Have we gone too far with the judging?

[P31Woman]

But the details matter, Jesus did not respond to everything with scripture. That's an unavoidable fact. As for how I regard scripture, you're not in a position to comment on that, you need to get to know me a lot better than you currently do. I hold scripture in high regard which is why I ask the questions of it that I do.

Jesus parables ARE scripture.

Other people's "stories" or "experiences" are not unless they are recorded for us in scripture.

 

[reba]

But the details matter, Jesus did not respond to everything with scripture. That's an unavoidable fact. As for how I regard scripture, you're not in a position to comment on that, you need to get to know me a lot better than you currently do. I hold scripture in high regard which is why I ask the questions of it that I do and engage God with it who does know me.

He is the Scripture

 

[Grazer]

The scriptures are how God wants it, I've never disputed that. How we handle the bible is the question; the events, how they are told. The core is simple; Jesus died and rose again but that's not what we are discussing. The details matter when you have explanations of the canaanite genocide of "they were the worst sinners" then have Jesus saying;

Luke 13:1-5 NIV

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.â€

The 2 simply don't go together. So I question the explanation given, the human interpretation of the account. Am I wrong in doing so? This opened up more questions and God honors questions when they are with the right heart. This is how my faith has grown, by following God not what humans tell me how I should interpret the bible. Once I stopped listening to the fundamentalists and listened to God, things started making more sense and we've been doing it ever since.

And no, you know nothing about me except what you want to.

 

[P31Woman]

The scriptures are how God wants it, I've never disputed that. How we handle the bible is the question; the events, how they are told. The core is simple; Jesus died and rose again but that's not what we are discussing. The details matter when you have explanations of the canaanite genocide of "they were the worst sinners" then have Jesus saying;

Luke 13:1-5 NIV

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

The 2 simply don't go together. So I question the explanation given, the human interpretation of the account. Am I wrong in doing so? This opened up more questions and God honors questions when they are with the right heart. This is how my faith has grown, by following God not what humans tell me how I should interpret the bible. Once I stopped listening to the fundamentalists and listened to God, things started making more sense and we've been doing it ever since.

And no, you know nothing about me except what you want to.

The two go together perfectly and it goes back to Jesus death and bodily resurrection. Repent or die in your sins.

The people you post are not God. One was an TV actor reading a script and the other two are people who have pretty much denied the faith. (heretics)

The details matter when you have explanations of the canaanite genocide of "they were the worst sinners" then have Jesus saying;

Whose explination is that? What does scripture say? Who are you trusting to tell you the truth? Evans is a liar.

 

[P31Woman]

The scriptures are how God wants it, I've never disputed that. How we handle the bible is the question; the events, how they are told.

The core is simple; Jesus died and rose again but that's not what we are
discussing. The details matter when you have explanations of the canaanite
genocide

of "they were the worst sinners" then have Jesus saying;

Luke 13:1-5 NIV

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

The 2 simply don't go together. So I question the explanation given, the human interpretation of the account. Am I wrong in doing so? This opened up more questions and God honors questions when they are with the right heart. This is how my faith has grown, by following God not what humans tell me how I should interpret the bible. Once I stopped listening to the fundamentalists and listened to God, things started making more sense and we've been doing it ever since.

And no, you know nothing about me except what you want to.

Details matter when it comes to the core.

Who is Jesus?

Why did he die?

Did he raise from the dead in the body or in spirit only?

Yes those details matter.

Now those who desire to do away with "sin" don't like those types of details. Those in the Emergent Chruch don't like the fact God has he right to judge sin as he pleases.

They only like to worship a god who throws out kisses and love arrows.

They refuse to worship the God of scripture and instead make up their own god to worship. No sin is new.

Like it or not the Emergent Church group are using the back door to attack the core teachings of the Christian faith at the heart of their attacks is the Cross of Jesus Christ.

 

[Grazer]

Is anyone else getting the feeling were just going round in circles now?

 

[reba]

Is anyone else getting the feeling were just going round in circles now?

LOL welcome to the forums

 

[P31Woman]

Is anyone else getting the feeling were just going round in circles now?

I think using scripture to expose false doctrine is one of the ways God calls us to love him and others. Allowing false doctrine to stand or flourish is evil.

(remember in the law false prophets were to be put to death)

 

[reba]

Being around churches all my life and forums for a dozen or so years I have really learned we are not all at the same place in the Lord. Some never get over the baby stage, they are where they need be. Some take a intellectual path, that is for sure not me, yet we are walking with the Lord....Any of us who have kids can easily see they do not all grow up alike.

Standards? Thinking we Christians must fit into box....Must look or act a certain way? Thinking of Mother Theresa, who here reaches the standard she set? I don't for sure... I t is not in me to care for the ill... It would be in me to hammer the nails to build the hospital maybe she could not do that....

Looking at ideals weighing the good and bad is judging and we should.... Just as much as we should judge if that dog will bite! Judging and passing judgment are worlds apart.... I can not pass judgment on any one.... Sure I can say Sally you are going to hell.... so what, that does not send her to hell. Just makes me look bad.. I can open the Scriptures and show Sally Jesus said this...
Rev_21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
See Sally that lie you are telling about Sam is not a good thing that kind of thing can send you to hell. Here are some steps to put this to an end.... Ask forgiveness of God, tell Sam your sorry, face up to your lie. That is not judging Sally, And to say liars shall have their part in hell is not judging it is a statement of fact.

 

[P31Woman]

‘Father, then please send Lazarus to my father’s house. <sup class="versenum"> </sup>I have five brothers, and Lazarus could warn them so that they will not come to this place of pain.’

<sup class="versenum"> </sup>But Abraham said, ‘They have the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets; let them learn from them.’

<sup class="versenum"> </sup>The rich man said, ‘No, father Abraham! If someone goes to them from the dead, they would believe and change their hearts and lives.’

<sup class="versenum"> </sup>But Abraham said to him, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not listen to someone who comes back from the dead.’”


(NCV Luke 16)

 

[P31Woman]

Edward,

check this out.



Emergent Scripture

Many of the unusual positions held by the emergent leaders stem directly from their theology of the Scriptures as well as their hermeneutical approach. First, insiders of the emerging church “conversation” are fond of expressing their excitement and fidelity to the Word of God, even as they undermine it. McLaren says, “I want to affirm that my regard for Scripture is higher than ever.”[12] Bell tells us that for over ten years he has oriented his life around studying, reading, and trying to understand the Bible.[13] One would have to wonder why Bell devotes so much time to the understanding of the Bible since he apparently agrees with his wife who stated in a joint interview that she has “no idea what most of it means. And yet life is big again.”[14]

In order to press home their views, the emergent leaders must perform some interesting gymnastics with the Scriptures. How can someone express high regard for Scripture yet come up with such fanciful interpretations? First, they question inspiration. Wondering out loud about Paul’s epistles, Bell writes, “A man named Paul is writing this, so is it his word or God’s Word?’[15] McLaren pulls out the old Jesus versus Paul card, “We retained Jesus as Savior but promoted the apostle Paul (or someone else) to Lord and Teacher…. And/or decided that Jesus’ life and teachings were completely interpreted by Paul.”[16] Bell, in complete ignorance of history and the doctrine of biblical preservation, informs his readers that the canon came about as a result of a vote of the church fathers: “In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is.”[17]

Anyone still clinging tenaciously to the Word, after inspiration is denied, will further loosen his grip when he discovers that the Scriptures are not inerrant, infallible nor authoritative. McLaren said these are words related to a philosophical belief system that he used to hold. But he no longer believes the “Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible. Although I do find the term inerrancy useful… I would prefer to use the term inherency to describe my view of Scripture.”[18] By the use of inherency he is dusting off the neo-orthodox view of the Scriptures, which taught that the Bible contains the “word of God” but is not the completed Word of God, for God’s Word can be found in anything He “inspires.”

If you have any confidence left in Scripture at this point, McLaren and his friends can take care of that by telling you that you have been misreading the Bible all along. “There is more than one way to ‘kill’ the Bible,” he says. “You can dissect it, analyze it, abstract it. You can read its ragged stories and ragamuffin poetry, and from them you can derive neat abstractions, sterile propositions, and sharp-edged principles.”[19] To the emergent people the Bible was never intended to be studied and analyzed; it was meant to be embraced as art, to be read as a story. The proof is that it is written as narrative and poetry and story. Granted much of it is in this genre but, as D. A. Carson points out, much of it is also “law, lament, instruction, wisdom, ethical injunction, warning, apocalyptic imagery, letters, promises, reports, propositions, ritual, and more. The easy appeal to the overarching narrative proves immensely distortive.”[20] Regarding Scripture, Carson leaves us with a powerful warning: “At some juncture churches have to decide whether they will, by God’s grace, try to live in submission to Scripture, or try to domesticate Scripture.” [21]

Emergent Hermeneutics

With such an understanding of the Scriptures how can the emerging church claim to be in any sense devoted to the Bible? By developing new hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation involving rules and principles that enable us to interpret anything we read, from the newspaper to the Bible, although the word is used almost exclusively in reference to Scripture. The hermeneutic used by most of us all of the time in extrabiblical literature could be called “normal” or “literal.” That is, we believe that words make sense, can be understood and can communicate a message that the author wants to convey. When we read tax laws, as confusing as they might be, we approach them though normal hermeneutics believing that we can and must understand what they say. When we turn to the sports page of a newspaper and read that such-and-such team just won the championship, we naturally believe that a fact has been communicated (the team won) and that we can understand what the author of the article has said, all because we use normal hermeneutics.

But when it comes to Scripture, many are not content to use normal hermeneutics (called grammatical-historical by theologians). Rather many approaches to interpretation have been invented. We have allegorical and devotional hermeneutics which add supposed hidden meanings to words and texts, liberal hermeneutics which deny the supernatural and anything that is not politically correct at the moment, and neo-orthodox hermeneutics which say that anything that “inspires” us is the word of God to us.


More recently new hermeneutical approaches have been invented, each attempting, in my opinion, to circumvent the clear teaching of the Word. At least three new hermeneutics are making the rounds in emergent circles:

1) Postmodern hermeneutics (or hermeneutics of suspicion): Since postmodernism is laced with deconstructionism, and since the emergent church is the postmodern church, it is only natural that a postmodern hermeneutic of Scripture would be developed and employed in this movement. McLaren explains it well, “The Bible requires human interpretation, which was [is] a problem…. How do “I” know the Bible is always right? And if “I” am sophisticated enough to realize that I know nothing of the Bible without my own involvement via interpretation….What good is it, liberals would ask conservatives, to have an inerrant Bible if you have no inerrant interpretations?…”[22]

I trust these abbreviated quotes express the postmodern approach to Scripture. Even if they feign belief in an inspired, inerrant Bible, it is of little consequence because we lack inerrant interpreters. In the emerging church’s view, the Bible may very well be communication of truth from God to man, but since we are incapable of interpreting the Scriptures “truthfully” it matters little.

Of course, employing postmodern hermeneutics renders the Scriptures impotent, and causes us to ask why God bothered at all trying to communicate with mankind? And what did God mean in Psalm 19 when he tells us of the benefits and power of the Word? And why did Paul tell Timothy to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) if there is nothing in the Word that can be taught with confidence? While we will agree that infallible and inerrant interpreters are nonexistent, it does not follow that the Bible cannot be understood, rather the vast majority of the Scriptures are clear and comprehensible.

2) Rhetorical hermeneutics: McLaren defines this as,
An approach to Scripture that among other things tells us that we normally pay too much attention to what the writers are saying and not enough to what they are doing. Rhetorical interpretation would ask, “What is Jesus trying to do by using the language of hell?…”[23]

In other words, since we can’t understand words, by postmodern necessity we are free to ignore words and try to interpret actions. This is hardly a step in the right direction as anyone who tries to interpret body language could testify.

3) Redemptive Hermeneutics: This is a methodology invented by Dallas Theological Seminary graduate William Webb and endorsed by Dallas professors such as Darrell L. Bock and Stephen R. Spencer, originally in order to provide some kind of justification of the egalitarian movement. Unlike many egalitarians, Webb concedes that, if the Bible is read using normal hermeneutics, men and women are given different roles and functions in the home and in the church. Webb’s solution is to move beyond the written words to the spirit of the words which will allow accommodation for the views and attitudes of our age. “While Scripture had a positive influence in its time, we should take that redemptive spirit and move to an even better, more fully-realized ethic today."[24]

Why is this important? Because “Christians have to reevaluate their beliefs due to changing attitudes toward women and toward homosexuals.”[25]

McLaren uses this hermeneutic to teach that the Holy Spirit will continue to lead us to new truth beyond the written word. “I can’t see church history in any other way, except this: semper reformanda, continually being lead and taught and guided by the Spirit into new truth.”[26] Bell uses the same hermeneutic to make this comment on Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, “[Jesus] is giving his followers the authority to make new interpretations of the Bible” (emphasis his).[27] These new interpretations lead to a new church, “It is our turn to step up and take responsibility for who the church is going to be for a new generation. It is our turn to redefine and reshape and dream it all up again.”[28] But they are wrong. It is not up to us to redefine, reshape and dream up the church again; God has already settled this matter.
​

What these new hermeneutics have in common is the deliberate movement away from the words and message of Scripture to a new message beyond the pages of the Word. In the process, the Bible becomes nothing more than a shell or perhaps a museum piece to be admired but ignored. Scripture as handed down by God has been replaced with the imaginations of man in order to fit more succinctly with our culture. But if we have no authoritative word from God, with what is the church left? Nothing but mystery and mysticism.

http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/21-church-trends/506-the-emerging-church-part-3

 

[farouk]

Yes, you're right. The power of prayer makes a HUGE difference in everything. We as believers know this.

Dave: Paul says in 1 Thess. 5: 'Rejoice ever more. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks'.

He says much the same thing in Philippians 4, as well.

Blessings.

 

[Dave H.]

Yes! I just know from experiance that positive re-inforcement encourages people to do better far more than a negative tear-down. Kill people with kindness and love and watch how this turns their life around. Judge them and tear them down and watch how this will drive them away and make them bitter. It's a "No Brainer".

 

[farouk]

Dave: Nothing like a bit of encouragement from someone you know will pray for you, too. Blessings.

 

[Grazer]

Edward - no I don't jest. Once I'd stopped listening to people who were more interested in telling me what I should think and putting me in a box, and started listening to God who just wants me as I am, my faith grew exponentially!!

As for the canaanite genocide, to me its not that simple. As Reba has pointed out and I've said many times, we are on different journeys with God.

 

[Grazer]

Ok so finally got round to writing a bit about my journey with God. It's in a different style to what I normally do but I'd been working on a blog all afternoon and the style carried over

Anyway its http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49971

 

[P31Woman]

P31Woman, thank you that was very informative. It explains very clearly how (and why) the new age thinking is taking place. Lord, let us not be deceived by such thinking.

If you start paying attention to the EC movement you will find they are "in" our churches and "in" our Christian bookstores and "in" our christians schools/universities. These folks "claim" to be evangelical just as they claim to love scriptrue. It's a flat out lie. We don't fight against flesh and blood.

Here is a tongue in cheek partial emergent termonology list from apoloegticsindex.org. There is more truth in this than most people realize. They have roots tied to the democratic party and socialism. (see Sojourner founder Jim Wallis and follow the trail). That's why they have no problem with "liberation theology". There is only one group they attack.

Authentic - Being one's real, sinful, doubting self (and proud of it).

Atonement - Theory of divine child abuse that appeals to vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood (Don't act shocked. You know this is what McLaren teaches, so believe it already).


<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Bible - A book through which subjective enlightenment comes to us as we live in community.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;"> Bounded-Set Theology- Narrow minded, wrong belief system in which some people are so rude as to consider others wrong.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Carson, D. A. - Ignorant, mistaken man who just can't understand us.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Christ - An incredible, outstanding man in the Bible who left behind a valuable story that enables us to make the world a better place. Some people (including some in the emergent conversation) say he is a divine being, but this concept is subject to deconstruction.Conversation - Equally confused people guessing what things might be "true" and guessing what "true" might mean.
<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Grace - The license to be "authentic" (see above definition) as long as we are kind, charitable, and care about the environment.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Heaven - A place self-centered moderns aspire to while we create paradise on earth.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Hell - A word we never, never use unless we are swearing.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Holiness - The state in which we are zealous for postmodernism.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Homosexuals - People who Fundamentalists hate and exclude from the community of the faithful.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Humility - Emphasizing the flaws of Christians before the world, while we act as if we don't know what we're talking about. [24] <li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Jones, Tony - American "National Director" of the leaderless, unorganized, emergent conversation.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Journey - The futile process of seeking after "truth."<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Judgment - Unpleasant experiences we have in this life. It probably has nothing to do with eternity.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Judgmentalism - Other people knowing right from wrong and saying so.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Kind - What we are (even when we speak bluntly) and non-emergent types are not when they are mean enough to suggest we are wrong.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Kingdom of God - The brave new world we are working to establish that is politically correct and environmentally clean for people of all beliefs.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Language - That which creates reality for a given community. Although any given community's language is nonsense to outsiders, we expect people of all communities to read and understand our books and websites.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">Legalism - Any exhortation made by Christians other than exhortations intended to stir people to work for left-wing social causes<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;"><li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">.Liberal - A term that is not useful in describing those in the emerging church conversation since we are beyond that.<li style="padding-bottom: 15px; list-style-type: none;">
for the full list http://www.apologeticsindex.org/297-emerging-church-glossary

 

[Grazer]

I read it. It does explain a lot about the way you think. It kind of jumped out at me what your omission was and that is in fact a very key element to understanding how you think. I'll leave it alone, lest I take the judging too far and it's not my business anyway. Let me just say though that, you need to find forgiveness in your heart Grazer.

For those interested in going down the path to understanding the Canaanite genocide, I can point you to a very good article on it. It's actually very simple to understand, and has many elements of science and physics in it which will appeal to many. It is here
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/9/

P31Woman, thank you that was very informative. It explains very clearly how (and why) the new age thinking is taking place. Lord, let us not be deceived by such thinking.

What I omitted was what I did at 19 and yeah, I probably do need to find forgiveness at some level. But my experiences of the church in the aftermath has shaped how I think today. Regardless of who agrees, my relationship with Christ is stronger for it. I should have titled it "God saved me from the church"

 

[vocalyocal]

Hi, this is my first post, I'm not to sure how this works, but in regards to the topic of judging, doesn't the bible teach that the church is supposed to make judgements within the church but not outside the church, according to 1 Corinthians 5

 

[Grazer]

Just read this and think its so true;

To live in a near constant state of theological vigilance, ready to strike down a brother or sister for (perceived) theological failings seemed not only a colossal waste of the one life God has given us, but at odds with what the Bible makes a big deal of