Seeker-Sensitive Church “Presuppositions”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, October 11, 2005
- Viewed 137
- (52) comments so far
Today, pulling from the same website as I did last week... I'd love some discussion from many of you who are leading a 'seeker' church. Are these presuppositions that you as a seeker church really hold? I'm interested to see how many of these are deemed true by people who are actually involved in the 'seeker' movement. Here we go:
Presupposition One: Church Growth is Our Responsibility
The very first unbiblical notion on which this movement is founded is that church growth is our responsibility. This is clearly antithetical to the ministry and message of the Apostles... I recently viewed a video tape of a message preached by one of the leading lights in the seeker-friendly movement urging people to become involved in the great work of evangelism. As he came to the close of his impassioned exhortation, he told of his dying father?s words to him concerning the task of evangelism. His father, in what seems to have been a state of delirium, had continued to repeat the words, "Get just one more for Jesus! Get just one more for Jesus!" As I sat there and listened in utter amazement, I thought, Sir, you are out of your element. You can?t even get one for Jesus, much less one more for Him. Without controversy, it is every believer?s task to spread the good news that there is a Savior who has died for poor, helpless, hell-deserving sinners. We must earnestly seek to persuade the unconverted to turn from the broad road that leads to destruction and enter the strait gate of conversion that alone leads to eternal life. We should diligently implore the great King to turn their hearts to Christ, but having discharged those duties, we must leave the results to Him.
Presupposition Two: God?s Purpose for the Salvation of Sinners Needs a Major Overhaul.If He Doesn?t Get Some Much Needed Marketing Help from Us, Sinners Who Would Have Been
Saved with These New Methods, Will Be Lost.
It would seem any person with even the most superficial understanding of biblical truth about God?s purpose in salvation would immediately reject such a God-dishonoring suggestion. It may be that even those most heavily engaged in this movement would be uncomfortable with such an unvarnished statement of their beliefs. Still, everything they practice indicates this is one of their foundational tenets.The questions for which we should seek biblical answers are whether God?s purpose for the salvation of sinners is in trouble and if He needs human assistance to accomplish His work. Please understand I am not asking whether God uses means to accomplish his purpose and whether he intends to accomplish that purpose apart the use of means. For example, if no one ever proclaims the gospel, will anyone ever be converted? The answer is a resounding, NO! But, there is another question we need to consider. Who is it that sends preachers and kindles a fire in their hearts that cannot be extinguished? Will God ever leave himself without a witness or will he not insure the execution of his purpose by raising up messengers to accomplish it? The question is whether God needs means and methods other than those he has prescribed in Scripture to execute his sovereign purpose?
Presupposition Three:The Unconverted are to be Evangelized in the Church
The third presupposition on which this movement seems to base its practice is that the church is the place to evangelize sinners. In reality, God has given no commandment for sinners to come to church. Instead, he commands the church to go to sinners. The church is an assembly of God?s called out people. There is only one instance in the New Testament Scriptures of an unconverted person being in the assembly of God?s people, and in that case it is spoken of as a happenstance, ". . .and what if one should come in who is unlearned or an unbeliever. . ." ( 1 Cor. 14:23)? Evangelism is to occur in the world outside after the people of God have been instructed and built up through the solid exposition of the Scripture.I am not suggesting it is wrong for the unconverted to attend the meetings of the church. What I am asserting is that if an unconverted person should attend a meeting of God?s people, he or she should do so to observe how Christians worship their God, not to be entertained and made to feel comfortable in their rebellion against God.
Presupposition Four: If We Give People What They Are Looking for in a Church, We Are More Likely to Get Them Converted Than If We Continued To "Do Church" in the Traditional Way.
This is another point that may be lost on those who are committed to a man-centered, "free-will" theology, but it is, nevertheless, biblical truth. The reality is, at the end of the day not one of those whom God had marked out for himself will be found outside the fold. Pay close attention to Paul?s teaching in Romans 8:28-30. He wrote,And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.He informs his readers that those who love God are those who have been called effectually by his grace.
Presupposition Five: Paraphrases of the Scripture that Omit or Mangle the Original Meaning of the Text are as Authoritative as the Scripture Itself as Long as the SpeakerCan Use Them to Support the Point He Wants to Make.
This is one of the presuppositions we must detect from observation, since there is likely no statement of this belief from any leader of this movement or practitioner of this philosophy. Still, this must be one of their beliefs since their writings and lectures are most often composed of a collection of witty sayings and pop-psychology buttressed by an occasional reference to a paraphrase of the Scripture that is often ripped from its context and robbed of its original meaning. We need to understand that a paraphrase is merely someone?s idea of what a text means and should not be trusted as if it were the Word of God. Often the proof the speaker is seeking rests on words or phrases not even occurring in the Hebrew or Greek Texts. In this way, they seek cunningly to camouflage the Scriptures to make them more palatable to their carnal hearers. This practice is very similar to glazing bitter pills with a sugar coating to make them easier to swallow. Additionally, hearers can go away with the illusion that they have done something religious since the preacher has told them this is what the Bible says.
Presupposition Six: Declaring the Whole Counsel of God is Unimportant as Long asThose Who Attend Feel Good When They Leave the Church.
Closely related to presupposition five, is the idea that it is no longer important to declare the whole counsel of God to his people. This, too, is a presupposition detected by observation. People tend to talk about those matters that are important to them, but seeker-friendly pastors tend to be extremely limited in the scope of their teaching. They seem to believe human relationships are more important than a right relationship with God. It seems the idea of declaring the whole counsel of God never enters the mind of the average modern pastor. They seem satisfied as long as they can convince their hearers they are doing something religious and can collect their salaries.
Presupposition Seven: If It Is Working, It Must be Good
The problem with this faulty presupposition is it fails to define what "working" means. If "working" means it is attracting a large number of people, Roman Catholicism is "good," Islam is "good," porn sites on the internet are, "good," and we could go on and on. The Bible does not measure success this way. Instead, the biblical writers describe success in terms to faithfulness to the revealed will of God. If we are disobedient to God, we have failed, even if thousands applaud our disobedience.Presupposition EightConversion, in the Biblical Sense, Is Unimportant
It is altogether likely the leaders of this movement would be strident in their denial of this presupposition. They would insist they believe that at some point the unconverted need to become Christians. Yet, the emphasis of their ministry seems to be radically different from that of biblical Christianity. It seems the plan of operation is to teach the unconverted how to handle relationship issues and other matters in a Christian fashion in the hope that they will gradually embrace the Christian faith. Anyone who has read, The Purpose Driven Life, by Pastor Rick Warren, will surely recognize that he consistently addresses his readers as though they are believers. There is one brief passage in which he superficially alludes to a person?s need to become a Christian, but it is a far cry from the kind of conversion demanded by the Scriptures.
OK... I want to hear from you, the 'seeker-sensitive' leader. Is this an accurate 'read' of your heart (or your theology, for that matter?)
Last week, I asked if we could finally do away with the “seeker-sensitive = watered down" mentality. What ensued was a great discussion. One thing that I think is true that came out of this discussion is that labels are bad. As soon as you say the word "seeker" OR "sensitive" people take their sides before even listening to a word. Mark Waltz suggested some new terminology we could use: "Jesus-focused" or "People-sensitive".
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Allen Nolan on Fri, October 14, 2005
Where does everyone get the idea that all seeker sensitive churches water down the gospel? I pastor a seeker sensitive church and never compromise the word. I say I’m seeker sensitive because others in my city classify us as “seeker sensitive.” Yes, we use drama, theatrical lights, video illustrations, and have I-Mag, but the word is always preached. I spent 5 years during the mid-week service preaching verse by verse on the book of Ephesians. 3 years preaching through the book of James, 2 years on Jude, and now I’m going through the book of Ecclesiastes. Sunday mornings are more topical, but the word is never compromised. In fact, the number one reason people give for coming to our church is because they like the teaching. Why do we use drama? People relate to it. Why do we use video? Because it drives a point home that I’m trying to make. Why do people get upset? Because we’re the largest church in town and unchurched people arre coming to our church, not theirs. I’ve heard it said and it’s so true: “when we were small, they dismissed us. When we grew, they were irritated by us. And now that we’re the largest, they resent us and condemn us.” I don’t know about other seeker sensitive churches, but the reason we’re condemned in my town is because the other churches must justify why they don’t see people saved in their church. They must justify why people’s lives aren’t being changed. They must justify why people are leaving their church. If you want to condemn me, go ahead, I’ll keep preaching the word and seeing people saved and sanctified.
Todd Rhoades on Fri, October 14, 2005
Care to name any names, Randy? I can see #1 and #4 being valid (then interpreted badly); but #2 seems outlandish from any SS pastors I’ve conversed with:
“God’s Purpose for the Salvation of Sinners Needs a Major Overhaul. If He Doesn’t Get Some Much Needed Marketing Help from Us, Sinners Who Would Have Been
Saved with These New Methods, Will Be Lost.”
I don’t know of ANYONE who would say that we need to overhaul God’s purpose in salvation. And I don’t know of ANYONE who is so egotistical to think that God NEEDS anything any of us are doing. He uses us to acheive His purposes, but He sure doesn’t NEED us.
This is often what happens when we talk in general terms. And that’s another problem with labels.
In the end, I think we may be talking about totally different sets of churches. For example, I don’t know of hardly any seeker sensitive churches that are on television. Very, very few. Most television programs that I’ve seen are either mainline, baptist, pentecostal, or word of faith. None of those are really what we’re talking about here.
Care to name the name of the SS pastor who made statements 1,2 and 4? Maybe he can come here and ‘splain himself! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
Randy Seiver on Fri, October 14, 2005
Look, I have tried to make it clear that I am not opposed to non-traditional methods. In fact, I have fought tradition for my entire ministry. The only issue that bothers me compromising the Word. As I stated, this is a problem that existed long before the term Seeker Sensitive was ever used. If you are being faithful to teach the Bible in context, what I have said clearly does not apply to you. In fact, I rejoice in what God is doing in the church you pastor and under the ministry of others who are being faithful to the Word.
Perhaps some of you SS guys could comment on a statement Ricky made yesterday. This statement seems very characteristic of the SS quys I have spoken to. In response to a statement I had made,“Without a theological basis for our evangelism, we really have no good news to proclaim.”
Ricky responded,
Again, this is stunning and yet illustrates the point as to why the Presbyterians and other Calvinist-related denominations are dying.
[I wondered if he might be referring to the Coral Ridge Pres in FL or 10th Pres in Philadelphia].
He continued,
“Instead of understanding that those who emphasize “doctrine” (another very subjective topic) are spiritual ostriches, always with their heads in books, including the bible. They become perverse in leaning more on their so-called “knowledge” of Scripture and yet deny the power of it by becoming so legalistic that their “gospel” no longer offers freedom but rather bondage.
RELATIONSHIP, not Scriptural knowledge, is the cornerstone of the Christian life.”
That sounds just a teensy judgmental to me. I have responded to the relationship comment on my blog site if you are interested.
I would love to hear your responses to his views about doctrine and the primacy of RELATIONSHIP over theological truth. Again, I can only hope he and his ilk are aberrations, but it is on such comments I have based my conclusions. The reason I tend to believe it is characteristic of at least part of the SS advocates is that I keep hearing the same line from SS devotees.
And Todd, the Pastor’s name who made the statements I referenced is Timm Collins. I do not fault his desire to reach his generation with the truth, but I heartily disagree with the idea that they will be unreached if we continue to “do church” the way we always have. God is bigger than our puny marketing methods.
Randy Seiver on Fri, October 14, 2005
Todd,
I know I am over my post limit, but you and others continue to address me directly and I don’t know how else to answer them but to post here. If you would like to direct them to my blog site for a response, that will be fine with me. That way I will not continue to clutter your site. You may also feel free to share my e-mail addy with anyone who wants to pick a bone with me. Again, please forgive me for becoming a problem in this way.
Incidently, would you consider Joel Osteen a part of the SS movement?
bernie dehler on Fri, October 14, 2005
Randy said:
“Incidently, would you consider Joel Osteen a part of the SS movement?”
Ooo, going for the jugular vein… I’d like to see the answer to this! This should be a whole new posting with new comments in itself. This is a chance to see who’s lukewarm, hot, or cold. A perfect test case for seperating some wheat from the chaff. I have some strong opinions, but would love to hear and learn from other responses.
...Bernie
Todd Rhoades on Fri, October 14, 2005
Randy,
No problem with your number of posts on this one since we keep replying back to you (and you did write the original document we’re debating).
More on the theology when I have more time later today (hopefully)… but on Joel Osteen…
No, I wouldn’t consider him a ‘seeker-sensitive’ church in the vain or definition of Willow Creek (which is more of where I am drawing my definition).
Joel would be a good example, I think, of a watered-down message. I would consider that more of a liberal theology than a seeker sensitive one. To be honest, I’m not quite sure what the attraction is at Lakewood. Osteen is a good-enough speaker and nice enough guy; but I’m with you… if he’s not giving a clear gospel message and teaching people to turn from sin, then I’d side with you. All the feel good stuff doesn’t get you into heaven.
Really Randy, I don’t think we’re all that far off in our thinking; but maybe farther off in our definitions of what seeker sensitive is; who’s involved in the movement; and how we go about resolving issues we disagree with.
One last thing; you (Randy) feel strongly enough about this to speak out. Good for you. But I see people all over the internet spending great amounts of time trying to get people to find all the faults of everyone (including our good friend Bernie on John Hagee). There are entire sites devoted to bringing down Rick Warren and others. I just choose not to do that. Doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion one way or another on many things and people; but it’s just not my thing.
Todd
Randy Seiver on Fri, October 14, 2005
Todd,
Perhaps this will help get to the root of why we seem to have been talking past each other. Perhaps I have made false assumptions based on my understanding of who was part of the movement. My information had been that Joel O was solidly in step with the SS movement. Others I have communicated with on this issue identifying themselves as SS have been right in line with him. As I have stated, my only real issue is the shallow treatment given to the Scriptures. If I am wrong about the movement as a whole, I will be the first to want to retract what I have written. I don’t wish to be like brother Ben, who shot at a rooster and killed a hen. Still, I feel strongly that there is a biblical and theological famine in the land, at least in our neck of the woods.
BeHim on Sat, October 15, 2005
[I find it somewhat amusing that someone who so proudly declares “Sola Scriptora!” can so easily do what he criticizes others for doing: misrepresent scripture in order to justify his position. The New Testament (in particular the Book of Acts) does not even imply that the disciples were “instructed daily,” only that they were involved in four (4) major areas of community life (teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer). I find it interesting that three had nothing to do with “instruction” but rather RELATIONSHIP, which is the very essence of Christianity and what naturally produces evangelism.]
First, understand “Sola Scriptora” is not a reference to some commentary of Scripture. It’s a reference to standing on the AUTHORITY of the Word as our SOLE Authority. That’s not to say that men can’t encourage and edify with their Wisdom of the Word but our authority is Scripture, not men.
If the essence of Christianity is “RELATIONSHIP” then tell me how you know what a “relationship” is or how it works or why???
Do you not receive instruction on this, as well as MANY other CORE belief(s), from Scriptural instruction??? Or do you base “RELATIONSHIPS” on some other authority and instruction… perhaps: Dr. Phil??? or Dr. Laura??? Where do we as Christians receive our “instruction” (which is to say DOCTRINE) about relationships from?
[“Without a theological basis for our evangelism, we really have no good news to proclaim.” Again, this is stunning and yet illustrates the point as to why the Presbyterians and other Calvinist-related denominations are dying. ]
In fact, the Doctrines of the Bible are on the rise in many of the Presbyterian and “Calvanistic” churches. I would suggest you forget the man (Calvin) and test the Doctrines with Scripture. You’ll find that man fails as did Calvin and many others in the past, present and more than likely the future BUT the Biblical Doctrines taught (even by Calvin) are FIRMLY planted in Scripture.
[Instead of understanding that those who emphasize “doctrine” (another very subjective topic) are spiritual ostriches, always with their heads in books, including the bible. They become perverse in leaning more on their so-called “knowledge” of Scripture and yet deny the power of it by becoming so legalistic that their “gospel” no longer offers freedom but rather bondage. RELATIONSHIP, not Scriptural knowledge, is the cornerstone of the Christian life.]
Is “Relationship” SUBJECTIVE??? The question for you, is what is your view of “relationship” based on if not Scriptural Instruction which would be called: Scriptural DOCTRINE??? You see Ricky, you want to denounce “doctrine” and yet while doing so, you’ll have to denounce understanding in anyway the term “relationship” and the attributes associated with it. Your “DOCTRINE” IS “relationship”. Like saying: Sola Relationshipola
BTW. It sounds like your denouncing having knowledge in the Bible. Why would you do such a thing? Because they become “legalistic”. Is this everyone who has their heads in books, including the Bible or just the ones you think are legalistic? On what basis do you consider a person to be legalistic? Is it when you think someone is being legalistic that it is true or are you basing this on Scripture?
If a brother or sister is in sin, should we make mention of it to them? Because this IS the instruction of the Scripture. Or do we say nothing to them because we are “judging them”.
It sounds like the Doctrine of Relationship that you hold to really moves towards a non-legalistic view or in other words, an anti-nomial (against law) view of Scripture. Live as you please. No need for instruction in righteousness. Is this true?
BTW. I agree Relationship is an essential part of Christianity but I do not believe it is the Cornerstone. Christ is the Cornerstone and His Obedience to the Father. THEIR Relationship (The Trinity) is the Cornerstone… not “our” relationships with one another. This again deals with Sovereignty and opposses autonomy which rubs all of us (at some point) the wrong way.
[But where, BeHim, does Paul “instruct” them to evangelize? Nowhere! He encouraged Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist,” but how is that “expositional?” It’s not.]
The entire New Testament and Old Testament is an Instruction of Righteousness (All Scripture is Given: 2 Timothy 3 - DOCTRINE AND DEED). This instruction is for learning True Doctrine and how to live it - Deed. Relationship is both a Doctrine and Deed. Can people error in either direction? Yes. You would hold that I error to much towards Doctrine and I would suggest you error to much towards Deed. BUT I would contend if you don’t know the Doctrine FIRST, you’re going to error even IN the deed (just like newborn Christians who don’t really know which deeds are good or bad, they are just thankful to be alive).
You ask where Paul instructs evangalism? Throughout the Epistles Ricky. Paul instructs Believers on their Conduct which is a part of their Evangalism. Christ said let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works… The point is, evangalism is a product of a Christian’s Life. I think you know this but for some reason want to suggest that Paul doesn’t teach it. Sure Paul teaches evangalism by instructing us how to live.
[Funny how Paul said that he knew NOTHING among the Corinthians except “Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” That is the ONLY truth one needs to grasp to both know Him and to tell others about Him.]
Is Christ a Doctrine? Yes! Is His Crucifixtion a Doctrine? YES! Tell me how you know who and what Christ is or why His Crucifiction is so important apart from Scripture. Thousands were crucified, why was His Crucifiction so important? What difference does His Crucifiction make??? Tell me how you’ll know anything about Christ and Him Crucified without ANY OTHER TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE???
[Why? Because it is the life lived that speaks more about Christ than do our “knowledge.” Paul knew that all of his great “expositional instruction” he received from Gamaliel did NOTHING for him as to his salvation. Only a revelation of the risen Christ changed his life.]
Where do you learn how to live as a Christian apart from Scripture? You assume you have no need for Scriptural instruction in how to live your life.
Salvation YES!!! Nothing can be added to Christ for a person’s Salvation. Do you think instructing people is a way of taking away from or adding to their Salvation? I’m sure many churches do so. BUT I don’t tell people they have to conform to a certain teaching or they are not saved. I only suggest if they hope to mature in their understanding of God they must learn the Doctrines inside and out.
Now there are certain Doctrines that if a person doesn’t beleive them, at the very least calls into question if they truly are saved but I really have no idea. I just know it’s hard to believe a person who says they are saved yet they deny Jesus is God is really truly saved. They don’t know Truly who He is!
You may have a problem with the word “doctrine” but without it, you have no foundation for Relationship or any other understanding of any other belief (Hope, Love, Joy, Peace, etc). You’re building a belief (doctrine) based on what??? What authority??? I would say Scriptural Authority and Doctrine but you, for whatever reason, want to deny this.
[Everything we claim as “truth” oftentimes is nothing more than clutter that takes from the glory of Christ and stifles leading others to the Lord.]
The only way to know for sure is test it with Scripture. So… What does Scripture say? Are we to learn about Christ? Is He “The Truth” and “The Way” or just “The Way”? I hold to knowing both as much is as humanly possible so that I can give an account at any time. I hold to the Truth as being the only way to understand The Way BECAUSE He IS Both. But I would suggest that a person cannot fully understand the way without The Truth. Why? Because their are many ways which seem right.
[I believe, BeHim, that most of exposition that we hold so dear to is, afterall, the thoughts and rationalizations of MEN. While there are good references available from which we can get an understanding, we must still admit that those references are the work of MEN, most of which was written decades, if not centuries ago, all of which is tainted with prejudices. Therefore, they are FLAWED, at best, and completely wrong at worst.]
Do the Doctrines of Scripture change? Meaning, is what Abraham, David, Isaiah, etc believed in the same as what Paul, Peter, John, James, etc believed in? Is it the same thing we believe in today? Do all Believers believe the same today? So how do we know which beliefs are the same as what these men in the Bible believed and which ones are not??? Sola Scriptora…. We go to the Scriptures and test the beliefs (doctrines) with Scripture.
[So, please let me ask you your own question: “How would you know it is correct or incorrect?”]
I know what is correct and what is not correct by testing it with Scripture. On what authority do you know something to be correct or incorrect Ricky?
[If so, then why did only a small number of “God’s chosen” come to know Christ? Because, while, as you say, they had only knowledge of Scripture and not revelation. Would you agree that it is possible to have a very deep knowledge of Scripture and no revelation of Christ?]
Sure it’s possible. But you’re not suggesting that having a very deep knowledge of Scripture is a bad thing are you? Or are you suggesting that because a person emphasizes we should have a very deep knowledge of Scripture that they must somehow be lacking in Deed?
Again Ricky. You cannot seperate Doctrine and Deed. The VERY purpose of Scripture is for Doctrine and Deed. I just hold that Doctrine must be held accountable to Scripture and thus the Deed will be effected. If the doctrine is wrong, the motive of the deed is more than likely wrong too (because deeds are many times based on assumptions in doctrine). I think you hold to deed first regardless of doctrine (which in my opinion can lead to many problems).
[BeHim, as I stated, you and Mr. Seiver are those within Christianity that emphasize Scripture over all else…even relationships with others and to their detriment. I believe that while the canon of Scripture is closed, as to the written word, it is still fleshed out on a daily basis, most of the time by those who may not have the grasp of Scripture you claim to have. And yet, I am willing to wager that they are probably far more effective in evangelism because they focus on relationships, which, as I stated earlier, is the cornerstone for evangelism.]
Incorrect, you stated it was the Cornerstone of Christianity. But even so, I don’t think Peter had a “relationship” with the 3000 that were saved prior to their Believing. BUT I would say that Peter probably had a better relationship with allot of them after their Salvation in Christ.
The point is building the relationship in Him, not on ourselves in hopes they might be saved because you are their “friend” now. This assumption is based on man’s preconceived idea that we in some way have something to do with people being saved.
Those that are saved I build my relationship with them based on Him. Those that are not, I keep presenting The Gospel.
If you are suggesting that we must have a relationship first in order for us to present the Gospel then I suggest this is NOT the Biblical Model of presenting the Gospel. The book of Acts reveals this continously. Present the Gospel and those that are Saved, build them up and equip them for every good work.
[Granted, seeker-sensitive organizations fail miserably at both aspects, primarily because their emphasis is numbers, but to say that mere Scriptural knowledge leads to evangelism is, at best, misrepresentative of Christ and His word.]
What does lead to evangalism? Falling in Love with God! “Newborn” Christians have no problem “evangalizing” do they? Why? Because they only know they were blind and now see. I enjoy this, I know it. Guess what? I fall more and more in Love with Jesus every time I learn more about Him (everytime I bury my head in the Bible and sometimes, other books). I return to my first Love in Knowing Him more - which is to say, “knowing THE Word more”.
I just think your basis for your belief is skewed because of your dislike of commentaries because you associate all teachings of men as tainted because they are men. To think that men cannot know The Truth is to deny Christ Himself - it’s like saying men cannot know Jesus (who IS The Truth).
I’m sure that’s not entirely how you meant it Ricky but because you come in with a dislike for John Calvin doesn’t mean you eliminate Doctrine completely. Calvin is not my Christ. I believe God used John Calvin to systemetize CORE Bible Doctrines for the benefit of all of us. But I don’t think John Calvin is any better or worse that any other Christian before or after him. We are all vile and wretched men who need Jesus and His Righteousness to make us Clean and at Peace with God.
Ricky on Sun, October 16, 2005
BeHim:
“Is Christ a Doctrine? Yes! Is His Crucifixtion a Doctrine? YES!”
From Dictionary.com:
“doc-trine (n):
1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.”
So, Christ has been relegated to a “doctrine,” much like the teachings of Buddha, Islam, and the Church of Satan?
This is what happens when people focus more on what tickles the minds than touches the hearts.
BeHim:
“In fact, the Doctrines of the Bible are on the rise in many of the Presbyterian and ‘Calvanistic’ churches.”
And while “doctrines of the Bible” may be on the rise, so are those who believe that “doctrine” supports the ordination of homosexuality, gay marriage, etc.
I don’t know what statistics you’ve been reading, but the PCA and PCAUSA are dying and dying fast.
BeHim:
“I would suggest you forget the man (Calvin) and test the Doctrines with Scripture. You’ll find that man fails as did Calvin and many others in the past, present and more than likely the future BUT the Biblical Doctrines taught (even by Calvin) are FIRMLY planted in Scripture.”
As much as you may try to distance yourself from Calvin, it’s hard to dismiss a man who believed and taught as DOCTRINE, that babies who die go straight to hell, as well as promoting the DOCTRINE of predestination, which can easily be explained when one understands the character of God, instead of reading into the lines of what one thinks or hears someone else comment on.
BeHim:
“If the essence of Christianity is ‘RELATIONSHIP’ then tell me how you know what a ‘relationship’ is or how it works or why???”
Again, it’s surprising how someone who claims such a vast knowledge of Scripture can completely ignore the treasure that’s found in it.
BeHim, have you ever heard of the Trinity?
Long before the first drop of ink was applied to parchment and before the first expositor of Scripture opened his/her mouth, the understanding that the Trinity, the perfect community (i.e., relationship) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was there.
When Jesus showed up to introduce the purpose of the Trinity to mankind, there were no expositors trumpeting His arrival or life. Instead, He LIVED that relationship in such a powerful way that it changed, and is still changing, the world.
Did Jesus need to be “doctrinized” about the relationship of the Trinity? No, He lived it, as we are to do today.
There is a need for studying the Scriptures but, again, one can become so perverted in doing so for the purpose of knowledge that, as Paul said, it leads to a dangerous arrogance.
BeHim:
“I just think your basis for your belief is skewed because of your dislike of commentaries because you associate all teachings of men as tainted because they are men. To think that men cannot know The Truth is to deny Christ Himself - it’s like saying men cannot know Jesus (who IS The Truth).”
As stated, I appreciate the works of many who spent lifetimes studying and writing about Scripture. However, at the same time, I also know that they were mere men whose own prejudices, cultures and experiences found their way into what they wrote. Why do you think whole denominations began as a result of differences of opinion?
Finally (for me at least, although I know that you won’t keep silent), to admit that I don’t know everything about Christ, His glory and what all this thing called “Christianity” is about, is not denying Him but affirming my own inadequacies and complete dependence upon His Spirit to guide me into the Truth.
The problem I have with many Christians is that they claim, with a smugness that turns more people off than on, that they “know the truth,” when in reality what they “know” is THEIR version of the truth. Apparently, we have forgotten that we see in a “mirror darkly” but one day we’ll see the Truth, in Person, and that’s all we need to know.
If you wish to debate the “doctrines” of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether Adam had a navel, then, by all means do so, but realize that all of that energy can be put to better use, that of fulfilling God’s purposes in this earth, which is the expansion of His Kingdom.
And it won’t get done with our collective heads buried in books…it takes RELATIONSHIP.
Randy Seiver on Mon, October 17, 2005
Ricky,
I don’t think anyone is denying that relationships are important. There was clearly a relationship that existed between the members of the Trinity in eternity. God had a relationship with Adam and Eve in Eden, then spends the rest of this little dot we call time to reestablish a relationship with fallen sons of Adam. THe New Testament writers often address the importance of our relationships with family members, church members, business associates etc. That isn’t the issue. The issue, for me at least, is whether the New Testament writers ever address any of these issues without first rooting them in redemptive truth. E.G., “Husbands love your wives, AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT.” If husbands are gong to understand how to love their wives, do they not need to know something about how Jesus loved the church and gave up himself for it. If we ignore that aspect of biblical truth, all we have left is a pop psychology lecture on marriage. All practical teaching in the New Testament is rooted in [or based on] redemptive truth. All these relational issues are related to theological issues. If we eliminate the theological, all we have left is the secular that has demonstrated itself to be bankrupt. Forget going to church and watch Dr. Phil.
You have talked about the Trinity. Do you not understand that you have talked about a doctine of Scripture. If you didn’t have the doctrine, you would know nothing about the relationship.
Are we aaying doctrine is the only aspect of the Christian faith that is important? Of course not! We are saying theology is the skeletal structure that gives form and definition to the Christian faith.
Your relationship with others may identify you as Jesus’ disciple, but it does not define you. For that, you need to open your mouth to tell us what you believe. What you say will tell us whether you really belong to Jesus or are just a nice guy who has a good relationship with people.
By the way, I would really like to hear how you “explain away” the biblical doctrine of predestination. You mentioned “fulfilling God’s purpose in this earth.” If there is no such thing as predestination, then God has no purpose to be fulfilled. Everything is playing out according to a blind and cruel fate. Who knows where it might all end up? Looking forward to your answer.
wh on Mon, October 17, 2005
Really . . . the amount of energy expended in this discussion is amazing to me. That Christians would spend time building and managing websites to rail against pastors and churches (note the frequency and length of anti-seeker posts compared to others). Maybe the seeker pastors didn’t blog in to the same degree because they have better things to do.
Could this kind of activity possibly be what Jesus had in mind when He gave us our marching orders in Matt 28 and Acts 1? What might be accomplished for the kingdom if we all took this same energy and channeled it toward reaching and discipling those who are still far from God? And yes . . . sometimes those seeking God show up at church. At least we know that the Apostle Paul expected “seekers” to be attending services with the Corintiains, since he admonished them to be “sensitive” in their gift demonstration (1 Cor. 14).
If I were a seeker and I were looking on at this endless argument . . . If I thought by becoming a Christian I’d have to begin spending my time examining and judging the “presuppositions” of others, I think I’d say “no thanks.”
WH
Randy Seiver on Mon, October 17, 2005
WH,
I guess you shouldn’t have spent time writing what you just posted. Shame on you for not spending that time evangelizing.
I guess it doesn’t make any difference whether we do evangelism as we should as long as we are out there doing something.
Ricky,
I just had one additional comment about your latest post. You seem to be making my point for me when you judge the success or
failure of churches based on whether they are loosing members. Does truth become untruth when it besomes unpopular? Jesus lost followers. All in Asia turned away from Paul. Does that mean they were wrong?
By the way, if you SS types don’t agree with what Ricky has been posting, now would be a great time to distance yourselves from him. If he is one of yours, he seems to be making my points for me.
I have compiled a list of questions about your beliefs on my blog site, http://www.gracedocs.blogspot.com. It would at least help me if some seeker sensitive advocates would come and answer those questions. Who knows, you might even convert me to your way of thinking.
Tom Riggs on Mon, October 17, 2005
Sometimes we all need to take a step back and look at the real lack of impact the church has in society today whether you call it ss or not ... as far as most people feel the proper church name most churches should be ...” The First Church Of Who Cares” ... come on pastors , ask yourself whats the real impact of your church in your city ... take a real good look . Can I hear an Amen ?
WH on Mon, October 17, 2005
Tom,
I’ll add an amen. Once we did a quick telephone survey of households within a one mile radius of our church to get a sense of the perception out there of us. The most eye-opening (and convicting) comment we heard far too often was “Is there a church there? I didn’t realize that.”
Didn’t Paul tell the Philippians, “Yep, some preach with wrong motives, but I don’t care, as long as the gospel is being preached.”
I’m going to stand before the Lord and have to account for my own motives and impact and on my community. I don’t think He’s going to ask how I influence the church down the street.
WH
Randy Seiver on Tue, October 18, 2005
I, along with the Apostle Paul, rejoice whenever the gospel is preached. For me the issue is that the gospel has largely been lost. If you missed my quote of J.I. Packer, you may wish to read it to understand what I mean that the gospel has been lost.
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment