tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post3979061163646568974..comments2024-03-29T05:31:07.363-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: THE APOSTLE PAUL AT MARS HILL AND TIM KELLER AT UC BERKELEY...what do you think?SJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-54236404223305365052008-11-25T20:49:00.000-05:002008-11-25T20:49:00.000-05:00The funny thing is that Keller, while you may argu...The funny thing is that Keller, while you may argue that he "waters down" the truth, has penetrated much farther into the culture of intellectual skepticism with the Gospel than someone who goes in with both doctrinal guns blazing. One of the reasons? The intellectual centers of the US are post-Christian. They see the Christian faith and the Bible itself as been there done that. What Keller does successfully is he presents the truth of scriptures and the gospel in a way that directly challenges their most basic presuppositions/beliefs. And I would argue that he almost always does this without compromising on the truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Some of you would rather he simply throw passages at people. See how far that gets you. Oh, and I agree with Brian.alex.robesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892916619718788737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-45136347708898309312008-03-29T01:13:00.000-04:002008-03-29T01:13:00.000-04:00"2 Corinthians 10:5We demolish arguments and every..."2 Corinthians 10:5<BR/>We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.<BR/><BR/>That’s exactly what TK didn’t do! In his attempt to be gentle and reverent and to let his words be full of grace, TK failed to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God….”"<BR/><BR/>When I said that he reminded me of Paul here, I was thinking specifically about what he said regarding knowledge as a local social construction. Remember how he pointed out that that very idea of a social construction of knowledge was the result of a social construction of scholarly people? Keller basically concluded 'if that theory is true then that theory is not true' or in other words showed the idea self contradictory or irrelevant. Why is this tactic good? Because it's a doctrine against the knowledge of God that would limit Christianity's truth claims to only Christian people, and that Christian truth claims would ultimately be arbitrary. Keller refutes that to get to step 1: the Gospel is not a local social construction of Christianity but timeless truth relevant to all people.<BR/><BR/>(This post replaces my last deleted one because I forgot a word "not")Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-12793599524959790412008-03-29T01:11:00.000-04:002008-03-29T01:11:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-2832747613812332352008-03-29T01:08:00.000-04:002008-03-29T01:08:00.000-04:00"The fact is that Dr. Keller, you or anyone else, ..."The fact is that Dr. Keller, you or anyone else, accept God, knows the conditions of the hearts of the individuals that are being addressed. You paint everyone with a broad brush of being 'intellectual' when you have no idea how that even lines up with each individual."<BR/><BR/>Not everyone is, but the people that go to that conference that aren't Christian at Berkeley certainly are individual. That's pretty obvious, right? <BR/><BR/><BR/>"Dr. Keller does not take the Biblical stand that he should, he takes the pragmatic stand! How is this paving the way for anything but more pragmatism and equivocation? His grace narrative, where one is so humble he/she takes no side, is absolutely antithetical to what the Word of God commands us to do, and in itself is intellectual treason."<BR/><BR/>Concerning what Keller said about homosexuality, he was talking with reference to how the grace narrative affected the politics of legislation of homosexuality. He answered that it doesn't affect politics. The question asked by the student presupposed that Keller viewed homosexuality as wrong. From when I listened to it, Keller's response was with regard to political legislation and not with regard to whether or not homosexuality was wrong. Also, whether or not homosexuality is wrong was not the question at stake.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-44462984831126780252008-03-28T15:10:00.000-04:002008-03-28T15:10:00.000-04:00GreuberJames 3: 1 Not many of you should become t...Greuber<BR/><BR/>James 3: 1<BR/><BR/> Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jas 3:1). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.<BR/><BR/>Acts 17: 10, 11<BR/><BR/>10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ac 17:10-11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.<BR/><BR/>You said<BR/><BR/>'how do you take an hour and a half of somebody's life and and make such final judgments?<BR/>I screwed up today, Lord please forgive me, and in some conversasions today, even talking to unsaved people, I didnt give the whole gospel......I am going to have to call them back now and make sure I do incase one of my Christian brothers finds out and it affects them like it has affected gigantor'<BR/><BR/>Have you looked at the man's credentials? What I wrote was not just based on 1.5 hours but on who the man holds himself up to be as a teacher! It is not that Pastor Keller made simple mistakes in his oration, it is that he did not present the truth! Part truth, sure, nice platitudes and ideals, OK but did he speak as though he were speaking the word of God? NO!<BR/>We are called to be discerning, we are called to warn others of false teaching and doctrine, we are called to judge rightly! Here is a challenge to you Greuber, go back and answer some of the criticisms regarding his presentation, defend his grace narrative, support what he says on legislation on homosexual marriage, and in light of what he said about the word of God tell me what you think. Be discerning, be circumspect, go find the truth. <BR/>I never judged the man's eternal standing before God but I certainly did judge what he said. <BR/>You might consider the contrast here, what I say is not to the masses and held out as truth to the thousands, or millions, Dr. Keller's words are! Because he has chosen to get up on the podium he has asked, even demanded that his words be judged! So, judge rightly! Why are you so willing to accept compromise Greuber?gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-59090650487114210692008-03-28T12:39:00.000-04:002008-03-28T12:39:00.000-04:00Romans 12 3For by the grace given me I say to ever...Romans 12<BR/><BR/> 3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. <BR/> 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, <BR/> 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.<BR/> 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his[b]faith.<BR/> 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; <BR/>8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.<BR/><BR/>how do you take an hour and a half of somebody's life and and make such final judgments?<BR/> I screwed up today, Lord please forgive me, and in some conversasions today, even talking to unsaved people, I didnt give the whole gospel......I am going to have to call them back now and make sure I do incase one of my Christian brothers finds out and it affects them like it has affected gigantor<BR/><BR/>Romans 14<BR/> 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. <BR/>2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. <BR/>3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. <BR/>4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. <BR/><BR/> I guess as long as at the end of this there is encouragment and Jesus is lifted up and God is praised it is worth it....I can say for me it has in prayer...for myself, in my dealings in public and for leaders<BR/> I LOVE this verse and have been using it in prayer <BR/><BR/>Philippians 1<BR/><BR/>3I thank my God every time I remember you.<BR/> 4In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy<BR/> 5because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now,<BR/> 6being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. <BR/> 7It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.<BR/> 8God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus. <BR/><BR/> 9And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,<BR/> 10so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ,<BR/> 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God. !!!!(exclamation marks added my me)hagreuberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14036102741240165186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-48946032676439305282008-03-28T11:13:00.000-04:002008-03-28T11:13:00.000-04:00BrianYou said;'Keller is establishing grounds upon...Brian<BR/><BR/>You said;<BR/><BR/>'Keller is establishing grounds upon which the Gospel can be intellectually considered true. Not addressing their concerns and ideas contrary to the Gospel would be the opposite of instructing them or helping them.'<BR/><BR/>The fact is that Dr. Keller, you or anyone else, accept God, knows the conditions of the hearts of the individuals that are being addressed. You paint everyone with a broad brush of being 'intellectual' when you have no idea how that even lines up with each individual. The point is that God knows the hearts of all men, and He alone knows what it takes to draw any man to a saving faith. We know for sure that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to them that believe and our job is to give that to them no matter what else we give, not second guessing the Holy Spirit because He is the one that will do the real work!<BR/>Paul realized what it took to bring a man to Christ and his conclusion is that it is the pure and simple Gospel of Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. <BR/><BR/>1 Cor. 2:2-5<BR/><BR/>And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but din the power of God.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 2:1-5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with reasoning, but reasoning to what end? And then if your reasoning concludes with elements that undermine the premise for your belief, then what use is your reasoning? <BR/>Dr. Keller does not take the Biblical stand that he should, he takes the pragmatic stand! How is this paving the way for anything but more pragmatism and equivocation? His grace narrative, where one is so humble he/she takes no side, is absolutely antithetical to what the Word of God commands us to do, and in itself is intellectual treason. Intellectual reasoning with respect to the defense of the faith should have one goal in mind and that is leading those that hear it to the 'true' Gospel, it leads those who hear it to take a side! <BR/><BR/>Dt. 30:19, 20<BR/><BR/>19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”<BR/><BR/>The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Dt 30:19-20). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.<BR/><BR/>Acts 17:30, 31<BR/><BR/>"30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."<BR/><BR/>Choose life, repent, take a side and get out of the darkness and into the light. Christ is the only way into the light, and His foolish Gospel has been chosen to confound the wise and shame them, this is not a comfortable thing to grasp, to intellectuals it is foolishness and to the Jew it is a stumbling stone. Dr. Keller may say some really nice sounding things, but he does not even get close to taking his hearers to the Gospel, if anything he leads them further from the truth by his non biblical conclusions and weak assertions.gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-83777912575307128772008-03-28T11:07:00.000-04:002008-03-28T11:07:00.000-04:00To Brian2 Corinthians 10:5We demolish arguments an...To Brian<BR/><BR/>2 Corinthians 10:5<BR/>We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.<BR/><BR/>That’s exactly what TK didn’t do! In his attempt to be gentle and reverent and to let his words be full of grace, TK failed to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God….”<BR/><BR/>On the other hand that is exactly what Paul did on Mars Hill. Keeping in mind that Paul was gentle and reverent and his speech full of grace, look at the content of what he said:<BR/>(1) I observe that you are very religious in all respects (v.22).<BR/>(2) For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD’ (v.23a)<BR/>(3) Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you (23b)<BR/>(4) In verses 24-29 Paul demolished their arguments and pretensions that were set up against God by showing both the illogic and futility of their ignorance.<BR/>(5) Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (v.30)<BR/>(6) Why? “Because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (v.31) – notice that at this point Paul didn’t mention Jesus’ name – why? Because in his so-called “pre-evangelism” he wasn’t paving the way for them to hear about Jesus – he was preaching Jesus (see verses 17-19).<BR/><BR/>Notice carefully how Paul indicted his listeners as ignorant and in need of repentance:<BR/>(1) In his introduction (verses 22-23) he connected with their false assumptions and faulty presuppositions that were raised up against the knowledge of God (“I observe that you are very religious in all respects”) through empirical evidence (“for while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship”) for the purpose of destroying their false assumptions and faulty presuppositions about God (“Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you”).<BR/>(2) In the body of his message (verses 24-29) he destroyed their false assumptions and faulty presuppositions using both biblical truth and logic.<BR/>(3) In his application (verses 30-31) he called for a response to the truth of his indictment for their sin (“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent”) in the light of the certainty of the judgment of God based on the resurrection (“because He has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead”).<BR/><BR/>Wow! Paul indicted his listeners of ignorance in a gentle and reverent manner (no shock, no mischievousness, no ambiguity, just simple clarity) proved it, and offered the only solution. Now that's the kind of apologists we should all seek to be!<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace<BR/>Olanolan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-56878284146837428762008-03-27T13:56:00.000-04:002008-03-27T13:56:00.000-04:00I said I'd shut up not because I assumed you wante...I said I'd shut up not because I assumed you wanted me to shut up, but because then I would obviously be wrong.<BR/><BR/>Keller is not manipulating them into an emotional state. That is dishonest evangelism, imo, although lots of times the Gospel will and SHOULD effect your emotions.<BR/><BR/>Keller is establishing grounds upon which the Gospel can be intellectually considered true. Not addressing their concerns and ideas contrary to the Gospel would be the opposite of instructing them or helping them. Look at the life of C.S. Lewis - he needed to realize that Christianity was intellectually possible and even superior to the secular mindset before he became a Christian. Christian intellectual writings paved the way for him to hear the Gospel, even though he had heard of Christ long before. It was God's gracious work in C.S. Lewis that allowed him to see the folly of his ways and accept Christ. The means by which God's work was carried out was not the Gospel only but also intellectual writings that defended Christianity. <BR/><BR/>My faith would be shaky if I had never heard anyone address the attacks upon Christianity that I hear. For those who do not have faith, their worldview has to be broken down. Is that not what Keller does?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-67047470497074575882008-03-27T03:08:00.000-04:002008-03-27T03:08:00.000-04:00Brian'Truly the Gospel is the answer, but there's ...Brian<BR/><BR/>'Truly the Gospel is the answer, but there's some work to be done to get them to a place where they will understand what the Gospel means.'<BR/><BR/>Paul's job, your job, Dr. Keller's, mine is to preach Christ and him crucified. It is expedient that we deliver the Gospel as soon as possible because it is "the power of God" for salvation to everyone who believes. Nothing is guaranteed and man's time is any time, so give them the truth, the Gospel so they have something to accept or reject. It is not up to you to manipulate or play with men's heads to bring them to some emotional state so that they will make a decision, the decision is mandated by God, it is commanded just as Paul stated in Acts 17 (this is in the imperative) 'all people everywhere should repent! Also, Paul was preaching Christ the whole time, see Acts 17: 18, he was not preparing hearts, that is not his or our Job, the heart belongs to God. Paul laid it all out and that is why he got the response that he did. Point is that we water and we sow but we are nothing, see 1 Cor. 3: 5-9, it is God who brings the increase and nothing is credited to us, it is all to Him!<BR/>As far as Dr. Keller is concerned, he even states that he was not speaking directly of Christianity, and while he speaks of the Christian's world view of the Gospel and how Christians see there need for Christ, he does not address the crowd on their dire need for him nor God's imperative that they repent, as Paul did! At the end of the whole thing he undermines any presentation of the Gospel by casting doubt on the reliability of the Word of God, as well as his weak answer with regards to our place in legislating laws that protect society from destructive things such as homosexuality! He states that the grace narrative precludes that we remain neutral and not choose sides on things such as this, which is a total fabrication. We are to be lights and as such when we see evils that are destructive we are to warn both the saved and unsaved of such evils. If it is in our power we should legislate such laws that will protect society from those evils, anything less is selfish and evil in itself, we are to protect and warn those being led to destruction. <BR/>Keller also undermines himself with his own reluctance in speaking the entirety of the truth as well as the reliability of the word. He may be a wonderful and patient orator but I would not want to follow him into battle, he vacillates far to much. <BR/>Brian, no one is asking you to shut up, why would you think that. Just because you are challenged in your beliefs does not mean we want you to shut up or leave, just defend what you believe with the word of God. I have apologized to you personally on your blog for anything that you perceived as offensive, so why don't you get over it. As far as what I said to Mike, I perceived him as being pluralistic, which I still do, it is not a wrong thing to say. I perceived you as liberal, even emergent in your thinking, so perhaps not emergent, but even as you admitted 'you grew up in a uber liberal family,' your words not mine, and I would imagine that is what I saw and still see. If that is offensive to you, I am sorry, but it is what I see. <BR/>You obviously believe in being at least as frank as demonstrated by your earlier drive by. At any rate, pull out the sword and prepare to be challenged and sharpened.<BR/>In the mean time you ought to take a listen to the spokesman's, pastor Strickland's, sermons, you might profit from what he preaches!<BR/><BR/>http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=olanstricklandgigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-4726278160616572832008-03-27T01:38:00.000-04:002008-03-27T01:38:00.000-04:00Right! Of course he talks about Jesus afterwards. ...Right! Of course he talks about Jesus afterwards. That's the whole point. If you can show me that Keller doesn't talk about Christ afterwards, then I'll shut up. <BR/><BR/>Didn't Paul make the way paved for them to hear about Jesus? There was some work to be done before hand, to bridge the worldview gap.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-54002880572478535112008-03-26T23:02:00.000-04:002008-03-26T23:02:00.000-04:00BartKeller said, "However, in various evangelistic...Bart<BR/>Keller said, "However, in various evangelistic venues, I don’t always give people the ‘whole gospel’. You can take your time. Multiple exposures are usually needed for very secular and skeptical people to grasp and be persuaded by the gospel. For example, you may spend most of your presentation on the nature of God and say fairly little about Jesus. That’s what Paul did in Acts 17. He laid a foundation and barely mentioned Christ.”<BR/><BR/>Paul barely mentioned Christ in Acts 17? What Bible is he reading from? Maybe his Bible doesn’t have Acts 17:18 in it! “And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, ‘What would this idle babbler wish to say?’ Others, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities.’ – because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.”<BR/><BR/>Warren Wiersbe said of this text, “The word translated ‘preached’ in Acts 17:18 means “to preach the Gospel.” Those who say that Paul modified his evangelistic tactics in Athens, hoping to appeal to the intellectuals, have missed the point. He preached the Gospel as boldly in Athens as he did in Berea and would do in Corinth” (Bible Exposition Commentary, pg 472).<BR/><BR/>Brian<BR/>“In Acts 17:22-31, Paul does not use the name Jesus or Christ, because those names would have been meaningless to his hearers.”<BR/> <BR/>Brian don’t conveniently leave out Acts 17:16-21 – his hearers were the ones that invited him to speak more to them about this Jesus he was preaching. You can make the Scriptures say whatever you want if you take them out of context.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Olanolan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-2266654671148833522008-03-26T22:52:00.000-04:002008-03-26T22:52:00.000-04:00"we're all like the blues brothers - on a mission ..."we're all like the blues brothers - on a mission from God. the common thread among us is that we don't like to give up the driver's seat..."<BR/><BR/> - unfortunate though sadly true. we truly are totally depraved..arent we. just go by the Truth. It is too bad when a person's particular theological and/or emotional bent supersedes that Truth.<BR/><BR/>The world needs more Tim Keller's, and Ravi Zacharias's. Amen to these men.gliphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01664868908642576255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-58171505480688125702008-03-26T22:23:00.000-04:002008-03-26T22:23:00.000-04:00I'm concerned by his statement that he (Keller) is...I'm concerned by his statement that he (Keller) is willing to learn from the Eastern Orthodox tradition (about the 54:30 mark) when answering the question about his failure to delve into Melchizedek. Why would anyone want to learn from an apostate church that worships icons?DKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02918773741703101352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-47308348643946920752008-03-26T22:17:00.000-04:002008-03-26T22:17:00.000-04:00please read this very carefully:if someone in a co...please read this very carefully:<BR/><BR/>if someone in a comments section is stepping in to defend <I>me</I> from someone who has been accused of <I>trolling</I>...<BR/><BR/>...then we really are in the end times. :)<BR/><BR/>thanks for your thoughts, brian. my skin's thick, my wit's quick, and i can take a licking and keep ticking with anyone. i enjoy the exchange of thoughts - and even once in a while i actually read something i ain't heard before - and i'm doing my darndest to smooth my own rough edges that keep tagging me persona non grata at various sites around w's internets.<BR/><BR/>we're all like the blues brothers - on a mission from God. the common thread among us is that we don't like to give up the driver's seat...<BR/><BR/>mike rucker<BR/>fairburn, georgia, usa<BR/>mikerucker.wordpress.comspud tooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09921322553025339949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-81553752786737137422008-03-26T22:11:00.000-04:002008-03-26T22:11:00.000-04:00Y'all Brian, MRThe grace narrative, as Pastor Kell...Y'all Brian, MR<BR/><BR/>The grace narrative, as Pastor Keller says, takes those that are saved and sets them in a place of humility because they see that they are not better than anyone else. ABSOLUTELY TRUE but it does not stop here, it also addresses deliverance of the truth to others, the world especially. Many times addressing the world with truth is taken as hostile and violent, that is the nature of truth. The Gospel, as we see in Acts 17:30, 31<BR/><BR/>"30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."<BR/><BR/>How is this not confrontive, how does it not demand us to take a side? As a matter of fact it spurred a riot. God commands that sinners repent, it is not a request and so when we pose the Gospel to the unsaved we should pose it as is, not a request but a imperative 'repent' and then let them know what the consequence is, eternal separation, hell. This is the loving thing to do! <BR/>How could a world view that holds to the grace narrative cause such strife "in the world?" The Bible actually answers this, Jn. 1: 5 'the light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend it' this is because Jn. 3: 19 '19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” <BR/><BR/>The New King James Version. 1982 (Jn 3:19-21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. <BR/><BR/>Now, addressing my concerns with Dr. Keller;<BR/><BR/>On homosexuality: Approx 49 minutes in he addresses the question regarding moral legislation and Pastor Keller answers that he does not think that we should take a side on this, it is not clear to him. My question is how does the Bible address the issue? Dr. Keller should at least explain how the Bible is crystal clear with respect to the sin of immorality and homosexuality, then address the issue of moral legislation. By the way, the issue of 'moral legislation' is truly no issue at all because all that is legislated is morals! Bottom line here is that DR Keller disregards the truth and panders to what is popular with the world! Pure pragmatism!<BR/>Christianity is not a social ideal among many that is up for grabs. This is because any other option to following Christ ends up in death, this is definitive, it leaves no room for error, you follow or die. <BR/>Dr. Keller's presentation was well put together, as far as presentations go. He said some good things, he said some right and reasonable things. What he did not do was deliver the truth according to the word of God, he denied the word of God starting at 1:06 Dr Keller gives his explanation as to the credibility of the Bible, in his summation he states that he will not address the infallibility of the Bible but he does hold that it is historically accurate, he says 'you can trust what the Bible says about historic accounts, read that and figure out who Jesus is and then go from there.' I do give him credit that from the stand point of a piece of historic literature he gives the Bible credence, but he does not address it from there and this undermines all that he states about the Gospel! Why? Because where does his narrative come from but from the Word of God itself, either he believes the Word of God is all that it says it is, perfect truth, not of private interpretation, and completely of God by inspiration of the Apostles, inspiration is the key word here because the Greek translates it as though he put on the Apostles as instruments and used them to write allowing their character to come through! Now, either the Word of God is all that it says and he believes that completely or the hole of the Gospel message is undermined. He should have been definitive on this point, just as Paul was definitive in the Areopagus! <BR/>You can take this for what ever it is worth, but as gentle and kind as Dr. Keller was, do not be deceived in thinking that being definitive and offending by being definitive is not being humble and loving, because it is more so. It is more loving because we have been given definitive answers by God, we should love the world enough to give them those definitive answers so that they can have a opportunity to accept or reject based upon all the truth available. As Dr. Keller correctly states, he really did not address Christianity, he addressed his grace narrative. The 'Christianity thing' rises and falls based upon ones belief in the resurrection and this is true, either you decide it is true or not, but he never completes the thought by answering why one should believe, why did this crucifixion and resurrection happen and that is the offending point he continually avoids. People need Christ, they are commanded to believe in Him and if they do not they perish. This is the rub, take them part way and get part belief, give them all they need and then they can make a valid decision, even if it is a hostile decision. We need to take sides, we are commanded to take sides, we are chosen to and to not be definitive is wrong.gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-70696932131428380402008-03-26T20:41:00.000-04:002008-03-26T20:41:00.000-04:00Thanks for your post Bart. I am glad that such in...Thanks for your post Bart. I am glad that such information came to light as it gives us the answer to the intentionality question I asked. It also shows his reasoning for why such intentions are justified from his perspective. <BR/><BR/>What do you guys think? Do you believe that the message of the Gospel, though always the same, ought to be packaged differently depending on the audience (ie hamburger bun, tortilla, salad).....I guess the question is...Is the Gospel always to be preached exactly the same, and, in every situation in which you find yourself, should you preach that message which is always preached exactly the same?<BR/><BR/>My thoughts would move to Philip and the eunuch...Peter and Cornelius....Peter and the Jews....Stephen and the Jews...and then Paul and his travels....<BR/><BR/><BR/>I look forward to your responses.<BR/><BR/>God bless you and and keep you guys and gals,TheThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09540664509651110963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-45375522003952399602008-03-26T20:19:00.000-04:002008-03-26T20:19:00.000-04:00Brian and AllIf what I have said is erroneous then...Brian and All<BR/><BR/>If what I have said is erroneous then refute it with the truth! I do not mind correction as long as it is with truth.gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-10561256353964903002008-03-26T20:15:00.000-04:002008-03-26T20:15:00.000-04:00BrianSpoken by a mature 23 year old master of divi...Brian<BR/><BR/>Spoken by a mature 23 year old master of divinity student, your professors are teaching you well Brian.gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-48149395670116144472008-03-26T20:08:00.000-04:002008-03-26T20:08:00.000-04:00To MikeDon't get bothered by Gigantor. He calls pe...To Mike<BR/><BR/>Don't get bothered by Gigantor. He calls people names and assumes he knows their hearts (at best) or (at worst) he purposely misrepresents people to bash them (who knows for what purpose). When he penetrated deep into my soul and discerned that I did not care for the salvation of my closest friends, I realized that maybe I should call him a name : "internet troll." It is a technical term, although slang.<BR/><BR/>"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]" <BR/><BR/>I seriously lost sleep over what he wrote to me because I have a high deal of respect for the people that post here, because most of them are older than me, but you would do yourself well to ignore him.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-73354651147765935112008-03-26T20:02:00.000-04:002008-03-26T20:02:00.000-04:00To the subject at hand:Keller's goal wasn't to pre...To the subject at hand:<BR/><BR/>Keller's goal wasn't to present a complete evangelistic message but instead to get to their presuppositions and make them question the things that they assume to be true, which comes from a worldview of postmodernism and modernist rationalism. Truly the Gospel is the answer, but there's some work to be done to get them to a place where they will understand what the Gospel means.<BR/><BR/>I think of these verses when I consider what Keller did:<BR/><BR/>1 Peter 3:15<BR/>But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,<BR/><BR/>2 Corinthians 10:5<BR/>We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.<BR/><BR/>Colossians 4:6<BR/>Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 9:22<BR/>To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.<BR/><BR/>In Acts 17:22-31, Paul does not use the name Jesus or Christ, because those names would have been meaningless to his hearers. Furthermore, you can see all kinds of neat things if you study the Greek - Paul even used local idioms and some words and phrases in the attic dialect, the dialect of Athens. The principle is clear - he went to those who had no knowledge of Christ and spoke to them using what they could understand to build a bridge to share with them the reality of the person of Christ and what he did for them at Calvary so they could be saved. Did you see the way he responded to the person who said, "I don't think God would send me to hell?" Keller was startled and responded quickly - he knows what that person's eternal destiny is and was quick to get at the root of that person's disbelief, to make the way for the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Paul would reason with the Jews from the Scriptures for weeks on end to save them. I bet in heaven we'll find out that he had to do a considerable amount of work to change the presuppositions of those Jews and what they thought the Messiah would be. Paul had to do different stuff to the Greeks to get them to believe. <BR/><BR/>I think Keller is good at sharing the Gospel to a particular audience - educated non-Christian professionals - and he knows what he has to do to bring them to the point where the Gospel is understandable. That's what Paul did.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273753399379839598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-28840902788078761232008-03-26T18:36:00.000-04:002008-03-26T18:36:00.000-04:00BartAnd what was his granting legitimacy to non Ch...Bart<BR/><BR/>And what was his granting legitimacy to non Christian thinking, the validation of pagan thought? What was he doing when he stated that the Gospels were historical but He would not speak to the inerrance of the rest of the word? How about his unwillingness to answer the question regarding homosexual marriage, why did he not just tell them the truth from he word of God? <BR/>Pre evangelism, perhaps for a different Gospel, but not the truth!gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-67705835502067503872008-03-26T18:22:00.000-04:002008-03-26T18:22:00.000-04:00Monergism just published an interview with Keller ...Monergism just published an interview with Keller <A HREF="http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/kellerinterview.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. <BR/><BR/>The first question is about how Keller evangelizes:<BR/><BR/>"To preach the gospel is to show people their need for salvation against a backdrop of God’s nature and the character of sin, and then present Jesus as the only remedy for what ails them and the world. In my weekly preaching in the worship services I always call people to believe in Christ.<BR/><BR/>However, in various evangelistic venues, I don’t always give people the ‘whole gospel’. You can take your time. Multiple exposures are usually needed for very secular and skeptical people to grasp and be persuaded by the gospel. For example, you may spend most of your presentation on the nature of God and say fairly little about Jesus. That’s what Paul did in Acts 17. He laid a foundation and barely mentioned Christ. When I recently went around to speak evangelistically on college campuses my presentation I did not lay out very much about the cross and resurrection. Instead I worked on the problems of secularism and the nature of God. I have found that if you don’t do that, people aren’t ready to understand the concepts of sin and grace and atonement."<BR/><BR/>I think Keller would say that he was only doing PRE-evangelism at Berkeley.Barthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05468408685374256582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-75598343571397756872008-03-26T18:21:00.001-04:002008-03-26T18:21:00.001-04:00MRA 25 word Gospel would be nice but not practical...MR<BR/><BR/>A 25 word Gospel would be nice but not practical, just another canned thing. Jesus always spoke to hearts and gave his truth as needed. It is really nothing that you can rehearse for and canned stuff, although helpful, really limits more than anything else. The best thing that can be done is know the word of God and know Him, if we are obedient to this he will be obedient to give us what we need when we need it, He will speak through us!gigantor1231https://www.blogger.com/profile/13329932791380481665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-22405369319936514992008-03-26T18:21:00.000-04:002008-03-26T18:21:00.000-04:00do you think sometimes instead of seeing a planted...do you think sometimes instead of seeing a planted seed and watering it we stand back and expect to see it watered, grow and be harvested --right away-- and by somebody else while we complain and arque on why it doesnt look like we think it should or is taking too long? or maybe not the seed we would have planted?....right God?<BR/> Like Jonah watching from the hill...surely He wont save them...and if he did it wouldnt be like that!...right Godgreuberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14036102741240165186noreply@blogger.com