emergent church

Real classy of you to attack tim and his ministry.

Nice attack on God's word as well.

All this on a Sunday too.

Sheesh.

 

Oh, Contraire, Moo Cap-e-tan!!

Every one of those Israelites were snakebitten---Moses had no success with snakes----but only with one lone serpant on a pole

The look of faith upon the serpent on that pole saved them from all the serpents on the ground.

 

I meant at the beginning with Pharoah and his magicians.

The later instance you mentioned Blackbird does not help my position and light-hearted intrusion to this discussion...

I hope Standing typed tongue-in-cheek, otherwise it does come across kind of harsh.

 

Ever read Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis"? Here's a review from the December, 2005 issue of The Berean Call:

I suppose you would call The Berean Call a "bias source". I'm not the one condemning NOOMAS, it is the Word of God. I don't have to "try them" to know that they are not Biblical--just reading about them is enough for me. I just don't "try" stuff because it seems good. It was through the ministry of The Berean Call that the Lord freed me from the bondage "physcoheresy" which has permeated our churches with its "Self Esteem" gospel.

 

rbell, you must have a problem with people who stand for truth.

I notice you did not say a thing about tim's attack on one who spoke truth.

 

Tim

Having watched the video . . . I am Bell to be wierd. He painted everyone that witnesses differently from his model as street corner preachers . . .

AND NOT ONE OF HIS PEOPLE HAD THE COMPASSION TO LOVE THE CHRISTIAN THEY CONSIDERED MISGUIDED . . .

Not one . . . and definitely not him.

I think his model of Christianity is more about looking good than seeing people come to Christ. Yes, I know that he would disagree with that description, but it is my opinion of his video.

 

Ahhh, but Moses did not use a snake there... he used a rod that God turned into a snake once it was thrown down. Moses had success with a rod!

 

Sorry, the snake is still part of the picture. However, it is still going off topic. :thumbs:

 

Way too often your post is 'spot on.'

Way too often.

 

Tim

I appreciate the concept of engaging the culture and seeking the unchurched to bring them to know Our Lord.

And that is what we are supposed to do.

But, I will always think that many leaders within the emergent church movement get caught up in their ability to redefine Christianity so that it makes them feel good. I do not believe that the Cross of Our Lord is about making us feel good . . . their theology reminds me of a osteen sermon more than it does of the Bible.

 

hoo boy. Tim does not attack anyone in this thread. I read the entire thread. His discussions have been civil.

Maybe you could get him to give you some lessons.

 

I am not about to read this entire thread since it seems to have been a mess from the start. However, this quote is where I draw the line.
A few so far have said similar things like this person so I am going to remind you all of some appropo Scripture.;

1 Corinthians 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

 

It is not our "boxed up views" with which these EC people are called heretics--it is the Word of God with which they don't line up. It would do everyone good if, when they study these "movements" they would study them in the light of the Word of God and line it up with that. If the teaching doesn't line up with the Word of God, it is "another gospel" and "another jesus".

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

 

Good post, and we can easily correct the situation. It is all in His Word. It is already broken out, or divided for us. I believe just as God divided the Red Sea, so is today. Once we are gone prophecy will again be set in motion.

The term emergent movement should be termed back to the emergent movement. Out with the Old, and in with the New. Revive the New, the gospel that appeared after Damascus Road. That is when the first glimmer of light was shown to us. It continued to get brighter with each chapter of Acts.

We find God all the way through the Bible. Not until the name of the only begotten Son of God became known, and He shed His blood was it possible for any to enter into the "Kingdom Church". Not until after Damascus Road could any enter into the "Body Church". For we today the New all began after Damascus Road.

 

Is the real problem that too many movements are labelled emergent?

 

With one hit you nailed it.

 

Would it be too simplistic to speak of:

1. Emergent theology - which as far as I can see I mostly disagree with

2. Emergent methodology - which I think has benefits but not in all areas.

I realise very often theology and methodology stand or fall together but there can also be distinction.

I am kind of new to this whole area so shoot me down if I am wrong.

 

Tiny, a statement like that may be true on its face, but making necessary changes is different than embracing a "change is good" philosophy. I think some well-meaning folks have gone to an opposite extreme in their disdain for stodgy tradition.