Red Letter Christianity divergence....Chuckt

[PostmodernProph]

Having seen the video clips above I can say without a doubt that "the emerging church" idea IS dangerous. The "Church" of Jesus Christ has been around since the time of Christ. It "emerged" at that time. The tenets of Christ's gospel are the same today as they were then.

then the clips have proved themselves dangerous.....for misrepresenting the emergent church.....

I guess it boils down to perspective. If the "emergent church" teaches the tenets of the New Testament then it's fine with me. If the "emergent church" is teaching something contrary to the New Testament then it's "another gospel" that Christ and the Apostles warned us to avoid.

and therein lies the problem......the "emerging church" is as varied as Christianity has always been.....there are emerging Reformed Baptists and there are emerging Catholics.....there are emerging everything in between......

to me, "emerging" describes Christians themselves emerging from a Church in which they sit on pews on Sunday and get entertained.....and becoming people who experience and exercise their Christianity out in the community where its supposed to happen.....

 

[Chuckt]

then the clips have proved themselves dangerous.....for misrepresenting the emergent church.....

I guess it boils down to perspective. If the "emergent church" teaches the tenets of the New Testament then it's fine with me. If the "emergent church" is teaching something contrary to the New Testament then it's "another gospel" that Christ and the Apostles warned us to avoid.

and therein lies the problem......the "emerging church" is as varied as Christianity has always been.....there are emerging Reformed Baptists and there are emerging Catholics.....there are emerging everything in between......

to me, "emerging" describes Christians themselves emerging from a Church in which they sit on pews on Sunday and get entertained.....and becoming people who experience and exercise their Christianity out in the community where its supposed to happen.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tjO9JDlTxTg]Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats - Charles Spurgeon - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

do the Red Letter Christians really have untenable doctrines?

All Christians do, other than me.

 

[DriftingSand]

Some truth to your post but one thing is certain: the basic tenets and teachings of New Testament Christianity are the same today as they were 2000 years ago.

That isn't true. Even after the catholic (small c, universal church) canonized select books there were disagreements to the point of it becoming a state religion and killing opposing ideas. Some of it is preserved in early church fathers' responses since the originals were considered heresy and not preserved. Today everything exists from literal fundamentalism to liberal spirituality.

Jesus Christ was, has been, and shall ever be the door to God's Kingdom (from a Christian's perspective). Sin then is sin now. Sins don't morph into acceptable life choices just because we're in the 21st century.

It was not considered to be sinful to own a slave but most would consider so now. Women were to be covered and not speak out in church, today, not so much. Remarriage (according to Jesus) was a sin, today, not so much.

True, various Church rituals have ebbed and flowed throughout the centuries but rituals have never been a Christian requirement. So it's mankind's leadership over the Church that has changed but the New Testament tenets of truth remain steadfast and true.

Mankind's leadership determined what was to be in the Bible. The Reformation changed quite a few tenants as do the offshoots.

When we study these issues from a secular point of view then the debates will continue until the end of time. Agreement will NEVER be had. However, Christianity is based on faith. I believe in the power of God and the providence of God. Therefore, I believe that what I have in my Bible is what I need to know what God's will is for me. What's important (from a Christian's perspective) is an explanation of our relationship with God and what it takes to receive salvation.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Some truth to your post but one thing is certain: the basic tenets and teachings of New Testament Christianity are the same today as they were 2000 years ago.

That isn't true. Even after the catholic (small c, universal church) canonized select books there were disagreements to the point of it becoming a state religion and killing opposing ideas. Some of it is preserved in early church fathers' responses since the originals were considered heresy and not preserved. Today everything exists from literal fundamentalism to liberal spirituality.
It was not considered to be sinful to own a slave but most would consider so now. Women were to be covered and not speak out in church, today, not so much. Remarriage (according to Jesus) was a sin, today, not so much.

True, various Church rituals have ebbed and flowed throughout the centuries but rituals have never been a Christian requirement. So it's mankind's leadership over the Church that has changed but the New Testament tenets of truth remain steadfast and true.

Mankind's leadership determined what was to be in the Bible. The Reformation changed quite a few tenants as do the offshoots.

When we study these issues from a secular point of view then the debates will continue until the end of time. Agreement will NEVER be had. However, Christianity is based on faith. I believe in the power of God and the providence of God. Therefore, I believe that what I have in my Bible is what I need to know what God's will is for me. What's important (from a Christian's perspective) is an explanation of our relationship with God and what it takes to receive salvation.

Red Letter Christians believe the same, but believe discernment is necessary when reading scripture and that the words of Christ take precedence over everything.
They are also Christians, so don't think you are the only true Scotsman.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I guess it boils down to perspective. If the "emergent church" teaches the tenets of the New Testament then it's fine with me. If the "emergent church" is teaching something contrary to the New Testament then it's "another gospel" that Christ and the Apostles warned us to avoid.

and therein lies the problem......the "emerging church" is as varied as Christianity has always been.....there are emerging Reformed Baptists and there are emerging Catholics.....there are emerging everything in between......

to me, "emerging" describes Christians themselves emerging from a Church in which they sit on pews on Sunday and get entertained.....and becoming people who experience and exercise their Christianity out in the community where its supposed to happen.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tjO9JDlTxTg]Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats - Charles Spurgeon - YouTube[/ame]

I didn't realize Spurgeon was capable of cheap shots......making up the claim "amusing the masses" and then criticizing it.....

why not speak instead about communication?......

 

[Chuckt]

and therein lies the problem......the "emerging church" is as varied as Christianity has always been.....there are emerging Reformed Baptists and there are emerging Catholics.....there are emerging everything in between......

to me, "emerging" describes Christians themselves emerging from a Church in which they sit on pews on Sunday and get entertained.....and becoming people who experience and exercise their Christianity out in the community where its supposed to happen.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tjO9JDlTxTg]Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats - Charles Spurgeon - YouTube[/ame]

I didn't realize Spurgeon was capable of cheap shots......making up the claim "amusing the masses" and then criticizing it.....

why not speak instead about communication?......

Why is it a cheap shot? They actually taught this over and over again:

As none will question that He is to be the worker's model, let us gaze upon Him. How significant the introductory account given by Mark, "Now, after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent! and believe the Gospel." And again, in the same chapter, I find Him saying, in answer to the announcement of His disciples, that all men were seeking for Him, "Let us go into the next towns that I may preach there also, for therefore came I forth." Matthew tells us, "And it came to pass when Jesus had made an end of commanding His twelve disciples, He departed thence to teach and preach in their cities." In answer to John's question, "Are You the one who is to come?" He replies, "Go and show John those things which you do hear and see . . . and the poor have the Gospel preached to them." There is no item in the catalogue for providing amusement, such as: "And provide the people with innocent recreation."

We are not left in doubt as to the matter of His preaching, for "when many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door, He preached the Word unto them." There was no change of method adopted by the Lord during His course of ministry. His first word of command to His evangelists was, "As you go, preach!" His last command was, "Preach the Gospel to every creature." None of the gospels suggests that at any time during His ministry, He turned aside from preaching—to entertain, and so attract the people. He was in solemn earnestness, and his ministry was as earnest as Himself. Had He been less uncompromising, and introduced more of the "bright and pleasant" element into His ministry, He would have been more popular.

Yet, when many of His disciples turned away, because of the searching nature of His preaching, I do not find there was any attempt to increase a diminished congregation, by resorting to something more pleasant to the flesh. I do not hear Him saying, "We must keep up the gatherings at any cost! So run after those people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow! Something very short and attractive, with little, if any, preaching. Today was a service for God, but tomorrow we will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it, and have a pleasant time. Be quick, Peter! We must get the people somehow; if not by Gospel, then by entertainment!" No, this was not how He argued. Gazing in sorrow on those who would not hear the Word, He simply turns to the twelve, and asks, "Will you go away also?"

Jesus pitied sinners, pleaded with them, sighed over them, warned them, and wept over them; but He never sought to amuse them!

Amusement

Archibald Geikie Brown (July 18, 1844 – April 2, 1922) was a Calvinistic Baptist minister; a student, friend, and associate of Charles Spurgeon; and from 1908 to 1911, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, the church earlier pastored by Spurgeon.[1]

Archibald G. Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PostmodernProph]

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats - Charles Spurgeon - YouTube

I didn't realize Spurgeon was capable of cheap shots......making up the claim "amusing the masses" and then criticizing it.....

why not speak instead about communication?......

Why is it a cheap shot? They actually taught this over and over again:

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

I didn't realize Spurgeon was capable of cheap shots......making up the claim "amusing the masses" and then criticizing it.....

why not speak instead about communication?......

Why is it a cheap shot? They actually taught this over and over again:

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

The recent "Purpose Driven Church" makes this case in spades.

 

[Chuckt]

I didn't realize Spurgeon was capable of cheap shots......making up the claim "amusing the masses" and then criticizing it.....

why not speak instead about communication?......

Why is it a cheap shot? They actually taught this over and over again:

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

They are arguing that they have to overcome consumer resistance to grow the church.
They believe they grow the church whereas the contrast in the book of Acts is you preach the gospel and God added to the church.

 

[Chuckt]

The Emerging Church and its Self-Refuting Views

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYjSyWffsf4]The Emerging Church and its Self-Refuting Views - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thebrucebeat]

The Emerging Church and its Self-Refuting Views

The Emerging Church and its Self-Refuting Views - YouTube

Why am I watching this guy verbally masturbate in his garage?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why is it a cheap shot? They actually taught this over and over again:

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

The recent "Purpose Driven Church" makes this case in spades.

???...is this an admission you didn't read the book?.....
did you think there were six?.....fellowship, discipleship, worship, evangelism, service and amusement?.....

 

[guno]

One must remember that what the Jews believe is not what the Christians believe.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why is it a cheap shot? They actually taught this over and over again:

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

They are arguing that they have to overcome consumer resistance to grow the church.
They believe they grow the church whereas the contrast in the book of Acts is you preach the gospel and God added to the church.

in the book of Acts we begin with the story of the Pentecost......the apostles spoke and people heard in their own native tongue....the gospel was communicated.....

why is communicating with a post modern world "amusement"......why isn't it just communicating the gospel?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The Emerging Church and its Self-Refuting Views

The Emerging Church and its Self-Refuting Views - YouTube

this guy isn't defending Christianity from the emerging church, he's defending Modernism from Post Modernism.....again, Modernism does not equal Christianity.....

modernists and postmodernists are targets for the message of Christianity......if you are speaking the message of Christianity in Lesotho you do not preach in Mandarin Chinese.......if you are speaking the message of Christianity in urban New York you do not preach in the language of southern Arkansas......and if you are speaking the message of Christianity to postmoderns you do not preach in the language of modernism......

 

[thebrucebeat]

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

The recent "Purpose Driven Church" makes this case in spades.

???...is this an admission you didn't read the book?.....
did you think there were six?.....fellowship, discipleship, worship, evangelism, service and amusement?.....

I most certainly did.
If you read it you will find that any corporation could use it as a guidebook for growth. When I was ministering in a church in NC the book was assigned to us as a blueprint by the denomination. It did not impress me. Warren could have been showing how to sell hamburgers.

 

[Chuckt]

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

They are arguing that they have to overcome consumer resistance to grow the church.
They believe they grow the church whereas the contrast in the book of Acts is you preach the gospel and God added to the church.

in the book of Acts we begin with the story of the Pentecost......the apostles spoke and people heard in their own native tongue....the gospel was communicated.....

why is communicating with a post modern world "amusement"......why isn't it just communicating the gospel?......

PostmodernProphet,

I was driving home in my car. I looked at the clock and it was drive time so I put on the Christian teaching channel and the host started singing the Gilligan Island theme song. This is a true story. So do you know what I did? I turned the radio off.

They are nursing a weakness in people and the weakness is not willing to listen.
With all this baloney going on, I would marvel if anyone could hear the gospel at all among all the noise put out.

Chuck

 

[hobelim]

They are arguing that they have to overcome consumer resistance to grow the church.
They believe they grow the church whereas the contrast in the book of Acts is you preach the gospel and God added to the church.

in the book of Acts we begin with the story of the Pentecost......the apostles spoke and people heard in their own native tongue....the gospel was communicated.....

why is communicating with a post modern world "amusement"......why isn't it just communicating the gospel?......

PostmodernProphet,

I was driving home in my car. I looked at the clock and it was drive time so I put on the Christian teaching channel .......

Damn Chuck. seriously? Are you that bored with yourself that you would intentionally seek out someone to crap in your ears?


my condolences to your wife and next of kin......

 

[Chuckt]

???....can you provide me with a single example of a theologian of any era that argued the purpose of the church was to amuse?.....

They are arguing that they have to overcome consumer resistance to grow the church.
They believe they grow the church whereas the contrast in the book of Acts is you preach the gospel and God added to the church.

in the book of Acts we begin with the story of the Pentecost......the apostles spoke and people heard in their own native tongue....the gospel was communicated.....

why is communicating with a post modern world "amusement"......why isn't it just communicating the gospel?......

They took down the denomination name at our church because they did a study that more people would come.

I went to their Bible institute and the pastor asked us why we were there. I said I was there to learn and do you know what he said to me????

He said he wasn't there to teach me because knowledge puffeth up:

1 Corinthians 8:1 ¶ Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

So in other words, we should all stay stupid in order not to offend someone. They would rather offend God than not make friends with the world.

Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

When you go down this road, church is no longer for believers but it is for unbelievers. I stopped taking notes because I literally can't do anything with them. I looked at my notes and I can't build a Bible study from them. I'm not learning anything so if you aren't in a learning system where the goal is to remember doctrine, if you aren't learning or remembering what it means to be Christian, if you aren't learning the Bible then what are you learning?

The Disappearing Doctrine of the Evangelical Church

http://philadelphians2.50megs.com/disappearing_doctrine-EvChurch.html

Would you be comfortable in a Church that didn't learn anything and just dumbed down Christianity?

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

How do you make doctrine relevant to non-Christians? You don't.