Whoa! Are Joel Rosenberg and Lee Strobel going “Emergent”?

“Why are so many Christian leaders continually appearing with personalities who claim to be Christian yet promote the heretical “new spirituality”?”

I would ask them to define the heretical aspects of this new spirituality they see? I mean, if they want to throw around such accusations about one’s faith – the people that such claims should be open to most close scrutiny. I believe in this case they are wrong and showing a form of elitism…and maybe even ignorance.

They quote I Cor 10:21, use words like heretical, falsehood, darkeness, spiritual deception, and apostasy. I would like to note that these people are saying this about other Christians…in fighting so to speak over the name of Jesus. Causing division in the suggested name of righteousness, but dividing the church nonetheless with their rhetoric.

I think the people that write such stuff need to be as cloesly scrutinized as the claims they are generically making about other Christians…which to me is plainly suspicious? What is to gain except a bigger corner of the Christian market by devouring your brother and sisters?

“Both these verses indicate that the wolves are IN THE CHURCH” (Kim)

That’s true – subversive people exist in the church – pretty obvious when we realize in the West we have over some 1000 denominations all with the name Christ…someone did some serious dividing of this church at many points in time.

However, with the language Lighthouse Research is using – they are not exempt from this same accusation of being a ‘devourer’. Granted they don’t agree with some of the things believed by some fairly liberal Christians – and now they rail against Strobel and Rosenberg even affiliating with them? I am not sure – that seems more divisive to me than including.

One needs to question the very nature of God IMO about what Jesus taught on such issues of inclusion. Does God come to divide or invite? If God is divisive then I think Lighthouse is in the absolute right with their rhetoric. If not, then I think the critiques they offer are valid but they cross the line once they start in with the divisive language.

I shall ask – how should we approach heresy in the 21st century?

“Jesus said he “did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law……”…Pretty divisive.” (Kim)

Context is everything. That passage says nothing about being or becoming a ‘divisive person’ but that family may hold one contemptous for their following Jesus as the ‘messiah’ (quoting Micah 7:6). Jesus understood people would dislike the disciples message (as they are sent out in this chapter) – which was about the kingdom of God…and included Jesus as the messiah – quite contentious an issue for it’s day in Israel.

I don’t think Jesus is promoting division at all…but admitting it will happen to his disciples (as a consequence of their message they are preaching). No one should actively seek division – in all honesty. I find the lighthous treading that water.

“Righteousness and sin, faith and unbelief, false religion and Gods’s Holy Word, disobedience, rebellion and obedience cannot be mixed, for God hates a mixture” (Kim)

How would one describe Jesus’ affiliation to Peter or even James and John for that matter? It is obvious God does not favor unrighteous actions – yet within his horde of 12 disciples – every imaginable behavior in question exists. Even after Jesus left this earth – Peter, James, John and Paul still have it out on a few issues – showing even they were imperfect and were still accepted.

“Paul the greatest apostle of all” (Kim)

According to who? Peter, James, and John actually ran the Jerusalem church alongside their Jewish counter-parts – Paul only travelled from region to region – the original disciples held down the fort of Jesus’ teachings in it’s place of origin.

“Those who teach false doctrine and do not agree to sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, “is conceited and understands nothing.”” (Kim)

I agree – but what has this to do with anything? The division lighthouse is promoting is based on them barely knowing even these liberal Christians they also condemn. One needs to note that even the within the original church Paul’s message (seen as a liberal in his times) was not seen as kosher to James, John, and Peter in Jerusalem…yet they ended up accepting him.

Now I have to admit – I can see lighthouse’s argument about scripture with some of the more liberal guests at this conference – but does this make these people ‘unchristian’? I figure someone that is unchristian or even against Christ – well they would have to make that announcement pretty clear – kinda like atheists do on this subject. The fact these liberal Christians still seek this path says a lot about what faith it is they are in.

“What do we do?….Paul said to Timothy. “Flee from all this, and pursue righteousness. Those who opposed Timothy, he must gently instruct in the hope that God will grant them repentance” (Kim)

Easy, context. Paul is obviously referencing actions here with regards to repentance (changing one’s actions). I would say – what have these liberals done wrong ‘action wise’ that they need to repent of. If we disagree with their wording on the gospel – so be it – but if they not going against the teachings of Jesus with their actions (lives) – I cannot see the problem per se.

“Those who reject Jesus and His teachings may face condemnation.” (Kim)

I agree. Here is the kicker – what if someone follows Jesus teachings but does not believe he is God…can they be saved?

“Can you tell me how you interpret the first half or so of the first chapter of the Gospel of John if you do not believe Jesus is God? Seems to me John makes an unmistakable case for Jesus being God there.” (Cherylu)

I think we all very familiar with the gospel of John – so I won’t waste anyone’s time – John does ascribe divinity to Jesus in some way, shape, or form. This is verified in John 1:1, 1:18, John 8:58, John 10:30 (questionable), John 17:5 (questionable), and John 20:28…all hint to Jesus co-divinity with the Father (God). I say your claim Cheryl is based on what is in John (for a fact).

If that were the end of the story – problem would be easily solved – but it’s not – John wrote chapters alongside those verses which show a confusion on John’s part with this co-divinity idea. John actually contradicts himself or had troubles with understanding how co-divinity works.

This is where the problem with John’s gospel begins. John has Jesus totally equal to God in John 1 “the Word was God’. His only separation of the 2 is the Father and Son connotations – which if taken literally – is actually 2 Gods…a son and a Father. But this really isn’t the problem – it starts as he describes their relationship.

Here are a few passages:

John 10: 27 – 30 “”My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one”

Jesus in this passage says God – his Father – is ‘greater than all’…a statement that includes himself in it (see the comparison on the verses).

John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

Jesus in this prayer (praying to God BTW) asserts eternal life is knowing the only true God ‘AND’ the messiah (his personal claim). Jesus seperates his identity from God and himself plain and clear as day there.

John 14:28 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you ‘If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”

Jesus says it plainly himself ‘the Father is greater than I’. This not only denotes they are not equal – but they do not have the same ‘power’.

Then in John 17 the confusion is added to with all the statements made by Jesus throughout that ‘prayer’ – which cross compare himself with the Father…and denote a placement of Jesus that is lower than God’s. In summation John 17:7 will be proven true “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You”:

17:1 ‘glorify your son’
17:2 “You gave Him authority over all flesh”
17:8 “You sent Me”
17:14 “I have given them Your word”
17:18 “You sent Me into the world”
17:22 “The glory which You have given Me”

Jesus attributes all he has to what God ‘has allowed of him’. All this in a prayer to God – which in and of itself denotes their seperate personalities and that God answers the prayer of Jesus (denotes hierarchy).

But one last proof from John 17 – about this unity between Jesus and God – the deification of Jesus. I am not sure what John was thinking when he wrote this – but read for yourself:

John 17:21 “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

Here is what is said about ‘oneness’ – the Father is in Jesus, Jesus is in the Father, and we are also in ‘Them’. Are we also in the Trinity? Unless this type of talk is not referring to divnity – then it makes sense about spirituality.

All I am pointing out is that John is the only gospel that can be used to make the assertion for the Trinity – and even within it the idea is not clear cut – it may in fact be contradictory.

“Paul commands us to mark those who didvide the church with a contrary doctrine than the one established by the Apostles” (Paul)

Interesting statement – let me re-live some of Paul’s contentions with the original church in Jerusalem.

Gal 1:8-9 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

This is a letter to the Galatians – right at the beginning of it. Paul is condemning the people that preach a gospel contrary to what they have heard from him. No one else preached the gospel to this region (see Acts) except Paul…so who he is addressing here is the real question?

Gal 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s gospel did not come about due to training by the other apostles – but by revelation as he himself acclaims in this letter. This is the same gospel he is defending in this letter against a set of people preaching ‘another gospel’.

Gal 1:17-19 “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”

Paul proves his point that the original apostles never taught him this ‘gospel’ – spent 3 years on his own in Arabia and Damascus. After that 3 years he spent 15 days with Peter and James – and that’s all the credit he gives them for his ‘gospel’.

Then in Galatians 2 Paul makes some interesting points about the original apostles.

Gal 2:1 “Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also”

After 14 years of preaching his gospel outside of the constraints of the original disciples/apostles – Paul comes to Jerusalem to check on things.

Gal 2:2 “It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles…”

Reason for going to Jerusalem – to submit his version of the gospel he preached to the Gentiles.

Gal 2:6 “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me”

Seems to be talking about the Jerusalem church here and is establishing his dominance in his own letter about his gospel.

Gal 2:9 “and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”

Paul admits there are 2 different groups being ministered two with 2 different gospels. One for the Gentiles and one for the circumcised.

Gal 2:11-13 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”

Paul points out his disdain for the actions of Peter and James’ disciples (even his pal Barnabas) and their actions amongst the Gentiles in Antioch. Paul recognizes there are 2 different gospels apparently – and he doesn’t like it. He opposes Peter publicly in Antioch.

Now what am I trying to show by all that? Paul’s first statement from chapter 1 is directed at Peter and James (original apostles) most likely – or at least people from their schools of thought.

So when you say ‘contrary doctrine than the one established by the Apostles’ which apostles do you mean – Paul’s crew or the Jerusalem council? There is definitely a difference between that which was preached to the circumcised and the Gentiles that Paul has no respect for.

“If you deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ then sadly you are not a Christian” (Paul)

Hold up. Nowhere in antiquity and the era of the time is the messiah related with the idea of divinity. I repeat – nowhere. Why is this? Easy – Commandment #1.

Exodus 20:2 “You shall have no other gods before/beside Me”

And the Shema (which Jesus repeats in Mark 12:29 if anyone cares to check)

Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”

The concept of a 3 in 1 God is contradictory to these ideas that came from Judaism – of which later the messiah ideology also comes from (in the prophets – which is based on Torah). Judaism, even in that age, never once made the claim the messiah was equal to God or needed to be God – not even in the 600 years leading up to the actual birth of Jesus. Even the Essenes didn’t make this claim.

“That also sadly makes you a heretic and one who ought to be avoided and marked” (Paul)

I come straight from the biblical texts with my reasoning and nothing less…and this is problematic enough for me to be ‘avoided and marked’? This is the type of division I am talking about – this type of violence.

“The reason is simple and that is that the teaching you would espouse concerning the divinity of Christ will destroy the faith of some, therefore you are sadly an enemy of the gospel and unless granted the grace to repent under the condemnation from the Almighty.” (Paul)

I am not espousing someone throw their faith away or even leave it – I would never say such things. You will be shocked but I believe in the messiah – yes Jesus. I also believe he accomplished a lot at the cross. I also believe he came in the flesh, died, and resurrected. The fact you throw out the condemnation of the Almighty (which you do not control) is what I would consider ‘taking God’s name in vain’ (using God’s name to defend your position to bolster your esteem – not His).

“1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (Paul)

This is a known added text to the latest manuscripts…fact. It is not seen on the oldest manuscripts of the letter of John – only in later copies.

The NASB actually denotes this directly in their bible in the footnotes on this chapter “A few late mss add …in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit”. You seriously quoting an addition to the bible to defend your position?

I am not making this up – go and check this one out for yourself – it’s most definitely an addition and most bible translators (who have studied the manuscripts in detail) can admit this…can you?

“So because it was put in the latter part of the process it isn’t true?” (Jeff)

If it’s true or nor we will establish that…but it definitely was addition to a manuscript…meaning someone wrote into someone else’s letter to that have that piece included – making it inauthentic.

“Paul boldly corrected error that was introduced into the church and Peter received the rebuke for the sake of new Christians” (Kim)

He does call out Peter for the hypocrisy toward the Gentile believers – which was promoting an inequality in the kingdom of God – I think Paul was right in dong what he did (by all means right). Gentiles are as accepted as Jews in the kingdom of God – which seems to be the cornerstone of Paul’s letters.

It should also be noted that James and Peter are in some disagreeance with Paul – and this is evidenced in their letters. I’ll give brief examples:

2 Peter 3:15 – 16 “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Peter warns about the use of Paul’s teachings (in letters obviously) and how people are twisting and turning them to some weird ends. He seems to be poking a jab at the disciples of Paul’s church here concerning their understanding of Paul. Almost as if imposing the need for this community to keep in touch with the apostolic community in general.

James 2:17 “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself”

James does not back down from this theological argument that Paul seems to be defending all over the place in Gentiles regions (namely to this place where James is writing). James takes a different stance than Paul on the ‘faith’ issue – namely when it comes to defining faith. James see’s the definition of faith ‘without works’ as useless and dead (a challenge to Paul’s view on this subject). If one cares to read, James and Paul both use Abraham as an example to different ends.

Finally, Paul was not an original apostle – and could never be. Thus his authority was to be challenged by the original disciples.

Acts 1:21 -22 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection”

Paul never met Jesus ‘in the flesh (and in fact didn’t care to know Jesus in the flesh). When the 12th disciple was picked in Acts 1 it had to be someone that knew Jesus while he walked this earth – during his whole ministry…Paul did not.

So how did Paul become an authority for the direction of the church when this man never knew Jesus at all?