[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 05:17:00 PM

http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2005/04/25/monkey
_fundamentalism_1

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 05:17:00 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 05:14:03 PM

and BTW sometimes I really like what I read from Remonstrans. We just disagree on how we define beauty and quality. Here is a better example of what I mean.

http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2005/04/25/monkey_fundamentalism_1

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 05:14:03 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 05:12:23 PM

Zach, so that you know where I'm coming from with the diversity thing, this is what I'm reacting against.
www.remonstrans.net
There is a strain of cultural elistist conservatives that distain what they would call "banality." My fear is that in applying Platonic views of beauty and quality they contradict the diverse nature of what I see as true Christianity (every tribe, every tongue). That's why that Seerveld article was important to me.

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 05:12:23 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 05:09:50 PM

Zach, so that you know where I'm coming from with the whole cultural diversity thing, this is what I'm reacting against (for better or for worse).
www.remonstrans.net

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 05:09:50 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 05:08:29 PM

I mean cultural diversity, and liberalism in a good sense.

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 05:08:29 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 05:07:24 PM

I think I appreciate the sentiment more than anything, the first page of the "2nd river." I think the whole Padgit body shape thing is creative. I like the idea Keller talks about as being an "obob," (one who holds to objective morality with the diversity and liberalism of the "bohemians") the opposite of a "bobo" (a moral relativist with the cultural materialism of the bourgeois). I want to sell my ipod and hang on the east side... I really think that propositionally the church can be pure but prove its impurity by how crooked it is in its practice (the natural outflow of doctrine). So I guess I'm a "crunchy-con."

He loses me here:
On top of this, some are quite fond of reminding us that Jesus didn’t offer a doctrinal statement but a way of life, and that he called people to follow him and not just to get their theology right.
Apparently from what he says later he meant to write this:
"and that he called people to follow him and not to get their theology right."

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 05:07:24 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 02:39:33 PM

I totally agree! What did you like in his second river, praxis? By the way, although my analysis was written last September (2005), I broke down the four common threads of the ECM very similarly to McKnight. Maybe I wasn't as crazy as people thought!

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 02:39:33 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 02:38:17 PM

I totally agree! What did you like in his second river, praxis? By the way, although my analysis written last September, I broke down the four common threads of the ECM very similarly to McKnight. Maybe I wasn't as crazy as people thought!

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 02:38:17 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 02:16:20 PM

I'll bite...
When someone calls this movement an ecclesiastical one they are speaking a sort of short hand to say "the branch of theology which we are focusing on is "the church," in particular, the practical ramifications of how the church does ministry in a setting where to one extent or another it permit postmodern assumptions."
So that's my first complaint. Even if they want to think it's an ecclesiastical movement, it's both ecclesiastical and epistomological.

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 02:16:20 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/31/2006 01:20:23 PM

Whoa! Where to begin? Rather than launching my thoughts into this discussion, I'll wait to see what direction this takes. For now I'll limit myself to one comment. The distinction between "emerging" and "emergent" may have existed from the beginning of the movement, but it was not publicly emphatic until this summer. I have heard several EM leaders call the terms synonyms. Therefore, to accuse Carson of failing to distinguish emergent from emerging is anachronistic.

A personal note: I think this is a worthwhile conversation for all of us to engage in. Please join in!

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/31/2006 01:20:23 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/30/2006 09:21:22 PM

Matt,

Thanks for posting the sermon. It was powerful, and very needed. Thanks again.

--
Posted by tie_crawler to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/30/2006 09:21:22 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/27/2006 10:06:49 PM

Thanks, Matt. I needed that sermon today. I listened to it late tonight as I ironed.

--
Posted by Amy Hatfield to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/27/2006 10:06:49 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/27/2006 03:58:03 AM

The Official F W Boreham Blog site is another source of Boreham information, including some news about the publication of new Boreham books. Good to hear your recommendations. Unfortunately most of the Boreham books are out of print. Michael Dalton and I are working hard to bring them cheaply to new readers.

--
Posted by Geoff Pound to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/27/2006 03:58:03 AM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/25/2006 05:49:38 PM

Salvation is also a multi-faceted term. If we described it simply in terms of redemption or justification we would fail to give salvation justice. Instead, we talk of justification, redemption, election, adoption, regeneration, and the list goes on. Those divisions help us comprehend with greater clarity the greatness of salvation, but we may never know how each relates to the other this side of heaven.

Maybe that applies, maybe that doesn't. Amy somed many of my thoughts well.

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/25/2006 05:49:38 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/25/2006 02:33:33 PM

I'd love to answer your question, but I'm not sure that I follow the shift from the necessity of religious affection (as we've been calling it) to its role in sanctifcation. If you have time, will you please bridge the two for me?

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/25/2006 02:33:33 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/25/2006 01:11:04 PM

Zach, thanks for the recommendation!

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/25/2006 01:11:04 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/24/2006 04:02:52 PM

So would you say that it is the defining principle of sanctification? Or does that go too far?

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/24/2006 04:02:52 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/24/2006 03:23:34 PM

My first post affirms the necessity of religious affections but warns that an unbalanced emphasis on it often neglects other theology and tends affect our hermeneutics. These two warnings are not limited to Christian Hedonism, but apply to any theological emphasis.

I also affirm the importance of religious affections. I even agree that it is foundational. But it is not "the consummate teaching of Scripture." To put in homiletical terms, the proposition to every sermon is not, "God wants you to glorify him by enjoying him and here are three reasons why."

To use the creation analogy, if you remove literal creationism theological walls (not springs) will crumble. Salvation by Christ is absolutely related to the creation of the perfect world and fall of Adam.

I unfortunately have to go now...

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/24/2006 03:23:34 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/24/2006 02:32:55 PM

Zach,
to play the devils advocate... how can the whole of the law and the prophets be summed up in the "love yours" if it be a principle and not the principle? I'm really trying to search through this because I know personally that Jonathan Edwards teaching has really revolutionized the way that I look at my relationship with God and my responsibility as a Christian. I no longer think in terms of do and don'ts but in terms of heart condition. For me it has become the defining principle for ill or for good. Logically I think I can support the idea of it being the principle, and scripturally it's pretty strong... Isn't that what God wanted from the nation of Israel all along? Doesn't that square with the whole message of scripture? What is "giving God glory" if not loving him (with true affection - ie. to JP enjoying God supremely)?

Anyway, I think this is a profitable discussion... Thanks for your thought.

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/24/2006 02:32:55 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/16/2006 09:45:32 PM

Babe, I completely agree with this. Believe it or not, I have just discovered how great my pride is. It shows up all the time, unexpectedly. It's so hard to stifle sometimes because it is so strong. My first step is to start recognizing it and to try and stop it in its tracts. I want to be used of God not so I can be important and great and so people can see me but so he can do as he pleases.

--
Posted by Molly to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/16/2006 09:45:32 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/16/2006 02:20:46 PM

So true, Matt. Recently I've been frustrated at my lack of "success" in various ministry goals...numbers at my women's small group, inability to even be with someone I can share the gospel with (I'm a stay at home mom and just about ready to give birth to #4.). I keep feeling like "if only I could come up with a better idea or have just the right words to say or worked a little harder..." Now I'm down with a kidney stone and am not accomplishing anything. I feel like God has hit me with a brick that says clearly "I don't need you"... it's true. He doesn't need any of us. I'll just keep obeying until He chooses to use me, and I'll know it wasn't my great intelligence or potential that produced results.

--
Posted by Amy Hatfield to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/16/2006 02:20:46 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/12/2006 08:40:59 PM

If I remember how Keller defined them they are shared beliefs within culture that are assumed by the average person that if true make the message of the gospel unintelligible. These defeater beliefs have to be at least addressed or any presentation of the gospels of grace will be met with glazed over eyes.

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/12/2006 08:40:59 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/11/2006 12:47:00 PM

Matt,

I'm not sure about the background of this post, but I suspect it has to do with the Desiring God conference. Will you explain Tim Keller and the "defeaters" who must be addressed. What is the contemporary question to be tackled?

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/11/2006 12:47:00 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/06/2006 11:48:08 PM

You see, that's theological too... Do you see what I mean?

--
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/06/2006 11:48:08 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/06/2006 04:19:28 PM

This was very interesting. I guess my initial reaction to the whole thread was that I wouldn't pick a church for their "theology" or their "music" but for the people. I would want my children in an environment of Bereans, people who were willing to search the scriptures and change their views on doctrine or music to better fit God's Word. There was plenty to think about here and plenty more I could say, but thanks for the link, Matt.

--
Posted by Amy Hatfield to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/06/2006 04:19:28 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/03/2006 09:18:30 PM

Thanks, Matt. We'll download the messages as soon as we can.

--
Posted by Amy Hatfield to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/03/2006 09:18:30 PM

[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] 10/02/2006 08:36:42 AM

I'm glad to hear the good report. I look forward to more.

--
Posted by Zach Dietrich to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 10/02/2006 08:36:42 AM