Satan's Emergent "Church" Movement - By Bryan Denlinger

[Izdaari]

I'm no expert. Izzy might be able to correct me here, but I believe that many emergents teach that truth can be found in all faith systems although only one faith system is true. And, if this is the case, they are right. 

No correction needed, you have that right. C.S. Lewis taught that too, long before emergents showed up, and is who I learned it from.

 

[Just John]

Rick Warren may be somewhat emergent-friendly and does have a working arrangement with Leonard Sweet. But he is not one of us and remains a conservative evangelical Southern Baptist.

Yeah. Not so sure how "friendly" even. I heard him personally, publically criticize the "emerging" movement several years ago for not standing on the finished truth of the Bible and of course he publicly criticized Bell for his heretical universalism beliefs. But to some, everyone is an "emergent". I saw someone the other day say Billy Graham was. And Chuck Smith was because he "shared the platform" with Rick Warren.

I remember when my dad thought every third person was a communist back in the 60's and 70's....including the writers of Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons.  :

 

[subllibrm]

Anyone else notice that the "associational" concerns are only doctrinal? No problem being associated with the slime balls of the GOP. No wonder the traditional marriage debate was lost when guys like Newt and Rush were the leading "spokesmen". Christians can overlook a lot of sin when the guilty party is not a Democrat.

 

[Ransom]

Sure Scott, well I will explain it the best way I know how.

Well, that was revealing, though not of what you hoped it would be, probably.

I had already said that the Emergies like to raise questions, without providing any answers, and being vague about their belief system. When I asked you to explain it, all you gave me was a long list of quotations from various Emergies questioning the authority of Scripture.

In other words, you didn't tell me anything I didn't already say.

 

[PappaBear]

sole ≠ final

And the Bible is definitely not our sole authority. Depending on your nuance, it's not even our final authority. As a blanket statement, I would say it is definitely not our final authority.

Suddenly, the above statement now makes many of your other posts on this forum more clear.

In the words of Major Hochstetter, "What is this man doing here?!?"

Is the Bible the word of God?  Do you believe at all in inspiration?  What or who is your final authority?  Yourself?

 

[subllibrm]

sole ≠ final

And the Bible is definitely not our sole authority. Depending on your nuance, it's not even our final authority. As a blanket statement, I would say it is definitely not our final authority.

Suddenly, the above statement now makes many of your other posts on this forum more clear.

In the words of Major Hochstetter, "What is this man doing here?!?"

Is the Bible the word of God?  Do you believe at all in inspiration?  What or who is your final authority?  Yourself?

I can't speak for rsc2a but I believe the Bible is our guide to proper faith and practice but our authority is God and Him alone.

 

[rsc2a]

sole ≠ final

And the Bible is definitely not our sole authority. Depending on your nuance, it's not even our final authority. As a blanket statement, I would say it is definitely not our final authority.

Suddenly, the above statement now makes many of your other posts on this forum more clear.

In the words of Major Hochstetter, "What is this man doing here?!?"

Is the Bible the word of God?  Do you believe at all in inspiration?  What or who is your final authority?  Yourself?

I can't speak for rsc2a but I believe the Bible is our guide to proper faith and practice but our authority is God and Him alone.

This.

The Bible is an authority. So are stop signs. God is our final authority. As I explicitly stated above: if you elevate Bible to final authority, you are committing idolatry.

 

[PappaBear]

Sounds nebulous.  So how does this final authority get communicated?  Dreams, visions, or just "that certain feeling"?  Is it up to your human logic to determine if something is of God or is not?  Sounds highly subjective and contradictory.

And both of you avoided the questions regarding inspiration.  Can your views be rightly understood to implicate that God's will is malleable?  What may have been expressly wrong by command in the Bible could somehow be right today because the "higher authority" is going a different direction?

 

[rsc2a]

Sounds nebulous.  So how does this final authority get communicated?  Dreams, visions, or just "that certain feeling"?  Is it up to your human logic to determine if something is of God or is not?

Yes. Along with Scripture, a community of faith, examples of the saints, revelations through the created order, and most importantly, the Holy Spirit.

[quote author=PappaBear]Sounds highly subjective and contradictory.[/quote]

No...it just doesn't sound "simple".

[quote author=PappaBear]And both of you avoided the questions regarding inspiration.[/quote]

Is the Bible the inspired word of God? Yes. Do we read it divorced of context, nuance, cultural biases (both then and now), our own experiences, logic, and the fundamental nature of creation? No.

[quote author=PappaBear]Can your views be rightly understood to implicate that God's will is malleable? [/quote]

No. God does not change. It's an impossibility for an eternal, perfect and eternally perfect Being to change.

[quote author=PappaBear]What may have been expressly wrong by command in the Bible could somehow be right today because the "higher authority" is going a different direction?[/quote] Eating shrimp.

And the inverse: genocide.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Sounds nebulous.  So how does this final authority get communicated?  Dreams, visions, or just "that certain feeling"?  Is it up to your human logic to determine if something is of God or is not?  Sounds highly subjective and contradictory.

And both of you avoided the questions regarding inspiration.  Can your views be rightly understood to implicate that God's will is malleable?  What may have been expressly wrong by command in the Bible could somehow be right today because the "higher authority" is going a different direction?

Because we and our minds are sinful, and for every denomination and pastor we have different interpretations. For every verse you claim, someone will reprove you on your stance.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So the bible is not our final authority?
In fact, it is really no authority at all because it doesn't mean what it says.

The Emergent church really is alive and well.
bible with a little b and Man and Emergent with a Big M and E!
Glory!!

 

[Recovering IFB]

So the bible is not our final authority?
In fact, it is really no authority at all because it doesn't mean what it says.

The Emergent church really is alive and well.
bible with a little b and Man and Emergent with a Big M and E!
Glory!!

I didn't say that, what I'm saying is that I. This very forum we have had long debates over Scripture, why would that not extend to the rest of the world?
I believe that God is the final authority, He uses His Word to deliver His message!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So the bible is not our final authority?
In fact, it is really no authority at all because it doesn't mean what it says.

The Emergent church really is alive and well.
bible with a little b and Man and Emergent with a Big M and E!
Glory!!

I didn't say that, what I'm saying is that I. This very forum we have had long debates over Scripture, why would that not extend to the rest of the world?
I believe that God is the final authority, He uses His Word to deliver His message!

Certainly God is THE final authority.
But since the most definitive way He has chosen to reveal Himself is thru His Word....His Word is our final authority!

 

[subllibrm]

So the bible is not our final authority?
In fact, it is really no authority at all because it doesn't mean what it says.

The Emergent church really is alive and well.
bible with a little b and Man and Emergent with a Big M and E!
Glory!!

I didn't say that, what I'm saying is that I. This very forum we have had long debates over Scripture, why would that not extend to the rest of the world?
I believe that God is the final authority, He uses His Word to deliver His message!

Certainly God is THE final authority.
But since the most definitive way He has chosen to reveal Himself is thru His Word....His Word is our final authority!

A point finer than a frog's hair split four ways and sanded.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So the bible is not our final authority?
In fact, it is really no authority at all because it doesn't mean what it says.

The Emergent church really is alive and well.
bible with a little b and Man and Emergent with a Big M and E!
Glory!!

I didn't say that, what I'm saying is that I. This very forum we have had long debates over Scripture, why would that not extend to the rest of the world?
I believe that God is the final authority, He uses His Word to deliver His message!

Certainly God is THE final authority.
But since the most definitive way He has chosen to reveal Himself is thru His Word....His Word is our final authority!

A point finer than a frog's hair split four ways and sanded.

You miss the point, I believe.
The only way we have of knowing God is thru His Word.
If you diminish the role of Scripture, then every man can truly do what is right in his own eyes...which is exactly what the Emergent movement is based on....

 

[Biblebeliever]

Biblebeliever,

After subtracting the negative spin, I can cheerfully agree with about 80% of what you say about us emergents. Unfortunately the other 20% is "huh, what?". I'll explain in a moment. Nor do I get any impression you've actually read any emergent writers for yourself. I could be wrong but it sounds like you're just repeating talking points from the critics.

Izdaari, well where exactly did I lose you? That is in the 20% which you did not comprehend?

And actually; yes I have read and looked into some of the literature and books of the emerging church authors, books such as The Great Emergence (Phyilis Tickle), A New Kind of Christianity (Brian McClaren), (Red Letter Christianity (Tony Campolo),  The Briarpatch Gospel (Shayne Wheeler), and Velvet Elvis (Rob Bell).

Now I do not claim to be an expert on the emergent church but what I can say is that some of their main beliefs are quite frightening. Because what they tend to do is emphasize mystery and experience rather than truth.

Is it good to have some mystery? Sure.

But to totally put main, core and essential Bible doctrines on the line for unity and for the thrill of mystery is a dangerous thing to do.

Yes, we tend to be Catholic-friendly and very ecumenical. Yes, most of us are theologically liberal to varying degrees. We are not fundamentalist, and we often employ historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation. Most of us are not big KJV fans, though I'm sure some prefer it for its literary style. And I 'spose I could have just said I'm Episcopalian and it would have covered all that already, at least for me.

Brian McLaren is definitely one of us. Rob Bell denies that he is, but I think he is anyway. I like them both, though I have some disagreements with each of them.

So Izdaari, you don't see anything wrong with being ecumenical? Or being friendly to the roman catholic church?

Let me just make something clear, I am not anti-Catholic, I am anti papacy. It is the system of roman Catholicism which I am against. There are a lot of people who get caught up in the roman catholic church because they are ignorant and they do not know what their religion is really all about or what they teach. But if any Catholic would simply study the Bible and compare with the practices of the roman catholic church, they would soon see that the catholic church does things which are contrary to the Scriptures.

They would see that the Catholic church disobeys Scripture. 

However, I am not aware of William P. Young (author of The Shack) having any emergent connection at all. You might say some of his ideas are similar, but I dunno. I certainly would not claim him or his book. It was an enjoyable read, but I treated it as thought-provoking Christian fiction, and didn't take it seriously.

Oh I see, well I think I see your point there. And yes some of his ideas do line up with the philosophy of the emergent church, but again I think I see where you are coming from. In that he is not a forerunner or  a leader of the emergent church movement such as Brian McClaren would be considered to be.

I haven't read Phyllis Tickle, but she's been recommended to me and I 'spose I should. Your quotes from her don't sound too bad to me though I'd like to see them in full context.

Rick Warren may be somewhat emergent-friendly and does have a working arrangement with Leonard Sweet. But he is not one of us and remains a conservative evangelical Southern Baptist.

Well Izdaari, I would not consider Rick Warren a conservative evangelical. Many of Rick Warren's programs which he has implemented are not Scriptural.

I consider Rick Warren more of a liberal. You see, he is all about change and ecumenism.

Rick Warren has sought to redo the way church has been done for many years. In his Purpose Driven Church Format, look at these steps that are taken to change the Biblical and traditional church into a more modern and liberal one:


• Change in music to a contemporary rock style.

• Removal of hymn books; eliminating the choir.

• Replacement of organ and piano with heavy metal instruments.

• Repetitive singing of praise lyrics.

• Dressing down to casual and informal attire.

• Eliminating of business meetings, church committees, council of elders, board of deacons, etc.

• The pastor, or a new leader with a few assistants, usually four, takes charge of all church business.

• A repetitive 40-day Purpose Driven Church study program stressing psychological relationships with each other, the community, or the world, begins.

• Funded budgeted programs are abandoned, or ignored, with ambiguous financial reports made.

• Sunday morning, evening, and/or Wednesday prayer meetings are changed to other times; some may even be eliminated.

• Sunday School teachers are moved to different classes, or replaced by new teachers more sympathetic with the changes being implemented.

• The name "Sunday School" is dropped and classes are given new names.

• Crosses and other traditional Christian symbols may be moved from both the inside and outside of the church buildings. The pulpit may also be removed.

• In accordance with Dr. Warren’s instructions, new version Bibles are used; or only verses flashed on a screen are referenced during regular services.

• Purpose Driven Church films, purchased from Saddleback, precede or are used during regular services.

• The decor, including the carpets, may be changed to eliminate any resemblance to the former church.

• The word "church" is often taken from the name of the church, and the church may be called a "campus". Denominational names may also be removed.

• An emphasis on more fun and party sessions for the youth.

• Elimination of altar calls or salvation invitations at the close of the services.

• The elimination of such words as "unsaved", "lost", "sin", "Hell", "Heaven" and other Gospel verities from the pastor’s messages.

• The reclassification of the saved and lost to the "churched" and the "unchurched".

• The marginalizing, or ostracizing, of all who are not avid promoters of the new Purpose Driven Program.

• Closed meetings between the pastor or chosen staff members without any reports made to the general membership.

• Open hostility to members who do not openly embrace the new program, or who may have left for another church.

 

[Izdaari]

Biblebeliever, I don't have time right now to say much, gotta dash off to work in a few minutes. Just one thing for now, definition of words: "liberal" in theology doesn't mean to me (or to most theology profs) what it does to you. To me it means Schliermacher, Tillich, Borg, Crossan, etc. Actual liberal theologians, universally recognized as such by other theologians, whether they agree with them or not. You seem to be using the common fundamentalist definition of liberal as "anybody less conservative than I am". I'll readily concede that Rick Warren is less conservative than you.  :-*

 

[rsc2a]

You miss the point, I believe.
The only way we have of knowing God is thru His Word.

A statement that directly contradicts what God explicitly states through His word...

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If you diminish the role of Scripture, then every man can truly do what is right in his own eyes...which is exactly what the Emergent movement is based on....[/quote]

And if you elevate the role of Scripture, you turn Scripture itself into your god and, thus, commit idolatry. The proper thing to do is put Scripture in the place God intended instead of higher or lower than He intended.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Biblebeliever]So Izdaari, you don't see anything wrong with being ecumenical? Or being friendly to the roman catholic church?

Let me just make something clear, I am not anti-Catholic, I am anti papacy. It is the system of roman Catholicism which I am against. There are a lot of people who get caught up in the roman catholic church because they are ignorant and they do not know what their religion is really all about or what they teach. But if any Catholic would simply study the Bible and compare with the practices of the roman catholic church, they would soon see that the catholic church does things which are contrary to the Scriptures.

They would see that the Catholic church disobeys Scripture.  [/quote]

Change RCC to any other Christian tradition / denomination and it would still be true...

[quote author=Biblebeliever]Well Izdaari, I would not consider Rick Warren a conservative evangelical. Many of Rick Warren's programs which he has implemented are not Scriptural.

I consider Rick Warren more of a liberal. You see, he is all about change and ecumenism.

Rick Warren has sought to redo the way church has been done for many years. In his Purpose Driven Church Format, look at these steps that are taken to change the Biblical and traditional church into a more modern and liberal one:


• Change in music to a contemporary rock style.
.
.
.
[/quote]

This list is virtually all a matter of personal preference and/or an issue I could point to in all kinds of churches from the most "liberal" to the most "conservative". And personal preference is the largest chunk by far.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You miss the point, I believe.
The only way we have of knowing God is thru His Word.

A statement that directly contradicts what God explicitly states through His word...

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If you diminish the role of Scripture, then every man can truly do what is right in his own eyes...which is exactly what the Emergent movement is based on....

And if you elevate the role of Scripture, you turn Scripture itself into your god and, thus, commit idolatry. The proper thing to do is put Scripture in the place God intended instead of higher or lower than He intended.
[/quote]

The heavens declare the Glory of God, but He revealed Himself and instructs us as to His plan thru His Son and His Word. His Word records the life of His son...so we come back to His word...Oh Obtuse One!

And I'm not responsible for you extremists that don't comprehend the place of Gods Word.

If you leave the authority of His word, you are left with your authority....which is the point of the emergents...and Satan....you are god and you decide right from wrong.

And, I don't give your authority any more credence than you give mine.

So, we come back to the authority of Gods word.
You're welcome!