Mainly seeing some now emergent works coming into Logos and yes realize it has been coming for quite some time as what is sold is not exactly something you get a recomendation from Brian McLarten or Doug Padgitt.
Saying this, I would like to see more philosophical works on both postmodernism but also modernism. The reason why, at least from my perspective-the big lie is emergent teaches postmodernism which they really do not-they teach old fasioned main line liberal mdernism that started the whole conservative/.fundamentalist split anyways.
Quite a bit actual comes from Hegel's Dialectic in being incarnational which is God in us and us in God-i.e. the liberal spark of God in all in the brotherhood of man and fatherhod of God. It just goes by a different name-it is easier to lie then actually have some originality. Just bought a book by Meachem called the Transcendance of God which I am fairly sure deals with Hegel's Immanence of God Panthiesm being passed off as incarnational.
For a bunch of philosophers who think they are smarter then everyone else should not get bested by a 3 semester no degree from an unacredited Fundamentalist Baptist Bible KJV only school-no what I learned there does not figure into this-the only thing I learned was I was learning more on my own independent studies where I stopped coming to class and got A's on tests and papers-because they were not to bright-so I quit after 3 semesters thinking if I really wanted to learn-do not ever go to an unacreddited Bible College-and oh yes, am switchimng from Independednt Fundamental KJV only Baptist to Reformed Baptist-I just get tired of being accused of heresy for believing when Chyrist saves us-Christ also becomes our God(Lordship Salvation) and hearing baptist preachers bagging on calvinists as I tend to say amen a little to loud and get everyone looking at you when you say amen to God forcing people to get saved and then say amen a bit louder when the preacher tells us God just wants robots or puppets. When I get asked-I mention slavery. I just happen to think when we see it a bad thing no matter how God does it-when we see being saved as a bad thing-it is time for this Calvinist to exit stage left and find another home where I do not apologise for my beliefs or have to keep bighting my tongue-i hate spitting blood.
Amen!- been there done that brother.
David Emme:For a bunch of philosophers who think they are smarter then everyone else should not get bested by a 3 semester no degree from an unacredited Fundamentalist Baptist Bible KJV only school
Come on, there is no need to insult philosophers you've never met. Disagree with their ideas yes; personal attacks no. Now personally, I lose interest in Western philosophy at Descartes ... but find post-modern materials intriguing especially Edmund Jabes, the Egyptian-French Jewish author. Actually, Western philosophy after Descartes interests me when it turns to logic and semiotics both of which I'd love to see in Logos.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
You may want to create more paragraphs in your writing style here in the forum. I found it very hard to follow your thoughts as it all seemed to run together.
I am interested in your post, just could not follow due to your writing style. I as well am interested in philosophy; and would like your clear definition of what defines the emergent church. From what I understand, if you can define the emergent church, then you do not belong to it.
Hope we can keep the discussion going.
David Emme: Mainly seeing some now emergent works coming into Logos and yes realize it has been coming for quite some time as what is sold is not exactly something you get a recomendation from Brian McLarten or Doug Padgitt.
Really? I would love to see some Brian McLaren on Logos personally. The church always goes through stages which are all a part of God's sovereign plan.
Blessings,Brandon
MJ. Smith:Come on, there is no need to insult philosophers you've never met.
Actually, I stand by my comments. Here is the thing-Fundamentalism and Christian conservatism was not built on modernism, rationalism, or foundationalism. I mean, really-Charles Spurgeon a rationalist? When saying this, did not even think of this point. Unitarians were very much involved with Liberalism in Christianityin that era who ended up being Spurgeons greatest foes that caused him to leave the Baptist Union for leaving out Trinity doctrine as a basis for fellowship.
Here is the point-Fundamentalism/Conservatism was built on faith-built on faith-believing what the bible teaches. You will here all kinds of things such as certainty in fundamentalist beliefs as related to foundationalism or where is the mystery in not understanding in an awe inspiring way.
When faith is seen as certainy-to me this is saying-we really believe what we believe-we believe it as if we have factual knowledge when really all we have is the bible and faith.
This really needs to be seen as deceptive as those who claim and understand our fundamentalist heritage absolutely realises we built on faith and not philosophy. They never give one shred of evidance to show this-they just say it a lot.
Of course, some how we have to believe only postmodernism is the only philosophy when I see existentialism, Process theology and philosophy, and Hegels Dialectic. They also claim communism and most times then not do not see the first three chapters of Genesis as factual.
Just seems to me with a bunch of postmoderns finding their beliefs in modernism and thensaying we must abandon fundamentalism as liberalism was abandoned.
I am telling you if you want to understand emergent theology-go study Liberalism, fationalism, and modernism in Christian thought in the mid 1800's to probably in between WW1 and WW2. The reason why liberalism in Christianity was abandoned was not so we can become post modernist believers but when it is taught that every person has a spark of divinity as God andFunndamentalists and Calvinists teaching man is in bondage to sin-man is evil-when they started opening up Auschwitz and other camps-it became abundantly clear liberalism is incapable in teaching and preaching the truth as what was seen these events fairly went with Calvinists and fundamentalists conceptions that man is utterly sinful and evil. Of course in the 1970's Falwell's Moral Majority helped Reagan get elected and for the most part-America has been a right of center country as morally and religously.
Fundamentalism and conservatism is far from dying.
So if you want people to adopt liberalism-change the name aand say this is the new way of doing thing
Incarnational is God unfolding himself in mankind so as to adress culture and make faith as part of culture. This is termed this way-God is in us and we are in God. Really? So God was in the 9-11 hijackers? To say God is in us-there as that spark nof divinity. Bell has a DVD that is titled, "Everything is Spiritual" Between these two oif you do not see Hegels Dialectic which teaches the immanence of God instead of the transcendent which all boils dow to-God is in everything, so everything is divine. So when Brian McLaren teaches that Christ's death was ot for sins but salvation is in creation or saving creation from evil Capitalism-is this really why Christ died.
To deny fundamentalism as truth is to deny the fundamentals of the faith-the bible is the woord of God without error, the Virgin birth of Christ and miracles, Jesuis Christ is God, the blood atonement and salvation by faith is how salvation is appropiated, and the visible return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom.
The problem comes in when the bible is not the word of God and never intended to teach truth but was an expression of faith in that era-since that was a different time and era-it is not for us today. When they teach that Christ did not die to save man from sins, and basically teach that man is to bring in the kingdom of God through dominion theology which is Amillinealism except they just drop those words.
The time I have taken to research, read, study, and learn-yes, I absolutely stand by my commandments when based on what I remember show that McLaren denies three essiantial truths of fundamentalism. Bell questions the virgin birth and the end-they are heretics as well as hypocritical.
They bemoan consumerism but write more books on this then anyone which takes trees to make and eventually sold through Zondervan and other Christian book publishers which forces these on Christian bookstores-but consumerism is wrong?
They bemoan the fact that Christianity is full of old white European/American men in a patriarchal society-and who do you findleading the emergent church movement? Old white men from America and Europe.
Of course, when he speaks of American forray into Colonialism-this done under Democrat Presidents cheered on by liberal Christians. Literally as a negotiation with Spain-we bought the Philippines. So the liberal Christians saw a perfect oppurtunity to bring heaven on earth as Mickinley said he felt he is in a mission from God to civilize the Philippinos as they rebelled when a new country came in and we put down the insurrection. Oh yes, let me not forget-traveled there a few times because I have a finace there and as my unit's heritage is all about how we helped put down the insurrection as 14th Cav Regiment had their baptism of fire and as on our unit crest there is a rattlesnake and this knife bigger then most knives but not quite a sword-that is from fighting in the jungles of the Phillipines as quite a bit was not just fighting Philippinos but also rattlesnakes in the jungles. So when McLaren speaks of being or feeling guilty for American Colonialism-I would say excuse me if I think he just hates America, freedom, and Capitalism when no matter how bad we are-when he states he believes in peaceful Marxism if there was ever such a thing-when Chairman Mao allowed 70 million of his country starve to dath because he thought there was too many people to feed-sure-that was peacful Marxism until China started Colonizing the countries around them and lets not forget India and China's forray into war against Vietnam after we left.
So when I read emergent authors, please excuse me when I accuse of lying, less then honest and downright decietful. Is this all emergents? No. At somepoint in time, someone has to speak up and tell Jim I do not do kool aid.
I would like to see McLaren on here as well-makes for easier copying and pasting as opoised to have to type out from his book
BrandonVaughn:Really? I would love to see some Brian McLaren on Logos personally. The church always goes through stages which are all a part of God's sovereign plan.
This book and one on the kingdom of God are on prepub. I should mention-as I am against emergent postmodernism-I would also like to see more emergent works here. It is just sometimes easier to read on a computer.
The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk....
ReneAtchley: The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk....
Too bad, the Logos versions can't do that. Good thing some of us find more value in them than just as desk props.
How to Ask for Help | Logos Wiki | My Machine Specs | My Blog
Lol...I am interested in seeing how many factual conclusions are reached in this thread. Although watching the mental gymnastics necessary to "prove" fideism is always fascinating imo.
David Emme:This book and one on the kingdom of God are on prepub. I should mention-as I am against emergent postmodernism-I would also like to see more emergent works here. It is just sometimes easier to read on a computer.
Well, if everybody felt the need to post their support or opposition to each pre-pub title in 32 point fonts we'd bury the forums in run-on sentences. I'd like to paraphrase MJ's response to your post by saying there is no need to attack a bunch of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists you have never met. Although I agree with the generalizations about Kool-Aid and dogmatic fervor, I must say I've seen a lot of people saved by a little Gospel tract from the hand of an an IFB but I have never heard someone credit their salvation to a deep reading of some philosopher.
Now that I've got that out of the way..... I find many titles on "emergent" ideas of help in understanding the culture and direction of Modern Christianity. It helps me locate the dazed & confused when I stretch out my hand with that simple Gospel tract. The works of Harry Iromside http://www.logos.com/products/details/4556 will be a great antidote to the PostModern poison in the paper cups. And if that leaves your college dropout brain hungry, feast on the Works of Francis Schaeffer http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/cwfs
(David, brother, I love you in the Lord and have so much in common with you. IFB church member, Bible College dropout, reader of dangerous books.. )
EDIT: David, I think you have a very good handle on the problem and I completely understand your definitions. And it is funny how God uses the simple to knock down the lofty ideas.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
ReneAtchley:The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk...
You must have a very narrow view of philosophy - at least no wider that the broken leg.
Matthew C Jones:but I have never heard someone credit their salvation to a deep reading of some philosopher.
I hope not ... salvation is in Jesus Christ. However, there certainly are those who have come to Christianity via philosophy.
PS. for the definition of post modern from the Stanford Philosophy database: "That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning."
MJ. Smith: ReneAtchley:The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk... You must have a very narrow view of philosophy - at least no wider that the broken leg.
I have been analyzing this thread using a dialetic approach....all I got was a paper synthesis.
MJ. Smith: Matthew C Jones:but I have never heard someone credit their salvation to a deep reading of some philosopher. I hope not ... salvation is in Jesus Christ. However, there certainly are those who have come to Christianity via philosophy.
I must correct myself here. I remembered the conversion of Mortimer J. Adler in the twilight years of his long life. Adler was the second editor for Britannica's Great Books of the Western World. He authored The Paideia Proposal and was a champion of Classical education. After rejecting Christianity for decades, he finally embraced it as the only logical explanation. Some may criticize the lack of a mystical element to his conversion but Adler did place his faith in Jesus Christ. And I never read of him denouncing Philosophy. So, it could possibly be argued that Adler and God had a sit-down, reasoning session. Isaiah 1:18
Matthew C Jones:Well, if everybody felt the need to post their support or opposition to each pre-pub title in 32 point fonts we'd bury the forums in run-on sentences.
Part of this is from a really mental defect I have usually when you tend to get blown up in a real bomb-you get affected as in the left deals with language where fortunately-talking or writing to much is what usually is affected i.e. wreite probably one book a day. On the other hand, when in the last year to 18 monthsseeing how much I have learned and discerned-some of tis you can see in Apprising Ministries but asically tracking down what philosophies they are using without naming them is not always so easy so sometimes when I see a percieved misunderstanding or error.
On the IFB stuff-this is most related that they do not teach philosophy or critical thinking and see this as somewhat dangerous as either pators do not know how to have a ready answer or be led astray themselves. On the other hand, realizing as long as I have been an IFB also have been a believer in Lordship Salvation and Calvinism for as long as my Baptist roots and so many times see so many talk about Calvin writing TULIP whenit was King James who initiated the Synod of Dort-Just do not think teaching a history of Systematic Theology to get them to a point where I just want them to understand-not everyone is a heretic if we have a different understanding.
Isaiah 55-What God swends out as his word will accomplish what he intends it to accomplish. Gospel tracks are never a bad thing as faith does come from hearing-or reading the word of God. Much of this was seeing a person taking to task of being a bit judgmental to emergent philosophers-I apologise because that is how to get a 300 page disertation from me in something have been studying a while now as hope to get my first blog tommorow and hopefully able to get published on these issues.
One last note-I say this as an explanation as I am not intentionally trying to get sympethy points though also will not knock some one for appreciating-Was in an actual explosion in the Iraq war and would not reccomend it as yes_TBI is not fun-but I thank the Lord for his joy and opleasure to bring me through this. I just sometimes think others will look at this as a ploy in debate as a kind of red herring or to be used with those I disagree with(I am a disabled vet so you better tell me I am always right) as I try not to be this way but as a matter of course-such as all I write-seeing from where it comes from helps people understand a it better. Thanks Godbless-Dave Emme
David Emme:usually when you tend to get blown up in a real bomb-you get affected
I appreciate you sharing that. It helps me read you better in context. Closest I got to that was an explosive device wired to my car ignition. They didn't build the bomb correctly so I suffered no bodily harm. Seems they didn't approve of my Star of David decal.
David Emme:On the IFB stuff-this is most related that they do not teach philosophy or critical thinking and see this as somewhat dangerous as either pators do not know how to have a ready answer or be led astray themselves
I've attended an IFB church for 13 years now. Three of my children have been students at their Bible College (2 have their BAs). My observations match yours. There is not a high priority put on Philosophy, critical thinking or most any education deemed "secular." These just don't appear necessary to reach the common man. My problem with ignoring these tools is the resultant inability to open a dialogue with the uncommon prospect. I think the apologetics resources in Logos can sufficiently fill that need.for most Christians. See them here: http://www.logos.com/products/groups/allitems/theology-doctrine-apologetics I do wish they would add the works of Ravi Zacharias to the list.
I know the Holy Spirit can (and always does) effect the change in a person's heart. God is not dependent upon using a Gospel tract, fiery sermon or philosophical debate to help. But many times He chooses to. Our role is to make ourselves available to be used of God. If that includes deeper study of Philosophy, have at it. The Apostle Paul didn't shy away from it.
Matthew C Jones:I appreciate you sharing that. It helps me read you better in context. Closest I got to that was an explosive device wired to my car ignition. They didn't build the bomb correctly so I suffered no bodily harm. Seems they didn't approve of my Star of David decal.
That is interesting and when you feel you can, let us know what happened but in saying this-if you feel I am intruding-tell me to bug off.
On a certain note if there are perhaps any Fundamentalists or Baptists or evem Independent Fundamental Baptists-stick to the word of God and fervently pray to the Lord to teach you.
We are not trying to Bash others but sometimes when a shared experiance happens(having similar experiances for similar reasons tough not together)-I just want people to understand we are not trying to discourage or crucify anyone.
Saying this-I do see some in the IFB movement trying to change things around i.e. Northland, Bob Jones, Schapp at First Baptist and Hyles Anderson. There is a video on youtube of Schapp having a more balanced view of the KJV as he stated, "If the King James translators knew as much as us who hold only the KJKV-we would never have a KJV"
He spoke of teaching Greek, Hebrew, and latin which in quite a few Christian circles Latin is ignored despite as many as twice the number of Greek manuscripts-besides erasmus work was really for a Biglot(hope I got the word correct) to correct the Latin Vulgate.
For me, I just began seeing Armineism as a bit more dangerous then the bible issues. Some things I hold the same understanding but really see no need to thump others for not holding to the KJV or ever really needing to bring it up.
As for their colleges-the acredited ones end up being the best and Northland I see as Patterning after Nasters college and seminary-I do see quite a lot of similar patterns especially seeing they will have a cross culture missions program dealing with translating the bible as this is what I hope to do in the Philippines for some of the languages without a bible or in the case of Cebuano-my understanding is whatever they have now is like having The Message or maybe even the emergent "The Voice".
Part of the problem is Translators Baptist Bible Institute in Texas will not accept people who believe in Calvinism. I wander what would be the reaction when they realize King James(all be it probably for more political to shore up that area against Spain) -yet this does not fail to see King James is the one who called for the Synod of Dort as he could choose between Calvinists and Armeniasm and King James picked Calvinism as what would be the doctrine for the reformation.
In other words-lack of knowledge and consistancy. I would at least say for a school which holds to the KJV and teaches translation principles-even with no written language and will not accept Calvinists is a big time contradiction to me.
Am taking some Greek and Hebrew classes but really do not see a need to get a degree except for maybe if I see the value of a degree program. For instance-not sure if it Liberty or Tennesee Temple who has a masters program in philosophy on Apologetics.
Not trying to be prideful as we all are-but most IFB schools-the one thing I would start thinking-why am I not teaching this course because whoever is, is not teaching me something new.
Saying this for me-besides the translation stuff-would like to write quite a bit but really a very good discipleship and bible institute courses-really try to make it highquality stuff though I would eventuallygive it away freely. Just one of my goals I guess.
I must say that the resources that I have seen and used in Logos have more than enough intellectual weight to deal with the varied concerns in this thread imo. However, I still am fascinated with cutting edge theological debate/discussion/concerns from 500 years ago as if all religious philosophical reflection ended in the Middle Ages. I dare say if this is the state of contemporary theological debate my choice to focus on practical divinity is indeed a good one...Lord only know how many brains will explode if Process, Liberation, or Open theism theology would be discussed.
ReneAtchley:Lord only know how many brains will explode if Process, Liberation, or Open theism theology would be discussed
Certainly you have your right to your opinions. I do know this-do not believe in Communism i.e. liberation theology, believe God does not change, and that my God certainly knows what will happen as he determines it-or why would he allow prophesy if he did not know what is going which fairly relegates scripture as erroneous and not truthful though Christ did proclaim God's word is truth-or maybe he was just mistaken which would fairly place Christ outside the bounds of diety.
I actually got into quite a bit of this when I went to a bible study with my dad and made some fairly innocent mistakes thinking we would actually study the bible and ended up studying John Eldredge's Wild at Heart which caused me to buy The Weakness of God by Caputo as I saw quite a bit in Eldredge-it is no longer we are weak and he is strong but God is weak and I am strong recognizing that basically much of what he teaches is a result of the sin nature and basically heard all these grown men bagging on daddy for not having a six figure income, a six figure house, a six figure car, and a new six figure wife that caused me to nearly puke as less then a month ago recieved prosthetic skull on the left side wandering why these men thought they had it so bad. As it was my time to bag on daddy-I sure did when asked what did your dad do to wound you and how will you confront your father so you can heal. Of course, the only one with a bible, I read out of Genesis three talking how my dad screwed the pooch and caused us all to be seperated from God and the second Adam-Christ died for my sins and was really shocked seeing the pastor trying to get me to finish up and as a good Baptist would do-just preached salvation and the cross of Christ for about 15 minutes.
Of course it never dawned on me after I went back to Walter Reed that my parents told thyey are no longer welcome at the church had anything to do with me.
Almost anytime someone inserts philosophy into Christianity-Heresy is the by product of this from day one as before the bibloe is even finished Gnosticism was already causing havoc and to me the most dangerous-German Rationalism producing higher criticism.
I am not saying philosoiphy is bad-it is just bad when we use it as theology. I am rather glad when Edison was told he was a failure and he disagreed by saying no-he just now knew 1,000 ways to not make light..