Featured Why Tony Campelo is a false teacher

So you didn't listen to the video?

 

Lets take one case in point, Tony said scripture refers to poor about 2000 times. The other side indicated the number was closer to 200. Poor could refer to poor in worldly treasure, or poor (beggerly) in spirit, i.e. humble. It could be used comparatively, i.e. the least of his. I have no idea if 2000 is even near the right number, but a 5 minute search of related words gave me a total near 500.

Rather than attack the number without at least an effort at verification, why not address a central tenet of Christian life, being dependent of God, having a humble, beggerly spirit.

 

One of us did not listen to the video. The "quotes" are snippets devoid of context, It is a hit piece.

 

Yes. I have heard that many times and I think it is hogwash.

That imaginative interpretation has historically been used to discourage church people from engaging in higher education, studying philosophy, employing critical thinking, and being familiar with the culture in favor of a narrow fundamentalism that claims that Bible is the only book you need to read. I know this because I have heard essentially the same sermon from about half a dozen preachers over the course of 40 years.

They claim that Paul was a utter failure when he addressed the philosophers (ignoring that the philosophers were actually interested and so engaged that that a huge fight broke out over the resurrection). Moreover, they ignore that Paul had converts after he made his presentation - probably a fairly large number of them considering it was the first time they heard the message and that it was a relatively small audience.

They also ignore that other New Testament writers also use elements from pagan thought to reframe the gospel for the culture. For instance, the first chapter of John is essentially a co-opting of the Greek philosophical concept of logos, "Word," identifying the grounding principle and reason of all reality is Jesus.

Fair enough. It sounds like the reaction to the "guilt by association" rhetoric that is popular in churches and in politics. People are afraid to even consider what controversial or unpopular people might have to say for fear of being also considered controversial.

I certainly hope that your hearers would be sophisticated enough to think for themselves and know what simply mentioning someone in a non-negative way is not a blanker endorsement of someone's full body of thought or everything they have ever done or even will do. If you have an audience like that, I suggest only referencing Jesus - not anyone else in the scripture, nor anyone else who has walked the earth.

But the problem with Jesus is those He associated with. He got into quite a bit of trouble for that...

 

I can see what you're saying here, but I've not personally heard it used to trivialize study. I'm fact, I've only read this take on Paul in Acts 17 - 1 Corinthians 2, but thankfully I've not heard anyone preach what you've stated.

All they have to do is read a few more verses into Acts 17:32-34 and find there were believers;

"Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

Now I had mentioned this take in the past on here and as far as I know no one took time to look at the passage at hand.

Good stuff.

I don't read or pay attention to Campolo so it is doubtful I'd ever hear him say anything orthodox or otherwise. Now, I would use him if I heard him mention something erroneous and that was fitting in a textual study.

Of course you know there is always a mix of people, and you never know, but your last line I had to chuckle a bit over.

Yeah, well, Jesus had the monopoly on that one, He being the only Good One and the rest of us evil with a lot of people who think they're good themselves mixed in.

 

OK, well, then you should take the time to listen to it before you started commenting and mis-instructing others.

 

IT, did you have an on topic comment, or do you just post to demean others?

Little people think if they tear down others, it makes them look bigger.

 

Don't forget about this jab.

Titus 1
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;


HankD

 

Hi HankD, are you saying the Cretians belong in the basket of deplorables? Or Tony does?

 

I'll take the 5th on that one.

HankD

 

Obviously, but the presumption is that Campolo is quoted as an authority, as one might quote C.S. Lewis.

Be careful about assuming source material. It does not follow that because the same phrase is found in a copy of Aratus that he was the source or that Paul was quoting that particular work.

I might say "stick to the devil you know" in a letter to someone, but that doesn't mean I was quoting Kipling.

The fact that Paul and Menander both said, "evil communications corrupt good manners" is no basis to assume that either had any knowledge of the other.

 

Aaron, don't be that concerned about it.
He created every mouth.
He made a donkey speak and He allowed it in His word.
He allowed Satan's words in His book, etc...

HankD

 

I finally watched the video. Here are my thoughts:

1.) I don't know who this Todd Friel guy is, but has an incredibly annoying and condescending voice and attitude.
2.) Campolo's quotes are pulled completely out of any context and put together in a mishmash for a certain effect. There is no telling what he is actually saying.
3.) I find I agree with almost everything Campelo is quoted as saying, although NOT the way Friel is framing them. I should note, I disagree with Campelo on a number of issues, but this is a hack job.
4.) The 2,000 verses regarding the poor is from the Poverty and Justice Bible which highlights passages related to poverty. It took me exactly 30 seconds to find that information with a Google search. Todd Friel and his cohorts could have done the same, but they chose not to do even a modest amount of research (or they didn't tell you that they knew the source) and simply attacked Mr. Campelo. You and I may disagree that all of those passages are focused on poverty, but it is coming from a specific reference. Moreover, the method of using a concordance to essentially interpret scripture according to the number of times a word is used is completely flawed. Using that method, we would have to determine that the doctrine of the Triune nature of God (aka "The Trinity") is not in the scriptures.
5.) Friel restricts "heaven" to those who have correct theology, instead of those who are disciples of Jesus and have a lifestyle of obedience (see Matthew 25:31-36). Friel is wrong.
6.) From his comments, it seems that Friel does not understand the teaching of Jesus in regarding to faith and action and tries to claim that Campelo is teaching a works righteousness. If Friel is correct about only those who have correct theology make it to "heaven," then he's in trouble.
7.) Friel seems to have a weak understanding of the Beatitudes (he even needed a companion in the booth to tell him where to find them - in "Matthew") and seems to think that Jesus is just piling on more "Law" to drive people to despair instead an announcement of the good news of the Kingdom of God.

Campelo comes across as quite credible to me (although I would quibble with a few things) and Friel comes across as an arrogant attacker - not a person who has been transformed by the grace of God.

 

Spot on, BB. Thanks. It's Friday but Sunday is coming.

 

...wow!

 

Not yet.

Why care what Campolo says? For what is he known? Physics?

Because of the translators, not necessarily because of something in the text. I'm not disputing that Paul may be quoting a well-known and time-honored axiom. I'm disputing the assumption that Menander was the originator and Paul's source.

 

I'm not worried. But the diviner that followed the apostles saying, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation," grieved Paul.