- Rob

One problem that I have with the Emergent movement that is so rampant within my own denomination is the lack of clear, biblical interpretation. The text is often obfuscated to the point that many in the emergent camp make claims that we evangelicals would have considered heretical in the past. Eisegesis is considered more valid when studying the Scriptures than exegesis. In other words, reading your own interpretation into a text is now considered just as valid (if not more so) than reading the text and studying the grammar and history of the text in order to gain a clearer picture of the original writer’s intention.

John 12:48 is the reason why I have problems with modern bible studies in general. So often I hear people in bible studies say things like “What does this Scripture mean to you?” or “What is your take on the Scripture?” This is often followed by a cafeteria-style process where members of a bible study will pick through the various interpretations offered and choose whichever interpretation best fits some preconceived assumtion they’ve made. That’s not bible study. Listen to what Jesus says in John 12:48:

“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”

Notice Jesus does not say “My word AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT is what will judge you.” Nor does He say “My Word that YOU ARE AWARE OF is what judges you.” Instead, Jesus makes it plan, that the word HE SPOKE is what will judge us at the last day. Ignorance of the Word will not be an excuse on the final day of Judgment.

Now there are times when a text is APPLIED differently to different people. Here’s an example:

I counseled a man (Dave) who was deeply upset because a woman he’d dated recently left him with little notice. He couldn’t understand why she would leave. In the course of counseling him, it became apparent that cohabitation and fornication were two chief sins that were occuring in his life with this previous girlfriend. Yet the man claimed to be a Christian. So I took him at his word and began counseling him as a Christian. While counseling him, I brought him to the following verse:

1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

After he read the verse aloud, he said “This verse is about fornication.” In it’s interpretation, the verse is not about fornication. It’s about claiming fellowship with Christ while walking in the darkness, and how those two are mutually exclusive.

Yet the Holy Spirit caused the verse to come alive to Him, and bring rememberance of sin. He realized what he was doing was wrong, and subsequently repented of it.

However (and this is important) he was not guilty of misinterpreting the text. What God revealed to Him in his heart from the text through the Holy Spirit was certainly the truth: Fornication was a sin, and he needed to submit that area of his life to Christ and ask him for forgiveness. Yet he didn’t misinterpret the text. He understood the plain meaning of the text. Christ and darkness don’t fellowship together. The Holy Spirit through the power of God’s word brought him into right relationship with God. (See Hebrews 4:12-13 for similar verses)

It may be true that how a verse is APPLIED to a believer’s (or non-believer’s) heart may differ. But the intent and message of the Scripture NEVER changes. The Word itself says “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” The intent and message of Scripture never changes.

“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.”

If we are to be judged by the words that Jesus spoke, then I want to make sure that I understand what he says as much as I can. This means I must make a careful examination of the text, the history surrounding when it was written, the context it was written in, and other factors to make sure that I am not guilty of eisegesis (reading into the text).

To my emergent friends, let me speak plainly so you won’t misunderstand my words: The virgin birth is a reality. Jesus did lead a sinless life. After dying on the cross for ours ins, he was buried. And on the third day he arose BODILY, not metaphysically or spiritually. Jesus is coming back (and hopefully soon!)

I hope this small article will in some way encourage you this Sunday to open your bibles and read what it actually says, not what you think it means. God bless you!

Rob

“Apprising Ministries made it clear in Desiring God 2010, John Piper, And Warrengate that this isn’t about Dr. John Piper because no one credible is saying he’s anything other than a dear brother in Christ who’s made a mistake by inviting Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at the Desiring God Conference 2010. What’s been forgotten is there’s a very real reason why I refer to Warren as the PDL pope.”

Ken then links to several blogs (some of which use personal experiences) in order to express problems with this whole issue of someone like John Piper inviting Rick Warren (of Purpose Driven Life fame) to come speak at his upcoming “Desiring God 2010″ Conference.

In my mind, the real question becomes: Why does Piper want to invite Rick to speak at DG2010 when Rick’s man-centered “gospel” and the Gospel as revealed in Scripture are diametrically OPPOSITE of one another?

Rick’s gospel is man-centered. Yet the Bible places salvation in the sovereign hands of God Himself! (Read Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 1:16, Romans 5:8, John 1:12, Romans 6:23, etc.) The last time I checked, Piper was right on target Biblically, and I admire his zeal for the Lord and his desire to live holy. But something fishy is going on.

When I first became a Christian, I was literally surrounded by people who were falling in love with Rick Warren, and the “Purpose Driven Life”. It seemed like everywhere I turned people were talking about Rick Warren’s new book and how great it was.

I was unimpressed.

Compared to Scripture, Warren’s book is shallow, and lacks biblical substance. It compromises the Gospel by providing one of the weakest efforts at evangelism I’ve seen. Here’s how Rick explains the Gospel in the PDL:

In Rick’s PDL video that accompanies the book and study series, Rick leads everyone watching the video in the following prayer:

“Dear God, I want to know your purpose for my life. I don’t want to base the rest of my life on wrong things. I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know you. Jesus Christ, I don’t understand how but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to you. Make yourself real to me. And use this series in my life to help me know what you made me for.”

Rick then makes this amazing claim:

“Now if you’ve just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You’ve just become a part of the family of God.”

The problem with that presentation of the Gospel can be summed up in this scripture:

1 Cor 1:21:  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Unlike Rick’s pragmatic, man-centered message, the Scriptures teach us that salvation starts and ends with God himself. It’s not a man-centered feel-good message. Instead the bible teaches us the following:

Acts 17:30-31:  “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Now this raises an interesting point. Piper says in his video where he is trying to validate why he asked Rick Warren to come speak at his conference:

Uh, repentance: He’s been criticized for not highlighting repentance in the purpose Driven life and the way he would explain it is to say:
“I totally believe in the… the necessity of… of repentance and I totally am committed to the call for repentance though I may not use the word as often as some would want me to. So, check out the reality if not… if not the language.”

So Rick Warren says to John Piper that he believes in the necessity of repentance and that he’s totally committed to the call for repentance. Yet time after time when he speaks about the Gospel, he leaves repentance out.  Not only does he leave out repentance which Jesus also preached (see Luke 13), he replaces it with SINCERITY during prayer?!

In Rick Warren’s world, repentance may not be necessary, only sincerity of heart. Yet the Bible teaches us that:

Jer 17:9-10:  “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.”

The real issue with this whole dust-up online between Piper and Warren has to do with how Rick Warren presents himself. He’s like a chameleon. He will say whatever is pragmatically necessary to get the results he wants. So to him the end justifies the means.

Friends, this is not Biblical. We’re never told to compromise on the Gospel. Instead, we hear the opposite in Scripture:

Gal 1:6-10: I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

For a more in-depth study of why Rick Warren’s gospel is inadequate, I recommend you check out: Bob DeWaay’s excellent article found here:  http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue80.htm

McLaren published the book in 2010 with HarperCollins, and it’s been quite a hit. As of mid-April 2010, it’s currently #484 at Amazon.com for book sales, and #4 in the “Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Christian Living > Faith” category.

Brian describes himself inside the back jacket cover as “an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among innovative Christian leaders, thinkers, and activists.” He also says “here you will find a provocative and enticing introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

My disagreement starts there. What McLaren presents isn’t an introduction to the ‘Christian faith’ at all. While McLaren may be describing what he thinks faith will look like in the future, he has intentionally mischaracterized much of evangelical Christianity, presenting a straw-man view that modern Christians worship a faulty idea of God that’s derived from the “Greco-Roman” lens. Once McLaren sets up the straw man at the beginning of the book, he proceeds to prop it up and knock it over in each chapter.

Each of the 10 questions gets one chapter of discussion. Yet once McLaren asks the questions, he often dodges direct answers, or using Hegelian dialectic methods, he sets up “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” answers that often employ gross mischaracterizations of evangelicals. He seems to practice rather long-winded exercises in “missing the point.”

This isn’t orthodox Christianity. It’s doubt.

Brian slowly introduces his brand of liberal post-modernistic poison, until by the end of the book the views he expresses are at direct odds with what Christianity believes, all the while calling it “an introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

I plan over the course of several serialized blog posts to show how Brian’s opinion of the Christianity of the future isn’t a true picture of biblical Christianity, but is instead a picture of wolves running amok in the church.

Just to give you an example of the anger that seems to seethe just below the surface of his book, consider the following:

On page 191 of Chapter 18: “Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future?”, Brian  mischaracterizes conservative Christians, especially those who hold to an eschatology that Jesus is coming back soon with the world being consumed by fire. He seems to reject both ideas as old-fashioned and in the way of the Kingdom work that needs to be done. (Yet both ideas of Jesus’ imminent return and the destruction of the earth are both Biblical: See Revelation 22:20, and 2 Peter 3:12)

Listen to what he says on page 192:

Those of us raised in dispensationalist circles can regale one another with stories about scary “left-behind” sermons, sometimes illustrated through huge and serious wall charts and dramatized in B-rated movies. These sermons often climaxed with warnings about the second coming, when Jesus will return like “a thief in the night” – initiating the “Rapture” when “born-again Christians” will (we were told) be miraculously evacuated to heaven and the rest (includign the children of “saved” parents) will be left behind for a nightmare apocalypse. As a boy of about eight, having come home from school and found the doors locked and nobody home, I once spent nearly an hour sitting on my back porch, deeply dejected and with rising panic, sure that the Rapture had occurred and I was a child left behind. Who knew a third-grader could feel such terror and despair?

To the uninitiated, this all might sound pitiful or laughable, like wild conspiracy theories shared on strange Web sites or middle-of-the-night AM radio. But surprising numbers of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have also been thoroughly catechized in this eschatology through televangelist broadcasts and books (and newer B-grade films) in the Left Behind Series, which have broken sales records around the world. If they only focused on speculation about who the antichrist is (I remember hearing it was Khrushchev, then Henry Kissinger, then Saddamm Hussein, and now apparently odds are being placed on Barack Obama!), their eschatological hobby might be harlmess enough – like a crazy uncle obsessed with UFOs. But in recent decades, dispensationalism and it’s eschatological cousins have become significant factors in the foreign policy of the richest, most consumptive, and most well-armed nation in the history of history, and that’s where things get even scarier than a B-grade movie.

Here’s where McLaren really begins to mischaracterize Christians:

If the world is about to end, why care for the environment? Why worry about global climate change or peak oil? Who gives a rip for endangered species or sustainable economics or global poverty if God is planning to incinerate the whole planet soon anyway? If the Bible predicts the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (or requires that rebuilding for it’s prophecies to work in a dispensationalist framework), why care about Muslim claims on the Temple Mount real estate? Why care about justice for non-Jews in Israel at all – after all, isn’t it their own fault for being on land God predicts will be returned in full to the Jews in the last days? If God has predetermined that the world will get worse and worse until it ends in a cosmic megaconflict between the forces of Light (epitomized most often in the United States) and the forces of Darkness (previously centered in communism, but now, that devil having been vanquished, in Islam), why waste energy on peacemaking, diplomacy, or interreligious dialogue? Aren’t those simply endeavors in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? And since even Jesus can’t set the world right without taking up the sword and shedding swimming pools of his enemies’ blood (recalling our discussion under the Jesus question), what’s so bad about another war, and maybe even a little torture and genocide now and then? If God sanctions it, why can’t we?

McLaren’s idea of writing a scholarly approach to “Christian Faith of tomorrow” seems to involve mischaracterizing Christians, setting up and knocking down a laughable straw-man argument that we view Scripture through a “Greco-Roman” lens, spewing forth vitriol at fellow Christians – all the while holding forth a smug attitude of false humility and piety.

Reader be warned! This book is not about the coming Christian faith. It’s McLaren’s attack against the faith that’s already been delivered to us.

In the next segment, I will be discussing Question 1, “What is the Overarching Story Lline of the Bible?”

I wanted to transfer the conversation over to this site so that the conversation will not be limited by the character limitation when it comes to Facebook. I asked both Scott and Ben to come to this site and post comments on the topic here instead.

So, here’s the original conversation and posts:

Rob Willmann began working through Paul Washer’s study on the attributes of God, and enjoyed the first section on God’s Oneness (Deut. 6:4), and the Scriptural support of the trinity.
10:08pm

Ben Lindquist likes this.

Scott Soutullo at 10:12pm April 29
Oneness is about it.

Ben Lindquist at 10:31pm April 29 via Facebook Mobile
Scott, Are you still under the effects of the anesthetic? Just kidding, and hope the surgery went well! Ben

Rob Willmann at 5:24am April 30
Yea, Scripture is abundant with references to the fact that God is indeed trinity – Three in one. The baptist of Jesus by John the Baptist immediately springs to mind, or Peter’s encounter with Sapphira in the book of Acts, or 1 peter 1:1-2.

Scott Soutullo at 8:57am April 30
Which scriptures? Just kidding. Yeah, I know the scriptures to which you choose to refer, but those scriptures — just like the scriptures produced by (typically the males of) all of the other spiritual traditions throughout human history — are abundant with a whole lot of different things, some of which make basic sense, are gems of wisdom  and are, more or less, true (Gal 6 / reap what you sow) & some of which make absolutely no sense and are patently false, like shellfish being an abomination (Lev. 11:11) or Jesus saying that some of the people standing around him wouldn’t die until he returned (Mark 9:1 / Matt 16:28) or encouraging slavery (both having slaves and selling your daughter into slavery) (Exod 21). So, when it comes to something like conceiving God in a very specific way that requires all kinds of contortions & mental acrobatics to believe, i.e. 3 gods in one / trinity, etc., it’s just easier for me to lump that nebulous concept into the second set described above.

Scott Soutullo at 9:00am April 30
And, no, Ben, they never even put me under for the eye surgery. I was awake the whole time, BUT I did get your joke.

And, Rob, you and I have had parts of these types of conversations before and, as you know, speaking as someone who was sincere in my belief and truly sought revelation from Jesus and attended a “spirit filled” church and went to church on Wednesday and Sundays most of my life and truly, truly sought to have a real relationship with the God of the Judeo-Christian bible, and came up dry, I now enjoy gentlemanly debates about the whole thing. My comments are not intended to offend anyone. This, I trust you know.

Rob Willmann at 10:02am April 30
Scott, I do appreciate your comments, and I am in no way offended. I work at a Rescue Mission, and regularly (almost daily) hear opinions similar to yours. So no problem there, bud.

However, for my own sake, can you do me a favor and clarify a statement you made for me? I genuinely want to understand where you’re coming from. I am going to take one of the statements you made and take some phrases out to simplify it, and ask you to clarify what’s left. Cool?

You said: “Yeah, I know the scriptures to which you choose to refer, but those scriptures — just like the scriptures produced by all of the other spiritual traditions throughout human history are abundant with a whole lot of different things, some of which make basic sense, are gems of wisdom and are, more or less, true & some of which make absolutely no sense and are patently false”

Before I address the rest of your post and the 2nd one you made below it, can you clarify that statement?

Ben Lindquist at 11:07am April 30 via Facebook Mobile
Guys, I am so glad that you chose me to moderate the conversation! I will listen to both sides, and then determine who is correct. What?? No?? Just kidding. Scott, I really apprec your honesty, and am looking forward to a good gentlemanly conversation! Kindest regards, Ben

Scott Soutullo at 11:33am April 30
Ben, I hereby ordain you as moderator.

Rob, yes, I can clarify that statement as follows: the Judeo Christian Bible is replete with falsehoods (from a scientific standpoint and otherwise) and moral perversions that are promulgated therein as factual and moral truths (divinely inspired ones at that). An omniscient / omnipotent god would not have allowed “his” “living” “word” to contain any of these, that required “revision” or “re-interpretation” or “new testament-ization” later on. It would be infallibly true, through and through, from the date of writing to the “end of time.” Of course, it also contains some things that are true; but the things in the Bible that are true, aren’t true because they are found in the Bible. They’re just true; and often were said in many other scriptures (Buddha) thousands of years before they were written in the Bible, which has no monopoly on truth.

Scott Soutullo at 3:40pm April 30
P.S. — I have a sneaking suspicion about which way the moderator will guide the discussion, but I’m still game.

Ben Lindquist at 4:03pm April 30
Alright, it’s been a great discussion, and Rob won it handily. Next topic?

Ben Lindquist at 4:07pm April 30
Scott, Just for further clarification. Would you describe yourself as either an athiest or an agnostic? Or is there another characterization more in line with your belief system? I thought that might be helpful in knowing where to go with the conversation. There are numerous interesting topics you raise, and I thought this might be a good starting place. All kidding aside about being a moderator, I really appreciate the ability to discuss this, and look forward to the conversation!

Scott Soutullo at 4:38pm April 30
Dear Moderator: With due respect, “what” I would “describe” myself as, is not a fair question at this juncture as it bears no relevance to the merits (or lack thereof) of any discussion points that I may make. My discussion points or, if I must, “arguments” should, and I allege, do stand alone without the reader knowing how I describe myself along the multi-faceted spectrum of theistic belief. Having said that, are we not all atheists when it comes to Zeus, Horus, Thor, Mithra or Apollo? I should say we certainly are. I just take it one god further. I will say that I am not a complete, 100% atheist because saying, positively, that “there is no God” is the equivalent, intellectually speaking, of saying “there is a God.” I will go on to say that if the creator of all that is, is watching over us and is intervening and participating in our lives, then the chances of it being the God that you just happened to have been taught from an infant is “the one, true God” is almost zero.

Rob Willmann at 9:43pm April 30
Scott, First, I appreciate your clarification of your earlier statement. There are lots of questions and comments I have, and I would like to be able to discuss this without the meager character limit of this format (Facebook). I have a website at http://www.vibist.com/ which is run on a WordPress Engine. I am going to copy/paste this thread into the website so we can continue there without the limit of character space. I’ll transfer all of our current conversation over there.

I would however, like to clarify one of the comments you made:
Scott: “They’re just true; and often were said in many other scriptures (Buddha) thousands of years before they were written in the Bible, which has no monopoly on truth.”

I have a problem with that. Buddha’s death was +/- 20 years of 400 BC. If the biblical texts were written even 1000 yrs later, then that would put the original biblical manuscripts at +/- 20 years of 600 AD at the earliest, based on your statement. We both know that’s not true.

That’s the extent of our Facebook conversation. I transplanted the posts here, and did no editing except to take the “… Read More” statements out of the text that I copied.

Post away!