "our beliefs" that we aren'ts trying to make our beliefs, our doctrine (and ultimately ourselves) the Kingdom rather than submitting to the Kingdom of Christ. The Kingdom of God is not a matter of words, but of power. The Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking (natural) .. it is righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. In both of these passages Paul is referring to a way of life, not a matter of words.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82282635473819180402008-05-05T06:24:00.000-07:002008-05-05T06:24:00.000-07:00First, you responded with Scripture. That's a good...First, you responded with Scripture. That's a good response.<BR/><BR/>Second, I'm neither saying, thinking, nor implying anything about Dan Kimball.<BR/><BR/>Third, I'm responding to this from you:<BR/><BR/>"Will we ever illuminate the darkness and blindness of the world by ...words that state what we believe? Or must we wage against the world system through the weapons God provides in the heavenlies? {P}...spelling out right doctrine doesn't save - not even the one spelling it out. Jesus does."<BR/><BR/>Your own answer to my question indicates that you seem to have erected a false dichotomy.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.com