Let’s get to it and go to Jim West to start things off
#1. Secular Biblical Documentaries— http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/who-really-likes-them/
We all feel the same way, Bobby…every time Discovery has a Bible special
Sadly, I have to agree with him even if the ‘special’ is put out by those claiming to be Christian like the series on the Bible was with Roma Downey and her husband as producers. If you cannot understand biblical teaching, if you can’t be loyal to the biblical account, if you can’t get the message right, then please go to another topic which you are more qualified in handling.
I am not saying one has to be a biblical scholar (as West would) to do t.v. shows or movies based upon the Bible but you really need to know what you are talking about and have God part of the production. if you don’t then you end up making yourself and the Bible, along with God, look foolish. The same goes for those people, like West, who claim to be Bible scholars yet do not believe the Bible or in God.
http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/conference-announcement-tel-aviv/
Please do not say you are a bible scholar and know what the Bible is saying if you are not a Christian. You may know history, Hebrew and other ancient languages but you do not have the truth nor are following the HS to it so whatever you say will be in error.
#2. Another List— http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/understanding-the-span-of-the-progressive-christian-label/
Throughout a volatile Christian history in our culture we see reemergence of theological liberalism (flowing from mainline traditions) which, (in my opinion), morphed to form the original base of Progressive Christianity. This brings us to the the first two groups I see currently sitting under the Progressive Christian label:
i do not know why this guy thinks he is an authority on anything or that he can speak for other people and place them under his personally designed categories, for he cannot even manage his website honestly. Yes he has banned me from his site without any due process, a chance to defend myself and without committing any serious error in posting. In other words he is more unjust than those he complains about and accuses every month.
I really do not care where Progressive Christianity originated or where that author places it in his scheme of things, I care that too many people are being systematically lured away from the truth by these silver-tongued false teachers. Progressive Christianity is false teaching for it is not the gospel that Jesus or the disciples brought.
It accepts sinful teaching, the lies of secular science and tries to call sin good. None of those activities fall in line with God or his word. They are a group of people who, for whatever reason they may have, have rejected biblical teaching and tried to alter the biblical text or practice in order to pursue sinful and selfish desires.
Group 4 could also be called “Emergence Christianity” (though maybe not exclusively so) because they’re often the folks from the Emergent Church Movement that had/has origins in Evangelicalism. While the ECM is still its own, distinct category that could be discussed separately, one of the interesting things I’ve seen in the last five years or so is that the Emergent label has slowly been swallowed up by the Progressive label, causing the use of the word to decline.
I am not a fan of the so-called ’emergent church’ for God’s church follows his way and rules and does not need to ’emerge’ from anywhere. The true church will have its human problems because it members are human and they will make mistakes or errors in judgment but that is why we have forgiveness to fall back on. We clean out our own beams and forgive others so we can avoid dangerous problems and splits in the church.
Sadly, the supposed ’emergent’ church feels the need to disobey God and his word because they received the light from the secular world and culture. Instead of being the light unto a dark world, they have let darkness dull or put out their light. These people may act or sound like a true Christian but we need to check their doctrine before embracing them with open arms. They have lots of false teaching and teachers in their midst.
#3. Guilt and More Guilt— http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/parents-lgbt
Something has to change in how people of faith respond to those among us who do not fit into rigid gender binaries or else these heartbreaking numbers won’t change.
A man who does a lot of spiritual warfare once told me that Satan uses guilt, God does not and if you look closely he is probably right. At least that has been my experience when I have encountered many people who do not believe as I do. Rachel Held Evans is using guilt, the parental variety, in her latest bid to have the church open their arms and support sin.
She tries the emotional argument because that allows her to ignore God’s rules, which have been known and clearly stated for thousands of years. Ms. Evans does a grave dis-service to church families by her distorted point of view and her presenting an incomplete picture of the situation. But if she told the truth, she would not be able to use the guilt or emotion card in a manipulative manner.
When it comes to having a family member ‘come out of the closet’ there is a biblical way to handle the situation without sinning. The verse, do unto others…, is a great guide when responding to being informed of your loved one’s sinful decision. How would you like to be treated when giving loved ones bad news? This does not mean that we accept and support their sin but it does mean explaining to the loved one that you cannot accept or support that decision.
You can tell them that they are still loved by you but you cannot participate in their sinful activities or those activities that would cause you to sin like baking a cake for their same-sex nuptials. There is an adult, Christian way of handling this problem but sadly too many believers are not Christian adults, they are still Christian babies who have not been fed properly and do not know how to handle such problems biblically.
Ms. Evans’ generalizations, of course, ruin her argument for she fails to even pretend to understand why people react the way they do and then fail to teach correctly how to handle this problem. Instead of putting sin in its rightful place, she wants parents and church members to accept sin into the church and call it good. She ignores the fact that the humans in the church do not own the church, God does, and that they must obey God’s rules for his church not Ms. Evans’ or some one like her.
And yet we cannot place the blame for yet another suicide squarely on the shoulders of parents when, too often, the religious communities these families turn to for guidance and support when a son or daughter comes out utterly fails them right when they need that support the most.
NO, the blame goes to the person making the decision to kill themselves. No one has twisted the arm of a LBGT member and forced them to kill themselves so put the blame where it actually lies–with those who decide to kill themselves. Our decisions have consequences and for those who decide to join the LBGT community, the consequences of their decisions mean that they are not part of the kingdom of God nor the church. They have chosen a different path, a sinful one that requires them to repent of their error and get right with God before being allowed back into the arms of God.
They cannot continue in their sin and expect to be part of a church where sin is not allowed.
We cannot point fingers at parents when anyone who has spent more than an hour in fundamentalist Christian culture knows that the shame, guilt, and fear that keeps so many people in the closet is the same shame, guilt, and fear that blames and misinforms their friends and family
NO, you need to put the blame upon those who did not seek help when the first appearance of same-sex desires came into their lives. They decided to follow bad advice, usually from the homosexual community, that tells them to ‘explore their sexuality’ instead of telling them that they are being deceived and led into destruction.
Parents have to obey God over those who want them to accept sin into their lives. They have to lead their children to what is right and help guide them into making the right decisions, explaining why something is bad or something else is better. Too often parents fail to do this and let secular teachers and other unbelievers impact and influence their children’s lives.
Don’t let people like Ms. Evans guilt you into disobeying God but stand firm and make sure that the people know you have to side with God but that you will still accept them as your loved one. People who side with God are not the ones who are wrong.
#4. Science & the Church— http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/01/2-more-reasons-why-eric-metaxass-science-proves-god-approach-falters/
On Christmas day, Eric Metaxas published an op-ed piece in the WSJ “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.”
The title concerned me a bit. Metaxas is a bright guy, and I was hoping the piece wouldn’t add to the mountain of poorly conceived Christian apologetics about proving God’s existence. It seems, though, this Metaxas has fallen into that very rut, and I really wish he hadn’t.
Mr. Metaxas is probably right. I have only scanned the article because of time constraints but he didn’t make any ‘poorly conceived Christian apologetics’ about science and God. Science does prove God and the Bible right every time and has yet to prove evolution or the big bang true.genetics has proven Darwin wrong when he claimed there are 4 different races of people. There isn’t. genetics has shown that there is only one which means the Bible is proven right scientifically.
Another scientific effort that has proven the Bible right has been the hybrid experiments where researchers have found that animals cannot reproduce outside of their kind. Mules are a prime example of this as they are a product of donkeys and horses yet mules are sterile. This provides scientific evidence for Genesis 1 and the words producing after their kind.
Science has constantly proven the Bible true while failing to produce the supposed original conditions that supposedly spawned and allowed life to exist, the supposed original ancestor who supposedly started it all, and science has failed to replicate any supposed transitional process evolutionists claim has taken place back in the dark regions of history.
Nothing in science supports alternatives to God’s creative act. Archaeology is the same as archaeological discoveries continue to produce evidence supporting the Bible. For example, the names of the patriarchs in their right place in time and history, the different ancient civilizations in their correct geographical and historical location, countless biblical cities right where the Bible says they are and much, much more.
It doesn’t matter the research field of science, the evidence they all produce point to the validity of the Bible and prove it true all the time. Enns’ article is one that is written by a man who does not believe God anymore and looks to include alternative ideas in with the biblical record.he creates a strawman argument then argues against his own idea of what those who point to science and say, God’s existence is proven.
#5. I Got A Reply— http://juniaproject.com/
Here it is:
We agree with you that “it is sad that humans think they know better than God and seek to change his word to justify their disobedience and sinful desires”. But we are not the ones altering the Word. Those choices were made by the translators. We are simply pointing out that they often made choices that misrepresent God’s Word as the English language is used today.To correctly interpret the Word we need to look at the original manuscripts and make sure we are understanding the author’s intent correctly. Why do so many people settle for an inaccurate translation? The unbeliever deserves the best interpretation possible, don’t you think?
We believe that when interpreted correctly, the Bible teaches that both men and women are called to serve at all levels of the Church, and that leadership should be based primarily on gifting and not on gender.
