And just for clarity, I was not seriously calling Dr. Toh a person with abhorrent theological positions. David was actually referring to me when he made that lovely comment. David thinks I am going to hell because I am a Roman Catholic.
]]>Unfortunately, some churches and pastors have the same kind of thinking. If church just didn’t have all those sinners, we’d be so much better off! Yet the church would be empty without sinners.
Some of us here have experienced similar painful issues as you mention. For example there are some people question whether I have an “evil spirit” or a “bitter heart” or a “wounded soul” because of my “whistle-blowing” activities on my blog: http://www.priestlynation.com and http://www.ubfriends.org/2011/05/my-confession/. Sometimes laughter really is the best medicine.
]]>Oh wait.. that was my UBF testimony, sorry for the relapse :)
]]>The passages that David cites, do I believe, show sufficient evidence that hell is forever. I am not sure if anyone on here disagree’s with that point. In fact, I dont think anyone ever attempted to. I think people disagree that they argue for “God Hates certain people” point.
We should definately have a thread on salvation for those who do not know Jesus. It is a topic that often elicits various responses. Sharon, I hope you will continue to hang around the website. Your clarity of mind is very much appreciated. Your also expel charity which is always contagious. =)
David,
I am sorry that Brian’s nazi censoring policies (he can get pretty power crazy sometimes) and Dr. Toh’s abhorrent theological opinions drove you away from the website. You were referring to Dr. Toh right? =)
David, I have two questions for you. These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know what you think. And these questions are closely related to the oriinal intent of this article.
Clearly, Mark Driscoll and Brian Zahn claim to be presenting the gospel. But they do so in very different ways.
Q1: Is it possible for someone to have a negative reaction to Brian Zahnd’s presentation for reasons that are good and holy?
Q2: Is it possible for someone to have a negative reation to Mark Driscoll’s presentation for reasons that are good and holy?
]]>I have no “theological position” yet, so I was not censoring anything based on content. Some of your position makes sense to me.
I put your two comments back (such as the one above). My only point is that we should not have a “I am right, you are wrong” tone here, especially when interacting with a new commenter like Sharon. I was hoping we could understand what Sharon was saying, which does match much of what God has been teaching me lately. Fortunately, Sharon seems ready, willing and able to partake in feisty discussions.
]]>The issue is this according to the English Puritan John Owen: Christ’s death was effectual. It actually ACCOMPLISHED something. It appeased God’s wrath and it is specific to individuals.
Knowing that, then the question becomes the following: (From John Owen)
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”
So I’d like you to think about that and try and understand why this particular question has yet to be answered from those who believe Christ died for everyone who ever lived.
]]>My thoughts on this discussion so far:
1) God’s ways are far above our ways. I cannot explain it, but I am convinced that God’s expressions of hate/wrath/anger are righteous and stem from His Fatherly love for us, even when we are lost.
2) When we preach/teach/share we need to remember that we are not to hate our brothers/sisters (such as in Leviticus 19:17) and we are to hate what is evil can cling to what is good (such as in Romans 12:9).
]]>“We shall have gone deeper than the deeps of heaven and grown older than the oldest angels before we feel, even in its first faint vibrations, the everlasting violence of that double passion with which God hates and loves the world. ”― Manalive
]]>And Sharon, I really like the depth of your responses. Thanks for participating in this heavily male-dominated forum. Welcome!
]]>(1) Don’t know the meaning of Hebrew word translated as “hate.” But I do know that the Bible is written in human language with human literary devices (e.g. hyperbole), not as a technical manual whose terms are always precisely defined and applied. On a few occasions, I made my kids so angry that they actually said to me, “I hate you,” but when I apologized to them for my bad behavior and the intensity of their momentary feeling passed, they quickly said, “I’m sorry” and admitted that they didn’t really hate me, it was just a figure of speech. I believe the Bible often uses such figures of speech. (2) The verses you quoted refer to punishment, and even if God punishes someone, I believe that God still loves that person at some very fundamental level. (5) Maybe an example is best. I love my wife intensely. If someone were to hurt her, show her disrespect, etc then I would be very angry toward him, and that anger would be a byproduct of my love. If I didn’t love her, then if someone disrespected her, I would be indifferent.
]]>Then again, I wonder how we could be called Jesus brother’s prior to the incarnation. Agh! This question is tough but interesting to discuss.
]]>I’m not Sharon but I’d like to attempt to answer your question. Hate — or I would prefer to use the terms wrath or anger — is certainly attributed to God in the Bible, but not to the same degree as love. Think of Psalms that declare “His love endures forever…” of the Apostle John’s admonition that “God is love.” Can you find any parallel passages that say things like, “His wrath endures forever…” or “God is hatred”? Love and wrath are not present to the same degree. An obvious example of this asymmetry is found in Ex 20:5-6, where God says, “…I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
A couple more observations.
1. God is a Trinity, and the persons in the God are bound together in relationships of perfect love. Our Trinitarian understanding of God places love at the very center, the very essence, of who God is. That’s why, I think, it makes sense to say “God is love.” There is no corresponding way that I can think of to place hatred, anger or wrath into the essence of God.
2. Hatred, wrath and anger are not the opposites of love. The opposite of love is indifference. Whatever we say about God, we cannot say that he is ever indifferent to his creation and to humanity. His wrath and anger are only aroused because of the love was originally there; those negative feelings are a kind of love that has been scorned. So even God’s wrath and anger have their origins in love.
3. I don’t think that Sharon claimed or intended to claim that one should *only* preach that God is love. It’s not a matter of either/or, but of emphasis.
I love you, David! Shalom.
]]>Those who preach a mission or a purpose or some sort of spirit or ambition are missing the point (Galatians 3:3). Our only goal is love (1 Timothy 1:5). We are to preach Christ, and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). That is our “true North”. Christ in you, that is the mystery! (Colossians 1:27)
]]>“When he started preaching in rural Tennessee during the 1950s, Craddock employed the traditional ‘deductive’ preaching style. The sermon is structured like a term paper: thesis, three supporting points, restatement of thesis.
“Something in me said that’s not the way to do it,” he says.
Fred Craddock struggled as a young preacher to find an audience before experiencing a breakthrough. Maybe it was the stories he heard growing up, but Craddock gradually stumbled onto his preaching style.
While serving as a young pastor at a church in Columbia, Tennessee, he noticed that people responded more to his informal talks outside church service than to his sermons.
He started experimenting. What if you didn’t structure the sermon like a legal argument but more like an extended conversation? The listener — not the preacher — would be challenged to give the sermon its meaning.”
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/27/us/craddock-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
]]>Well said, Ray! I see now more than ever that our Lord wants to display His richness through the “rich combination” of our experiences and the combined “richness” of the body of Christ.
So then, I would conclude that however we present the gospel, we are to present it with the fullness and richness of God. If we only present the gospel from one viewpoint, we are missing much of what God intended. And if we continue to insist that our one viewpoint is correct and the only way to present the gospel, we are in danger of Jesus’ woe’s given to the Pharisees. I believe this is a major cause of the splintering of denominations in the West.
As David Lee wrote above, we should rise above styles and “pray that Jesus Christ may be proclaimed and preached through my earthen vessel and all the humdrums of daily routine lives now and ever.”
]]>I am personally spiritually awaken when I hear a fiery sermon on hell. It wakes me up from my spiritual sleep. I think many other committed Christians would say the same. But I think this turns off those who do not understand Christianity. So I am not saying it does not work but it is not as effective in that point in their faith life as telling them about God’s Love. Though I believe telling them about God’s love is best understood in the context of sin and hell.
I should have made a more clear distinction between hearing about hell before and after you have come to understand God’s Love. My point is that telling someone about the fires of hell and your escape from said fires through acceptance of Jesus can be difficult for people to digest. “Jesus will forgive me just like that?” I think we might take it for granted how difficult this feels for people.
Sorry for not being more clear.
You said that you have never seen a person who preaches this change a persons heart. I would respond by saying that only God can change a persons heart, and we can see many examples in church history of God using such preaching to bring about mighty change. See for instance the preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield in the great awakening.
]]>2. This style of gospel preaching still resonates with me. Probably because it is easy to conjure up the idea of a god who wants us to please him and give him things. But I think deep down, the idea of a God that loves us ‘that much’ is powerful. In most of my evangelization opportunities off campus, it seems people believe that God exists but operate under a popular idea of God as the old man in the sky. I think presenting Jesus as a champion of Love really shocks people.
3. The holiness and hatred of sin view (while true) makes it difficult to motivate me. The image I get is this one: Imagine coming to the mansion of a very powerful landlord who loves his house to be meticulousness clean and hates bad manners. If I had been brought up in a refined home, I might be motivated to improve my manners. But since I have been brought up in a pig sty, it makes I experience learned helplessness. I feel that no matter how hard I try, I will never be able to please this master.
When I hear someone preaching this style, I usually think they are using it as a scare tactic. I have never seen someone who preaches this change a persons heart. It fills their heart with anxiety. If they fully understood the gospel, then I think this message could be effective. but if they dont even understand the gospel, they are left thinking that they should act before it is too late. But what they need to do seems impossible (e.g., be holy). And then there are the fundamentalist preachers who say all you have to do is accept Jesus Christ. I always imagine (I actually dont know) that most people do not feel too comfertable with this. They must think, you just spend the last 15 minutes telliing me about how much God hates sin, how Holy he is and how he wants me to be holy and that the world is going to end and I may end up in the fires of hell… and yet… I can avoid all of that just by accepting Jesus Christ? I think most people feel a disconnect their.
What I typically suppose about these people is that they are bible thumping fundamentalist who are very intolerant of those who oppose their understanding of the bible. Ofcourse, this isnt neccesarely true. But I have to honestly say, that this is the first impression that comes to mind.
]]>
1. What style of gospel preaching, if any, initially helped you to put your faith in Christ? Why do you think it helped you at that time?
In the beginning, I think messages which focussed more on God’s love, mercy, and forgiveness moved my heart and eventually brought me to Christ. I was in my 20’s and didn’t think much about death and judgment. But I had especially one sin which caused me a lot of pain and self-condemnation. Through the message of forgiveness, I was liberated from this state and found a new freedom which I hadn’t experienced before.
2. What style of gospel preaching resonates with you today? Why?
At first, I wanted to say that it is the same as before, i.e., a message about God’s love and mercy. For example, recently my heart has been moved when I think about God’s beauty and majesty (e.g., Psalm 27:4, Revelation 4). When I meditate on these things, there is something which gets excited in my spirit in a very new and fiery way, and leads me to sing songs of praise and share the gospel about the magnificence of Christ in a very genuine way.
That said, last week, the Lord visited me through Romans 2:1-5 and taught me that I have a deep judgmental heart toward others, including workmates, family, students, other Christians, etc. I felt the wrath of God upon me and wondered if Christ came today if he would even take me to be his bride. It was a very scary and trembling experience. But through this, the Lord helped me to repent in a very honest way and suddenly some big burdens were lifted. For example, I had been feeling very tired for some time for almost unexplainable reasons but now these are gone. I feel much peace and am learning how to be a man of mercy and grace. I actually believe that Mark Driscoll’s message was a seed in helping me experience this revelation about myself so I am very thankful for this kind of message as well.
3. If you have a strong negative reaction toward one of these two styles of gospel preaching, why do you react negatively? How does it make you feel? When you hear someone preaching in that style, why do you think they are doing it that way? What do you suppose about their knowledge, background, character, motives, and so on?
I tend not to react negatively to a message of grace although sometimes I feel that it is not so relevant and what is needed is a message about wrath which leads to repentance. I think my reaction depends somewhat on my state of mind. For example, at times my heart is deeply convicted that I’m a worthless sinner. I feel that I can’t do anything. My life is a total failure, etc. At these times, my heart is starving for the message of encouragement and grace. I want to hear God’s tender voice to me that he loves me in spite of my darkness and run toward him instead of away from him. If I heard a message about wrath at this time, I might not respond so well.
When I hear people preaching in a certain style, I usually try to think about the context: time, culture, audience, speaker’s background/current condition, etc. For example, yesterday I heard an American pastor talk about laziness as being a core sin problem. I totally agree that it is. But when I thought about Japanese culture (I’m living in Japan) laziness didn’t seem so relevant compared to things like freedom from shame and fear of man/society.
When I hear somebody speaking a certain way (even about non-religious things), often they are revealing something in their heart. Very often it seems to be a rich combination of what the Lord has put in their heart, mixed with their personality, background, etc. I think it was maybe mentioned before but I think a good messenger will not always have the same “style” or “focus” in their message. Otherwise, he/she won’t reveal the fullness of God’s character or the breadth of truth in the Bible. It definitely needs to be Spirit driven and let’s be honest, sometimes we just need a good kick in the pants.
]]>First the response of the righteouos:
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:37-40)
And the response of the wicked:
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ (Matthew 25:44-45)
Today and now, I’d like to share the love of Christ with someone around me, my family, the students, the coworkers at work, the neighbors, even unknown drivers on the street by praying for them, forgiving them, blessing them.
I think what the world impresses to church is how much we believers change into mature Christians bearing the likeness of Christ Jesus our Lord.
I pray that Jesus Christ may be proclaimed and preached through my earthen vessel and all the humdrums of daily routine lives now and ever.
I like Heidi Baker’s style. Check this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO8FFI6pJJA
I like the message that comes with personal testimony and demonstration of God’s love and power such as healing the sick, casting out evil spirits, and raising the dead.
My favorite preacher to listen to is D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (no surprise!), Funny thing is that he sort of defied “style.” His style was his own really, and he said on a few occasions that he was born in the wrong century probably. I also resonate with the style of the Puritans like John Bunyan, Thomas Boston, Stephen Charnock, and Jonathan Edwards. I think that the reason is because in their presentation of the Gospel, they are so thorough and clear, that one cannot miss why Christ had to die and rise again and what exactly our glorious hope is. I was disappointed with Brian Zahnd’s approach because it was so one sided and he used many strawmen in his critique of the “modern” Gospel presentation (to see what I think is at the heart of the Gospel, see my articles on this site about Penal Substitution).
]]>I love your statement, “I really have given up my strong reactions to preaching styles. I love all of them!” And then you said, “Just don’t use the same style all the time!” There is great wisdom in that. Why should I attach myself to one particular style and claim that it is the right one or best one? If I do, then isn’t it possible that I am just hanging around my own comfort zone, refusing to listen to God’s voice unless he speaks to me in my own preferred style? And isn’t it likely that I am not learning anything new, but merely reinforcing my current beliefs and positions?
I have a sneaking suspicion that these two men (Mark Driscoll and Brian Zahnd) have very different personalities, and it is their own personalities that draw them to focus on certain aspects of the gospel and certain attributes of God rather than others. And I’m quite certain that I tend to do that as well. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. We are made in God’s image, and our character does reflect something of God’s character. But I wonder: To what extent are we just projecting idealized versions of ourselves onto God and saying, in effect, that God is exactly like us? Yes, God is like us, but he is much greater than us. I am reminded of God’s powerful rebuke in Psalm 50:21: “You thought the ‘I AM’ was exactly like you!” It makes me tremble to think of how quick I have been to classify and analyze God and pontificate about him, saying, “God is like this” or “God is like that,” when I ought to be coming into his presence and asking him what what he is like. I ought to be standing in awe of him and marvelling at how great and beautiful he is, and realizing that my feeble attempts to speak of his nature can never really capture who he is. And this is why, I think, that Christians of different stripes need to carefully listen to one another and learn from one another, because every Christian is capable of having unique knowledge and experiences of God, and each of us is also capable of great blindness and misunderstanding.
]]>I really like these “mid-week questions”. Such things stimulate our mind, hearts and souls and spark challenging dialogues, and I’m thankful for the freedom to discuss such things. Here are my initial thoughts on your questions:
“1. What style of gospel preaching, if any, initially helped you to put your faith in Christ? Why do you think it helped you at that time?”
Twenty-something years ago, the gospel presented from the love of God stance is what drew me to Christ. At that time, I already knew I was an unworthy sinner and that I lived in a messed-up world from my own experiences. What I didn’t know was a God who was willing to be my Lord and Savior. So I think that mainly is what helped me initially.
“2. What style of gospel preaching resonates with you today? Why?”
It is somewhat ironic to note that today I am far more motivated in my personal walk of faith by the wrath of God aspect of the gospel. It is because I have lived a lot of my Christian life like a “Pharisitical soldier”, driving myself to be a kind of “cyber-man” or “dalek” who lived as a heartless Christian who dictated my “truth” to others without compassion. As such a Christian, I tried to clone myself and called it “making disciples”.
I am keenly aware (starting this year) of the wrath of God toward such behavior, as expressed mainly by Jesus’ woes and rebukes. I am daily seeking God’s help in light of God’s wrath on me. And even more ironically perhaps, I am now filled with an overwhelming desire to show compassion on others and express the gospel to others in light of the love and grace of God.
“3. If you have a strong negative reaction toward one of these two styles of gospel preaching, why do you react negatively? How does it make you feel? When you hear someone preaching in that style, why do you think they are doing it that way? What do you suppose about their knowledge, background, character, motives, and so on?”
I really have given up my strong reactions to preaching styles: I love all of them! (Just don’t use the same style all the time!). If someone makes a valid point that holds up to Scripture and the Spirit confirms it, I accept it. I no longer give a hoot about what denomination, what church, what religious backround, etc someone is affiliated with. I pray for all Christians to bow down to our Lord and submit to His Holy Spirit and let God be God and let Him advance His kingdom in His way.
]]>I believe that Zahnd is contrasting the western evangelical Protestant understanding of salvation, whose roots can be traced back to St. Augustine, with the (arguably more ancient) eastern understanding which has been well preserved in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The two are quite different. It is commonly said that the western view of salvation is a narrative of Creation-Fall-Redemption, whereas the eastern view is a narrative of Creation-Fall-Recreation. The eastern view is not universalist, not by a long shot. But EO Christians don’t speak of hell in the same terms that Roman Catholics and Protestants do.
Personally, I believe it is a mistake for Christians from the east or the west to equate “the gospel” with their own tradition’s understanding of salvation. East and West have not communicated well for a millenium and we now have a great deal to relearn from each other. I think Zahnd is one of many evangelical Protestants whose faith and understanding of the gospel has been refreshed by interaction with the EO tradition, and he has found ways to incorporate elements of that tradition into his ministry without giving up his Protestant identity.
]]>