i have recently come up against many people that are vehemently against the emergent church. these people write awful things in an attempt to disqualify the movement. i am always needing to be reminded that i should not decide what i believe about something before i have sufficient evidence.
that being said, i think many of the times, these people make a decision about the emergent church without really being informed of the content of the movement itself. many times they will hear what a favorite speaker has said about it, or what a particular theologian says about it, then formulate their opinions as a result. this would be like me saying that martin luther is a raving idiot, without ever having read his work for myself. my pastor told me he is dumb, so i know that to be true.
i would venture to say that people like that live a miserable existence. they have no ability to see things from the other side. there is no sense of dialogue for these people, there is not any possibility for growth either. this, i find is a very closed minded, foolish approach to theology.
3.08.2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hi, Chris,
I'm Phil Perkins--one of the know-it-alls. You left a comment on one of my sites. So, I thought I'd take a look at yours.
You chided Christians for often making "a decision about the emergent (sic) church without really being informed of the content of the movement itself."
Not only is that wrong, it is making a decision about us without being aware of the research that has gone into what we know. Thus the pot is calling the milk jug black.
I can't see my book shelf from this keyboard, but I have on my shelf about 10 Emergent books. The authors include, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus, and Tony Campolo. In addition to that reading, I've read scores of internet articles by Emergent authors, not just about them.
Here is the comment you left me:
just a question. but is jesus telling literal stories when he tells parables? he does not say that they are merely parables, so by your standard, he is either, lying, mistaken, or the story is true right? just curious.
I answered you over there at http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/ and awaited a response. None came so I looked up your blog here.
You can look for the answer there, but I would like to add two observations. I noticed both of these before, but omitted them.
1. You lied. Twice. You said, "just a question," and "just curious." You started and ended with a deceptive attempt to make it sound as if your question reflected no agenda. Be man enough to say what you think and then discuss the matter with your opponent.
2. Your logic is just as atrocious as your sense of honesty. It would flunk you in any logic course. I referenced some of that at Zits, but your initial assumption was so inane I thought, out of politeness to you, I'd skip pointing out the absurdity. You said, "he (Jesus) does not say that they are merely parables..."
What is your evidence that Jesus did not present the parables as parables? How did the gospel writers know they were parables if there was no indication of that?
Now that was just plainly less than stellar mental work. And you talk about others as if they were hillbillies in a straw hat. You really need to do much better work than that before you accuse others of being stupid or abscurantistic. (Look it up.)
And next time don't lie about what you're up to.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Hi, Chris,
I'm Phil Perkins--one of the know-it-alls. You left a comment on one of my sites. So, I thought I'd take a look at yours.
You chided Christians for often making "a decision about the emergent (sic) church without really being informed of the content of the movement itself."
Not only is that wrong, it is making a decision about us without being aware of the research that has gone into what we know. Thus the pot is calling the milk jug black.
I can't see my book shelf from this keyboard, but I have on my shelf about 10 Emergent books. The authors include, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus, and Tony Campolo. In addition to that reading, I've read scores of internet articles by Emergent authors, not just about them.
Here is the comment you left me:
just a question. but is jesus telling literal stories when he tells parables? he does not say that they are merely parables, so by your standard, he is either, lying, mistaken, or the story is true right? just curious.
I answered you over there at http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/ and awaited a response. None came so I looked up your blog here.
You can look for the answer there, but I would like to add two observations. I noticed both of these before, but omitted them.
1. You lied. Twice. You said, "just a question," and "just curious." You started and ended with a deceptive attempt to make it sound as if your question reflected no agenda. Be man enough to say what you think and then discuss the matter with your opponent.
2. Your logic is just as atrocious as your sense of honesty. It would flunk you in any logic course. I referenced some of that at Zits, but your initial assumption was so inane I thought, out of politeness to you, I'd skip pointing out the absurdity. You said, "he (Jesus) does not say that they are merely parables..."
What is your evidence that Jesus did not present the parables as parables? How did the gospel writers know they were parables if there was no indication of that?
Now that was just plainly less than stellar mental work. And you talk about others as if they were hillbillies in a straw hat. You really need to do much better work than that before you accuse others of being stupid or abscurantistic. (Look it up.)
And next time don't lie about what you're up to.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
that comment reminds me of those crazy drivers all over the road, tailgating and cutting people off, and then when they get in front of you, you see an ixthus or some christian bumper sticker on the back. haha, it's just funny to me that that guy probably feels some sort of honor or dignity simply by the act of placing "in christ" at the end of his comment, regardless of the content that preceded.
phil,
heard ya the first time.
i never claimed you knew nothing about the emerging movement. however there are a great many that do not. that being said, i think it is very possible to have read every book by every "emergent" and still miss the point. in fact, you read a comment and a blog post by me and believe to have discerned everything about me. way to go. it would seem that your ability to prejudge knows no bounds.
i apologize for not checking your blog every ten minutes with baited breath. i had things to do today. i am not a professional blogger.
i did not lie. it was a question. i guess it was two, but i was curious. i wanted to know if you used the same standard of reason accross the board. you dont. ill take that as my answer.
my logic in fact would not flunk me out of a logic course, i passed. my evidence is the lack of him saying it in the gospels. the only evidence you point to as him saying they are is that the disciples believed them to be.
the only real conclusion i was looking to draw was to the genesis account. we have no record of "moses" saying that these are metaphors. ok. does that mean that they necessarily arent?
so my question is. where is your evidence that the book of genesis was not presented as a story?
and im not looking that word up. i can understand enough of it from context to know enough.
i refuse to have some sort of spelling bee/pissing contest with you. that is just indicative of some sort of napoleon syndrome.
and please. if you are going to sign something "in christ" be sure to be actin in a way that represents him well.
Chris,
You said, "i never claimed you knew nothing about the emerging movement."
ANSWER: Actually, you pretty much did. Reread.
You said, "that being said, i think it is very possible to have read every book by every "emergent" and still miss the point."
ANSWER: Well, there you go again, insinuating what you just denied that you said.
You said, "in fact, you read a comment and a blog post by me and believe to have discerned everything about me."
ANSWER: No, I only pointed out that you were wrong in what you wrote and that you lied. Other than that, I said nothing about you.
You said, "it would seem that your ability to prejudge knows no bounds."
ANSWER: No prejudging. I simply read what you wrote and called you on it. I said nothing outside of those parameters. Look up "prejudge."
You said, "i apologize for not checking your blog every ten minutes with baited breath."
ANSWER: That's okay.
You said, "i did not lie."
ANSWER: Yes, you did.
You said, "it was a question. i guess it was two, but i was curious."
ANSWER: Yes, but you said that it was "just a question," and that you were "just curious." Both of those were lies. It was not just a question. It was a set up. And you weren't just curious. You were up to something.
You said, "i wanted to know if you used the same standard of reason accross the board."
ANSWER: Yes you did, and that's called a set up. As to the standard, if you passed logic class you will recognise that standard as not mine, but something you would have learned in Logic 101.
You said, "you dont (use the same standard across the board.)"
ANSWER: Up to now I have not spoken on any other topic concerning that standard. Who's prejudging now?
You said, "ill take that as my answer."
ANSWER: Or you could take the answer I gave you. It was a blanket statement.
ANSWER: my logic in fact would not flunk me out of a logic course, i passed.
ANSWER: Actually, yes, it would. You didn't recognize the three possibilities concerning the veracity of any proposition. AND your argument is an argument from silence. That's an invalid argument in any case where silence is not prohibited by necessity. It carries no wait at all if there is no logical necessity to speak if the opposite of your conclusion is true. If you have a hard time understanding that reasoning, just draw it out on paper or I could expand on it with examples. Or you could dig out a logic text. But it is a beginner level logical principle. You have fallen for the argument-by-silence fallacy.
You said, "my evidence is the lack of him saying it in the gospels."
ANSWER: That is the argument by silence. Almost always invalid, as noted above.
You said, "the only evidence you point to as him saying they are is that the disciples believed them to be."
ANSWER: Exactly. Historians call that citing the primary sources. Primary sources to historians are documents written by people who were privy to a historical event, and they are the most reliable sources to cite.
What sources do you cite?
You said, "the only real conclusion i was looking to draw was to the genesis account."
ANSWER: Yes, there is that agenda you lied about. You pretended to ask "just a question" because you were "just curious." That was not the case, though, was it?
You said, "we have no record of "moses" saying that these are metaphors. ok. does that mean that they necessarily arent?"
ANSWER: No, the literary form does that. It is historical narrative. If you want to know what that is read a hermeneutics book like Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hayes. Fee and Stuart did another hermeneutics book. Just about any will do.
You said, "so my question is."
ANSWER: Your question is what? You ended the sentence with a period. Try a semicolon, comma, or colon. (Just some grammar help there.)
You said, "where is your evidence that the book of genesis was not presented as a story?"
ANSWER: I have no evidence that Genesis is not a story. In fact, that's exactly what it is: historical narrative.
You said, "and im not looking that word up. i can understand enough of it from context to know enough."
ANSWER: Oh, I see.
You said, "i refuse to have some sort of spelling bee/pissing contest with you."
ANSWER: Okay, but could you learn to use the "shift" key?
You said, "and please. if you are going to sign something "in christ" be sure to be actin (sic) in a way that represents him well."
ANSWER: Actually, I have. You have not. I have believed and obeyed the Scripture. Christ believed the Scripture and cited Genesis as a proof that marriage is permanent. Quite unlike Jesus, you have tried to say Genesis is not true. And I have confronted false teaching. You have been the one not believing it and you have actually lied and used profanity in doing so.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. Ps--if you look at the time tags, you will see that blogger put up my first comment twice. I didn't. Hummm--who's prejudging now?
"actually, you pretty much did. reread."
in fact phil,based on your incredible logic skills, you yourself are using poor logic. if i say, some cars are green. a volkswagon is a car. is the logical conclusion that a volkswagon is green? nope. it may be possible to miss the point, but i did not say you did. i believe you did. but it was not explicit.
im skipping the next one.
"i simply read what you wrote and called you on it."
answer: i dont really see where you called me on anything of significance. you merely said you disagreed with some things, threw in some attempt at belittling, and moved on.
"it was a set up... etc."
answer: how did i set you up? what did i do to set you up? what was the trap exactly? the punishment? i was curious to know what you really believed.
alright, im tired of that ridiculous format. phil, ive studied quite a bit of hermenuetics. i am well aware of narrative. the first chap of gen is not necessarily narrative.it verty well could have been liturgy. i think you do not know much about text criticism.
anyway, im almost out of time on the internet, all that to say, i will treat all of this later
and to beinchrist, his fruit must show. such askindness
"In Christ,
Phil Perkins. Ps--if you look at the time tags, you will see that blogger put up my first comment twice. I didn't. Hummm--who's prejudging now? "
ok, this is my last post here, because this is a blog not a discussion board. ok, so, haha, again, the in christ thing. you really think phil your attitud here suggest you are in christ? what in the world does a shift key have to do with theology? are you going to call out all the scribes for writing in all caps? you clearly here are seeking to belittle for whatever reason rather than to edify. please provide some scripture that suggest this manner of interaction to be "in christ".
Chris,
Since you aren't coming back, I thought you'd like to see the answer to your type-and-run.
Are you upset? I'll anwer again.
Chris: jonah and daniel are only in this discussion because you brought them up.
ANSWER: Yes, it's my blog. Is that okay with you?
Chris: however, they are irrelevant to the theme of the book of malachi.
ANSWER: Which was my point. (You missed my point.) It is the rest of the prophets that are relevant to Malachi.
Chris: malachi was written at a separate time.so the themes are not necessarily related.
ANSWER: Invalid argument. This comment was written after yours and by another writer. But they are related.
Chris: yes, it is mentioned in the book. please pick up a commentary, someone who obviously knows hebrew, someone who knows the rules of hermenuetics.
ANSWER: I have taught both Hebrew and hermeneutics at the college level. I taught for about five years.
Chris: reread. the theme of malachi is the love of yahweh.
ANSWER: Reread your own comments. You have admitted as you did even in this comment that other topics are in Malachi.
By the way how does tithing related to reminding folks of God's love? It was a call to repent. And that should give you a hint to the purpose of the prophets other than Daniel and Jonah.
Chris: see we can both play the game where we make unqualified statements simply saying the other is wrong.
ANSWER: I'll let you continue in that endeavor.
Chris: please phil, admit you do not know the theme of malachi,
ANSWER: First, you're not being honest. The subject you brought up was "the whole purpose" of Malachi, not the "the theme." I have agreed God's love is a theme of Malachi. You don't know the purpose/theme of the prophets other that Daniel and Jonah. For this information you may read beginning hermeneutics texts by Fee and Stuart or by Duvall and Hayes. Or you could read the Old Testament with a view for it.
I've given you a lot of hints. You should get at least part of it by now.
Chris: read any credible commentary and you will see.
ANSWER: Yes, they most say that a theme of Malachi is the love of Yahweh. Not all agree this is the main theme, and none that I know of say it is the "whole purpose" of Malachi, which is what you said and now are trying to change your statement. No commentary I've read will say that no other topic is taken up in Malachi. You said that Malachi had one purpose and you were wrong. The primary purpose of Malachi is the same as all the other prophets, except Daniel and Jonah. Read Fee and Stuart and Duvall and Hayes. Or any credible commentary.
Chris: a person does not go to the book of john to find the theme of luke,
ANSWER: Actually, yes, you do. Both have the same subject--the life of Christ. In order to find the emphasized theme, one has to do a comparative study. Good study of the gospels will include what is called horizontal study. That is, when you read an account of an event in one gospel, a good workman will find the same account in the other three gospels if possible for comparison and to fill the gaps. Again, a good hermeneutics text will help you with that. I have already mentioned the 2 most popular ones.
Chris: a person does not go to the book of exodus to find the theme of genesis,
ANSWER: Of course not. You go to both. They do share these themes: 1. the sovereignty of God, 2. the Law, 3. the family history of the Israelites, 4. the family history of the descendants of Ishmael, 4. redemption history in its foundational stages, 5. the holiness of God, 6. the need for a blood sacrifice, 7. the depravity of man, 8. forgiveness through blood, 9. the exclusivity of God's truth, 10. the nature of God, 11. the ownership of all creation, including men, by God, 12. the love of God for His family, 13. the covenantal nature of the God-congregant relationship, 14. the corporate and individual nature of sin...
Well, I could only think of 14 right off the top of my head. How did you do?
Chris: these are separate books.
they must be first looked at separately.
ANSWER: The key word being "first," indicating that's not all you do.
Chris: i never said that these two books did not have other themes, but those themes are SUBORDINATE to the theme of love. that means the whole theme is love.
ANSWER: I know you said that. You're just wrong. For instance you have still failed to explain the presence of the divorce regulation, tithing, the allusion to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the curse on corrupt priests, etc. None of these remind my of God's love for Israel off hand. You have not even made an attempt to do so yourself. You just keep ignoring the problem you have made for yourself.
Chris: wrong. i never claimed that their ministries were about love. i said that the books were about love.
ANSWER: Yes, you did. Here is your quote: "at least two prophets (Hosea and Malachi) in the Old Testament spent their entire ministries on love"
And that, of course, is silly, since it exclused tithing, the priests, sex, idolatry, holy days, end times, the spread of the gospel, etc., etc., etc.
And it's silly because it assumes a lot about the rest of their ministries.
Chris: many emergents take john macarthur seriously, guess youd best start misrepresenting him a little bit.
ANSWER: No. That's okay.
Chris: no. you are just wrong. (again, arent unqualified statements wonderful?)
ANSWER: Please specify what you're addressing. And I think you mean "unsubstantiated," not "unqualified." The first has to do with proof or evidentiary support. The second has to do with either exceptions or caveats.
Chris: do you believe prayer exists? if yes, then in a way, you believe in prayer. you can take the word "in" in many different ways, so you have chosen to believe in a way that is most detrimental to mcmanus. very fair thing to do.
ANSWER: Thank you for the compliment on my fainess, but you still have net dealt with the fact that he sees Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians praying in the same way to the same "GOD."
Chris: i dont see how you can possibly think that that proceeds logically.
ANSWER: Again, what is your subject?
Chris: i suppose it is just again you reading one logic text book sometime during your life and thinking that makes you logical.
ANSWER: Yes, I think reading's a plus. And I've read hundreds of books.
Chris: there is no logical correlation there.
ANSWER: Again, where is "there?" What is the subject you are addressing?
Chris: you read a different scripture than i do. i read the niv or the nas, you must read, "phil's personal interpretation" because a lot of what you claim to be biblical does not appear in my bible.
ANSWER: I read the original, the NASB, ESV, NIV, and a few others if interested and all my memorization is in the original.
Chris: "well you coudl start with the title" how in the world do you take "the barbarian way" and equate that with "we are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self" there is no way that logically follows.
ANSWER: Simple. He said "Barbarian" and he recommended it for a life style throughout the entire book. Read it. I think you missed his point.
Chris: you simply dont like mcmanus, or are jealous, or have some vendetta, and want to show him to be a heretic.
ANSWER: You're partially right. I hate his teaching because he is a heretic. It is the responsibility of every believer to expose false teachers.
Chris: i dont see him having all that many original ideas,
ANSWER: I don't see you using much punctuation, but I haven't gotten mad about it.
Chris: but i certainly wouldnt call him unorthodox.
ANSWER: Actually it's his original ideas that make him unorthodox. When you last read Jude, you must have missed the point.
Chris: i dont remember you supplying the answer once. and, how can i not infer that from the answers you give?
ANSWER: I have not given you an answer because you don't deserve an answer for the following two reasons. 1. Your question was not honest. It was so that you could falsely accuse me as you did Richard. You have a history of that sort of lying to a guy. 2. You could have easily read my answer. It's all over both of my sites.
Chris: if someone denies something that you think is so necessary, you simply dismiss them and say that they are not saved.
ANSWER: No, Chris. The problem I see with most Emergents is that they think they are Christians. While some may be, most are definitely not because they don't believe in the Christ of Scripture. They believe in an effeminate christ who didn't require repentance doctrinally and behaviorally. You seem to believe in such a christ. I can prove it. The Christ said that God's word is Truth. You say it's myth. He also said whoever is ashamed of Him and His words, he will be ashamed of them. You are ashamed to take the same view of Scripture that He did. Hence, He will be ashamed of you.
Chris: well if that is the case, why are you not trying to show them the love of god and help them to know him? instead you merely dismiss.
ANSWER: I have not dismissed you. You are the one leaving the discussion. I have merely been honest.
Chris: phil, here is a truth you need to face. you may know christ, but you sure dont act like him. you are confused and you think that he is some judgemental legalist mroe concerned with doctrine than the heart.
ANSWER: Actually, that's exactly what I mean. Your christ is very effeminate. Did you know Jesus mentioned hell in 42 verses in Matthew alone? And doctrine is the heart. As a man thinks, so is he. Your doctrine will determine your eternity. It is Who (or who) and what you believe.
Anyway you've been advocating your doctrine, haven't you?
Of the two of us, who do you think warns more people of hell? I think the answer is obvious. I do it. You call it "judgmental."
Chris: its funny because you said people shouldnt change definitions midstream, but you change the definition of scripture midsentence. the christ of "scripture 1" said all "scripture 2" is true.
ANSWER: I didn't change the definition. I simply used it twice. I was speaking of the same Scripture.
Chris: christ would not have considered matt mark luke or john scripture, because they were not written until well after he said the words recorded therin. so he is clearly only talking about the old testament.
ANSWER: And you deny Christ's view because you deny the factuality of much of the Old Testament.
Anyway, Christ, being God knew all Scripture from all eternity. He preordained it and He wrote it.
Chris: i dont see where i ever said i hated repentance.
ANSWER: It is all over in just about everything you say. For instance I pointed out to you that Jesus and Paul treated the creation account as true history.
You didn't repent of your false view, did you?
Chris: you never proved anything about malachi. saying "wrong. blah blah blah" is not proving anything, it is just arguing. i have yet to see you prove anything. you simply restate your flawed opinion.
ANSWER: I proved that you were wrong when you said the "whole purpose" of Malachi was God's love. You even admitted other topics were taken up. Unless they were inserted accidently, they had a purpose. In fact, most of Malachi is other topics.
Chris: you have added requirements salvation. you have said a person must believe the bible. seems like that isnt biblical.
ANSWER: Wrong. You must believe the gospel and real belief includes repentance. Matthew 4:7 records a summary of all of Jesus' teaching. Read it. You have not repented of your sin.
Chris: and i must have missed when you asked me to give you themes of the canonical prophets, just didnt see it.
ANSWER: Yes, you missed my point. And actually there is just one purpose/theme shared by all but Daniel and Jonah.
(There were two more paragraphs, but all that was there was just rehash and insults.)
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Post a Comment