Comments on Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics: How Do We Do Social Justice? (III)

Randy,I was required to read almost all of Barth's...

2008-04-05T21:09:00.000-07:00

Randy,
I was required to read almost all of Barth's "Kirchliche Dogmatik" so if you are interested, I can provide an assessment of Barth and his theology.
But whether it is Barth, Frei, McLaren, or anyone else, we are allowed to criticize. Many in the emergent church are dependent on many strands in Barth's theology, although I am certain--like that word?--that Barth would speak of the clarity of Scripture, once the Holy Spirit had come--senkrecht--into it.
McLaren and your crowd truly dishonors the Lord because you accuse him of not being able to communicate what he says he communicates: knowledge and truth.
A final comment: who ever identified salvation with Scripture? In the mediate work and workings of the Holy Spirit, the Church has confessed for millennia that the Spirit works through the Bible. You might have missed that class in seminary.

Randy,I have a hard time paying you much attention...

2008-03-28T18:29:00.000-07:00

Randy,

I have a hard time paying you much attention. I have never once seen you actually engage Ron seriously. The most you manage to do is accuse, implicitly and explicitly, anyone of being un-Christlike who doesn't concede the equal legitimacy of your brand of broad Christianity, or who isn't "nice." (And Jesus was always "nice"?) You are guilty of the very thing you accuse Ron of. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. And Scripture does have plenty to say about that.

Solameanie,Here's what I know. Ron & friends cl...

2008-03-28T16:25:00.000-07:00

Solameanie,
Here's what I know. Ron & friends claim that anyone left of himself moves away from Scripture. How absurd.

I've mentioned plenty of biblical texts only to be told that good Christians treat people like crap all for the sake of truth.

I have yet to find an example of Christ doing this. I have yet to imagine Ron being someone who loves others as they want to be loved.

The fact is: If I had no faith in a living God, Ron would have slammed the door on that idea. He totally disregards people who think much differently.

Case in point -- look at his most recent posts. He is FAR right wing in all of his politics as well as his theology.

I've never tried to engage someone with a doctorate who can call as many names of others as a fifth grader.

You can say this doesn't matter, but Paul writes and writes and writes about how our lives reflect the faith.

So I don't believe one particular verse tells the entire story of Scripture. I asked about how Abraham was saved apart from the text, and he called me names.

I would like to know a few verses where the biblical text claims to be the means of salvation.

While the reformers said Sola Scriptura, they didn't believe that Scritures held salvation. They held a means to salvation.

If you want to be a better reformed theologian, it would be correct to state that the Spirit is our meams to salvation.

If God always calls us, then let's leave it up to God rather than our correct reading of Scriptures.

Scriptures contains everything we need for salvation. Absolutely. But, the Scriptures are not salvation.

I recongize the desire of the right to protect the text. I also recognize the right distorting the beliefs of others to make their case.

Ron's interpretation, accuasations, and commenets regarding the faith of so many recognized followers of the living God simply don't fit within the story of biblical Christians.

To question the faith and integrity of John Wesley or whomever isn't within his favorite theologians?

I'm waiting for him to show the terrible errors of Barth. That would be a fun read.

I submit that all Scriptures are inspired by God. But, I have a hard time with people who are simply mean in the name of Jesus because their thoughts and words don't reflect God.

Randy,I think the charge of "proof-texting" is way...

2008-03-28T14:07:00.000-07:00

Randy,

I think the charge of "proof-texting" is way overused. Your "answer" completely dodged Ron's question. The fact is that you just don't want to admit that Scripture says what it says, and means what it says.

In terms of progressive revelation, I begin to think you have this confused with "continuing revelation." Would you perhaps be a closet charismatic?

God's Word stands as it is. It will not be altered just to suit the whims of so-called progressives who find more gratification in being liked by a Christ-hating culture than they do in being faithful to God's Word.

Ron has tried several times now to get you to actually engage with Scripture and doctrinal matters. However, you continue to weave and dodge. You really gave the game away in your first sentence. "There is no right answer except the one you want to hear."

Do you think there IS a right answer to anything?

So let me get this straight: Are you advocating th...

2008-03-27T22:48:00.000-07:00

So let me get this straight: Are you advocating that some people are saved by General Revelation? Yes, I am saying that the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ as he is presented in Scripture.
Reformed theologians have always recognized progressive revelation. That does not mean, however, that God prohibited women in leadership in the Old and New Testaments, but thinks it's fine now. What a ridiculous hermeneutic!
I personally don't care what you thought of the post. Your arguments are non-arguments. Just go back and read your response. General Revelation = progressive revelation = women in leadership. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
You are the poster boy for what is tragically wrong with modern evangelicalism.

In regard to your specific text, there is no right...

2008-03-27T20:56:00.000-07:00

In regard to your specific text, there is no right answer other than what you want to hear.

I figure fundamentalists generally play proof text games, but reformers don't generally do so.

We can prove the world is flat if we use one simple proof text.

So, there IS my answer regarding your Romans verse.

As for progressive revelation, while God once used means other than the Scripture, are you suggesting this is now his only means of giving salvation to someone?

And as for progressive revelation, I am glad that you recoginze it as reality.

This also opens the possibilty that women are now called to leadeership within the church when they once were not... :)

And as for your last post, it's still patronizing. I find kinder people at a bar...

Is God a jerk? If we are imperfect images of God, does this allow us to be jerks too?

Randy,When-if-you studied Theology, do you recall ...

2008-03-27T20:14:00.000-07:00

Randy,
When-if-you studied Theology, do you recall a section on Scripture and progressive revelation? Did you ever study how covenantally God's promises were eventually fulfilled in Christ and how all the OT pointed to him? Did you ever read about how God gave his Special Revelation only to his people and not to the Philistines, Moabites, and others? No pagan person or nation was saved by being a "good" person, because there are no good people. In fact, there are no "seekers" except those who are already Christians (cf. Rom. 3:10-13). Christians seek the will of God all others don't.
You still have not responded--what's new?-to the Rom. 1:18ff. text. General Revelation only leaves man without excuse.
Let's start from there and see what happens. Seriously, this is stuff that you should have learned the first week of sem.

Ron,I'm looking for your kindness, goodness, hones...

2008-03-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

Ron,
I'm looking for your kindness, goodness, honesty and integrity in your answer. That's what I've come to expect from sincere followers of Jesus.

Thanks.

Randy,I'll respond more in the morning. You really...

2008-03-26T22:17:00.000-07:00

Randy,
I'll respond more in the morning. You really did waste your money on seminary. What you raised is what I'd expect from a first grader, but not a sem grad! Good grief!

I meant to say "or not," not "are not."

2008-03-26T18:09:00.001-07:00

I meant to say "or not," not "are not."

Randy,My time is a bit limited tonight, so I trust...

2008-03-26T18:09:00.000-07:00

Randy,

My time is a bit limited tonight, so I trust Ron will respond more in depth. Very quickly, the first place I would point you to is Hebrews, where the writer talks of how God, in these last days, has spoken to us through His Son. His Son is His final, complete revelation to mankind in this age. We come to know His Son through His Word by the power and revelation of His Holy Spirit.

This is not a question of whether the Lord is capable or not of acting separately from Scripture. The problem, in my view, is that too many like to use clever, convoluted arguments as an excuse to discard and ignore Scripture rather than obey it.

As to whether people are damned are not outside of Christ, I think Scripture is sufficiently clear on this subject. So your problem isn't with Ron, me, or anyone else. Your problem is with the Word of God itself. Think about it.

IF you are correct, will anyone enter the enternal...

2008-03-26T16:19:00.000-07:00

IF you are correct, will anyone enter the enternal presence of God prior to the Canon being completed?

And, will anyone enter into the presence of God for enternity who did not have the Torah to read? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Joseph?

If you are correct, then there are not exceptions. So, are the father's of the faith damned?

We factually KNOW that Abraham's faithfulness was credited to him as righteousness. aka "Being right with God"

So, we factually know that Abraham never read any sort of biblical text and yet he received salvation.

This is where the arguement for the biblical text being the only means of salvation breaks down.

Prior to the reformation, the biblical text was largely unknown. The church preached sermons in Latin. The common people didn't know Latin so they didn't know the biblical text.

They knew the story of God, of the kingdom of God, of salvation by the lives of their parents and grandparents. They knew God as he had lived into the lives of previous generations.

Their grandparents for hundreds of years knew virtually nothing of the biblical text. YET. Were all of these generations of God followers less than faithful? Are these people damned as well?

I believe that a God capable of all things, in control of all things, is capable of saving people beyond the means of a bibliical text.

Perhaps a burning bush?

Randy,The scriptures are the only way a person can...

2008-03-24T18:10:00.000-07:00

Randy,
The scriptures are the only way a person can know God savingly so.
What is your point about the Holy Spirit?
Rom. 1:18ff. makes it clear that there is a General Revelation of the triune God to all, but it only leaves man without excuse.

We can argue about Scripture. WE can even start w...

2008-03-24T17:56:00.000-07:00

We can argue about Scripture. WE can even start with Scripture. It's a good starting point.

Ron, I would like to have you proof text your following words:

"The only way anyone can know God is from Scripture."

I believe the Heidelberg Catechism says something about the Spirit playing a significant role in knowing God?

~ As for my attitude, I thought it fair to be as sarcastic as I read here. Why is it not fair to for me to unfairly take pop shots as well? I'm in the minority; so perhaps you now realize what it seems like as you arbitrarily take shots at people I know and respect. Is it really fun sarcasm in the name of 'truth'?

But back to the orinal question -- are the Scriptures the only way that we know God?

Randy,I'm not at all certain why you think I said ...

2008-03-24T15:05:00.000-07:00

Randy,
I'm not at all certain why you think I said Sider is going to hell. If you read closely, I'm simply making the point that many of Sider's conclusions move in the direction of classical Marxism--and, yes, I believe Sider is more than aware that he is moving in that direction. Simply to have read the books in question isn't enough; you must digest them and delineate their strengths and weaknesses.
As far as some of your other comments go, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were either drunk or on drugs when you made them. Or, perhaps, you just finished some liberal's book on The Ethics of Jesus.
It really doesn't matter how we approach any subject, does it, Randy? If we come at it from Scripture, you want something different; if we quote something different you don't like that either.
I'm not certain what you did Good Friday evening, but I conducted a worship service.
The only way anyone can know God is from Scripture.
There is a decided difference between arrogance and confidence. If you went to the doctor and he diagnosed you with cancer would you fault him because your neighbor said that what you had didn't sound like cancer to him? Would you call your doctor arrogant and ask him if he thinks he can diagnose cancer better than the 3 billion people on this planet?
The study of theology and being a minister of the Word is my life and I've been studying it and doing it since 1973. Why do you have a problem with pastors and theologians drawing conclusions from their work and studies?
Your type of indecision (although you have decided views, it's not cool as a pomo to have any truth claims) and unwillingness to take a stand is precisely what is wrong with the modern Church.
If all truth is relative anyway and the Bible is unclear why are you trying to make your point?

Randy,That was a very sophomoric comment. I am dis...

2008-03-23T14:35:00.000-07:00

Randy,

That was a very sophomoric comment. I am disappointed in you. You are beginning almost to take up the characteristics of an Internet troll. You can do better than that!

--So, how do you call yourself a follower of the t...

2008-03-23T10:18:00.000-07:00

--So, how do you call yourself a follower of the triune God, and yet you are SO arrogant and filled with pride and self-righteousness?--

If you're going to go on like that, you'd better ask that question to whomever looks back at you in a mirror.

Amen, Matt J.Randy's snarky contempt eclipses that...

2008-03-22T11:05:00.000-07:00

Amen, Matt J.

Randy's snarky contempt eclipses that of which he accuses Ron. And once again, with ample opportunity and numerous invitations from Ron to do so, Randy refuses to favor us with even the beginnings of a biblical refutation.

Call me crazy, but after weeks of similar comments as this one from Randy, it has crossed my feeble mind that perhaps he doesn't actually have such a refutation handy ...

Randy, I think that it would have been better if y...

2008-03-22T00:15:00.000-07:00

Randy, I think that it would have been better if you had simply expressed your own principled views regarding this subject. If you want to criticize Christians for not doing enough to voluntarily care for the poor in this world, I think that would have been a much more edifying discussion than just ranting and mocking. If you had done that, you might have been surprised to find some agreement that you weren't expecting.

If you've read Sider & Chilton, why didn't you try explaining why you believe that Sider is right and construct an argument on that basis instead of just being coarse and making superficially critical statements? You said nothing constructive and (ironically) sounded arrogant and self-righteous in the process. That wasn't even good polemics. Seriously, why even waste your time?

However, if you are suggesting that it is somehow moral for people's money to be taken forcibly by secular governments and spent on a vaguely defined concept of poverty, then I'm having trouble seeing where the virtue is in that. What's so virtuous about voting for the government to spend other people's money in an unaccountable way? What's so moral or virtuous about being forced to give? It seems to me like that's just the other side's mechanism for assuaging their guilt - regardless of whether it yields any results at all (which apparently it doesn't)!

Furthermore, if in the last several election cycles, half or more of this country has been voting for liberal Democrats, the champions of this view of the "social justice" that you seem to be defending,then why don't we see that half of the country setting a wonderful example of voluntary compassion in society? I guarantee you that if they were doing that, the whole idea of politicians running on a platform of the redistribution of wealth would become irrelevant.

I agree with all you say too. Just like David Chi...

2008-03-21T21:28:00.000-07:00

I agree with all you say too. Just like David Chilton 2o years ago... not.

I read both Sider & Chilton. Chilton is good because it clears our minds of any guilt. Sider is going to hell for trying to care for the poor, forgetting the OT, and for simply being a Communist in Jesus clothing.

So, you're right Ron. In fact, tonight I declare that you are the right in all senses of the word.

On this wonderful Good Friday... Tank driving preacher men on the internet who have studied in far-away-lands should be lauded for all of their intellect and passion for capitalism and God.

After all 'Have No Other gods before Me."... Jesus was draped in an American flag on that cross... yes sir.

Jesus blood lines included rich and poor... more poor... and whores... and not too many preacher men.

BUT you have it all right. 3 Billion peope or so live on this planet, and YOU know GOd better than all of us...

One question on this Good Friday night...

Why the hell are you so arrogant?

The biblical text is clear on pride and arrogance, and you FAIL.

So, how do you call yourself a follower of the triune God, and yet you are SO arrogant and filled with pride and self-righteousness?

I agree with all you say. Wow!

2008-03-21T08:42:00.000-07:00

I agree with all you say. Wow!