Comments on: Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 5) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:07:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Zach Doppelt http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-19129 Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:14:10 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-19129 I recently posted on my blog the importance of the clarity of Scripture, that God has given us the ability to understand and know the timeless truth found in His word, which includes the true gospel message of which we rest our hope. For, even as Paul wrote of himself and of all believers, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God...(1 Cor 2:12 NASB).” We truly can know the things freely given to us by God. And, as we submit ourselves to leaders who shepherd us toward this truth, we as the church also have the divine right and responsibility to verify the gospel preached to us, as did those in Berea. “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11 NASB).” Because “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 (Gal 1:9 NASB)!” We need to keep challenging the erroneous messages that are being mixed with the true Gospel!!! http://zdoppelt.blogspot.com/ I recently posted on my blog the importance of the clarity of Scripture, that God has given us the ability to understand and know the timeless truth found in His word, which includes the true gospel message of which we rest our hope.

For, even as Paul wrote of himself and of all believers, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God…(1 Cor 2:12 NASB).”

We truly can know the things freely given to us by God. And, as we submit ourselves to leaders who shepherd us toward this truth, we as the church also have the divine right and responsibility to verify the gospel preached to us, as did those in Berea. “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11 NASB).” Because “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 (Gal 1:9 NASB)!”

We need to keep challenging the erroneous messages that are being mixed with the true Gospel!!!

http://zdoppelt.blogspot.com/

]]> by: Kevin http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-16217 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:57:00 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-16217 Touchstone- What does the quote from Mclaren... "Answer: Thanks for your note, and your concern. About your last question, I believe the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians."... mean? Is the Bible authoritative or not? Is it authoritative for all people whether they are Christian or not? Is it authoritative because of who wrote it or is it authoritative for Christians because they accept it while others may chose not to? With regard to proof-texting Mclaren says : " I intentionally avoid including a lot of Biblical references in my writing because the method of “proof-texting” is terribly problematic. " The "problem" of using oneself as proof for an idea is far greater than use of Scripture for a proof text. As long as scripture is used accurately it is not proof-texting to quote scripture. Should I stop eating because some people abuse food? Let's be honest.... Touchstone-
What does the quote from Mclaren… “Answer: Thanks for your note, and your concern. About your last question, I believe the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians.”… mean?
Is the Bible authoritative or not? Is it authoritative for all people whether they are Christian or not? Is it authoritative because of who wrote it or is it authoritative for Christians because they accept it while others may chose not to?
With regard to proof-texting Mclaren says : ” I intentionally avoid including a lot of Biblical references in my writing because the method of “proof-texting” is terribly problematic. ”
The “problem” of using oneself as proof for an idea is far greater than use of Scripture for a proof text. As long as scripture is used accurately it is not proof-texting to quote scripture. Should I stop eating because some people abuse food? Let’s be honest….

]]> by: Whyte Stonne http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5475 Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:51:28 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5475 Hi, Phil. I like your phrase "drive-by smear." It's very expressive. Hi, Phil.

I like your phrase “drive-by smear.”

It’s very expressive.

]]> by: Leopold http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5354 Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:07:52 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5354 Dear John, I looked up Emergent Church on Blogger and you came up. The odd thing is that I don't really see how you are talking about them. You haven't brought up any of their tennets except to say that they claim the bible to be irrelevant, which I sorely doubt to be the case. Nevertheless you continually berate them. I am asking you sincerely to qualify these remarks with reasons other than that you don't like the younger generation. It does not seem to me that the Emergents challenge the relevance of the Bible, but ask how it already is relevant and applicaple to our time. Please clarify this. Dear John,

I looked up Emergent Church on Blogger and you came up. The odd thing is that I don’t really see how you are talking about them. You haven’t brought up any of their tennets except to say that they claim the bible to be irrelevant, which I sorely doubt to be the case. Nevertheless you continually berate them. I am asking you sincerely to qualify these remarks with reasons other than that you don’t like the younger generation. It does not seem to me that the Emergents challenge the relevance of the Bible, but ask how it already is relevant and applicaple to our time. Please clarify this.

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5040 Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:45:34 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5040 Thanks Phil. That helps a whole bunch. All for the Cross. Gal. 6:14 Thanks Phil. That helps a whole bunch.

All for the Cross. Gal. 6:14

]]> by: Phil Perkins http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5038 Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:26:54 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5038 Joe V., My point exactly. McLaren says, "So, as soon as you admit that all certainty is relative for us creatures (i.e. there is more or less of it), then in a way, you have greater freedom to say, 'Yes, there is absolute truth, i.e. truth as God knows it, but for all us finite creatures, our understanding and confidence about that truth is in part, limited, relative to our finite perspectives,' etc." First of all, all certainty is not relative. Oxymoronics aside, many things are certain. Gravity, the resurrection, etc. Second, certainty does not mean complete understanding. I am certain electricity makes all my machinery run in my shop. I have no idea just why an electron has its force. But I'm certain it works as long as I pay my bill. Third, it is interesting to notice the goal is "freedom" from the truth. (The truth about Emergents is wrapped up in that statement.) Brian goes on to say, "In other words, maybe you're assuming that when God gives revelation, he also gives proper interpretation of it, plus complete psychological certainty regarding that interpretation to know it is correct. That would be nice (maybe ... although it would also mean that God turns us into robots by mind-control) -- but it doesn't seem to match with either real-life experience, or Biblical history!" First, again, certainty of a truth does not imply (or need) complete knowledge of all aspects of it. Jesus rose from the dead. How God did that, I have no idea. Second, the idea of "psychological certainty" as imperative for absolute certainty is a call to recede back into paganism. What I mean by that is that one of the hallmark of Christianity is its rational nature. It is truth. Our leader came into the world to bring truth, not mystery. Third, notice the drive-by smear McLaren does to those that love truth and don't seek to excuse themselves from it when he adds this lie: "(maybe ... although it would also mean that God turns us into robots by mind-control)." So, if you don't agree (with great certainty, I suppose) with McLaren, you're a mind-numbed robot. Fourth, another drive-by smear occurs when in the middle of the same paragraph, McLaren accuses believers of thinking themselves to be gods: "It almostfeels (in what you write Rodney) that you are assuming that receiving divine revelation makes one divine." Besides being a lie, the logic is just colosally vacuous. Fifth, I would like to personally know just why no one out there will challenge a liberal like McLaren on his mean, unchristian attitude when he purposely insults believers, while a believer that challenges him is just raked over the coals for being contentious. Huuuummmmm... McLaren's epistemology--or lack thereof--prevents the certainty of the gospel. Hence, he demonstrates that epistemology is foundational to the gospel, not the other way around. The apostles were so certain of the gospel they died for it. But then they were just stupid robots, weren't they? Or maybe they thought themselves divine, huh? In Christ, Phil Perkins. PS-It is also of great consequence to see that BM claims that God knows truth, not that He calls it into being as protrayed in Scripture. Joe V.,
My point exactly. McLaren says, “So, as soon as you admit that all certainty is relative for us creatures (i.e. there is more or less of it), then in a way, you have greater freedom
to say, ‘Yes, there is absolute truth, i.e. truth as God knows it, but for
all us finite creatures, our understanding and confidence about that truth
is in part, limited, relative to our finite perspectives,’ etc.”

First of all, all certainty is not relative. Oxymoronics aside, many things are certain. Gravity, the resurrection, etc.

Second, certainty does not mean complete understanding. I am certain electricity makes all my machinery run in my shop. I have no idea just why an electron has its force. But I’m certain it works as long as I pay my bill.

Third, it is interesting to notice the goal is “freedom” from the truth. (The truth about Emergents is wrapped up in that statement.)

Brian goes on to say, “In other words, maybe
you’re assuming that when God gives revelation, he also gives proper
interpretation of it, plus complete psychological certainty regarding that
interpretation to know it is correct. That would be nice (maybe …
although it would also mean that God turns us into robots by
mind-control) — but it doesn’t seem to match with either real-life
experience, or Biblical history!”

First, again, certainty of a truth does not imply (or need) complete knowledge of all aspects of it. Jesus rose from the dead. How God did that, I have no idea.

Second, the idea of “psychological certainty” as imperative for absolute certainty is a call to recede back into paganism. What I mean by that is that one of the hallmark of Christianity is its rational nature. It is truth. Our leader came into the world to bring truth, not mystery.

Third, notice the drive-by smear McLaren does to those that love truth and don’t seek to excuse themselves from it when he adds this lie: “(maybe …
although it would also mean that God turns us into robots by
mind-control).” So, if you don’t agree (with great certainty, I suppose) with McLaren, you’re a mind-numbed robot.

Fourth, another drive-by smear occurs when in the middle of the same paragraph, McLaren accuses believers of thinking themselves to be gods: “It almostfeels (in what you write Rodney) that you are assuming that receiving divine
revelation makes one divine.” Besides being a lie, the logic is just colosally vacuous.

Fifth, I would like to personally know just why no one out there will challenge a liberal like McLaren on his mean, unchristian attitude when he purposely insults believers, while a believer that challenges him is just raked over the coals for being contentious. Huuuummmmm…

McLaren’s epistemology–or lack thereof–prevents the certainty of the gospel.

Hence, he demonstrates that epistemology is foundational to the gospel, not the other way around.

The apostles were so certain of the gospel they died for it. But then they were just stupid robots, weren’t they? Or maybe they thought themselves divine, huh?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS-It is also of great consequence to see that BM claims that God knows truth, not that He calls it into being as protrayed in Scripture.

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5036 Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:46:26 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-5036 That conversation with Brian was way too confusing for me. I don't get where he's coming from. I need a little "plainer" language. I'm a simple guy. Or perhaps I'm just not in his league. Thank the Lord, that I can be a simple guy, who loves the Lord, and loves His Word, and can understand the fundamental doctrines that God has so clearly given us, His beloved children. Thanks for sharing that link Joe. I may read it with someone who can explain it to me better. That conversation with Brian was way too confusing for me. I don’t get where he’s coming from. I need a little “plainer” language. I’m a simple guy. Or perhaps I’m just not in his league.

Thank the Lord, that I can be a simple guy, who loves the Lord, and loves His Word, and can understand the fundamental doctrines that God has so clearly given us, His beloved children.

Thanks for sharing that link Joe. I may read it with someone who can explain it to me better.

]]> by: Joe Ventura http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-4943 Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:07:37 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-4943 Because this was posted publicly, I share it here. This was a response Brian McLaren had with a friend on his view of epistemology; http://faithmaps.blogspot.com See; Wednesday December 27 A Conversation with Brian McLaren on Epistemology Because this was posted publicly, I share it here. This was a response Brian McLaren had with a friend on his view of epistemology;

http://faithmaps.blogspot.com

See; Wednesday December 27
A Conversation with Brian McLaren on Epistemology

]]> by: Isaac http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-4886 Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:53:22 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-4886 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murders and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. Amen Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murders and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
Amen

]]> by: Phil Perkins http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-4863 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:24:19 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/22/brian-mclaren-and-the-clarity-of-scripture-part-5/#comment-4863 Joe V., Having reread my first comment to you, I found I wrote this; "So your call to forget hermeneutics and epistemology in lieu of the gospel is nonsense,..." I apologize. That was unnecessarily confrontational and abrasive. And in fact, if the times were different the talk of epistemology would be a definite rabbit trail of worthless chatter. These are just weird times. In Christ, Phil Perkins. Joe V.,
Having reread my first comment to you, I found I wrote this; “So your call to forget hermeneutics and epistemology in lieu of the gospel is nonsense,…”

I apologize. That was unnecessarily confrontational and abrasive. And in fact, if the times were different the talk of epistemology would be a definite rabbit trail of worthless chatter. These are just weird times.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

]]>