Barbarian Lies, Part I
Mark Johnson, a friend of mine, recently asked me about Erwin McManus. Apparently, some of his friends are currently getting into McManus and Mark wants some answers. Well, here are some thoughts out of McManus' book, The Barbarian Way.
LIE #1. Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu prayer are the same and addressed to the same God. Page 14. We read, "Every devout believer--in fact, any person of faith from any religious persuasion, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever--believes in prayer, but we all know prayer is supposed to be us talking to God." Actually, no. Christians do not believe in prayer. Biblically informed Christians believe in God. Since they believe in God, they pray to Him. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims do not pray to the same God as Christians. Some pray to Allah and some to ancestors and some to various gods in the Hindu pantheon. Those are the gods they believe in. And, yes, many pagans believe in some sort of magical power in prayer. Some that call themselves Christians do as well. However, biblically informed Christians do not practice any sort of witchcraft or sorcery. They simply speak to their Father. The power is in Him, not in their prayer or some formula for speaking to a deity. Even the act called "prayer" in other religions is different than Christian prayer. Further discussion of this can be found here.
This man is a Southern Baptist pastor. Why is he equating Christian prayer to that of other religions that don't even acknowledge the Christian God?
LIE #2. There are other sources of truth beside the Scripture. Page 14. Pastor McManus has found out that another source of spiritual knowledge has emerged. How does he know this? Because he watched the movie "Braveheart." Well, there you go! He writes, "One of my favorite characters in Braveheart was the Irish guy who joined William Wallace in his crusade. Remember him, the crazy guy who talked to God?" McManus then relates that this character said God had told him that Wallace's fight was to be "fashionable." This is then seen to indicate to McManus that the fight he is calling the readers to is "fashionable" and only the "finest people" will involve themselves. Obviously a flattery to enlist the naive. At any rate, he calls the young and naive to listen to God for information they will not get from the Bible on pages 14-15.
LIE #3. We are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self. Page 14 again. At the top we read, "You have been recreated to live in a raw and primal spirituality." This is a lie on three levels. First on the level of the individual believer, the Spirit says in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." This is in contrast to McManus' vision of barbariansim for the young Christian. Second, as to God's ultimate purpose, His glory is the reason for our salvation. I Chronicles 22:10 says this about the salvific work of Christ: "He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." Isaiah 43:6-7 says,
"I will say to the north,
'Give them up!'
And to the south, 'Do not hold them back '
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made."
Third, on the level of how God and His saints relate to the rest of the world, Malachi tells us that the point of salvation in God's plan for the nations is the glory of His name. "'For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,' says the LORD of hosts."
LIE #4. Christians who exhibit discipline, self-control, and submission to proper authorities in the church don't really love and obey Jesus. Page 15. McManus writes, "Barbarians (folks of whom McManus approves) are not welcome among the civilized (church) and are feared by the domesticated (folks of whom McManus does not approve.) The way of Jesus is far to savage (good to McManus) for their sensibilities." Parentheticals added for clarity based on the content of the entire book. Notice the three-fold drive-by smear against real Christians. First, obedient Christians are weak--"domesticated" in McManus' terms. Second, obedient Christians are fearful. They are scared of the "barbarian." Third, obedient Christians don't obey Christ. Instead, they think He is savage.
LIE #5. Jesus was a "savage" Who lacked self-control and obedience. Page 15 again, and see the same quote as point four. Jesus' obedience and self control are on display throughout the gospels. Even at His clearing of the temple, He did not show uncontrolled anger. He started by taking the time to make a whip, beat the dickens out of enough of the phonies inside to scare everyone else out of the temple and gave the a short lesson on the theology of worship, complete with at least one biblical quote while doing so. In addition, He constantly told all who listened that He did only what the Father told Him to do. This exhibits both self-control and obedience, not savagery or barbarianism.
I will continue this article in segments.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
LIE #1. Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu prayer are the same and addressed to the same God. Page 14. We read, "Every devout believer--in fact, any person of faith from any religious persuasion, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever--believes in prayer, but we all know prayer is supposed to be us talking to God." Actually, no. Christians do not believe in prayer. Biblically informed Christians believe in God. Since they believe in God, they pray to Him. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims do not pray to the same God as Christians. Some pray to Allah and some to ancestors and some to various gods in the Hindu pantheon. Those are the gods they believe in. And, yes, many pagans believe in some sort of magical power in prayer. Some that call themselves Christians do as well. However, biblically informed Christians do not practice any sort of witchcraft or sorcery. They simply speak to their Father. The power is in Him, not in their prayer or some formula for speaking to a deity. Even the act called "prayer" in other religions is different than Christian prayer. Further discussion of this can be found here.
This man is a Southern Baptist pastor. Why is he equating Christian prayer to that of other religions that don't even acknowledge the Christian God?
LIE #2. There are other sources of truth beside the Scripture. Page 14. Pastor McManus has found out that another source of spiritual knowledge has emerged. How does he know this? Because he watched the movie "Braveheart." Well, there you go! He writes, "One of my favorite characters in Braveheart was the Irish guy who joined William Wallace in his crusade. Remember him, the crazy guy who talked to God?" McManus then relates that this character said God had told him that Wallace's fight was to be "fashionable." This is then seen to indicate to McManus that the fight he is calling the readers to is "fashionable" and only the "finest people" will involve themselves. Obviously a flattery to enlist the naive. At any rate, he calls the young and naive to listen to God for information they will not get from the Bible on pages 14-15.
LIE #3. We are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self. Page 14 again. At the top we read, "You have been recreated to live in a raw and primal spirituality." This is a lie on three levels. First on the level of the individual believer, the Spirit says in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." This is in contrast to McManus' vision of barbariansim for the young Christian. Second, as to God's ultimate purpose, His glory is the reason for our salvation. I Chronicles 22:10 says this about the salvific work of Christ: "He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." Isaiah 43:6-7 says,
"I will say to the north,
'Give them up!'
And to the south, 'Do not hold them back '
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made."
Third, on the level of how God and His saints relate to the rest of the world, Malachi tells us that the point of salvation in God's plan for the nations is the glory of His name. "'For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,' says the LORD of hosts."
LIE #4. Christians who exhibit discipline, self-control, and submission to proper authorities in the church don't really love and obey Jesus. Page 15. McManus writes, "Barbarians (folks of whom McManus approves) are not welcome among the civilized (church) and are feared by the domesticated (folks of whom McManus does not approve.) The way of Jesus is far to savage (good to McManus) for their sensibilities." Parentheticals added for clarity based on the content of the entire book. Notice the three-fold drive-by smear against real Christians. First, obedient Christians are weak--"domesticated" in McManus' terms. Second, obedient Christians are fearful. They are scared of the "barbarian." Third, obedient Christians don't obey Christ. Instead, they think He is savage.
LIE #5. Jesus was a "savage" Who lacked self-control and obedience. Page 15 again, and see the same quote as point four. Jesus' obedience and self control are on display throughout the gospels. Even at His clearing of the temple, He did not show uncontrolled anger. He started by taking the time to make a whip, beat the dickens out of enough of the phonies inside to scare everyone else out of the temple and gave the a short lesson on the theology of worship, complete with at least one biblical quote while doing so. In addition, He constantly told all who listened that He did only what the Father told Him to do. This exhibits both self-control and obedience, not savagery or barbarianism.
I will continue this article in segments.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Labels: Emergent Doctrine, Emergent Follies, McManus
posted by Phil Perkins at 4:52 AM
10 Comments:
phil, it seems like you missed mcmanus' points in that book. and also, mcmanus isnt exactly cutting edge emergent. hes just popular.
i did have a question, i am curious, what does it take a person to be saved? i was reading some of your past blogs and would like to know.
plus you have also missed the point in malachi friend. seems more like god is just stating a fact there, his name will be great. not his purpose. the purpose of the whole of malachi is that israel will remember that yahweh loves them.
Chris,
On McManus' points, it's really clear what he said in the three instances mentioned so far. And again, disagreeing with someone is not the same as missing his/her point(s). He didn't stutter. He gave a purpose for salvation that is outside of biblical language. When put in the context of the book, the meaning cannot be at all biblical. That could turn into a long discussion, but it is clear and I will demonstrate that later in the article.
I don't know how long I am going to make the article, but there a lot of doctrinal errors in the book.
As to salvation, there are many discussions of that topic both here and at my other blog, listed first on the blogroll.
As to Malach 1:11, I have not mentioned the theme of the book. I will say this, though, the "whole purpose" of Malachi is not to remind Israel of God's love. That is only one part of the book. It is important, but far from the "whole purpose." For instance, we read, "Behold, I am going to rebuke your offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it." How does that fit if "the whole purpose" of Malachi is to remind the people of Yahweh's love? And what do you do with the other subthemes?
No prophet in the old testament spent his entire prophecy on love. In fact, all the prophets, except Jonah and Daniel had the same over-arching topic. Do you know what it is? (You could say "judgment and repentance," but it is much more specific than that and if you don't understand it, you won't understand any of the prophets, except Jonah and Daniel.)
On your claim that God is merely stating a fact in 1:11, why did He do so? You can't say it's without purpose and be serious. One of the themes of Isaiah is the glorification of God's name by the deliverance and holiness of God's people. If you don't see that here, tell me how this verse relates to the Abrahamic covenant if your theory is correct.
If this is not the Abrahamic covenant alluded to, why the mention of the grain offering? Or better yet, since God is expressing no purpose here, who is going to accomplish this? It can't be God, because He has no purpose for it. Maybe He plans on glorifying His name by accident, huh?
Finally, on "cutting edge," that is the problem. There is to be no cutting edge in biblical faith.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Chris,
Two quick things. First, your argument that God is not expressing purpose in 1:11 is an argument from silence--again invalid. I forgot to include that.
Second, God actually is not silent. In 1:12 He protests that Israel is causing His name to be defiled. Notice the contrast word, "but." He opposes the opposite of the outcome expressed in 1:11. Ergo, He has intention, as shown by His distaste for the opposite outcome. Ergo, He was not silent. Ergo, your argument from silence lacks the requisite silence to even qualify for this usually invalid argument to start with. (Remember, an argument from silence is invalid unless all conclusions other than the one stated positively require some sort of communication. In other words it's usually an assumption, not an argument.)
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
phil, i never mentioned jonah or daniel, those are not in consideration here. what is in consideration is malachi. the purpose of the book of malachi is expressed in the first chapter. the entire book is set up in a kind of rhetoric in which the prophet puts the question into the people's mouths and god then answers it. the rest of the book is the answer to the question "how have you loved us" stated in chapter 1. each other theme is subordinate to that theme in this book.
"no prophet in the old testament spent his entire prophecy on love"
what is hosea? what is malachi? sure there are other issues addressed in these books, but the overarching theme is love. so it seems as if you should have said "at least two prophets in the old testament spent their entire ministries on love."
as to mcmanus, my point was not stating that he is not cutting edge christian, or that we even should be, my point was stating that he is not exactly considered an emergent.
and you did miss his points. he never, at least in your quotes, and i assume you would put it if he really said it explicitly, claimed that all religions pray to the same god. he merely said that all religions believe in prayer. he was not saying that christians believe prayer supercedes god, but just that we do it. so you missed his point.
how can you dispute that there are other sources of truth besides scripture? you want us to believe that your blog gives us truth, but you do not simply quote scripture, you speak on it, explain, (mis)interpret. that tells me you believe there are other sources of truth besides scripture. have you ever watched the news? are they speaking truth?
"we are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self" where does he say that? i dont see how you could possibly read that into the quote you supplied.
does it take that long to answer what it takes to be saved? i thought when the bible said "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that jesus is lord you will be saved" would be sufficient. i would recommend reading galatians if you really think there are that many hoops to jump through.
While not specifically targeting Chris with this comment, I would like to use his post to illustrate this question:
Why is it that emergents love to use the question "Since when is belief in this or that necessary for salvation? Where's it say I have to believe this to be saved? What are the essential doctrines?" and so forth.
And indeed, essential doctrines are a valid question, but not as an excuse to throw out the parts of the Bible that we find unacceptable. How can we believe parts of it, but not all of it?
How can be believe that Jesus saves, then turn around and claim that Hell isn't an eternity in the lake of fire?
(not to say you've done this, Chris. But I've talked to my share of emergents that have.)
Does it go back to the idea of evangelizing this? I think of 2 Corinthians 5:17 as I write this.
Looking forward to more.
i guess my question back, richard, would be to ask, why is it that nonemergents like to heap things on. "yes believe in christ, thats good, and also, you have to be circumcised, also, you have to obey food laws, also, you must practice the sabbath." the entire book of galatians is written against such practice. why can we not let the holy spirit convict people of where they are wrong?
Chris,
Please read the blog rules concerning honesty. Then go and actually read Richard's blog.
Will answer your last comment to me this evening.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Chris,
One thing at a time.
Chris: i never mentioned jonah or daniel, those are not in consideration here.
ANSWER: Actually, they are. I brought them up. You're not the hall monitor in charge of topics.
Chris: what is in consideration is malachi.
ANSWER: Actually, we have begun a number of topics and, like I said, the opinions of others can be expressed here, not just yours.
Chris: the purpose of the book of malachi is expressed in the first chapter.
ANSWER: No, it's not even mentioned in the book, really. You don't know what it is. I gave you a clue. You need to look at what all the prophets were trying to accomplish. The only exceptions are Daniel and Jonah. While it's true that sub-purposes are mentioned in the book, they are not all covered in the first chapter.
Chris: the entire book is set up in a kind of rhetoric in which the prophet puts the question into the people's mouths and god then answers it. the rest of the book is the answer to the question "how have you loved us" stated in chapter 1.
ANSWER: Reread. Not even close.
Chris: each other theme is subordinate to that theme in this book.
ANSWER: Wrong. You still need to find the main theme. It is in the other prophets, not Malachi alone.
Chris: "no prophet in the old testament spent his entire prophecy on love"
what is hosea? what is malachi?
ANSWER: Minor prophets which share the theme of all the other prophets with the usual structure, and they have all sorts of other topics. Hosea takes up idolatry, sexual sin, and gender roles with their related responsibilities. Malachi takes up the coming of John the Baptist, tithing, and a corrupt clergy. That is a lot more than just love. And love is not the main theme of either. You still have to find it.
Chris: sure there are other issues addressed in these books,
ANSWER: Oh, but you said "the whole purpose" of Malachi is to remind the folks of God's love. That aint so, is it?
Chris: but the overarching theme is love. so it seems as if you should have said "at least two prophets in the old testament spent their entire ministries on love."
ANSWER: Wrong. You just admitted that their canonical books have other things in them. Hence, that's not true of even this little slice of their ministries. And where is your evidence that the rest of their ministries was just about love? Don't even bother answering that. Argument from silence is all you have. By that argument you can "prove" that no Israelite had a retina.
Chris: as to mcmanus, my point was not stating that he is not cutting edge christian, or that we even should be, my point was stating that he is not exactly considered an emergent.
ANSWER: Yes, I know. Even Donald Miller now claims to not be Emergent I hear. Both are popular in the Emergent and many Emergents take them seriously. This is really ancillary.
Chris: and you did miss his points.
ANSWER: No. He's just wrong.
Chris: he never, at least in your quotes, and i assume you would put it if he really said it explicitly, claimed that all religions pray to the same god.
ANSWER: Wrong. Reread. Notice "we all," find the antecedant to the pronoun, and notice the capitalized "God." That indicates specificity.
Chris: he merely said that all religions believe in prayer.
ANSWER: Which is wrong. And he said more than that. He also said "...we all know prayer is supposed to be us talking to God." Biblically informed Christians don't believe in prayer and the Bible doesn't teach a trust in prayer. It tells us to pray and to trust God. It's a distinction with a difference.
Chris: he was not saying that christians believe prayer supercedes god, but just that we do it.
ANSWER: No, he didn't. However, it follows logically from trust in prayer. If the power is in prayer, we manipulate God according to our will. The Bible teaches that God only answers the prayers He has ordained to answer and that He has ordained the prayers in the first place. Prayer is obedience to God, not manipulation of Him.
Chris: so you missed his point.
ANSWER: Wrong. You missed what logically follows from his point, as well as one of his points--namely, the similarity he was drawing between Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian prayer. And you missed the fact that he said we all see prayer as talking to "God." (Not "gods.")
Chris: how can you dispute that there are other sources of truth besides scripture? you want us to believe that your blog gives us truth, but you do not simply quote scripture, you speak on it, explain, (mis)interpret. that tells me you believe there are other sources of truth besides scripture.
ANSWER: Only if you,ve been drinking the bong water. Teaching Scripture is not providing another source since my source is the Scripture.
Chris: have you ever watched the news?
ANSWER: That is not spiritual truth. That was the topic, not truth in general.
Chris: are they speaking truth?
ANSWER: Only sometimes.
Chris: "we are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self" where does he say that?
ANSWER: Well, you could start with the title.
Chris: i dont see how you could possibly read that into the quote you supplied.
ANSWER: Reread. You missed my point.
Chris: does it take that long to answer what it takes to be saved? i thought when the bible said "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that jesus is lord you will be saved" would be sufficient. i would recommend reading galatians if you really think there are that many hoops to jump through.
ANSWER: I've supplied that answer many times over. I knew you were lying again by trying to act "just curious" when you were actually up to something. I see you told the same lie about Richard, too.
Chris, here's a truth you need to face: You don't confess Christ and you don't believe in Him. You confess and believe a christ, just not the Christ of Scripture.
The Christ of Scripture said all Scripture is true. You deny this very doctrine of His. Ergo you believe Him fallible, and not God. He also said that repentance was a necessary part of real faith. You hate that idea, again disagreeing with the One you claim to follow.
Also, you have not been honest with me in a number of other matters. First, you smeared me initially by accusing me of knowing little or nothing of the Emergent. Now you know that isn't true. You haven't even acknowledged that, let alone apologized for the smear.
Second, when I proved you wrong about Malachi 1:11, you just dropped the subject.
Third, you said "the whole purpose" of Malachi was to remind the folks of the love if Yahweh. But you have said Malachi takes up other subjects. Obviously, you were wrong, yet you failed to ackowledge it.
Fourth, I have asked you to provide the theme of all the canonical prophets with normal prophetic structure. You have ignored the question. You ought to have had the honesty to admit you don't know.
And fifth, you have accused both Richard and me of adding requirements to the gospel and you did so without even reading what either of us wrote.
Debate all you want, but lying about facts to make a case is not what a godly man does.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
phil.
jonah and daniel are only in this discussion because you brought them up. however, they are irrelevant to the theme of the book of malachi. malachi was written at a separate time.so the themes are not necessarily related.
yes, it is mentioned in the book. please pick up a commentary, someone who obviously knows hebrew, someone who knows the rules of hermenuetics.
reread. the theme of malachi is the love of yahweh.
see we can both play the game where we make unqualified statements simply saying the other is wrong. please phil, admit you do not know the theme of malachi, read any credible commentary and you will see.
a person does not go to the book of john to find the theme of luke, a person does not go to the book of exodus to find the theme of genesis, these are separate books. they must be first looked at separately.
i never said that these two books did not have other themes, but those themes are SUBORDINATE to the theme of love. that means the whole theme is love.
wrong. i never claimed that their ministries were about love. i said that the books were about love.
many emergents take john macarthur seriously, guess youd best start misrepresenting him a little bit.
no. you are just wrong. (again, arent unqualified statements wonderful?)
do you believe prayer exists? if yes, then in a way, you believe in prayer. you can take the word "in" in many different ways, so you have chosen to believe in a way that is most detrimental to mcmanus. very fair thing to do.
i dont see how you can possibly think that that proceeds logically. i suppose it is just again you reading one logic text book sometime during your life and thinking that makes you logical. there is no logical correlation there.
you read a different scripture than i do. i read the niv or the nas, you must read, "phil's personal interpretation" because a lot of what you claim to be biblical does not appear in my bible.
"well you coudl start with the title" how in the world do you take "the barbarian way" and equate that with "we are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self" there is no way that logically follows. you simply dont like mcmanus, or are jealous, or have some vendetta, and want to show him to be a heretic. i dont see him having all that many original ideas, but i certainly wouldnt call him unorthodox.
i dont remember you supplying the answer once. and, how can i not infer that from the answers you give? if someone denies something that you think is so necessary, you simply dismiss them and say that they are not saved. well if that is the case, why are you not trying to show them the love of god and help them to know him? instead you merely dismiss.
phil, here is a truth you need to face. you may know christ, but you sure dont act like him. you are confused and you think that he is some judgemental legalist mroe concerned with doctrine than the heart.
its funny because you said people shouldnt change definitions midstream, but you change the definition of scripture midsentence. the christ of "scripture 1" said all "scripture 2" is true. christ would not have considered matt mark luke or john scripture, because they were not written until well after he said the words recorded therin. so he is clearly only talking about the old testament.
i dont see where i ever said i hated repentance.
you never proved anything about malachi. saying "wrong. blah blah blah" is not proving anything, it is just arguing. i have yet to see you prove anything. you simply restate your flawed opinion.
you have added requirements salvation. you have said a person must believe the bible. seems like that isnt biblical.
and i must have missed when you asked me to give you themes of the canonical prophets, just didnt see it. but i dont feel like doing that anyway. my issue was with your misuse of malachi.
phil. this conversation is not profiting anyone. you dont use facts or scholarship. you just use opinion. you read into authors the things that they most certainly do not say or mean. i will pray that god will change the bitterness of your heart, and maybe that you would take both a hermenuetics and a logic class.
i dont plan on visiting this site anymore. i dont have that much time to waste. you are not interested in conversation, only tearing down.
Chris,
Are you upset? I'll anwer again.
Chris: jonah and daniel are only in this discussion because you brought them up.
ANSWER: Yes, it's my blog. Is that okay with you?
Chris: however, they are irrelevant to the theme of the book of malachi.
ANSWER: Which was my point. (You missed my point.) It is the rest of the prophets that are relevant to Malachi.
Chris: malachi was written at a separate time.so the themes are not necessarily related.
ANSWER: Invalid argument. This comment was written after yours and by another writer. But they are related.
Chris: yes, it is mentioned in the book. please pick up a commentary, someone who obviously knows hebrew, someone who knows the rules of hermenuetics.
ANSWER: I have taught both Hebrew and hermeneutics at the college level. I taught for about five years.
Chris: reread. the theme of malachi is the love of yahweh.
ANSWER: Reread your own comments. You have admitted as you did even in this comment that other topics are in Malachi.
By the way how does tithing related to reminding folks of God's love? It was a call to repent. And that should give you a hint to the purpose of the prophets other than Daniel and Jonah.
Chris: see we can both play the game where we make unqualified statements simply saying the other is wrong.
ANSWER: I'll let you continue in that endeavor.
Chris: please phil, admit you do not know the theme of malachi,
ANSWER: First, you're not being honest. The subject you brought up was "the whole purpose" of Malachi, not the "the theme." I have agreed God's love is a theme of Malachi. You don't know the purpose/theme of the prophets other that Daniel and Jonah. For this information you may read beginning hermeneutics texts by Fee and Stuart or by Duvall and Hayes. Or you could read the Old Testament with a view for it.
I've given you a lot of hints. You should get at least part of it by now.
Chris: read any credible commentary and you will see.
ANSWER: Yes, they most say that a theme of Malachi is the love of Yahweh. Not all agree this is the main theme, and none that I know of say it is the "whole purpose" of Malachi, which is what you said and now are trying to change your statement. No commentary I've read will say that no other topic is taken up in Malachi. You said that Malachi had one purpose and you were wrong. The primary purpose of Malachi is the same as all the other prophets, except Daniel and Jonah. Read Fee and Stuart and Duvall and Hayes. Or any credible commentary.
Chris: a person does not go to the book of john to find the theme of luke,
ANSWER: Actually, yes, you do. Both have the same subject--the life of Christ. In order to find the emphasized theme, one has to do a comparative study. Good study of the gospels will include what is called horizontal study. That is, when you read an account of an event in one gospel, a good workman will find the same account in the other three gospels if possible for comparison and to fill the gaps. Again, a good hermeneutics text will help you with that. I have already mentioned the 2 most popular ones.
Chris: a person does not go to the book of exodus to find the theme of genesis,
ANSWER: Of course not. You go to both. They do share these themes: 1. the sovereignty of God, 2. the Law, 3. the family history of the Israelites, 4. the family history of the descendants of Ishmael, 4. redemption history in its foundational stages, 5. the holiness of God, 6. the need for a blood sacrifice, 7. the depravity of man, 8. forgiveness through blood, 9. the exclusivity of God's truth, 10. the nature of God, 11. the ownership of all creation, including men, by God, 12. the love of God for His family, 13. the covenantal nature of the God-congregant relationship, 14. the corporate and individual nature of sin...
Well, I could only think of 14 right off the top of my head. How did you do?
Chris: these are separate books.
they must be first looked at separately.
ANSWER: The key word being "first," indicating that's not all you do.
Chris: i never said that these two books did not have other themes, but those themes are SUBORDINATE to the theme of love. that means the whole theme is love.
ANSWER: I know you said that. You're just wrong. For instance you have still failed to explain the presence of the divorce regulation, tithing, the allusion to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the curse on corrupt priests, etc. None of these remind my of God's love for Israel off hand. You have not even made an attempt to do so yourself. You just keep ignoring the problem you have made for yourself.
Chris: wrong. i never claimed that their ministries were about love. i said that the books were about love.
ANSWER: Yes, you did. Here is your quote: "at least two prophets (Hosea and Malachi) in the Old Testament spent their entire ministries on love"
And that, of course, is silly, since it exclused tithing, the priests, sex, idolatry, holy days, end times, the spread of the gospel, etc., etc., etc.
And it's silly because it assumes a lot about the rest of their ministries.
Chris: many emergents take john macarthur seriously, guess youd best start misrepresenting him a little bit.
ANSWER: No. That's okay.
Chris: no. you are just wrong. (again, arent unqualified statements wonderful?)
ANSWER: Please specify what you're addressing. And I think you mean "unsubstantiated," not "unqualified." The first has to do with proof or evidentiary support. The second has to do with either exceptions or caveats.
Chris: do you believe prayer exists? if yes, then in a way, you believe in prayer. you can take the word "in" in many different ways, so you have chosen to believe in a way that is most detrimental to mcmanus. very fair thing to do.
ANSWER: Thank you for the compliment on my fainess, but you still have net dealt with the fact that he sees Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians praying in the same way to the same "GOD."
Chris: i dont see how you can possibly think that that proceeds logically.
ANSWER: Again, what is your subject?
Chris: i suppose it is just again you reading one logic text book sometime during your life and thinking that makes you logical.
ANSWER: Yes, I think reading's a plus. And I've read hundreds of books.
Chris: there is no logical correlation there.
ANSWER: Again, where is "there?" What is the subject you are addressing?
Chris: you read a different scripture than i do. i read the niv or the nas, you must read, "phil's personal interpretation" because a lot of what you claim to be biblical does not appear in my bible.
ANSWER: I read the original, the NASB, ESV, NIV, and a few others if interested and all my memorization is in the original.
Chris: "well you coudl start with the title" how in the world do you take "the barbarian way" and equate that with "we are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self" there is no way that logically follows.
ANSWER: Simple. He said "Barbarian" and he recommended it for a life style throughout the entire book. Read it. I think you missed his point.
Chris: you simply dont like mcmanus, or are jealous, or have some vendetta, and want to show him to be a heretic.
ANSWER: You're partially right. I hate his teaching because he is a heretic. It is the responsibility of every believer to expose false teachers.
Chris: i dont see him having all that many original ideas,
ANSWER: I don't see you using much punctuation, but I haven't gotten mad about it.
Chris: but i certainly wouldnt call him unorthodox.
ANSWER: Actually it's his original ideas that make him unorthodox. When you last read Jude, you must have missed the point.
Chris: i dont remember you supplying the answer once. and, how can i not infer that from the answers you give?
ANSWER: I have not given you an answer because you don't deserve an answer for the following two reasons. 1. Your question was not honest. It was so that you could falsely accuse me as you did Richard. You have a history of that sort of lying to a guy. 2. You could have easily read my answer. It's all over both of my sites.
Chris: if someone denies something that you think is so necessary, you simply dismiss them and say that they are not saved.
ANSWER: No, Chris. The problem I see with most Emergents is that they think they are Christians. While some may be, most are definitely not because they don't believe in the Christ of Scripture. They believe in an effeminate christ who didn't require repentance doctrinally and behaviorally. You seem to believe in such a christ. I can prove it. The Christ said that God's word is Truth. You say it's myth. He also said whoever is ashamed of Him and His words, he will be ashamed of them. You are ashamed to take the same view of Scripture that He did. Hence, He will be ashamed of you.
Chris: well if that is the case, why are you not trying to show them the love of god and help them to know him? instead you merely dismiss.
ANSWER: I have not dismissed you. You are the one leaving the discussion. I have merely been honest.
Chris: phil, here is a truth you need to face. you may know christ, but you sure dont act like him. you are confused and you think that he is some judgemental legalist mroe concerned with doctrine than the heart.
ANSWER: Actually, that's exactly what I mean. Your christ is very effeminate. Did you know Jesus mentioned hell in 42 verses in Matthew alone? And doctrine is the heart. As a man thinks, so is he. Your doctrine will determine your eternity. It is Who (or who) and what you believe.
Anyway you've been advocating your doctrine, haven't you?
Of the two of us, who do you think warns more people of hell? I think the answer is obvious. I do it. You call it "judgmental."
Chris: its funny because you said people shouldnt change definitions midstream, but you change the definition of scripture midsentence. the christ of "scripture 1" said all "scripture 2" is true.
ANSWER: I didn't change the definition. I simply used it twice. I was speaking of the same Scripture.
Chris: christ would not have considered matt mark luke or john scripture, because they were not written until well after he said the words recorded therin. so he is clearly only talking about the old testament.
ANSWER: And you deny Christ's view because you deny the factuality of much of the Old Testament.
Anyway, Christ, being God knew all Scripture from all eternity. He preordained it and He wrote it.
Chris: i dont see where i ever said i hated repentance.
ANSWER: It is all over in just about everything you say. For instance I pointed out to you that Jesus and Paul treated the creation account as true history.
You didn't repent of your false view, did you?
Chris: you never proved anything about malachi. saying "wrong. blah blah blah" is not proving anything, it is just arguing. i have yet to see you prove anything. you simply restate your flawed opinion.
ANSWER: I proved that you were wrong when you said the "whole purpose" of Malachi was God's love. You even admitted other topics were taken up. Unless they were inserted accidently, they had a purpose. In fact, most of Malachi is other topics.
Chris: you have added requirements salvation. you have said a person must believe the bible. seems like that isnt biblical.
ANSWER: Wrong. You must believe the gospel and real belief includes repentance. Matthew 4:7 records a summary of all of Jesus' teaching. Read it. You have not repented of your sin.
Chris: and i must have missed when you asked me to give you themes of the canonical prophets, just didnt see it.
ANSWER: Yes, you missed my point. And actually there is just one purpose/theme shared by all but Daniel and Jonah.
(There were two more paragraphs, but all that was there was just rehash and insults.)
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Post a Comment
<< Home