The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld, part II
Rob Auld is not unusual. He is a typical Emergent. He goes into circles of believers. He pretends to believe the Scripture by saying so. When examined closely he denies the authority of the Scriptures. If you want to read all his comments on this site go back to EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS Part I and work your way forward in time. You will see that I am not stretching the truth here. At one point I shared the gospel of repentance with him and edited some of the articles and to make him feel welcome here. (He is still welcome to comment here. I just wanted to get him to open up more.) After being asked to repent and follow Jesus whole-heartedly in doctrine and behavior, he refused, so I undid most of the editing I did for his comfort because it is important for the church to know Emergents are not believers and it is even more important for Emergents to know that so they can set it right with God.
So here is more from Rob as an example of what Emergent doctrine does to the heart and mind. His words with a few explanatory parentheses are in italics. Mine are not:
closed mindedness...(and)...a mentally unbalanced state. (Things Rob accuses non-Emergents of having.)
I'm a liberal and believe that this is what God wants of me.
This is the most idiotic, condescending post I've ever read. Do some research, then come talk to me.
The Bible is our norming norm in the community of God. (as opposed to the non-norming norm?)
1. I'd like to sell my eldest daughter into slavery, what would be a fair price?
2. The Bible claims the plants were created before the sun. Plants use photosynthesis to survive, how exactly did this work?
3. The Bible says that my hands shouldn't come into contact with Pig Skin. What about the Superbowl today? (Questions to prove the Bible is bunk and not to be obeyed, even though he had already admitted that it had the right to tell him how to think--and getting really angry at me for asking if it did. It should be noted that these remarks were written immediately after the paragraph in which he said it was our "norming norm." Is there any logic in Emergent World?)
...do I think it's inerrant, infalliable (sic) etc. The answer there is no.
If your (sic) looking for literal answers... (No, Rob. Speak only in symbols. I prefer it that way. With actual answers we can't be as confused as we'd like. In fact, burn every book ever written that isn't at least 90% figurative. No one needs math, logic, history, medicine, physics, biology, mechanical engineering, architecture, electrical engineering, or the Bible anyway. Let's go back to hunting and gathering. Let's see now...where is that figurative deer to kill symbolically so that my family can be clothed allegorically and fed non-literally...I hope my arrow flies straight in a figurative sort of way...)
It (the Bible) is profitable for Doctrine, reproof etc. Okay, so the "norming norm," though having numerous errors and entire concepts that are bogus, according to Rob Auld, is good for "Doctirne." Which ones, Rob? Is there a key you have in mind to tell which ones are good and which ones are stupid? We'll need that key.
Don't threaten me. This was Rob Auld's response when I asked him to be polite enough to explain why believers are "moronic" or "pig(s)" or "plumbers" or some such insulting thing.
All you need is the scripture. This was in sarcasm, denying the authority of Scripture.
Frankly, your responses are typically Fundamentalist. This was meant as a smear. Notice, there is no supporting argument--only the insult.
You know more then anyone and you have the Absolute Truth because the Bible's on your side. This was in sarcasm, ridiculing those who rely on Scripture.
Don't worry about context and nuance (of Scripture) because you're right. Well, Rob, if you do not trust Scripture, what difference does its context or nuance make?
I'll thank you not to pronounce judgement over my final destination and whether I know Jesus or not. Actually, you have said you will not obey Scripture and given examples. Jesus said if we are ashamed of Him and His words, He will be ashamed of us. And He gave us two tests of whether or not we are His. One is whether or not we obey Him. Find that in John 10. The other is whether or not we obey the Father. Find that in I and II John. It is a theme of both books. Then decide for yourself.
Did you notice the haughty attitude for "plumbers?" Why did he feel he had to say such a thing? If Rob is an electrical engineer or a brain surgeon, his anscestors were blue collar. One might remind Rob, that he claims to follow (but actually doesn't) a carpenter. He is simply smarter than pretty much everyone else, I guess.
Which brings up this question: Since Emergents claim to know (believe) so little why do they look down on the intelligence of others so much? They sit in judgment on the apostles and prophets, deciding if what they wrote can be believed. Peter walked, ate, and evangelized with Jesus for three years, but Rob and other Emergents will decide if what Peter wrote is true?! Paul was commandeered by Jesus after having become a biblical scholar with one of the highest ranks in Israel. Then he actually corrected Peter. And Emergents decide if we can believe Paul?! And men like Brian McLaren or John Armstrong call believers arrogant?!
So take this as an example of the typical Emergent. They are not believers and they hate those who are because they hate the God of Scripture.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
So here is more from Rob as an example of what Emergent doctrine does to the heart and mind. His words with a few explanatory parentheses are in italics. Mine are not:
closed mindedness...(and)...a mentally unbalanced state. (Things Rob accuses non-Emergents of having.)
I'm a liberal and believe that this is what God wants of me.
This is the most idiotic, condescending post I've ever read. Do some research, then come talk to me.
The Bible is our norming norm in the community of God. (as opposed to the non-norming norm?)
1. I'd like to sell my eldest daughter into slavery, what would be a fair price?
2. The Bible claims the plants were created before the sun. Plants use photosynthesis to survive, how exactly did this work?
3. The Bible says that my hands shouldn't come into contact with Pig Skin. What about the Superbowl today? (Questions to prove the Bible is bunk and not to be obeyed, even though he had already admitted that it had the right to tell him how to think--and getting really angry at me for asking if it did. It should be noted that these remarks were written immediately after the paragraph in which he said it was our "norming norm." Is there any logic in Emergent World?)
...do I think it's inerrant, infalliable (sic) etc. The answer there is no.
If your (sic) looking for literal answers... (No, Rob. Speak only in symbols. I prefer it that way. With actual answers we can't be as confused as we'd like. In fact, burn every book ever written that isn't at least 90% figurative. No one needs math, logic, history, medicine, physics, biology, mechanical engineering, architecture, electrical engineering, or the Bible anyway. Let's go back to hunting and gathering. Let's see now...where is that figurative deer to kill symbolically so that my family can be clothed allegorically and fed non-literally...I hope my arrow flies straight in a figurative sort of way...)
It (the Bible) is profitable for Doctrine, reproof etc. Okay, so the "norming norm," though having numerous errors and entire concepts that are bogus, according to Rob Auld, is good for "Doctirne." Which ones, Rob? Is there a key you have in mind to tell which ones are good and which ones are stupid? We'll need that key.
Don't threaten me. This was Rob Auld's response when I asked him to be polite enough to explain why believers are "moronic" or "pig(s)" or "plumbers" or some such insulting thing.
All you need is the scripture. This was in sarcasm, denying the authority of Scripture.
Frankly, your responses are typically Fundamentalist. This was meant as a smear. Notice, there is no supporting argument--only the insult.
You know more then anyone and you have the Absolute Truth because the Bible's on your side. This was in sarcasm, ridiculing those who rely on Scripture.
Don't worry about context and nuance (of Scripture) because you're right. Well, Rob, if you do not trust Scripture, what difference does its context or nuance make?
I'll thank you not to pronounce judgement over my final destination and whether I know Jesus or not. Actually, you have said you will not obey Scripture and given examples. Jesus said if we are ashamed of Him and His words, He will be ashamed of us. And He gave us two tests of whether or not we are His. One is whether or not we obey Him. Find that in John 10. The other is whether or not we obey the Father. Find that in I and II John. It is a theme of both books. Then decide for yourself.
Did you notice the haughty attitude for "plumbers?" Why did he feel he had to say such a thing? If Rob is an electrical engineer or a brain surgeon, his anscestors were blue collar. One might remind Rob, that he claims to follow (but actually doesn't) a carpenter. He is simply smarter than pretty much everyone else, I guess.
Which brings up this question: Since Emergents claim to know (believe) so little why do they look down on the intelligence of others so much? They sit in judgment on the apostles and prophets, deciding if what they wrote can be believed. Peter walked, ate, and evangelized with Jesus for three years, but Rob and other Emergents will decide if what Peter wrote is true?! Paul was commandeered by Jesus after having become a biblical scholar with one of the highest ranks in Israel. Then he actually corrected Peter. And Emergents decide if we can believe Paul?! And men like Brian McLaren or John Armstrong call believers arrogant?!
So take this as an example of the typical Emergent. They are not believers and they hate those who are because they hate the God of Scripture.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Labels: Emergent Anger, Emergent Follies
posted by Phil Perkins at 8:08 AM
5 Comments:
Phil,
The quote that Rob used about the Bible being the norming norm could be an incomplete quote from an Al Mohler sermon where he spoke of Scripture as "the norm that norms all other norms". (Keep in mind that Dr. Mohler first presented this phrase in Latin before translating to English for the rest of us!) If I could remember where to find it I would provide a link. I am not trying to defend Rob who has no defense but rather just responding to your sense of wonder about his use of this phrase. This is the type of "heady" quote that the emergent types seem to want to latch onto and use for their own purposes; at least until they are caught!
Also, just a note of encouragement from this reader who has enjoyed your posts here and in the comments section of Pulpit Magazine and am learning much from them. Keep up the good work!
Phil,
Thought I would follow up what I wrote earlier with a link to a commentary where Al Mohler used the following:
Scripture is, as the Reformers confessed, norma normans non normata, "The norm of norms which cannot be normed." Sola Scriptura. This is the norm of our worship. There is nothing external to Scripture that can norm or correct it.
Here is the link to the article:
http://albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-02-08
No need to post this or my earlier submission.
James,
Thanks for the reference and encouragement. That quote makes sense as Mohler used it. And it is the exact opposite of what Rob does. Rob norms the Scripture by judging what portions are to be believed. In his post that I censored for civility, he called the Bible very "one-sided" as if it needed to be moderated to get to the truth. I thought that was very interesting.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil,
Funny Rob should bring up the photosynthesis argument again. I had already pointed out to him on Emergent NO that scientists have shown photosynthesis happening deep in the ocean with algae. Sunlight can't penetrate that far. So it IS possible, even leaving out that God can create ex-nihilo anything He chooses AS he chooses.
Sola,
Wow. That is amazing. Then he comes here and uses an argument he already knows is bogus!
Huummm. Does that qualify as dishonest?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--just in case you saw it before I edited, sorry for misspelling your name.
Post a Comment
<< Home