These are some quotes which I have gathered on different views of truth in the Emergent Church. I have compared them to scripture verses. I wish to challenge those in emergent thought to show me if the statement made by the author or speaker is truth, or a shading of the truth (how much must one shade the truth before it becomes a lie?)
Doug Pagitt, on Creation: “[In the Emerging Church] the idea that there is a necessary distinction of…creation from creator is being reconsidered.”
Doug Pagitt (Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches, 142.)
The BIBLE makes a distinctive between Creator and creation...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth
Romans 1:25, 28 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
"We’re [the Emerging Church] not trying to slide anything by someone; we’re trying to work very deeply, and connected to the story of God, and with God, in this world to try to express “what are the hopes and dreams of God for our world.”
What are the hopes and dreams of God for this world? Does God have hopes and dreams? I thought God was sovereign? God does not have hopes and dreams, He has a will, plans, and foreknowledge; No matter what Greg Boyd teaches:
The Bible teaches that God is Sovereign:
Isaiah 40:13-14 Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD,
Or as His counselor has informed Him?
14 With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding?
And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge
And informed Him of the way of understanding?
Daniel 4:35"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And (C)no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, What have You done?'
Ephesians 3:11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eightly–there’s an openness to the “other” (point 8 on his Powerpoint display). To the other thinker, to the foreigner, to the outsider; it’s this call to love, not only God and neighbor–but to love enemy and to not be “freaked out,” and not to be so concerned about when “the other” is in our midst.
And I think that’s about the very understanding about the character of God; the acceptance of ‘the otherr,” and these [Emergent] communities tend to look [at it] this way.
Doug Pagitt at Council for a Parliment of World Religions, Disc 1, Ch. 6, 15:13-15:51
The Bible teaches:
Exodus 20:1Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3"You shall have no other gods before Me.
I'd watch out for the search of 'the other...Doug...if I were you.... Exodus 20:5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
What is 'the Other' discussed by Pagitt? It is Emergent code for other religions. Here is what Dr. Samir Salmonovic has to say in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope- edited by Doug Pagitt:
"Can it be that the teachings of the gospel are embedded and can be found in reality itself rather than being exclusively isolated in sacred texts and our interpretations of those texts? If the answer is yes, can it be that they are embedded in other stories, other peoples’ histories, and even other religions?...
God’s table is welcoming all who seek, and if any religion is to win, may it be the one that produces people who are the most loving, the most humble, the most Christlike. Whatever the meaning of “salvation” and “judgement,” we Christians are going to be saved by grace, like everyone else, and judged by our works, like everyone else…
For most critics of such open Christianity, the problem with inclusiveness is that it allows for truth to be found in other religions. To emerging Christians, that problem is sweet… Moreover, if non-Christians can know our God, then we want to benefit from their contribution to our faith. (192, 195,196,)
Does the Bible teach universalism? I guess it does not matter, according to Pagitt and Salmonovic, we can find truth in reality and embedded in other's stories and traditions:
The Bible says:
Exodus 9:14"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth.
2 Samuel 7:22"For this reason You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You,
according to all that we have heard with our ears.
John 17:3"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Thats enough for today...Let the 'conversation' begin!!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
John,
The basic flaw in your thesis is that you are treating the ECM as if it were a denomination (like the Methodists, Presbys, etc.), when in reality, it is a response to a change in Western culture (from modern to postmodern).
So, each ECM church tends to be an independent entity (a self-contained local church without denominational affiliation). Each church tends to take on the conservative or liberal characteristics of the denominational backgrounds of its founders.
So - you have Dan Kimball, who comes from a conservative background, and his ECM church (Vintage Faith) is conservative in its theology. You have folks like Bell, who comes from an Arminian background, so Mars Hill tends to be moderate in its views. You have folks like Mark Driscoll, who is Calvinist by background, and his church (Mars Hill WA) is Calvinistic. You have Pagitt, who comes from a liberal church background, and his church tends to be more liberal.
When you try to paint the ECM with such a broad brush, you end up slandering a whole lot of folks by choosing examples that have no resemblance to them.
Even with Padgitt, I don't have the book you've quoted, so I personally don't trust that you've given the context of what he wrote - or that he would agree with how you've characterized it - which, by definition, would make it a straw man.
I know a lot of ECM folks who believe in knowledge and truth. Where they differ from their "Reformed" critics is primarily in humility...
The book references are there, as are the page numbers. These are mostly from "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope"
Woodale Church is far from liberal, however, I am afraid it is beginning to lean that way more so than I would like.
I am working on one ECM person at a time, and trying to formulate what the movement is saying about truth.
I just wonder at that you keep insisting that what you are saying is what Doug is stating... when as I pointed out in his own words he has stated the opposite.
Why continue the lie?
iggy
Sorry about the deleted comment... it was a duplicate.
iggy
Also,
I agree with Chris L, as you are stating that we (emerging/emergents) are all in line in our "truth"... yet miss that you are denying that God was working in the "other" as in Cornelius om Acts 10. If what you deny that God does not work in unbelievers who are in other religions, then you deny God's sovereignty...
It seems you are overlooking biblical truth to keep YOUR understanding of a gospel pure.
iggy
pastorboy, I like what I've seen here and other places you've written. Good stuff. I don't know why iggy insists on repeating his worn-out mantra "it's all lies" when you have posted the exact quote with references. Pagitt is a universalist at best. I would say with all he has written publicly and stated in various conversations (posted in many places, such as YouTube, etc) he is a full-blown heretic. Although, doesn't one have to be a Christian, first, then fall into apostasy to be a heretic? I very much doubt Pagitt's salvation. He is all about himself-whatever he can do for himself.
And not to forget-you had to have one naysayer screaming the old "broad-brush' statement. Of course, if it's the same "chris l" as runs around slamming other blogs, you can ignore him. Press on, brother! God bless.
Jim W,
Do you then accept that all of you who critique us believe in Baptismal regeneration like Chris Rosebrough? Or that all believe in the Arminian faith of the Assembly of God as Chris Pajack? Or that all the Presbyterians believe as all the MacArthurites?
I think that is the thing you overlook... even people like Steve Camp attack Tim Challies over the new book Tim wrote and in an backhanded way attacked John MacArthur... so do all of you think like Steve Camp?
This is the error that I speak of and the lie you are overlooking. Slander is slander... to say all "emerging" believe this way or that is error and a lie.
That is not an overused mantra... anymore than when you call me a lie or insane... it just shows you tolerate lies if they are in your favor as you defend "God"... and your "truth"...
Tell me this.
Does God need you to defend Him? That is a huge lie! Does Truth need defending? No... that another lie you promote as Truth defends the believer...
So, go out and defend you god that needs defending and use lies to protect your truth and call it your "gospel" and I will stay true to the Gospel of Grace that is from God that defends me through the Truth that is Jesus Christ.
And stop going around and slandering me will ya... ;)
Your own broadbrush is causing you to sin...
iggy
Here is the problem, Iggy
I agree with Chris that this is a movement, that is why I am taking teachers in the movement on one by one.
Your Cornelius illustration does not hold water. Cornelius was a gentile, but he was a god-fearer, and was one who God saw as seeking after him. The other as Pagitt and Salmonivic describe are in pantheistic and other faiths, which they are encouraging us to find God in.
This is illustrated in Faith House, where Salmonovic claims that we can find the same God in Islam....and that we should all worship together.
Cornelius was actually seeking God. He was not practicing paganism, he was seeking the one true God. Nuff said.
"I agree with Chris that this is a movement, that is why I am taking teachers in the movement on one by one."
I would caution you on this as this is still even an in-house debate... many like myself do not see it as a movement, but a conversation. In that, there is a huge difference.
"Your Cornelius illustration does not hold water. Cornelius was a gentile, but he was a god-fearer, and was one who God saw as seeking after him. The other as Pagitt and Salmonivic describe are in pantheistic and other faiths, which they are encouraging us to find God in."
You miss that the gentile was "the other" that the Jews did not accept, but God did... and also all other religions would be considered from the Jew, gentile as that is what "gentile" means... look it up. So Cornelius was "the other" and you are twisting the scripture here to make your point instead of letting scripture speak its own point.
Show me were there is a difference in the bible between other religions and "gentiles" and you MIGHT have a point... but you cannot so you have a huge issue there to deal with.
"This is illustrated in Faith House, where Salmonovic claims that we can find the same God in Islam...and that we should all worship together."
You also are twisting what Salmonovic is stating.
If what you are saying he states is what he states, then he needed not risk his life to convert to Christianity as he did. You are missing that there are devote "God" seekers in Islam... they are deceived, but God is still there working in them to lead them to truth. Again, you are denying the sovereignty of God by stating that God does not work in anyone outside of Christianity.
iggy
"and also all other religions would be considered from the Jew, gentile as that is what "gentile" means... look it up."
This should read...
and also all other religions would be considered from the Jew, "the other" as that is what "gentile" means... look it up."
Did you look it up?
iggy
First of all, thanks for exposing this Emergent nonsense. So far the only Emergent leader I find to be teaching sound doctrine is Mark Driscoll. I really wish he'd drop any an all associations with the name "Emergent", because it only confuses things.
The plea that their movement is diverse and therefore not part of the same "leavened lump" is bogus. If they don't want to be part of the lump then get out of it! They take offense because Pagitt is currently teaching heresy. They identify themselves with the man and his heresy, so why do they whine about it?
We distance ourselves from Bell, McLaren, Pagitt, Kimball, Jones, (etc.) the same way we reject Borg, Spong, Schueller, and Fosdick. It's amazing how Gospel-denying heretics preach universalism, and then turn around and try to use the Gospel to make a case for tolerating their hogwash.
The first clue of their willful ignorance comes when we denounce their atonement-rejecting heresy and challenge them to consider Christ as the judge of both quick and dead (Acts 10:42). They turn around and call us Pharisees.
Having despised atonement, they prove themselves to be ignorant of repentance. A system that can't tell a disciple from a Pharisee is going to find an axe laid to its root.
REB,
Can you show me where anyone has rejected "atonement" as you state it?
I don't and no one I know of at "emergent village" does...
So please show facts and proof before you slander your brothers in Christ...
iggy
"you slander your brothers in Christ"
Let's put this to beddie-bye. No court in the land would convict someone of slander who is simply stating their opinion as e.g. Reb did.
Otherwise the charge of slander EQUALLY would apply to Emergents like Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt. For they continually share their own very negative opinions against what they see as the "fundamentalists" and also the "Calvinists," which is their their favorite place to crack the whip on "brothers in Christ."
Ken,
Slander according to the bible is bearing false witness... I think you need fear God more than man in this as slanderers are in the same verse as homosexuals... so it is just as bad as sin as that is.
iggy
Oh... and no matter how you candy coat your sin... it is still sin...
iggy
Iggy,
You deny the atoning work of Christ, when you play your post-modern conversation games. You say many paths lead to salvation, as above when you try to say Islam is a path. Christ says that He is the way, the truth, and the life. You reject that, by implication, when you play games with the truth.
As for your Emergent celebrities, their false doctrine is can easily be found in a Google search. This blog posting speaks volumes about Pagitt's universalism.
Go ahead and pretend that you don't know universalism is an implicit denial of the atoning work of Christ.
You're blind. Your Emergent leaders are blind. Watch out for the ditch, brother!
REB,
I preach the propitiation of sins... which is not atonement...as atonement is only a "covering" while propititation is "taking away the sins of the world and turning Turning away God's wrath becuase he is satisfied."
You are even now slandering me as Ken does...
It seems that you condone sin... and pass it on...
iggy
sorry,
it should read...
"I preach the propitiation of sins... which is not just atonement..."
Nobody has addressed the quotes and the scripture yet. Nobody has met the challenge! Come on! You guys are smarter than this, aren't you?
Iggy,
What was covering in the OT is reconciliation in the NT (Rom. 5:11).
You are free to identify yourself with the heresy of the Emergent leaders as you wish. You can cozy up with McLaren, Bell, and Pagitt in the ditch, or you can climb up out of it. The choice is yours. Your whining about slander and lies is in vain if you chose to wallow in universalism with them. Cleave to that mess at your own peril.
This blog alone contains plenty of heretical quotes from your Emergent idols.
PB,
"Nobody has addressed the quotes and the scripture yet."
I'm afraid apart from accusing you of slander - and my personal favorite: "it's out of context" - there isn't likely to be any *ahem* "conversation." :-)
I thought emergent types were into conversation.
It seems that it is a one word conversation
SLANDER!
Actually, it is just a one sided conversation....
PB,
There is no issue with the scripture... only what you have left out of the "quote" from Doug.
and that is a "a shading of the truth (how much must one shade the truth before it becomes a lie?" in and of itself. If you take a quote from one context and create a new context that is a straw man and not really worth the time to give answer.
I ahve shown here the "truth" and I am called a heretic... so as far as I am concerned with both of you,
As you stand before Jesus and He holds you accountable for you slander, remember you were warned.
iggy
PB,
Give the quote in a larger context please then I will address it.
iggy
Dude, buy your own book! I am not going to publish the entire page, I have the book, I have noted the pages, I have highlighted the point in the power point, I have even noted the times in the interview where Doug says he is one.
I never called you a heretic, Iggy. I don't toss that word around lately.
You are taking a quote that starts out about waves and particles and then goes into light existing as a wave and a particle... and in that we move into that there may not be as much of a distinction between matter and spirit... in that the ramifications that this give us INSIGHT to how God may interact with the material world...
Now, you then took a partial quote not even a true partial quote.. not even a full thought in the quote... which you built this whole post on...
It is on page 142...
Put it reads much different than you are representing...
I will have the whole quote soon and you will see that he is affirming Christianity and not doing as you are stating. In fact that is the last paragraph is all about in that part you quote.
He is not stating the argument you are even addressing in this post... in fact he is talking about the Trinity... so as I stated so far you are out of context and slandering Doug with a straw man...
iggy
We are... but if the conversation is about a misquote that is not even about the topic the author wrote about... it seem rather nonsensical.
iggy
PB,
OK here is your quote and you take it to mean that Doug is stating that there is NO distinction between God and creation... but that is not at all what he is stating.
"Added to this is the understanding that at the atomic level, the observation of something affects the specimen. In this sense there is no way to be an “objective observer.” So if we connect truth to objectivity, we are in a bad place in light of our understanding of the world.
These changes in our understanding of the world create an entirely new landscape for our theology.
When we come to grips with the idea that the world is not made of little hard pieces of substance behaving in determined ways, and that the light exists as both wave and particle, and that it is impossible not to affect the world by living in it, we should be encouraged in our theology.
The idea that at the smallest level, all matter is made of energy packets and not “little hard balls of matter” is a fascinating notion that requires not only different theological conclusions but different presuppositions. The idea that there is a necessary distinction of matter from spirit, or creation from creator, is being reconsidered. This notion that the difference in waves and particles is not what we assumed allows us to understand the engagement of God in the world and the interrelationality of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and creation in new and more helpful ways. We are allowed and encouraged to have an understanding that includes creation in the kingdom of God.
I contend there to be no better religious understanding of this world than Christianity. Christianity is ideally suited for our understanding. The presuppositions of Christianity and these discoveries of the “quantum” world will well inform one another." (Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches page 142
Note:
1. Doug is stating that there is a connection between the observation the object affects the object observed. This is proven.
2. In that our observations can affect the observable... we need be careful not to place truth in our own observation as from our perspective we will change the affects of Truth.
3. This has some big ramifications as if we by our own observations can affect change on the object, Truth then must be more than an Object... or objective.
4. If we come to the understanding that the world is not just "material" meaning little particles and behaving in a observable way and predictable, we realize that Truth also is not just material... but there seems to be a "relationship" between things that make up light... being wave and particles... (Science found that as they observed light if the observer wanted wave, they got wave if they wanted particle they got particle)...
If there is this going on in the smallest levels and that there seems to be a relational aspect between observer and berserker... we need look at how this might explain things like (and we are getting into your "quote")... the necessary distinction of matter from spirit or "Creator from creator, is being considered."
(That was your "quote"...)
Doug then goes on that form here we can start to understand the relational aspect of things like the Trinity and creation. He thinks this insight will be helpful in understanding creation in the Kingdom of God.
Then he states this...
I will quote again...
"I contend there to be no better religious understanding of this world than Christianity. Christianity is ideally suited for our understanding. The presuppositions of Christianity and these discoveries of the “quantum” world will well inform one another."
So he is affirming that God is the creator not denying as you suggest... e is affirming the Trinity and that Truth is of God and not from us the observer... which affirms God soverirgnity...
Now, we have discussed "the other" and you deny that "Gentiles" are the other and that anyone that is not a Jew was considered "the other"...
Here is a bit on that:
John 10: 16. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith . . . (Gal. 3:13-18)."
Now Calvin states:
"Next, we must carefully consider the promise addressed directly to Abraham, which revealed to him that all nations on earth would be blessed through his seed (Gen. 12:3). Now, there are two main points made here. One is that the blessing is not only promised to the earthly descendants of Abraham (as we have seen), but to the whole world in general. Thus, we who descend from Gentile stock (that is, from those who are unclean and who were originally banished from the heavenly kingdom) can also share in this promise. Although we do not belong to that holy lineage that God chose at the beginning, yet now salvation extends even to us."
Calvin acknowledges that we are part of God's plan even before we were made "clean" as Peter states in Acts 10... So you take Cornelius out of context that even Calvin place him in.
I think this is enough conversation... so go and think a bit...
iggy
PB,
"I never called you a heretic, Iggy. I don't toss that word around lately."
You have by your overgeneralization... and by standing back while other state I am... and not rebuking them.
iggy
Iggy, all of that subatomic mumbo jumbo does not change the quote for me. He would have been better off just quoting Colossians "In him all things hold together"
But that still does not change the fact that the Creator is distinctive from Creation.
Christianity is not some point of view, it is a radical life change. If is putting yourself to death daily. It is not informed or changed by knowledge of science, it informs science.
PB,
"But that still does not change the fact that the Creator is distinctive from Creation."
Guys like McLaren, and it looks like his friend Pagitt also, are looking closely at a theology of panentheism.
Panentheism works for the universalist because all of creation would then be seen as a part of the Sacred. It's the classic view of so-called "Christian" misguided mystics.
If all of creation is a part of God, and is already in Him, then we can "reimagine" the Cross and even what it means to be born again. Then all religions would be seen as fragmented parts of the Whole - which is God.
Panentheism could unite all religions because the Eastern religions, by and large, are pantheistic. While they don't necessarily believe in a "personal" God, they do already see all of creation as "god."
So Emergents who would believe in panentheism would then only have to convince them that God is a "personal" Being and they could all worship this panentheistic "god" together in one big happy Global Family.
Why, it's the emerging theology of Barney: I love you, you love me; we're a happy family...
Pastor Ken,
That video made me laugh out loud
But then I began crying. So true, the modern church has thrown the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. They want the love of God without the justice of God. They want the whole world to be able to come into the kingdom, while the opposite is true, they are leading more people down the broad road of destruction.
So PB and Ken you both deny that God interrelates with His creation...
Like becoming a man an walking amongst us and saving us by His death and Life?
That is the point you miss that Doug is stating... your points are outside what he is stating or talking about... you are adding in your "understandings" that have nothing to do with the actual quote.
iggy
Iggy,
Talk about twisting what I have said!
The quote is about a distinction between creation and Creator, not about Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.
Again, why didn't he just quote scripture? In him, we live and move and have our being? c'mon!
I will tell you why, because he likes to hear himself think, and write down these thoughts. They seem more intelligent sounding to him than the simplicity of scripture.
PB,
Most of the scripture you used proved Doug's point...
read John chapter 1...
Or Colossians 1: 16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
You are stating that Doug is saying that God is in all things like trees and things like that... I think more that Doug is stating that there is a "relationship" with creation as there is one with us as believers.
But you only took one sentence and I used about the whole page.
I am done... go and hurt your brothers and sisters all you want...
I will leave room for God's wrath, (Roman 12:19)
iggy
Chris L: Driscoll was Catholic by backround...And Pagitt was once a pastor in the Baptist General Conference which is not liberal by most standards...
Also lack of certain trust in Jesus and his word and revelation is not humility, it is foolishness, masqurading as humility.
By your definition it would seem that Jesus was nothing more than an arrogant fool when he claimed "Unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."
Poop,
"Also lack of certain trust in Jesus and his word and revelation is not humility, it is foolishness, masqurading as humility."
Yes, we all remember the words of the man asking Jesus to heal his son in Mark 9:23-24 as foolishness...
""`If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!""
Yes, such a masquerade that man put on...
iggy
iggy mocks: "we all remember the words of the man asking Jesus to heal his son in Mark 9:23-24 as foolishness..."
This is the fallacy of the false analogy. P was talking about Doug Pagitt, who is functioning as a Christian pastor (apples).
The man referred to in Mark 9 is still unregenerate and certainly is not expected to be a teacher of God's Word (oranges).
Therefore they cannot be compated in the context of P's comment.
Ken,
So by your infallible logic,
Doug is saved... He is of the Elect and no one can snatch him out of Jesus' hands... not even you.
thanks! = )
iggy
iggy,
1) It isn't my logic.
And 2) I didn't say anything at all about Doug being saved.
What I said was he "is functioning as a Christian pastor".
Ken,
Then by your "not your logic" a "Christian" pastor is not "Christian"?
Interesting... so Doug is not saved and is a "Christian" pastor...
I am enjoying this "logic" lesson... or your "not your logic" lesson.
Please enlighten us more. = )
iggy
iggy,
I believe you're sharper than this: "a 'Christian' pastor is not 'Christian'?" One can claim to be a Christian, but that doesn't make it so.
I certainly wouldn't have called Pagitt as pastor and I don't personally think he is a Christian.
However, it is an incontrovertable fact that Doug Pagitt "is functioning as a Christian pastor."
Ken,
"I certainly wouldn't have called Pagitt as pastor and I don't personally think he is a Christian.
However, it is an incontrovertable fact that Doug Pagitt "is functioning as a Christian pastor.""
So, let's look at your "not my logic" here:
1. You state that Doug is "functioning as a Christian pastor"
2. Yet not all that are "Christian" are Christian becuase YOU personally think Doug is not.
3. But yet the only "incontrovertable" fact you are asserting is that Doug is functioning as a Christian pastor...
So we conclude that if YOU personally do not think one is a Christian, they still can function as a Christian pastor though not be a Christian... though you refer to them as a Christian. So one is a Christian only if you say they are.
I see... so it all depends on YOU and what YOU think...
Got it.
iggy
iggy,
I'm afraid you and I aren't going to get anywhere here so it's best we drop it.
In my opinion, to paraphrase a famous saying: "Your reasoning has left the building."
Ken,
I agree, your logical orbit is a bit too small for me.
See ya,
igs
Post a Comment