Mark Lowry Recovering Fundamentalist - Interesting

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

If you were paying attention you would have understood that "Emergent Liberal" was part of the same EC highway.

And since we have more in common with Catholics than we do with Hindus I suppose that would mean we must be Catholic...

Progressives have more in common with the "emergent liberal" lane four - than they would like to think - apparently.

But to be fair - I am not the one that brought the "emergent liberal" concept into this thread.

Your own video that you insist that we watch so as to be "informed" at 4:28 min:sec begins the discussion of the "emergent liberal" saying that they "question" key foundational doctrines "that should not be questioned by pastors" according to the speaker. The speakers says they excuse themselves by saying "oh - we are just asking questions" ... such as

1. Did Jesus really die in our place for our sins?

2. Is anybody really going to hell?

3. Is homosexuality sinful?

"And on many of these issues - they won't answer the question" says the speaker.

They dodge it.

And then he goes on to cite an example of one person that questions whether we really need to hold to the virgin birth teaching of the Bible.

Sounds like Julie Whatshername in the earlier part of this discussion. The question has arisen here,"do any SDA leaders ask those same type of questions?" Or how do progressive SDA's differ from lane 4 EC's? Tom says "no,much different, not the same." Bob says...?

[doug yowell]

Dang, don't I make a good case???? lol

Boy, what one could do with that set up!!

[Tom Wetmore]

Unwittingly you have actually identified at least one answer to my questions about differences.

Whose dodging? Supposedly Emergent Liberals. Most so-called progressive Adventists that I have heard of, including those already identified here, aren't just asking questions. They are also giving answers. They are making suggestions for changes that should be made by the Church. Just because they are not the answers or suggestions others may want to hear or agree with doesn't mean they have not answered the questions.

And for questions that appear yet unanswered, "I don't know" or "I am not sure" honestly given are answers and not dodging. Accepting uncertainty would seem more like an act of faith. On the other hand, expressing an answer as being a certainty while secretly harboring a doubt or question, seems rather dishonest. That is more common than you think.

[doug yowell]

Being progressive and having non-traditional thoughts or ideas does not put you on the EC highway.

Of course having non-traditional thoughts or ideas are essential to the EC movement,correct? And when those ideas are propagated, whether in lane 1,3,3,4, wouldn't this suffice for an adaquate sized pigeonhole? And isn't the term EC simply a newly created term to describe certain historical attributes that have been repackaged and presented in a new box?

[John317]

...

Your own video that you insist that we watch so as to be "informed" at 4:28 min:sec begins the discussion of the "emergent liberal" saying that they "question" key foundational doctrines "that should not be questioned by pastors" according to the speaker. The speakers says they excuse themselves by saying "oh - we are just asking questions" ... such as

1. Did Jesus really die in our place for our sins?

2. Is anybody really going to hell?

3. Is homosexuality sinful?

"And on many of these issues - they won't answer the question" says the speaker.

They dodge it.

And then he goes on to cite an example of one person that questions whether we really need to hold to the virgin birth teaching of the Bible.

This sounds familiar. I remember these exact same things happening on the Forum, particularly #3.

I also recall that it is almost impossible to get straight answers from some of the people who bring up these questions. When you ask them to answer straightforwardly what they believe, they tend to make it appear that the questioner is being "mean spirited" to ask the question or that the question itself is "silly" or insignificant. They may also say things like, "I already answered that." It seems anything is to be preferred instead of a direct answer.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Dang, don't I make a good case???? lol

Boy, what one could do with that set up!!

Sir,

In the words of an old Quaker, I perceiveth that thou might be a mischief maker.....and in the words of a Hindu, what goes around comes around....aw, go ahead, and make some fun mischief...

[Neil D]

The idea of objective truth is that there is something true regardless of what we believe. But you appear to be saying that you believe there is nothing absolutely true regardless of what people believe.

The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false.

Are you saying that the Bible is only true if people believe it to be true? That seems to me to be your position.Does this harmonize with Christ's teachings and the teachings of the Bible?

John,

I respectfully ask that you reread what I posted.... My point-that of ultimate truth being formed from objective truth thru any one subjective human being is subjective at best- is very plain.

[John317]

.....I really don't like the concept of "Ultimate truth"....especally when it's determined by subjective human being, specifically ONE human being...doesn't matter which human being....as every human being has been rather subjective in something and never totally objective...

Yes, I got your point that no human being is completely objective. You're saying that all truth is subjective truth at best and not "ultimate truth" because it is determined by subjective humans beings.

But is the ultimate truth really determined by subjective human beings?

Isn't objective/ultimate truth determined, rather, by God's special revelation?

In some religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, Ultimate truth is something people only realize through meditation or chanting. It is subjective. They don't believe in objective truth.

But Christianity is different. It teaches that the Bible is true whether people believe it or not. For instance, a personal God who created the universe exists whether people realize it or not. This God wrote His objective law. Similarly, therefore, certain things are right or wrong whether people know it or not.

I see these questions and issues as directly related to what Mark Lowry is saying in the video because he implies that truth is based on our experiences.

I think Mark Lowry makes many good and important points in the video, especially about the necessity of loving everyone and of not judging others. Yet I do also believe we need to think carefully through some of the other things he says, because they may not be based on objective Bible truth.

[LifeHiscost]

It would be good to view that again,,,,

In reading this post of yours, I decided it important to say something more clear, maybe with less what seems to be ambiguity.

The message in the OP was so important, as the message of Jesus' love always is, that most men/women literally run away from it, possibly for the same reason the Israelites were cautioned not to go up on the mountain, where God was, lest they die. And after Moses came off the mount, his face shone so that he had to cover it as the people were even unable to view the brightness of God reflected, a clear indication of how far away they were from the purity of the Holy One. Something only the cleansing power of Jesus' blood can fit us for.

I'm going back to look at the video again, now before

BTW, Mark did mention Seventh Day Adventists in, I believe the third video of the series.

Thanks again for the OP, Stan.

God blesses!

[Neil D]

Yes, I got your point that no human being is completely objective. You're saying that all truth is subjective truth at best and not "ultimate truth" because it is determined by subjective humans beings.

But is the ultimate truth really determined by subjective human beings?

[LifeHiscost]

">

[BobRyan]

3:15 into the video -- he explains how wonderful it is the Peter stopped "listening to his scriptures" and then 3:55 Mark says "Thank God" that the Jews fell and rejected Christ because that is why God extended the Gospel to us gentiles.

This is a great example of the happy-clappy kind of ear-tickling that we are all happy to laugh at - but it is sobering to consider that some people will take this kind of cartoon and accept it as "gospel".

Kind of like the SNL voting block - doing their research by mocking.

That only works in unit testing

in Christ,

Bob

[CoAspen]

3:15 into the video -- he explains how wonderful it is the Peter stopped "listening to his scriptures" and then 3:55 Mark says "Thank God" that the Jews fell and rejected Christ because that is why God extended the Gospel to us gentiles.

This is a great example of the happy-clappy kind of ear-tickling that we are all happy to laugh at - but it is sobering to consider that some people will take this kind of cartoon and accept it as "gospel".

Kind of like the SNL voting block - doing their research by mocking.

That only works in unit testing

in Christ,

Bob

As always, the meaning being twisted.....Peters scriptures said everyone was not equal before God, But Gods word says, yes they are. That was the lesson learned by Peter...Gospel? Yes!

Many parables have the same theme about the Jewish nation/people rejecting Gods invite and yes it went to the Jews first. Those outside were considered lost! Mark lmakes a very good point in a humorous way...Gospel? Yes!

Read it in your Bibles!!!

Maybe this is another case of Marching forward to the past type of fault finding.

[ClubV12]

I think Bob has a valid point here. Humor can be successfully used in preaching/teaching, but it's also like walking through a mine field. Somebody might get blown up by taking it out of context. Interesting, but dangerous ground.

[BobRyan]

Especially when we consider what God said about people in the last days "known" for gathering to themselves those who strive for little more than tickling the ears.

[Twilight II]

Maybe this is another case of Marching forward to the past type of fault finding.

But you are finding fault with Bob finding fault...

:-)

[Twilight II]

Bob made a very good point.

I thought some of the humour in the video was inappropriate, especially when Christ was used as the centre of the humour...

We should filter everything through the word and not let sentiment cloud our judgement.

[Parade Orange]

i love MARK LOWREY

i have watched him for years

He is in those assemblies where that stuff is apropos

ne isnt on a SDA PULPIT in my conservative rural church

HE is headlining a music comedy christian based show

it is also his ministry

dont u see he is using humour to disarm and relax the heart to dig deep for the GOSPEL!

i saw all the clips of this particular show and he is using every way imaginable to share the TRUTH

they are getting a sermon

its not everyones cup of tea

[olger]

This sounds familiar. I remember these exact same things happening on the Forum, particularly #3.

I also recall that it is almost impossible to get straight answers from some of the people who bring up these questions. When you ask them to answer straightforwardly what they believe, they tend to make it appear that the questioner is being "mean spirited" to ask the question or that the question itself is "silly" or insignificant. They may also say things like, "I already answered that." It seems anything is to be preferred instead of a direct answer.

Yes indeed, brother John.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: John317

This sounds familiar. I remember these exact same things happening on the Forum, particularly #3.

I also recall that it is almost impossible to get straight answers from some of the people who bring up these questions. When you ask them to answer straightforwardly what they believe, they tend to make it appear that the questioner is being "mean spirited" to ask the question or that the question itself is "silly" or insignificant. They may also say things like, "I already answered that." It seems anything is to be preferred instead of a direct answer.

Yes indeed, brother John.

Honest answers can be given to honest questions. Disingenuous questions are usually best ignored. There is a problem with answering questions from someone that already has all the answers (or at least thinks they do...). Such questions seldom are asked in search of an answer.

My impression of the gospels is that the scribes and pharisees regarded Jesus' answers to their "questions" as being less than straightforward. He often did not give them a direct answer.

[Gail]

Bob made a very good point.

I thought some of the humour in the video was inappropriate, especially when Christ was used as the centre of the humour...

We should filter everything through the word and not let sentiment cloud our judgement.

I know that people draw the line in the sand in different places on this... I don't want to steal someone's joy.

There are some humourous things that personally I have no problem with, cause sometimes you just gotta consider the source and let it go.

But there are other times when I hear something in jest and I groan inwardly cause it grates on me. And the reason is that I feel that it's sacreligious.

It would be hard for me to distinguish if someone's laughing WITH Jesus or AT Jesus. But as far as I go, I do have a limit. I just hope it's close to where God's limit is!

[Gail]

i love MARK LOWREY

i have watched him for years

He is in those assemblies where that stuff is apropos

ne isnt on a SDA PULPIT in my conservative rural church

HE is headlining a music comedy christian based show

it is also his ministry

dont u see he is using humour to disarm and relax the heart to dig deep for the GOSPEL!

i saw all the clips of this particular show and he is using every way imaginable to share the TRUTH

they are getting a sermon

its not everyones cup of tea

I agree

[BobRyan]

We start with documented references to Tom's own chosen Video that HE brought to this thread as evidence in favor of his POV.

3:15 into the video -- he explains how wonderful it is the Peter stopped "listening to his scriptures" and then 3:55 Mark says "Thank God" that the Jews fell and rejected Christ because that is why God extended the Gospel to us gentiles.

This is a great example of the happy-clappy kind of ear-tickling that we are all happy to laugh at - but it is sobering to consider that some people will take this kind of cartoon and accept it as "gospel".

Kind of like the SNL voting block - doing their research by mocking.

That only works in unit testing

[ClubV12]

Tom made some good points, sometimes a question is little more than being poked with a stick.

[Neil D]

One one level these comments actually agree with the complaints of the speaker on Tom's own selected video.

So now Tom chooses to defend the practice of dodging the questions. The very practice being condemned in his own chosen/selected video for this thread.

Bob

Bob.....Have you ever considered this quote-

: Blowing out another's candle will not make yours shine brighter.

Have you considered that the reason Tom "dodges the questions" is because he doesn't want to blow your candle out?

Just asking.....