Emergent Nazarenes - Latest Comments in Statue of Liberty

Re: Statue of Liberty

Josh — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:53 -0000

Thanks Rich. FYI, we used this poem this past Sunday in connection with a sermon on offering Jesus' healing inclusion to outsiders (Acts 3). We used the word "crap" (thanks in part to the discussion here), and one of our church members created an excellent slide show to go along with the poem.

Re: Statue of Liberty

Josh — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:44:50 -0000

Hey James, I may be one of the contributors who doesn't understand the difference between a forum and a blog. If I need to make posts in a different way or with a different style of content, please let me know. I think you have my email address.

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:05:17 -0000

James,

I included the link to Ikon's "Easter" gathering. You can hear the entire thing for yourself.

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:21:44 -0000

Again, I don't dismiss that we have "promoted" Rollins, I just simply do not know any of the specifics about this Ikon Easter gathering beyond your accusations so I can not comment more about it. I also can not call it heresy based on just your accusation, especially considering your history of how you define that term.

Finally let me suggest what you suggested to me about MacArther who you specifically quoted even though we did not specifically quote anything in regards to Rollins Ikon service. Why don't you send him an email.

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:09:50 -0000

I don't think I disagree with Josh's statement because being more biblical requires us to have more than just "biblical discernment".

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:12:36 -0000

James,

Well...I am persistent.

And...I don't want to belabor the point, but, given that this blog and its contributors have promoted Rollins to one degree or another, I don't think that he and the issue can be so easily dismissed by saying that you are not part of that community.

In a "direct" sense you are obviously not, but in broader "indirect" sense I believe that you are because of your community's inclusion of him and his ideas. His emerging christianity and the ideas behind them are what led to his ridiculous "Easter" heretical gathering.

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:58:08 -0000

Hey James,

"If anything, I might argue it isn't "biblical" enough when "biblical" is just reduced to right teaching that has little to do with right living."

I agree with you and would "argue" along side of you in this regard.

In fact, I did "argue" that very point in an above post in which one of the contributors stated that the Bible does not give us direction in regard to how to live the Christian life in the 21st century.

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:15:33 -0000

Paul,

This may be semantics, but I am not that comfortable with the term of "biblical" discernment, at least I am not comfortable limiting our discernment to just the bible. It just seems so inverted. We need to discern how we interact with the real world. Scripture can and should guide us in this, but we are not just discerning the bible, but our life context and how we should live according to the WAY in it.

I am not unconcerned about false teaching, but when orthodoxy is "protected" at the expense of orthopraxy we arrive at neither.

As you see in Ephesians 4 Paul never separates the two; orthodoxy and orthopraxy. They are linked together in a way that can not be torn apart. I do not disregard the application you added of "(via God's Word)" as a point of clarification to Paul's comments about being built up as the Body of Christ. However, I would caution that avoiding being tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine takes more than what most people think of when they use the term "think biblicly".

Your addition and clarification of "(via God's Word)" (I assume you mean bible teaching) to the passage while not wrong, it is also is not the emphasis of Paul's point. Community plays a vital part in imparting Christian orthodoxy that we often have a hard time getting our head around in our individualistic, "personal bible study" and "Jesus as my personal Savior" culture.

It is not that what I suggest is unbiblical, you can see from my view of Ephesians 4 that it is not. It is just that "thinking biblicaly", and "sound teaching" is often reduced to whatever is considered "right thinking" more than "right living." At best we tend not to emphasize all of Paul instruction to protect us from unorthodox Christian lives.

As we are connected to the Body of Christ as Paul prescribes so that we can "reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ", and we are no longer tossed back and forth by crafty false teachers, we learn an orthodoxy that is connected to orthopraxy by living out the Word made flesh in the body of Christ among one another. This is a far more robust view of ensuring an orthodoxy/orthopraxy than just "thinking biblical".

I just think that when most people speak of being "biblical" they are not thinking of this in robust ways. If anything, I might argue it isn't "biblical" enough when "biblical" is just reduced to right teaching that has little to do with right living.

As for common ground I think that we likely are not as far off as our differing vocabulary may lead us to believe. I am sure you believe in "right living", I just think that the way we tend to think about being "biblical" in our Christian culture ironically and unfortunately marginalizes what scripture actually teaches.

I do hope this conversation is becoming a bit more fruitful. I appreciate what I sense is an effort on your part to find some common ground for some shared context even as we may continue to disagree, perhaps even strongly. But, I think if we can learn anything from Paul's teaching in Ephesians, it is that finding this kind of solidarity in Christ with one another that plays a vital role in helping us all become more orthodox.

Peace,

James

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:53:26 -0000

James,

You are welcome.

But, I think that we are unnecessarily disagreeing with one another and you with MacArthur by you getting stuck on your own mentioned "Scripture ALONE" label. MacArthur didn't say "Scripture ALONE" and I didn't either, especially in the context that you are framing it.

Wouldn't we both agree that in order to practice biblical discernment one would have to employ a scriptural test? Can't we, at least, agree on this general statement? Can't we also agree that, as Christians, we are to discern, through scriptural tests (and scriptural texts), whether a person is teaching truthfully or falsely?

I am betting that you and I would agree with the above statements and that you and I would also agree with the actual scriptural tests as found in scripture.

Are we on common ground here, yet?

And...as far as Ephesians 4, I have read the whole chapter, and I agree, in at least part, I think, with what you are saying. I don't know anyone who would disagree with you. After we accept Christ by faith, we are a new creature (as I mentioned above and was accused of using a Pauline construct and Pauline theology), a member of the body of Christ being prepared and built up (via God's Word) for works of service until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature...Then we will no longer be infants tossed back and forth by false teachers...Instead speak the truth in love...don't live as the Gentiles do...futile in their thinking...darkened in their understanding of God and separated from the life of God...You, however did not come to know Christ that way...Surely, you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus...You were taught to put off your old self...to be made new in the attitude of your minds...and to be like God in true righteousness and holiness...do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths...forgive one another just as in Christ God forgave you.

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:08:15 -0000

Paul as for your context for bringing up Ikon and Rollins, I and others have already conceded your point that the church needs to be transformational. To go on about it after that seems to be just grinding an axe that no longer is in context. We are not part of that community and can't say much more about it. Yes, the church should be transformational.

As for your next question, I never said you can't "deconstruct the emergent conversation". That's not the problem, the problem is the way it happens here both in process and approach.

It has become evident to me that even some of my contributors don't know the difference between a forum and a blog. If this were a forum, you could start a new thread about Ikon and Rollins if you wanted to. This would be far more orderly. But the comment section of a blog is not that technically robust and just is not equipped to handle that kind of indepth discussion where conversations can take off in different directions and have different threads.

The second issue is that it feels like you are often just trying to pick a fight. Some of this perception may again be because of the limits of the format. But regardless, I am just not interested in fighting and whether it is because of your persistence and/or because the limits of a blog to go as indepth as you want to go, the end result does not seem to be a fruitful conversation but instead regresses into a fight. I am not sure why you would want that anymore than we do, unless you want to pick a fight with your only objective being "winning" the argument.

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:45:09 -0000

Paul, I never said discernment was not vitally important. But apparently you find my main point confusing.

You ask.. "Wouldn't these "other tests which scripture itself emphasizes" be included in the "Scripture ALONE" category? These other tests that you refer to are mentioned in scripture, right?"

Yes, they are mentioned in scripture, but no, they are not in the "Scripture ALONE" category, because these tests ask you to interact with context, situations, surrounding, and one another that exists in the real world beyond the text. "Scripture Alone" says that the only test that can be used is finding out what the text says.

You ask, "If the scripture gives "far more comprehensive ways to test everything", isn't that still a scriptural test?" I would say yes it is still scriptural, but it is not sola scriptora "scripture alone".

You ask.. "Why is it out of context to utilize Ephesians 4:14 in an article about biblical discernment?"

Because McArther re-frames the context of Ephesians 4:14 to fit the context of his paragraph. Even your question here infers this reality. By reframing the context to fit his paragraph he changes the meaning of the verse in its own context.

You ask, "What other tests should a Christian employ other than by "Scripture ALONE", which you objected to? And you ask, "What other tool (other than God's Word) should a Christian use in preventing being battered about by the false teaching of cunning, crafty, deceitful and scheming men/women? What do you suggest?"

What does scripture say in Ephesians 4, the whole chapter? Read the answer for yourself, I think you will find the answer is as much about orthopraxy in relation to one another as it is about orthodoxy, what Christ did for us.

Thank you for ending with finding some common ground by quoting Matthew 22.

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:12:08 -0000

James,

You said: "Finally, as for “Rollins Ikon ‘Easter’ gathering”, I don’t know anything about it so I can’t comment either way. This is one of your left field things that you brought into comments to a post that had nothing to do with that.

You can listen to the Ikon "Easter" gathering on the provided link in the above post. Listen to it and put it to a biblical discernment test and please let me know what you think.

I had already explained, in a previous comment, why bringing up Rollins and his Ikon "Easter" gathering was not a "left field thing". See below:

"I thought that there was a context for the introduction of Rollins and that the input flowed with the discusion as it was evolving.

When this is our unfettered by biblical contraints approach:

"At least in my context we finally befriended enough bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/what-have-yous that the uptight churchy people took their righteous indignation and sanitary theology elsewhere."

Rollins, Ikon, and their type of "Easter" gathering are the eventual outcome.

I think that this is a very legitimate and consistent issue related to the discussion. The premise behind the poem and many of the comments is that the Church, with its "sanitary theology and uptight people, has failed
in reaching the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that the removal of the so-called "sanitary theology and uptight people" will result in communities and gatherings like Ikon that are devoid of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. What good is that to the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous?"

Is this not reasonable?

You, also, said: "You should change your ways, or at least your approach for the sake of not being destructive in this small online community as we participate in the body of Christ."

Not to be offensive, but why is it a legitimate pursuit for the emergents to deconstruct orthodox Christianity, but not for me, or others, to deconstruct a portion of the "emergent conversation"?

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:00:01 -0000

Good afternoon, James.

There is a lot in your post.

I do not belive that it is out of context to say what MacArthur said relative to 1 Thes. 5:21-22 and 1 John 4:1:

"First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). "

"According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer — it is required. The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life."

Do not these verses require that a Christian be discerning in regard to truth and error?

Can't we agree here?

If they do (which they do), then how did MacArthur take these two verses out of context?

MacArthur went on to say this:

"The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living — a certain recipe for compromise."

Do you agree or disagree?

Apparently, your "big issue" is with this part of MacArthur's article:

"Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God’s Word...

And..this part:

"Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God’s Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life."

What other tests should a Christian employ other than by "Scripture ALONE", which you objected to?

Your statement here confuses me:

"I further object to the marginalization of other tests which scripture itself emphasize..."

Wouldn't these "other tests which scripture itself emphasizes" be included in the "Scripture ALONE" category? These other tests that you refer to are mentioned in scripture, right?

This statement also confused me:

"But just because Wesley also points to scripture as a method of testing, and again I am not against this, does not mean that the scripture itself says that testing the spirits is all about testing them according to scripture. This is what you and McArther are doing in the paragraph you provided before. The whole paragraph was about testing everything by the BIBLE, yet the scriptures actually gave far more comprehensive ways to test everything with that is just frankly ignored by you both."

If the scripture gives "far more comprehensive ways to test everything", isn't that still a scriptural test?

And...Isn't historical context important? What is the historical context of I John 4? Wasn't the false teaching of Gnosticism a problem for the Church at this time? Wouldn't the 1 John 4 test quickly reveal the false teaching of the Gnostics in John's day? Is every false teacher a Gnostic today? Or, might we need to employ other biblical tests to reveal the false teaching of other types of false teachers?

Sure...Ephesians 4 is about unity, but if not by God's Word (scripture) and if not by scriptural teaching (via God's Word), what do apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers utilize to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ will be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature...?

Why is it out of context to utilize Ephesians 4:14 in an article about biblical discernment?

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.

Will not properly employed discernment prevent a Christian from being tossed back and forth by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming?

What other tool (other than God's Word) should a Christian use in preventing being battered about by the false teaching of cunning, crafty, deceitful and scheming men/women? What do you suggest?

You said: "This is why you should reconsider, because while you argue that scripture is about the Bible..."

No...I don't.

You said: "...the scripture actually is about God and our neighbor."

Now...here, you and I can find some common ground! Why? Because:

Jesus said to him, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:37 – 40)

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

richschmidt — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:06:31 -0000

I like the poem. I'd have to skip the profanity if I were using it, because that's not a phrase that comes naturally to me (though it definitely comes naturally to non-Christians I'm around), and it would cause undue offense to some folks. As someone else mentioned, it may cause them to get hung up on that and miss the point of the rest of the poem.

If I ever use it, I'll be sure to credit you, as you asked.

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:09:18 -0000

Paul,

I do not object to scripture being used as "a" test, my objection was “proof texting” which most often consists of stringing verses together from various contexts to make them justify a position which may or may not actually be consistent with the context of the verses used.

I further object to the marginalization of other tests which scripture itself emphasize, by taking verses that speak of these things and hijacking them to make it sound like they are saying “test everything by scripture ALONE”. This was exactly what you (and apparently John McArther, though lack of quotation marks make it difficult to see where quotes begin and end) did when you sited, 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, 1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 1:3-4, and Ephesians 4:14.

The problem Paul is that you take scripture and point it in on itself, but scripture itself points outward toward God and his redemptive work between him and us and us and our neighbors.

Now you expand your proof texting methods to bible commentary proofs that you cut and paste in large paragraphs for your arguments rather than really consider the issue I had with your argument and the way it used scripture in the paragrpah you cut and pasted from John McArther. If I disagree with Gill, are you going to pass the buck on that one too and ask me to take it up in a letter to him even though he died 240 years ago? Why are Gill and McArther suddenly your authority on these matters to you? Does the context of McArther’s paragraph about “thinking biblically”, trump the actual context of the scripture?

As for John McArther as someone who has “proven himself in the area of rightly dividing the word of truth” I could not disagree more, for the reasons just mentioned. You have not dealt at all with any of the actual context of the verses that were quoted. The closest you came was cut and pasting Wesley commentary on just one of them, and even that doesn’t change my point.

So Wesley agrees with me in that prophesy spoken of here isn’t scripture, and then Wesley likens it to “preaching”. Wesley said that “preaching” should not be despised, but all of it should be tested. Ok, I am tracking with that. But just because Wesley also points to scripture as a method of testing, and again I am not against this, does not mean that the scripture itself says that testing the spirits is all about testing them according to scripture. This is what you and McArther are doing in the paragraph you provided before. The whole paragraph was about testing everything by the BIBLE, yet the scriptures actually gave far more comprehensive ways to test everything with that is just frankly ignored by you both.

Finally, as for “Rollins Ikon ‘Easter’ gathering”, I don’t know anything about it so I can’t comment either way. This is one of your left field things that you brought into comments to a post that had nothing to do with that. I will say yes though, it should be tested and yes scripture has a vital roll in doing that. But first I have your arguments and methods and apparently John McArther’s in my face to decide what to do with. This is what I am testing right now, this is what I can see enough to begin to weigh. And, again I find them both inconsistent with the Way of Jesus. To be clear, these arguments are not binary, just because I find the arguments you presented lacking does not mean that “Rollins Ikon ‘Easter’ gathering” is somehow right. I will have to seriously consider that too when I learn something about it.

So to answer your question, this is why you should reconsider your ways:

First, the scripture in Ephesians 4 which you and McArther quoted out of context encourages us to seek solidarity and unity with the Body of Christ so that we are not “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” Second 1st John 4, which was also quoted in your comment out of context, tells us to test things whether it “acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” This test is not just one of intellectual assent, but one of substance as we are to test if the very way of something acknowledges what Jesus looks like with flesh on as John elaborates by saying, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God… and if someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.” Wow, how about that for a test? Kind of reminds you of, “as much as you done to the least of these you have done unto Christ”.

This is why you should reconsider, because while you argue that scripture is about the Bible, the scripture actually is about God and our neighbor. We are one of your neighbors, and we have given you our time and have paid attention to your arguments and your concerns, but your goal does not seem to be to find any common ground with us. You want to have the right answer more than you want to be in any kind of right relationship with us. You have twisted the scripture to support your argument rather than take its advice and seek love, and unity with us as part of the Body. This is plain and simply divisive, again with your only goal that is evident to any of us is just to fight us. This is the spirit you present, and one we are weary in fending off. You should change your ways, or at least your approach for the sake of not being destructive in this small online community as we participate in the body of Christ.

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:16:05 -0000

Wow, James.

I really don't understand what was so offensive.

First of all, you do realize that it was John MacArthur's article and not my work, correct? I don't think I need to defend John MacArthur. I believe that he has proven himself in the area of rightly dividing the word of truth, but...

You did call it deceptive use of the Scripture. So...whether it was my work, or MacArthur's (which it is MacArthur's)...it doesn't matter, that needs to be addressed because I believe that a careful look will reveal that it is not "deceptive use of the Scripture" as charged. You could email MacArthur and probably get a response from someone, though.

"But, “prophesies” here isn’t scripture, or Paul would not encourage them to sift through it themselves to “hold on to what is good” and throw out the bad. These prophesies were things those in their own community were saying."

BINGO! That is exactly what we are talking about. As John Wesley cites in his Explanatory Notes, "prophesying" is preaching:

Verse 20
[20] Despise not prophesyings.

Despise not prophesyings — That is, preaching; for the apostle is not here speaking of extraordinary gifts. It seems, one means of grace is put for all; and whoever despises any of these, under whatever pretence, will surely (though perhaps gradually and almost insensibly) quench the Spirit.

Verse 21
[21] Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Meantime, prove all things - Which any preacher recommends. (He speaks of practice, not of doctrines.) Try every advice by the touchstone of scripture, and hold fast that which is good - Zealously, resolutely, diligently practise it, in spite of all opposition.

John Gill stated this of the passage in his Exposition of the Bible:

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Prove all things…
That are said by the prophets, all the doctrines which they deliver; hear them, though they have not the gift of tongues, and all desirable advantages; do not reject them on that account, and refuse to hear them, for so, many useful men may be laid aside, and the Spirit of God in them be quenched; try their gifts, and attend to their doctrines, yet do not implicitly believe everything they say, but examine them according to the word of God the test and standard of truth; search the Scriptures, whether the things they say are true or not. Not openly erroneous persons, and known heretics, are to be heard and attended on, but the ministers of the word, or such who are said to have a gift of prophesying; these should make use of it, and the church should try and judge their gift, and accordingly encourage or discourage; and also their doctrines, and if false reject them, and if true receive them.

Hold fast that which is good;
honest, pleasant, profitable, and agreeable to sound doctrine, to the analogy of faith, and the Scriptures of truth, and is useful and edifying, instructive both as to principle and practice; such should be held fast, that no man take it away; and be retained, though a majority may be against it, for the multitude is not always on the side of truth; and though it may be rejected by men of learning and wealth, as Christ and his doctrines were rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and rulers of the people; and though it may be reproached as a novel, upstart notion, or a licentious one, since these were charges against the doctrine of Christ, and his apostles; and though it may be attended with affliction and persecution, yet none of these things should move from it, or cause to let it go.

So...if you apply 1 Thesallonians 5:21 to Rollins Ikon "Easter" gathering, using biblical discernment, we should all reach the same conclusion. We take the "prophesying" (the preaching) of Rollins in his "community", in your "community" and examine it. Is exalting Judas and leaving out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in an "Easter" gathering worthy of holding on to? Is that kind of "preaching" biblical?

As For 1 John 4:1, Gill says this:

Beloved, believe not every spirit…
The apostle having mentioned the word "spirit" in the latter part of the preceding chapter, takes an occasion from thence to return to what he had been suggesting in the "second" chapter, concerning the many antichrists that then were, and whom he points out, and here cautions against. By "every spirit" he means, either every doctrine that is pretended to come from the Spirit of God, or every teacher, who professes to be qualified and sent by him, and to have his light, knowledge, and doctrine from him. Every true minister of the Gospel has the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit, more or less, to qualify him for his work; he is separated, and called to it by him, and receives his spiritual light find knowledge from him; it is he that teaches him sound doctrine, and leads him into all truth, as it is in Jesus, and brings every necessary truth to his remembrance; and who succeeds his ministrations to the good of souls: but there are some who call themselves the ministers of the Gospel, who, though they may have some natural abilities, and a share of human learning, and a notional knowledge of things, yet have never received either grace or gifts from the Spirit; nor have they been ever called by him; nor are their ministrations according to that divine word which is inspired by him, nor attended with his demonstration and power; wherefore, though some professing to have the Spirit of Christ are to be believed, yet not everyone; and though the Spirit is not to be quenched in any, nor prophesying to be despised, yet care should be taken what is heard and received: some persons are so obstinate and incredulous as not to believe anything that is declared, be the evidence what it will; as the Jews would not believe Christ and his apostles, though what they said agreed with Moses and the prophets, and was confirmed by miracles; and others are too credulous; at once receive every teacher, and embrace every upstart doctrine: this they should not do,

but try the spirits whether they are of God;
not by human reason, especially as carnal and unsanctified; for though the doctrines of the Gospel are not contrary to true reason, they are above it, and not to be judged of by it, and are disapproved of and rejected by carnal reason; but by the word of God, which is the standard of all doctrine; and whatever agrees with that is to be received, and what does not should be rejected. And so to do is very commendable, as appears from the instance of the Beraeans, who on this account are said to be more noble than those of Thessalonica, (Acts 17:11) ; and from the commendation of the church at Ephesus, (Revelation 2:2) . And this is what every believer, every private Christian should do; to them it belongs to read and search the Scriptures, and prove all things, and judge for themselves of the truth of doctrine; and to such a probation or trial of the spirits, spiritual light, knowledge, judgment, sense, experience, and divine guidance are necessary, which should be asked of God, and an increase thereof; and all such diligent searchers, and humble inquirers, are capable of making judgment of persons and doctrines, whether they are from the Spirit of God or not, for the Spirit of God never speaks contrary to his word: and the reason why such a trial should be made is,

because many false prophets are gone out into the world:
such who pretended either to a revelation of future things, and to foretell things to come; or rather to a gift of prophesying, or preaching in Christ's name, to be "prophets" and spiritual men, and ministers of the word, but were "false" ones; who either predicted what did not come to pass, or rather preached false doctrine, by corrupting the word, and handling it deceitfully, and so imposed upon and ruined the souls of others, as well as deceived their own: and there were not only one, or two, or a few of these, but "many", as our Lord had foretold, (Matthew 24:11,24) ; and which makes the reason the stronger for not believing every spirit, but trying them; and the rather, since they were not sent of God, hot called out by his churches, but were "gone out" of themselves; of their own heads, and without any mission from God or man: and "into the world" too; they were in every part of it, and especially where there were any churches of Christ; into which they first crept in privily, and at unawares, but afterwards became public preachers of the word, and then separating from them, set up openly in the world for themselves.

"So, I have tested your “proof texting” and your combative spirit and have found both not to be true to Jesus"

First, given the above, I don't think that your test actually produced the results that you claim and secondly, I find it interesting, given that you object to Scripture being employed as the test, that you employed Scripture to test the alleged incorrect "proof texting". I don't know what you used to "test" my alleged combative spirit.

In the end, should we use Scripture as the test for the Rollin's teaching on Judas? And...what does Scripture say about Rollins avoidance of the mention of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at his "Easter" gathering? Does 1 John 4, possibly, cover that issue? If Scripture isn't the test, then what should be used?

Given the above, why should I reconsider my ways?

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:35:03 -0000

Paul,

I love when in the argument for being “biblical” people throw out proof texts like 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 and 1 John 4:1, as if they say “compare everything to the bible and whatever does not match, throw it out”. These text DO NOT say that. Scripture isn’t even mentioned as part of “testing the spirit” in these verses. 1 Thessalonians seems to come close at first glance as verse 20 says, “do not treat prophecies with contempt”, which is the context of the verse you quote where Paul gives his advice to handling various “prophesies” by saying “test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” But, “prophesies” here isn’t scripture, or Paul would not encourage them to sift through it themselves to “hold on to what is good” and throw out the bad. These prophesies were things those in their own community were saying. I don’t think we can reduce what Paul is saying in these verses as just an instruction to compare what is said to the Bible. I am sure Paul would not object to this as being part of “testing everything”, but it is not Paul’s prescription here as you imply by using it as a proof text.

Your next verse in 1 John 4 does tell us to test every thing, but like a true “proof texter” you apply this to your own systematic context of YOUR (an others of the same mindset) view of the role of the bible rather than the context given in the actual text. If you read past verse one, John gives us the answer to how we are to test the spirit which is quite different from what you say. (2) “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” John continues to “flesh out” what this looks like in the whole chapter, as he points to looking for evidence where the Spirit of Christ is active in the world, as opposed to the spirit of the world itself, whom John tells us that he who is in us is greater than that of the world. John even describes what this looks like by saying things like, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God, and whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (7,8) This testing that John describes is about looking for and clinging to where we find the incarnation presence of Jesus (Chapter 2, 6-12).

In 2 Peter 1:3-4 you make a gigantic assumption that the “divine power” that these “precious promises” come through is limited to just scripture. Scripture was just a part of this as God’s divine power comes through the presence Jesus Christ himself in the world, which includes His body and their testimony. But you make it sound as if all this divine power was just to send us a book. Then you warn us about the importance of “thinking biblically about all areas of life” so that according to Ephesians 4:14 we are not “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine”. But the context of Ephesians 4 that keeps us from being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” is to get connected to the Body of Christ as Paul makes abundantly clear in the first 16 verses, from which you quote verse 14 out of context. “Thinking biblically” is NOT what Paul is talking about that protects us, but rather he is talking about the unity of the Body of Christ and community.

So, I have tested your “proof texting” and your combative spirit and have found both not to be true to Jesus. You have been deceptive in your use of scripture by changing the context of these narratives to fit your view of what you think “Biblical Christianity” is. Considering the importance you SAY you give scripture, I find this to be extremely hypocritical. What you present here is not consistent with the Way of Jesus, neither in the substance of love nor even in the substance your words.

I ask you that you reconsider your ways as you interact with us here or I am not sure how it can be fruitful and beneficial for any of us to continue in this interaction.

Peace,

James

Re: Statue of Liberty

mrdcbrush — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:49:21 -0000

I have had a great time posting on this blog, and participating in the discussions. However frankly I am tired of the apologetic fisticuffs. I think I am going to be taking a sabbatical from this site for the time being until we can find a more hopeful and helpful way of building community. Frankly I am tired of playing the 'jerk' 'Paul' elicits in me, his comments cause me to stumble in my faith (for which I apologize) and I need to find a better way to invest my time in Kingdom work than worrying about or even considering the position of someone so resistant to anything done here, and dead set on ruining any sense of charity. I have appreciated everyone here, and I may be back again sometime, but for now consider me 'silent' on this blog.

-David

Re: Statue of Liberty

Josh — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:24:35 -0000

Well, Paul, I've got to give it to you for sticking with a conversation. However, I often feel like we're not in the same conversation. I feel like we are coming at this from two different worlds. For example, I agree with the article from MacArthur, but I am sure that I interpret that discernment very differently from how he and you interpret or "use" it.
I have an appointment, so I can't write much. Maybe this would be a fair compromise. Maybe you could suggest one limited topic you would like to discuss. Then, one of the contributors here will start a post dedicated to discussing that topic.

Re: Statue of Liberty

jesus reyes — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:38:35 -0000

I had no business posting and I regret it. I have no interest in getting in a spitting contest. I apologize.

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:45:02 -0000

And...JR,

"The Nazarene position is plenary inspiration, not inerrancy, infallibility and literal."

Yeah...I am aware of this. I, and many others, just don't agree with H. Orton Wiley on this one when he wrote the COTN's position, leaving "elbow room for science and the social sciences."

But, to Unitarian Universalist's...

Jesus is a liar or wrong because he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no man comes to the Father, but through Me." The UUC says that this isn't true.

If you don't even hold to, or believe, THE essential doctrine of Christianity...

Why bother getting into a discussion on inerrancy and infallibilty?

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:16:45 -0000

JR,

Are you still attending that Universalist Unitarian Church?

John MacArthur ain't a hyper Calvinist...not in any manner.

"Next time, roll out Paul Washer, he has that pitiful cry in his voice."

Yeah...Isn't it just ridiculous when someone gets passionate and emotional about what God has done for them (salvation through faith in Jesus Christ), the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and and for lost souls?! Just ridiculous!

"That long bony finger of fundamentalist judgment and condemnation."

How in the world does MacArthur's article on the topic of biblical discernment = fundamentalist judgment and condemnation?

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

jesus reyes — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:06:12 -0000

I knew the proof texting would show up sooner than later. I also knew a hyper Calvinist would have to be referenced to make the point. Next time, roll out Paul Washer, he has that pitiful cry in his voice. The Nazarene position is plenary inspiration, not inerrancy, infallibility and literal. Too predictable. That long bony finger of fundamentalist judgment and condemnation. Move over, God, you're not stacking em in hell fast enough for me.

Re: Statue of Liberty

Paul — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:55 -0000

James,

"Perhaps you just mean that you leave room for little errors but not big ones."

Ummmm...No.

"Who (besides Jesus) can live up to this expectation that anyone who has any element other that absolute pure truth in their understanding and teaching must to be disqualified?"

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 NIV

As Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2-4, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

When a person exalts Judas at an "Easter" gathering, and teaches falsely about him (most faithful and committed Christian humanity has ever seen...could rival Abraham in his faith and commitment - that is a myth and a fable), among other things, while avoiding the Gospel of Jesus Christ...It is reasonable to label it blatant.

And...I don't think that Calvin and Wesley having anything to do with this issue - talk about going off subject - (what would Wesley think about exalting Judas at Easter? What would Wesley think about JUdas? Hint: Wesley's Notes from John 17:12 - That the Scripture might be fulfilled - That is, whereby the Scripture was fulfilled. The son of perdition signifies one that deservedly perishes; as a son of death, 2 Sam. xii, 5; children of hell, Matt. xxiii, 15, and children of wrath, Eph. ii, 3, signify persons justly obnoxious to death, hell, wrath. Psalm cix, 8.). And...I would submit that most, if not all, of your contributors are more influenced by the 1970's constructed Weslyan Quadrilateral than they are Wesley.

This says it better than I could:

Thinking Biblically
June 18th, 2008

(By John MacArthur)

In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically.

First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer — it is required. The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living — a certain recipe for compromise.

Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God’s Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of unbiblical decision-making and behavior. In short, they are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day.

Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God’s Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life. According to Peter, God “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). You see, it is through the “true knowledge of Him,” that we have been given everything we need to live a Christian life in this fallen world. And how else do we have true knowledge of God but through the pages of His Word, the Bible? In fact, Peter goes on to say that such knowledge comes through God’s granting “to us His precious and magnificent promises” (2 Peter 1:4).

Discernment — the ability to think biblically about all areas of life — is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

http://www.sfpulpit.com/200...

Regards,

Re: Statue of Liberty

James_Diggs — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:55:03 -0000

Paul,

You said, “He (Rollins) should have no voice in your "conversation”….False teaching is always cloaked with an element of truth. Just because he says something that might be reasonable, or even true, the blatantly false content disqualifies him.”

How do you determine what is “blatantly false” compared to something obscurely false This sounds like a pretty subjective determination depending on what seems obvious to the beholder. Not only that, why is the obscure falsehood you don’t see less dangerous than the “blatant” one? I would think it would be the other way around.

Perhaps you just mean that you leave room for little errors but not big ones. Is there some kind of scale where I can determine if something is just a small error compared to a big error? At what point does error tip the scale from sound teaching with a little bit of error mixed in and move to false teaching with a lot of error? Or must we have no error and anything false in our teaching in order not to be disqualified from the conversation?

Who (besides Jesus) can live up to this expectation that anyone who has any element other that absolute pure truth in their understanding and teaching must to be disqualified? Neither Calvin nor Wesley could be held to that standard, and we seemed to be influenced a lot by these two guys between our critics and contributors. Not only that, many in each camp consider the other one to be pretty blatant in their error. But then again, some in these opposing camps don’t view where they believe the other is in error as blatant errors. Again, this seems kind of subjective.