“Christians” Who Try To Poke Holes In Sola Scriptura
by Sandy Simpson, 5/18/09
A man that is an heretick after the first and second
admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10-11)
There are a number of the leadership of the Emerging Church (EC) who do not believe that the Bible is the highest authority for the Christian faith. Most do not believe that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts and many do not acknowledge that the Bible is our highest revelation. Yet this is a core doctrine over which true believers and false brethren must separate.
Those who try to poke holes in Sola Scriptura make excuses like (1) we need to reinterpret the Bible through the lens of postmodern culture and religion (2) the Bible never uses the words “Sola Scriptura” therefore it is not a Biblical concept (3) there is new revelation for the church through the Holy Spirit apart from what is written and the precepts of the Bible and (4) the Bible just doesn’t address our postmodern situation therefore we cannot rely on it for the truth and answers for our problems today. I will prove that all the above arguments, and more, from EC leaders and others is exactly what they are teaching. I will give you quotes from their teachings, videos and books.
The postmodern church and its
“movements” are abandoning Sola Scriptura in their rush to be like the
Roman Catholic Church, which takes its authority from a mix of Scripture and
tradition.
As a result the Church, to whom
the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not
derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both
Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with EQUAL sentiments of
devotion and reverence. (Roman Catholic Catechism, Given October 11, 1992,
the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate. Page 31).
Read the following articles for
further clarification on this subject.
The Abandonment of
Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle
By Bob DeWaay
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue105.htm
What Do We Mean
by Sola Scriptura?
By Dr. W.
Robert Godfrey
http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html
False teachers, by Biblical definition, are those who create division over foolish controversies. They love to bring forth new ideas that do not encourage spiritual growth in the Church, but rather divide it. Here are two excellent messages by Alistair Begg on the subject of false teaching today.
False
Teachers Part 1 & Part
2
By Alistair Begg, Truth For Life, 5/20/09
http://salemnet.vo.llnwd.net/o29/truthforlife/1597-falseteachers.mp3
http://salemnet.vo.llnwd.net/o29/truthforlife/1990-falseteachers.mp3
I will list those who explicitly deny Sola Scriptura but there are many, many others who also, by their teachings, deny that core doctrine.
God has already given to the
church, in all its diversity, a complete Theory of Everything, a unifying
principle that binds things together. The church’s big TOE was
formulated in the Bible’s smallest encapsulation of What It All Means: John
1:14. The Fourth Gospel elaborates the exchange as it extends an invitation to
the quest and quandary of the quantum explored in this book.
The Word [the
depth dimension of Logos which physicists call energy,
ancients called fire and theologians call metanoi] ...
became Flesh [the
height dimension of Pathos which physicists call matter,
ancients called land and theologians call koinonia]...
and dwelt among us [the breadth dimension of Ethos which physicists call
space, ancients called wind and theologians call diakonia] ...
and we beheld his [God’s] glory [the fourth dimension of Theos which
physicists call space-time, ancients called sea and theologians call
basileia].
This tetrad is the church’s big TOE, the closest the Bible ever
comes to formulating a simple, compact description of how the universe works
(i.e., a Grand Unified Theory). John 1:14 presents four eddies of experiencing
God, comprising a single stream. All four dimensions--the experience of God in
Christ and self, the experience of God in community and creation, the
experience of God in social justice and compassion, the experience of God in
the transpersonal and transcendent--while distinct, are interacting states
rather than chronological or sequential stages. They demonstrate a remarkable
unity, interpenetrating and mutually reinforcing one another 10. . . as in life, so in the rather artificial
partitions of this book.38
(Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 9)
The Bible formulates
lots of simple descriptions of how the universe works, if these guys would
actually read it and study it. The fact
that they apparently do not is demonstrated by their twisting of Scripture to
fit some kind of New Age model. The
Word is not energy, it is Jesus Christ, Who is God and Who was eternally Spirit
(John 4:24) before He added humanity to His nature. The word “flesh” has nothing to do with land. That Christ dwelt among us has nothing to do
with Pneuma, which is translated as spirit or wind. Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit after He
had dwelt among us. God’s glory is not
the sea; it is His Son in human form, the very glory of God (2 Cor. 4:4). The
fact that Sweet is trying to drag the definitions of pagan human cultures into
this Bible verse shows that he is determined to prove that every culture and
religion has a piece of the Truth. But
there is no ultimate truth aside from the Word of God.
“Scripture is something God had ‘let be,’ and so it is at once God’s
creation and the creation of the dozens of people and communities and
cultures who produced it.” (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 162)
The Bible is not
the creation of people, communities and cultures. It transcends culture because the men who wrote it were carried
along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).
The content of the Bible, though written in different time periods in
different places, transcends culture and time and is alive and active in every
culture and time period of history (Heb. 4:12). Yes the Bible was relevant to the cultures of the time periods it
was written, but it is also just a relevant to us now. We do need to exegete the Bible properly in
context, taking into account to whom it was written and the place and time it
was written, but the fact that the Word of God is still living and active is a
testament to the fact that is truly is the Word of God.
"Interestingly, when
Scripture talks about itself, it doesn't use the language we often use in our
explanation of its value. Premodern Western Christians, words like
authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and
literal are crucial... hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the
authority of extra biblical words and concepts to justify one's belief in the
Bible's ultimate authority." (McLaren, Brian, A Generous Orthodoxy, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2004, p. 164.)
What McLaren is failing to understand is that words are tools. We use words to identify concepts. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible but it is an accurate representation of the theology of God found therein. The word monotheism likewise is not found in the Bible but it accurately represents the singularity of God's existence. There's nothing wrong with using words not found in the Bible to describe concepts that the Bible teaches. (http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/brian-mclaren-%E2%80%9Cis-jesus-the-only-way-to-what%E2%80%9D-part-1) The irony is that while McLaren makes this statement he is doing that same thing he warns against, and does so on a regular basis, using words that the Bible does not use, nor are they representations of actually Biblical teaching. I would rather have extra-Biblical words that describe a Biblical teaching than extra-Biblical words that describe nothing but McLaren’s own hot air. This is why it is crucial for the churches not to listen to this man.
“… if you’re going someplace
where no one has ever been a map cannot help you. That’s where the name
“Off The Map” comes from in part. But another problem with maps is that
sometimes they change. (Brian McLaren, A New Kind Of Christian
– Part 1, Copyright: 2004, Off The Map)
And the maps that used to
accurately reflect reality don’t reflect reality anymore. (Brian
McLaren , A New Kind Of Christian – Part 1, Copyright: 2004, Off The Map)
In the second foreword to Dan
Kimball's book about the Emergent church Brian McLaren writes “Our
understandings of the gospel constantly change as we engage in
mission in our complex dynamic world, as we discover that the gospel has a rich
kalaidoscope of meaning to offer, yielding unexplored layers of depth,
revealing uncounted facets of insight and relevance. No doubt as we look
back and see ways in which our modern understandings of the gospel were limited
or flawed”
The Gospel is a set message recorded and explained to us in the written Word. Perhaps the reason the “understandings of the gospel constantly change” for Emergents is because they devalue and no longer study the Bible.
PHYLLIS TICKLE
Phyllis Tickle, author of the
Great Emergence and recent conference speaker at the Great Emergence Conference
is on record predicting the demise of sola scriptura. At the conference she
said "it’s not if sola scriptura ends but when" and her books includes
this quote against sola scriptura: “Always without fail, the thing that
gets lost early in the process of a reconfiguration is any clear and general
understanding of who or what is to be used as the arbitrator of correct belief,
action, and control… The Reformation,…was to answer the question… sola
scriptura, scriptura sola… While we may laugh and say the divisiveness was
Protestantism’s greatest gift to Christianity, ours is a somber joke. Demoninationalism
is a disunity in the Body of Christ and, ironically, one that has a bloody
history… Now, some five hundred years later, even many of the most die-hard
Protestants among us have grown suspicious of “Scripture and Scripture only.”
We question what the words mean - literally? Metaphorically? Actually? We even
question which words do and do not belong in Scripture and the purity of the
editorial line of decent of those that do. We begin to refer to Luther’s
principle of “sola scriptura, scriptura sola” as having been
little more than the creation of a paper pope in place of a flesh and blood one. And even as we speak, the authority that
has been in place for five hundred years withers away in our hands.” (The Great Emergence, pgs 45, 46, 47, cited in Emergent Rebellion
Against Sola Scriptura, http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/12/emergent-rebellion-against-sola-scriptura.html
First of all, the division between the apostate Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism is not “denominationalism”, it is a division between true and false religion; at least it was until modern “evangelicals” signed a treaty with the RCC called Evangelicals & Catholics Together. Denominationalism does not create disunity in the Body of Christ, only with those who pretend to be orthodox when in fact they are teachings heresies. There is nothing wrong with stressing certain doctrines and being around those who agree as long as the fundamental unity of the Spirit and unity of the Faith remains. That unity is based on the core doctrines of the Faith, five of which are:
The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality. Or alternately … the one God eternally exists in three Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming again bodily to earth to rule and judge.
Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life, and is a Christian’s highest authority in all matters of faith and practice.
If she is calling herself a “die-hard Protestant, then she would necessarily be supporting the fifth core doctrine above, not being “suspicious” of it. This shows she has been brought up in a liberal “Christian” church instead of a Biblical one. There is no God-given authority given to the pope. It is an authority that was manufactured by the RCC in order to have a top-down governmental “Church” structure rather than a Biblical one. The papal succession is nothing more than “foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments …”which “are unprofitable and useless”. (Tit. 3:9)
The new Christianity of the Great Emergence must discover some authority base or delivery system and/or governing agency of its own. It must formulate—and soon—something other than Luther’s Sola Scriptura which, although used so well by the Great Reformation originally, is now seen as hopelessly outmoded or insufficient …(Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, pg. 151)
Ironically, Jesus Christ claims that adherence to His Words will set us free rather than put us into bondage under a "paper pope". John 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Furthermore, God's Word itself testifies to its own sufficiency. What other source of 'spiritual information' can make this claim? (Answer None) 2 Tim. 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. Scripture and Scripture ALONE give us the revealed words of God and the only true repository of the Words of Jesus Christ. There is one reason and one reason only why anyone would rebel against Sola Scriptura and that reason is a refusal bend the knee to God and to believe what God has said … through the Cornerstone (Jesus Christ) and the Foundation (Jesus Christ & the Apostles) of the Church.
This is some of the text of a blog by Jonathan Brink about the “The
Great Emergence Day” where Phyllis Tickle, author of the book “The Great
Emergence” gave a lecture opposing Sola Scriptura.
Tara, no one is saying get rid
of Scripture. It's central to the entire story and conversation. But the
framework of Sola Scriptura unfortunately excludes and often leaves behind
the very tools that allow us to interpret it effectively, namely community,
experience, science, and most importantly the Holy Spirit. There is no
place in Scripture that confirms the concept. It's a human construct that was a
reactionary measure against the Papal construct and sadly had consequences that
we're dealing with. What Tickle is suggesting is that Sola Scriptura is
going away so it can be replaced with a more robust toolset that allows us to
understand in discern Scripture more effectively. … Josh, sadly when people
talk about a move away from Sola Scriptura, they assume we are talking about
removing Scripture or the authority of Scripture, which is absurd. It's a knee
jerk reaction. Scripture stands on its own regardless. Unfortunately the
concept of Sola Scripture is deeply misleading. It does not create a robust
tool set approach for understanding the story. And what Tickle and many others
are talking about is that broadening of the toolset. Tickle's question ultimately drives at
"Where is our authority?" And my answer to that is Jesus. Yet
Jesus is best understood in a combination of elements that include Scripture
but also the following of the Holy Spirit, experience, science, and community.
And my argument has always been that Sola Scriptura presents, albeit
unfortunately, an incomplete picture that cripples people in the discipleship
process. It largely ignores that call to the leading of the Holy Spirit as
the base element for understanding the story. In the end I think the larger
Emergent community is saying the same thing I am. They're just not given credit
for it because Emergent is such a lightning rod. (Jonathan Brink, online blog: http://jonathanbrink.com/2008/12/05/the-great-emergence-day-1/)
Let’s deal with these statements one by one to show that these Emergents know nothing about Biblical hermeneutics. The Scripture is not some “conversation” whereby we arrive at consensus. The Scripture, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, often and most accurately interprets itself. The Holy Spirit is our teacher when it comes to the written Word, but we don’t add the lenses of “community, experience” and “science” to the interpretive tools we use to understand Scripture. Yes, we have to read and teach it in context as to who it was written to and the cultural elements in play during the time it was written, but we don’t strain it through the grid of our modern science or experiences or through our culture or the religions of the world. Sola Scriptura is only going away because false teachers like Tickle are tickling people’s ears (2 Tim. 4:3-4) with the idea of doing away with one of the core doctrines of the Faith so these modern Gnostics can bring in “new revelation”. This is nothing new and has been a problem since the early church. The concept of Scripture being our highest authority in all matters of faith and to “not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6) is not misleading. It is perfectly clear. The idea of “broadening of our toolset” is a way to throw people off the track. It is also a way to run ahead of (2 John 1:9), add to (Pr. 30:6, Rev. 22:18), subtract from (Rev. 22:19) and twist Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). There is no “combination of elements” when it comes to understanding Scripture and the precepts that apply for all time. There are only two: what is written and the ability to understand it through the Holy Spirit. The other “tools” are tools that lead to deception. Finally there is no other way to disciple people without the Scripture and the Holy Spirit (Tit. 2:1, 1 Jn. 2:27). Paul discipled people with the Word and commended the Bereans for making sure what he was teaching was accurate from it (Acts 17:11).
“Where the sixteenth-century
Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule
for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the
sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will
never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.” (Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New
Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982) pg. 38)
This is rank
heresy. When you go away from the written
Word then you do not affirm its truths.
1 Cor. 13:5 It (love)
is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps
no record of wrongs. Out task is to
learn to get outside of self love and self-esteem and learn how to love others
are we already love ourselves. Ga 5:14 The entire law is summed up in
a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself." {Lev. 19:18}
Php 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in
lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
This [that the canon was not
settled until the 4th century] is part of the problem with continually
insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief
that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true.
In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called
the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the
problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even
is. (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis – Rethinking the Christian Faith,
(Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2005), pgs 67-68).
Since his conclusion that Sola Scriptura was only a precept for the Reformation is wrong because the Bible itself says it is to be our highest authority in our Faith, then his statement that the church “voting” on what to put in the Bible is what is the “problem” is also wrong. The Scriptures acknowledged by the early church and by the Apostles comprise what is our Bible today. That voting process was to eliminate spurious and false “scriptures” that had crept in from heretics, as well as sources in the Old Testament times that were clearly not inspired. The Christian faith in the authority of Scripture not only sounds nice, it is also true. It is Rob Bell who is false.
“The Bible
itself is a book that constantly must be wrestled with and re-interpreted.
He dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions.
Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current
realities, he says. The more you study the Bible, the more questions it
raises. “It is not possible to simply do what the
Bible says,” Bell writes. (Online source,
emphasis added)
If it is impossible to do what the Bible says then you cannot be a person who claims to love God. It is impossible to know what God’s commands are without obeying the written Word.
Joh 14:15 "If you
love me, you will obey what I command.
Joh 14:23 Jesus replied, "If
anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we
will come to him and make our home with him.
Joh 14:24 He who does
not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own;
they belong to the Father who sent me.
Joh 15:10 If you obey
my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s
commands and remain in his love.
1Jo 5:3 This is love
for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
It’s interesting how many
traditions (pause) When you read the great enlightened
ones; meditation, centering prayer, reflection—in every tradition you
can find the mystics—and what’s always at the heart of the
spiritual lives, the everyday lives of the great ones was always
a period of time. … Whether it’s prayers, chanting, meditation,
reflection, study—whatever you call it—what is it essentially; it’s taking
time to breathe. Because when you’ve been breathing, (slight
pause) in a proper sort of way, you’re far better equipped to handle what life
throws your way. (Rob Bell,
http://www.marshill.org/teaching/download.mp3?filename=MTExNjA4Lm1wMw%3D%3D,
5:41-6:23)
So Bell has been meditating on and reading from many traditions, in other words from Catholics and other religions, calling them “the great enlightened ones”. Breathing is a material, natural human process but it does not “equip” people to “handle what life throws our way” except that we keep breathing. New Age mystics and even “Christians” these days think you can breathe in truth, the Holy Spirit, etc.
"When we breathe out we breathe ourselves out and when we breathe in we breathe in the Spirit". (Benny Hinn, TBN, reported by Ed Tarkowski, Fri, 11 Jul 1997)
This is nonsense. If you want to be able to handle life, read your Bible and obey it!
NIC PATON
Perhaps the most fundamental
problem with Sola Scriptura is the first half: “Sola”. In context, there were 5
solas (also Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo gloria)
representing the Reformation’s pillars or fundamental beliefs. Sola Scriptura,
however, seems to have taken on a life of its own in the minds of those
pondering the question of ultimate authority in an age of Biblism. Anyway, in
essence, the problem is that a closed starting point will result in a
limited system. By declaring any source of truth with the proviso “alone,” we
automatically exclude whatever else might reveal it. (Nic Paton, So Long,
Sola?, Emergent Village weblog, http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/so-long-sola)
That’s the whole point; excluding the evil, including the good. Obeying the written Word is not limiting, it is freeing.
Jas 1:25 But the man
who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues
to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be
blessed in what he does.
Jas 2:12 Speak and act
as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,
1Pe 2:16 Live as free
men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of
God.
We wouldn't do these things, we wouldn't
pay so much attention to this Book, unless we really believed that "the
Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God
written." But in other ways I wonder if we could do better.
There is no “other way” if you truly uphold Sola Scriptura. We can do no better than the word of the prophets, Jesus Christ and the Apostles as handed down through the written Word.
Suggestion #1: Consider the
possibility that God may want evangelical scholars to write more books and
articles that tell the Church what the whole Bible teaches us about some
current problem.
The Bible transcends time and culture. It speaks to every problem in every culture in every time. More books will not help unless they properly exegete the Bible using good hermeneutics. There are very few of those books today, so it would be good to write better ones. The problem is that most scholars have been influenced by postmodern thought and are no longer able or willing to exegete the Bible because fundamentally they don’t agree that it speaks to specific problems today with timeless precepts.
Suggestion #2: Consider the
possibility that God wants the Church to discover answers and reach consensus
on more problems, and wants us to play a significant role in that process.
It does not help to reach consensus on what the problems are at all. We all already are very much aware of the problems. It is the solutions that are lacking and that is because there is little or no Bible study going on in the churches. If more churches were teaching verse by verse exegetically through the Word there would be no problem coming up with “answers” to postmodern problems.
Suggestion #3: Consider the possibility that God
wants evangelical scholars to speak with a unified voice on certain issues
before the whole Church and the whole world.
This would be great. But whose voice are we to listen to and follow? Would it not be better to follow the Word and let it dictate what we believe and stand for? If we listen to the televangelists, the Word of Faith teachers, the New Apostolic Reformation and the Emerging Church will we not be led astray? Can we come up with a “unified voice” with them? Can we be unified with the Roman Catholic Church like those who signed the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document claim? If we deny Sola Scriptura how can those who uphold it be unified with those who do not?
Suggestion #4: Consider the possibility that God may
want many of us to pay less attention to the writings of nan-evangelical
scholars.
This one I agree with. Pay attention to the writings of the Apostles and prophets. But this requires serious study and application.
Suggestion #5: Consider the possibility that God may
want us to quote his Word explicitly in private discussions and in public
debates with nonChristians.
Not sure why this is a revelation to Grudem. This is what every true believer has been doing all along. Only those who read heretical books that comprise 2/3 of the books sold in Christian bookstores spend their time quoting that stuff.
Suggestion #6: Consider the possibility that the
world as we know it may change very quickly. (Wayne Grudem, Do we act as if we
really believe that "the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is
the word of God written?,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200003/ai_n8894267/)
It has already changed and hopefully those who poke at Sola Scriptura will ask God for discernment to see the Apostasy we have already been in for some time so that they will know the signs of His coming.
WILL SAMSON
"Sola Scriptura also tends to downplay the role of God's Spirit in shaping the direction of the church. Of greatest importance to this discussion is the fact that often people subscribing to Sola Scriptura do not take into account the subjectivity of human interpreters" (Pagitt, Jones, "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope," Baker Books, 2007, p. 156).
The Bible is hardly a subjective (man-focused) work. Rather, it is because the inspired writers (2 Peter 1:20-21) were objective (God-focused) that humanity tends to shy away from the brilliance of Scripture. (Commentary by the Berean Call)
J.P MORELAND
“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America,
there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational,
and harmful to the cause of Christ. . . . And it has produced a
mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often
ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus. … [The problem is]
"the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality,
and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be
the sole authority for faith and practice.” (J.P.Moreland quoted in "Postcard from San
Diego: Fighting
'Bibliolatry' at the Evangelical Theological Society," by Ted
Olsen, Christianity Today, 11/14/07.)
There is a simple answer to this man who should not be
reading books by heretics. 2 Tim.
3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly
equipped for every good work. The
word for “thoroughly” is exartizo meaning to complete, finish, to furnish perfectly, to
finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete). Now either the written Word is fully able to
train up a Christian in the way he should go, or it is not. Since the Bible itself answers this question
then Who does Moreland suppose is using that Word to teach? The Holy Spirit teaches the believer based
on the written Word (Eph. 6:17, John 14:26), not other words, not other
teachers, not other books, not other movements, not other cultures, not other
religions. The Word of God is either
lying or it is true. If it is true then
we have to take into consideration that we are not to “go beyond what is
written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Only false
teachers want to add their two-cents worth to the written Word. Do they actually expect that their words are
eternal as the written Word of God is (Ps. 119:89) which was given to us by the
Holy Spirit through the prophets, Jesus Christ and the Apostles? Whose Word is truth (John 17:17)? The Bible IS the sole source of the true
knowledge of God, of salvation, of doctrine, of faith and of practice. Those who claim otherwise are heretics or
false religionists.
Both the weaknesses of the emergent conversation and its
strengths are evident in this volume. Its great weakness continues to be its
theological unorthodoxy which is virtually a return to old liberalism. At
issue:
• Its above mentioned view of
the kingdom (e.g. pp.80-81).
• Its lack of concern for spiritual
conversion—the true gospel (pp. 35-37, 49, 100).
• Egalitarianism (pp.
42,175-188).
• Rejection of original sin/sin
nature (p. 43).
• Inclusivism (pp. 44, 49-50;
190-198).
• Rejection of sola fide (pp.
82, 159; 194-195).
• Rejection of Sola
Scriptura (pp. 154-156).
• The inability to understand
God due to our subjectivity (p. 156).
• Orthoparadoxy—chapter 17.
While all of these aberrant views, and many more, are
found in An Emergent Manifesto, what you will not find is a presentation
of the true gospel or any emphasis on biblical theology. Dan Kimball’s chapter,
“Humble Theology,” makes a stab in this direction by at least recognizing some
essential beliefs (pp. 216, 222), but he does not go far enough and stands
virtually alone among the other authors. One exception is Rodolpho Carrasco’s
chapter “A Pound of Social Justice,” which was the best essay in the book.
Carrasco’s article represented the best of emergent—its
interest in social justice. This chapter presents a reasoned, well thought out
call for God’s people to be involved with the needy. Carrasco even talks of
reaching people “with the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and His atoning
death on the cross” (p. 250), a concept totally misplaced with the rest of the
book. With this balance—activism for the needy and evangelism of the lost,
followed by discipleship, we would say amen. This is exactly the balance of
Scripture. But unfortunately this balance is not representative of the emergent
movement.
Some of the newest elements of emergent, a movement that
continues to emerge, is evident in this volume. For example, McLaren has grown
tired of postmodernity conversations and wants to move the target to
postcolonialism (pp. 142,148-149). Postcolonialism is most fully exemplified in
the last chapter by American Indian Randy Woodley, “Restoring Honor in the
Land,” in which he is advocating some form of restitution to First Nations
people because of past colonialism. Barry Taylor sees such a blurring of the
lines between emergent Christianity and other religions that he doubts the
future of Christianity as a stand-alone religion (p. 165-169). He advocates
that Christians “go with the flow” (p. 169). Samir Selmanovic, in the most
troubling chapter in the volume, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness: Finding
Our God in the Other,” would agree.
Chapter seventeen by Dwight J. Friesen gives the
uncertainty of emergent thought a name—he calls it orthoparadoxy—living with
contradiction so that we might maximize relationships.
A final new buzz term is the “shalom of God” (p. 298ff).
“Shalom is the very DNA of God” we are told. Woodley attempts to wrap the whole
Christian life and theology around the concept of shalom (p. 299).
“An Emergent Manifesto of Hope” is on the
cutting edge of where the emergent church is headed. Read to understand what
emergent is attempting to do with the faith. Be warned, it is a frightening
endeavor. (Commentary by Gary Gilley at
http://www.svchapel.org/resources/book-reviews/4-christian-living/102-an-emergent-manifesto-of-hope-by-doug-pagitt-and-tony-jones-editors)
RICK WARREN
“There’s truth in every
religion I, I, Christians believe there’s truth in every religion.
But we just believe there is one savior. We believe we can learn truth from, I
believe I’ve have learned a lot of truth from different religions. Because they
all have a portion of the truth. I just believe there’s one savior Jesus
Christ” (Rick Warren, Nov.22, 2004 Larry King live)
If you have to go to other religions to find truth, then why
bother with the Bible? Other religions
don’t have a “portion of the truth” at all.
Do they teach the truth about the Gospel? Do they teach the truth about God and Who He is? Do they teach the truth about sound
doctrine? Do they teach the truth about
false teachers, false prophets and false religion? How can false religions, by definition, teach truth? Their version of “truth” will always be tied
up with lies and deception, just as false teachers like Rick Warren are.