Archive for July, 2007

h1

The Five Solas: Sola Scriptura: updated

July 29, 2007
The Five Solas

One of the wonders and beauties of the emerging church is that while I have been a part of it, I have had to dig deeper and think harder about my faith. In that I have had struggles and questions… and have take a lot of heat… mostly unwarranted as the person would usually misrepresent my view and most of twist to fit the label placed on me.

I wanted to state here the five Solas and my thought and research on them.

SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scripture Alone)

“The inerrant Scripture is the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.“

I love the bible, I find it the most amazing and life changing book I have ever know. My respect for it has increased with each year I have walked with the Lord, yet I have always struggled in that what is meant by some as “inerrancy”. It seems that I have only seen at least two types and I hope to show that another view is capable without diminishing “inerrancy and infallibility” as well as the “authority” of Scripture.

Straight out I do believe all Scripture is “God Breathed”. I have no issue at all saying it is “inspired”, though I see many have misrepresented people like Brian McLaren on this topic.

I see agree wholeheartedly with this definition, except for one thing… what is the definition of “inerrant”?

1. One view is that the bible even as translated is without error and infallible. The hold that the Bible has been preserved even when translated to another language. Many hold this view, yet I think few have thought it through as translations are not always totally accurate as subtle nuances can be lost.
2. Another view is that the original text as written or the “autographa” is not available to actually check this out, so much faith must be used to believe this view. It is usually held by those who may not hold that the Bible as far as translations is inerrant and that there are in fact some ancient text that do indeed contradict each other.

So what to do? You either seem to have to check you head at the door or walk by faith and just never know…. Yet there does seem to be another view I have found I think is most accurate. It is the view that the bible is without error in that it is God inspired and all it teaches about truth is without error, also of its inability to err.

What I am getting at is that I am one who must place faith in Jesus and take God at His word… and in that believe all that is revealed in the scripture was to point me to Jesus… and in that the bible is without any error. Again, I know I will take heat on this yet as I approach this with an open heart and in all honesty I cannot say that I see that translations are without error. I do see that God was able to preserve His word even in the hands of men to an incredible degree! In that I see that the “transmission” was also inerrant as God’s written word was faithfully copied in its original language. I am amazed at how many copies of manuscripts we do have that all seem to agree on the major points of truth and if be different, it is usually over a spelling of a name or something as trivial.

I see on these levels or of the concepts of inspiration, transmission, translation, and interpretation the Bible is a very consistent and trust worthy document. Though I see the weakest link is the last two, I see that God is faithful by the Holy Spirit to fill in the missing or wrongly translated or interpreted parts.

Contrary to what some have said about me, my struggles with and my in ability to state emphatically I believe in “inerrancy” of scripture, does not mean I see it without authority. It does not mean I do not think it to contain all truth needed for one to learn to walk in Christ Jesus… It does mean that at times I am brutally honest with myself and others in my struggle to believe on some things.

So I affirm part of SOLA SCRIPTURA and will state that I believe that all the truth the Bible teaches is without error, and that the transmissions of these truths were preserved by God’s hand. I also affirm that God spoke to men and inspired them to write His word and these men were faithful and accurate in what God spoke and what they wrote, and that the Bible itself is God breathed.

Now, I emphasize the “written” yet do also realize that we “walk” by faith which is “physical”. To state as is stated above and if I understand correctly, that one cannot experience revelation outside of scripture I disagree with, but with a great cautionary caveat. That all personal revelation need still be run pass the filter of scripture as to whether it be of God or not. God will not contradict Himself and say to a person that Jesus is just a prophet and not God, while it is taught clearly in Scripture that Jesus is God and Creator of all the is created. So, one may experience a revelation from nature or from general observation as we are dealing with “Persons” in the Trinity. I am not saying that God will give “new” revelation apart from what is revealed in the bible.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Advertisements
h1

Emerging sense of Humor, and its dignity.

July 28, 2007

In response to Phil Johnson’s over the top slanderous posters… (we do have a sense of humor but Phil’s take on this seems more judgmental than actually constructive) Emerging Grace submits these much more accurate and beautiful posters to all.

Be Blessed,
iggy

(July 28 11:05 a bit of an update and thought on the Phil Johnson’s posters:

As I took a look at them I realized that many were actually what I have encountered from John MacAruthurites. Interestingly the one that “Truth” where Phil’s byline is,

“It’s an adventure, not an axiom. A story still unfolding, not a tale already told. It’s the journey that counts, not the destination, Right?”

And the more accurate version at emerging grace that simply states:

“Plain and simple; Jesus is the Truth”

I think the most revealing thing is how Phil views “transparency”:

“Underneath the mask I am still a clown, just a lot meaner and scarier than you thought.”

and once again, from emerging grace:

“Willing to take off the mask, no more hiding.”

To me as well as the contrast on authenticity as Phil stating that one does not have to hide being “crazy” and emerging Graces “We are all broken eikons”… I see that the truth comes out about Lordship theology. You simply cannot be a real person but must hide behind a mask so no one will see the real you and judge you… in almost all these posters by Phil I think reveal his heart and the heart of the theology he is under [Not the Calvinism btw as there are many loving Calvinists.] It is a bit scary to think that this act of aggression is also mostly projection of his own beliefs.)

h1

Emerging sense of Humor, and its dignity.

July 28, 2007

In response to Phil Johnson’s over the top slanderous posters… (we do have a sense of humor but Phil’s take on this seems more judgmental than actually constructive) Emerging Grace submits these much more accurate and beautiful posters to all.

Be Blessed,
iggy

(July 28 11:05 a bit of an update and thought on the Phil Johnson’s posters:

As I took a look at them I realized that many were actually what I have encountered from John MacAruthurites. Interestingly the one that “Truth” where Phil’s byline is,

“It’s an adventure, not an axiom. A story still unfolding, not a tale already told. It’s the journey that counts, not the destination, Right?”

And the more accurate version at emerging grace that simply states:

“Plain and simple; Jesus is the Truth”

I think the most revealing thing is how Phil views “transparency”:

“Underneath the mask I am still a clown, just a lot meaner and scarier than you thought.”

and once again, from emerging grace:

“Willing to take off the mask, no more hiding.”

To me as well as the contrast on authenticity as Phil stating that one does not have to hide being “crazy” and emerging Graces “We are all broken eikons”… I see that the truth comes out about Lordship theology. You simply cannot be a real person but must hide behind a mask so no one will see the real you and judge you… in almost all these posters by Phil I think reveal his heart and the heart of the theology he is under [Not the Calvinism btw as there are many loving Calvinists.] It is a bit scary to think that this act of aggression is also mostly projection of his own beliefs.)

h1

The mystic ladder of Divine love, according to Saint Bernard and Saint Thomas Step two

July 28, 2007

The second step causes the soul to seek God without ceasing. Wherefore, when the Bride says that she sought Him by night upon her bed (when she had swooned away according to the first step of love) and found Him not, she said: ‘I will arise and will seek Him Whom my soul loveth.

This, as we say, the soul does without ceasing as David counsels it, saying: ’seek ye ever the face of God, and seek ye Him in all things, tarrying not until ye find Him; like the Bride, who, having enquired for Him of the watchmen, passed on at once and left them. Mary Magdalene did not even notice the angels at the sepulchre. On this step the soul now walks so anxiously that it seeks the Beloved in all things. In whatsoever it thinks, it thinks at once of the Beloved. Of whatsoever it speaks, in whatsoever matters present themselves, it is speaking and communing at once with the Beloved. When it eats, when it sleeps, when it watches, when it does aught soever, all its care is about the Beloved, as is said above with respect to the yearnings of love. And now, as love begins to recover its health and find new strength in the love of this second step, it begins at once to mount to the third, by means of a certain degree [The word in the Spanish is that elsewhere translated ’step.’] of new purgation in the night, as we shall afterwards describe, which produces in the soul the following effects.

Dark night of the Soul By St. John of the Cross.

h1

The mystic ladder of Divine love, according to Saint Bernard and Saint Thomas Step two

July 28, 2007

The second step causes the soul to seek God without ceasing. Wherefore, when the Bride says that she sought Him by night upon her bed (when she had swooned away according to the first step of love) and found Him not, she said: ‘I will arise and will seek Him Whom my soul loveth.

This, as we say, the soul does without ceasing as David counsels it, saying: ’seek ye ever the face of God, and seek ye Him in all things, tarrying not until ye find Him; like the Bride, who, having enquired for Him of the watchmen, passed on at once and left them. Mary Magdalene did not even notice the angels at the sepulchre. On this step the soul now walks so anxiously that it seeks the Beloved in all things. In whatsoever it thinks, it thinks at once of the Beloved. Of whatsoever it speaks, in whatsoever matters present themselves, it is speaking and communing at once with the Beloved. When it eats, when it sleeps, when it watches, when it does aught soever, all its care is about the Beloved, as is said above with respect to the yearnings of love. And now, as love begins to recover its health and find new strength in the love of this second step, it begins at once to mount to the third, by means of a certain degree [The word in the Spanish is that elsewhere translated ’step.’] of new purgation in the night, as we shall afterwards describe, which produces in the soul the following effects.

Dark night of the Soul By St. John of the Cross.

h1

I could not help it… The DeVille made me do it!

July 28, 2007
OK this guy called rev scottie has been making some waves as he exposed SoL in how dishonest they are in who gets posted on their comments.

In this he made up a name and then posted mean and nasty things against his friends who were being spoken very meanly about at SoL… (what a surprise!)

So, I noticed a post that seemed to be a bit out of sync with what I know about the emergent church… and some poor guy named Jeff

Now Jeff also posted at rev scottie’s blog:

“Slice” is a nightmare of a site. (I’m the “Jeff” about whom Ingrid created an “Emergent Quote of the Day” post, then blocked most of my lengthy, good-faith comments on that same post.) I told her I was leaving the site, and the recent rant about comment rights seems at least partially directed at me.

I agree that that site is stunningly divisive. I’m concerned that the heavy censorship may not be known to its users, creating a very imbalanced, unhealthy community. I’ve never been more frustrated or treated more poorly online in my life (and I post regularly on Slashdot and Fark!)

Thanks for posting your experience as well,
Jeff”

Posted by: Jeff Benson July 26, 2007 at 02:26 PM

With that as a background I just could not resist…

So I posted this rather non offensive comment:

“The biggest difference between the emerging approach and as it is
here…
Is that we would walk and talk with this guy as our friend and answer his questions lovingly.We would not “expose” him and mock him…
It amazes me that it is assumed that “all” emergents think this way when in fact they do not.

People are at many different places in their
lives. Some just have questions and doubt that need our love and kindness to help guide them…
So this post to me is a bit appalling as you trample on someone who may be seriously looking a Jesus and truly wants to believe.

Blessings,
iggy”

Obviously it was not posted as it was against their view…

So….

I did this obvious fake comment:

“Hue DeVille Says:
You have to say those emergents are sure ignorant Of the
truth.Unfortunately Christianity seems to me being sieged by this plague.

Let’s be sure that we do not allow access to them In our
churches.Everyone should be sure to pray against them.”

Now notice that if you look at the capitalized letters…
it spells out

“YOU C LIE.”

Busted again! And they call themselves a discernment ministry?
iggy

(Update: The comment was deleted… and Jeff has still not been able to defend himself on SoL and Ingrid continues to slander Jeff and all the rest of the emerging church with her lie. So as you read SoL… remember YOU C LIE. I also wanted to point out that some there who are on Ingrid’s side wanted to actually converse and Ingrid denied them… here is a commont from one such person there

Cliff in WI Says:

Jeff, I agree with you that the
Bible is complicated. It is amazing. What part of it do you have such a problem with? If you have read it (I will assume you have a grasp of its
message) why do you make those claims? I noticed you used the words flawed and human in your description. What parts are flawed? I take it when you said human, you meant it was mankind’s ideas and thoughts. Really? How do you come up with that?
You’re putting your eternal soul on the line. Do you really want to stay there? You may not want to hear that people here
will pray for you and really care about what happens with you. We will and we do. I would like to know how you have come to your conclusion(s).
Thank you

Jeff has been denied being able to even answer this person who was truly concerned… and Ingrid did not seem to care at all. If one is going to be a discernment ministry and make accusations… and the people desire dialog, to deny them seems truly dishonest. To not let them speak and speak for them tell people
what YOU THINK they believe and not letting them speak for themselves is
more dishonest.

BTW Ingrid’s repsonse to Jeff’s quote was this:

“Response: Well Jeff, how can you know for sure that biblical fundamentalists are wrong? Are you sure about that?”

Interestingly she never let him respond back.)

h1

I could not help it… The DeVille made me do it!

July 28, 2007
OK this guy called rev scottie has been making some waves as he exposed SoL in how dishonest they are in who gets posted on their comments.

In this he made up a name and then posted mean and nasty things against his friends who were being spoken very meanly about at SoL… (what a surprise!)

So, I noticed a post that seemed to be a bit out of sync with what I know about the emergent church… and some poor guy named Jeff

Now Jeff also posted at rev scottie’s blog:

“Slice” is a nightmare of a site. (I’m the “Jeff” about whom Ingrid created an “Emergent Quote of the Day” post, then blocked most of my lengthy, good-faith comments on that same post.) I told her I was leaving the site, and the recent rant about comment rights seems at least partially directed at me.

I agree that that site is stunningly divisive. I’m concerned that the heavy censorship may not be known to its users, creating a very imbalanced, unhealthy community. I’ve never been more frustrated or treated more poorly online in my life (and I post regularly on Slashdot and Fark!)

Thanks for posting your experience as well,
Jeff”

Posted by: Jeff Benson July 26, 2007 at 02:26 PM

With that as a background I just could not resist…

So I posted this rather non offensive comment:

“The biggest difference between the emerging approach and as it is
here…
Is that we would walk and talk with this guy as our friend and answer his questions lovingly.We would not “expose” him and mock him…
It amazes me that it is assumed that “all” emergents think this way when in fact they do not.

People are at many different places in their
lives. Some just have questions and doubt that need our love and kindness to help guide them…
So this post to me is a bit appalling as you trample on someone who may be seriously looking a Jesus and truly wants to believe.

Blessings,
iggy”

Obviously it was not posted as it was against their view…

So….

I did this obvious fake comment:

“Hue DeVille Says:
You have to say those emergents are sure ignorant Of the
truth.Unfortunately Christianity seems to me being sieged by this plague.

Let’s be sure that we do not allow access to them In our
churches.Everyone should be sure to pray against them.”

Now notice that if you look at the capitalized letters…
it spells out

“YOU C LIE.”

Busted again! And they call themselves a discernment ministry?
iggy

(Update: The comment was deleted… and Jeff has still not been able to defend himself on SoL and Ingrid continues to slander Jeff and all the rest of the emerging church with her lie. So as you read SoL… remember YOU C LIE. I also wanted to point out that some there who are on Ingrid’s side wanted to actually converse and Ingrid denied them… here is a commont from one such person there

Cliff in WI Says:

Jeff, I agree with you that the
Bible is complicated. It is amazing. What part of it do you have such a problem with? If you have read it (I will assume you have a grasp of its
message) why do you make those claims? I noticed you used the words flawed and human in your description. What parts are flawed? I take it when you said human, you meant it was mankind’s ideas and thoughts. Really? How do you come up with that?
You’re putting your eternal soul on the line. Do you really want to stay there? You may not want to hear that people here
will pray for you and really care about what happens with you. We will and we do. I would like to know how you have come to your conclusion(s).
Thank you

Jeff has been denied being able to even answer this person who was truly concerned… and Ingrid did not seem to care at all. If one is going to be a discernment ministry and make accusations… and the people desire dialog, to deny them seems truly dishonest. To not let them speak and speak for them tell people
what YOU THINK they believe and not letting them speak for themselves is
more dishonest.

BTW Ingrid’s repsonse to Jeff’s quote was this:

“Response: Well Jeff, how can you know for sure that biblical fundamentalists are wrong? Are you sure about that?”

Interestingly she never let him respond back.)