I'm back and I'm Emergent...
Art and I spent 3 days in Colorado Springs, at the Mountain Plains Region Conference of the Open Bible Standard Churches. The worship was dynamic. The fellowship was encouraging. But, oh no! The superintendant refered to us as an "emerging" denomination. He even used the term "postmodern." He qualified that by saying, "don't be a label, just be a church" and later, "don't play church, do church". One of the things we really like about Open Bible Standard Churches, is that, although they are Charasmatic, they keep the Bible as the center and guide of their faith. When they preach the Good News of Jesus it is not a watered down, seeker friendly Jesus they present. When they call a sinner to repentance, they call sin, sin and Salvation through the blood of Jesus. So now, I am confused. I need to revisit the "Slice of Laodicea" and reread Chris P's postings on the emergent "heresy" and revisit some of the pro-emergence sites as well. There is so much negitive stuff out there. Anti-catholisim, Anti-evangelical, Anti-emergence. Anti, Anti, Anti...I do not want to be sucked into false doctrine, I do not want to be deceived by heresy, but I refuse to side with those out there who demonize anything they don't agree with. There are a lot of experts out there. Self proclaimed. And as much as they are opposed to the concept of an infallible pope, they seem to hold Luther or King James who "authorized" their Bibles, or even themselves as infallible.
"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will given him..."James 1:5 Yes and Amen!
2 comments:
MaryEllem,
Infallibility = inerrancy. I agree with you in that there are no infallible men. Therefore, there are no men who can be called inerrant. However inerrant and infallible men have produced infallible work, and spoken infallible statements. If I say 2+2=4, is that not inerrant and infallble, even though I am prone to error? Unfortunately in the liberal world of "higher" education 2+2=whatever you want. This obviously does not work in the real world. Absolute truth comes to us from outside of ourselves in the person of Christ Jesus. His revelation came by the Holy Spirit to men, who when thus inspired, wrote it down, What they wrote down is inerrant and infallible. as it came from an inerrant and infallible source. In order to believe the relativistic theology of the ec, liberation theology
and other liberal philosophy you have to tear the scriptures down. They love to quote Jesus (must be one of the few infallible portions of the Bible) but "deconstruct" the rest. If we can't trust that the men that wrote the Scriptures were doing it under the inspiration of God, then how can we trust that the words of Jesus were even recorded accurately? You can't have it both ways. As you see, this creates more questions than it answers which is the true modus operandi of this "theology"
Any "move of God" that bases its whole premise on, just do,say and believe the opposite that the modern evangelical church does, says, and believes, is destined to be the post-modern cesspool that it is fast becoming.
did you write that last sentence or did Art? Please clarify...like I have said before, I do believe in the inerrant and infallible Word of God, but I get confused when mere man tries to "explain" what certin Scriptures "mean" when they seem to contradict others, as in the question of prayer, free will, and does God change His mind? Sometimes the answer is just...God is God, and this is a mystery. Right?
Post a Comment