I don't think any of them are necessary either. What I mean by 'everything in the Bible' is the Bible as a whole itself (whatever version). What makes somebody a Christian is whether or not they try to follow what is in the Bible, however they interpret it. And what makes a community a church (a Christian church, anyway) is a group of Christians who try to understand it together.

This is an extremely ugly title, I hate having to look at it when browsing the forum.

Though by bumping it I'm extending it's lease. Damn.

Is this simply "two daughters of a whore" slinging mud?


Marc Driscoll might be funny to some, but he's not considered the best "communicator"; his rhetoric attracts "carnal Christians": consider John MacArthur's critique of Driscoll: e.g.,

http://alindsey4.blogspot.com/2008/0...f-mark_21.html


Anyone like the sound of "Mars Hill"?


The word "church" is irrelevant ( besides, the Koine Greek simply meant "congregation" or "assembly" ) ; what is relevant is whether the salvific gospel of Yeshua HaMashiach is being preached/taught and whether people are turning from sins to Hashem. Yeah, some preach for money, some for a "megachurch", but as long as the gospel is preached....( okay, maybe something is amiss! ).

Excellent link bigpooch. A lot of people aren't that familiar with the term "carnal Christian".

"What is a carnal Christian?" explains it from a Christian pov:
http://www.gotquestions.org/carnal-Christian.html

Eh. You don't have grounds to say that this as if it were a consensus view among evangelical Christians about Mark Driscoll. Maybe you think these things, but I know many evangelical Christians who admire Driscoll's ministry. As for MacArthur, while he is certainly a prominent pastor and theologian, he is also famous for his narrow view of Christianity. He has already condemned the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements as being the result of demon influence--I'm not surprised to find him condemning Driscoll as well.

Also, his criticism of Driscoll is pretty stupid in my opinion. Like it or not, the younger people to whom Driscoll orients his ministry are more comfortable with a level of frankness in public discussions of sexuality than are older people like MacArthur and his congregation. For MacArthur to make such a public criticism of Driscoll over such a minor issue makes him appear petty and out of touch.

Finally, MacArthur is one of the more well-known contemporary defenders of Calvinist theology--is there a connection between his criticism of Mars Hill and the hyper-Calvinist WBC's picketing them? I'm too lazy to find out, but if anyone knows...

I just grazed the article and couldn't find anything very shocking or significant.

From what I know of Mars Hill (very little) it is of a similar mindset and church as Woodland Hills Church (Greg Boyd's Church). I know they are very close. I respect Boyd's opinion more than anyone else in the matters of Christianity.

I know that there are many that love to condemn Boyd, so I cannot believe that Mars Hill is such a bad place. Boyd teaches the closest thing that I have ever heard to the intended church of the Bible.

I am very surprised at your response Bigpooch.

Ok, that makes sense then.

Apologies in advance for a long post!

Of course, many evangelicals like the idea of preaching the gospel to many people; more importantly, is this "gospel" the complete "good news" and will people make teshuvah ( ~repent ) and turn to Hashem?

It does't matter if there is any consensus at all, but whether people are walking in the halacha of Yeshua HaMashiach, for "wide is the road that leads to destruction". MacArthur is not without faults either. All of this "mudslinging" is simply symptomatic of modern "Christianity" - whether it is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Consider Paul: his last words to Timothy in 2 Tim 4:16-18 indicates that he was "on his own" ( at least in human terms, as was Yeshua, Yochanan "the Baptizer" and many others), yet he did not count this as something against those who did not accompany him on his "first defence". On the one hand, Paul did mention he was "alone" ( he could have kept this to himself, but maybe he simply wanted to warn Timothy of the road ahead ); on the other hand, he forgave those who deserted him.

It's also unimportant if the messages make people "comfortable" or not; don't forget that Yeshua ( near the end of Jn 6 ) gives an "offensive" message concerning his "flesh and blood" that causes most of his talmidim to no longer travel around with him. If anything, the message of the gospel is "an offence" to almost everyone. Sure, some of the words from Driscoll are in a way "offensive", but is it a way to convict people of sin? Where the complete good news is preached, people are convicted of sin by the Ruach HaKodesh, repent and turn to Hashem.

Does Hashem love everyone? In one sense, he does according to Jn 3:16-21, but this is often used out of context ( Yeshua was teaching Nicodemus ) ; Hashem simply gives a way for those that are "under his wrath" ( ~ those not "born from above" ) to make reconciliation through Yeshua HaMashiach.

Calvinism has flaws and some five-point Calvinists will be the first ones to say that Hashem does not really love everyone: e.g., see:

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Nick/Do...s_Everyone.htm

Calvinists have drunk from the "wine" of Calvin's "mother", so there are obvious criticisms of some of their points, especially the "L" of the "tulip". IIRC, MacArthur is a "watered-down dispensational Calvinist", so IMHO, there are at least two "difficulties". In any case, the above line of argument in the link above reconciles the seemingly irreconcilable ideas expressed by the statements: "G-d loves the world" and "G-d sends people to hell", but not every "believer" buys into this argument.

This "picketing" is too extreme - why don't "Christians" simply take Yeshua's advice ( neither pleasant nor politically correct words! ) if they think the pastorate at "Mars Hill church" are "blind guides"?


Mt 15:10-14 ( NASB )
==============
¹⁰ After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. ¹¹ It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

¹² Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were ^[d]offended when they heard this statement?” ¹³ But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. ¹⁴ Let them alone; they are blind guides ^[e]of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

Footnotes:

d. Matthew 15:12 Lit caused to stumble
e. Matthew 15:14 Later mss add of the blind

NASB®

Some interesting thoughts about Calvinism, but my point wasn't to condemn MacArthur (or Calvinism), but rather to point out that his views are not representative of all evangelicals. Thus, the fact that he doesn't approve of Driscoll doesn't mean that all, or even most evangelicals don't as well.

However, I'm glad that we can agree that picketing his church is a poor way to respond if you do disapprove.

I found two interesting links about Mark Driscoll ( it's relatively easy to find links about Fred Phelps and WBC ):

Here are some "assorted thoughts of an evangelical Anglican" ( Carson T. Clark ) and his " 16 commendations, concerns and criticisms " of Mark Driscoll:

http://carsontclark.wordpress.com/20...nd-criticisms/


To be fair, at least Driscoll preaches the "good news" ( at least some "acceptable Protestant version" of it ); someone has taken the liberty to somehow put John Piper, Mark Driscoll ( his portion of the video seems to be the same as a video from the "Mars Hill church" website ) and Paul Washer together in a youtube video ( Washer's "message" seems more convincing, but as someone posted, "No one has ever been scared into Heaven." ) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC_-cOexQb4

We're not given the ministry of hell. It's the ministry of reconciliation.

2 Cor. 6:18: And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in the world reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has comitted unto us the work of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Dr. Jones' Judging Righteously:
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o...er.cfm?CID=148

Dr. Jones talking about Rob Bell's book Love Wins:

Southern Baptists Affirm Hell Is Not Aionian But Everlasting
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o...cfm?LogID=2736

A+ to OP...love it.

According to websters dictionary, WBC is not a church. Defined as A building for public and especially Christian worship. WBC does not allow the public through it's doors.

Haha...like they can stop them.

By that definition, a Mormon temple is not a church.

I don't consider a Mormon temple a church. I don't think Mormons do either.

I think they consider it an inter-galactic rest stop....which is what it is...

I think people here need to be careful about getting too far away from colloquial and normal usages of terms.

A "church", in my mind, is a building dedicated to religious worship, or an organization that conducts religious worship in such a building.

You can certainly define the word so that Mormon Temples, Church of Scientology meeting houses, mosques, etc., don't qualify. But if you are doing that, you are using a more technical definition.

It reminds me of the people who love to complain that there is no "Nobel Prize in Economics" because the award that is commonly given that apellation was actually created separately and has a different origin and history from the other "real" Nobel Prizes. They write newspapers every year whining about this. And it's true enough. But given that most people refer to the winner of that prize as the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and people know what is being referred to, it's not really a legitimate complaint.

I mean this in a colloquial sense. For instance, wiki explicitly says of the Mormon temple that it is not a church. I think that what would actually be the Mormon equivalent of a church is the Mormon chapel.

Also, "church" is used to mean different things--maybe a better word would be "congregation."

Of course "congregation" is one of the better words to use: it doesn't refer to a building, etc. It makes sense to consider the NT Greek "ecclesia" which means "assembly" or "congregation"; IIRC, Tyndale used "congregation" instead of "church" in his translation of "ecclesia". Of course, Koine Greek was probably not used nearly as often ( if ever! ) as Aramaic by Yeshua and his talmidim, which means that the Hebrew "qahal" was very likely the word in the context where it is found in the gospels ( Mt 16:18, 18:17 ); e.g., see "Christ and the 'Qahal'" at the link:

http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/israel.htm

Some evangelicals don't like Rob Bell's theology/exegesis; a careful and "compelling" review by Kevin DeYoung can be found at:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...ns-a-response/

Have you read the review? I just read the article and he does not actually say anything.

I will try and read part of the review now. I am curious as to what you think about Greg Boyd, who is also very controversial in the mainstream christian world

Ok, read the first half, don't see much point in reading further as it is a pretty bad critique. All he has really said is things like "that's just wrong" or "that is not what the church tradition says" "if you read it in context you would see that is just wrong". Without ever actually going into why it is wrong etc

I read the article and part 3 of the PDF file on exegesis ( but didn't bother to read all of the passages from Scripture; yes, something "Berean" I ought to have done! ), but I already knew about the "exegetical lenses" from which Rob Bell has looked through from something I had read before reading the review. Even if there is nothing seriously wrong with Rob Bell's book, it's not a book I would encourage "believers" to read - besides, there's a plethora of other books that seem more edifying to "believers".

Okay, I just looked at Wikipedia's article on Greg Boyd and here's my humble ( subjective, biased, yada yada ... ) opinion:

Although Greg Boyd is somewhat controversial ( maybe his stance on "open theism" makes him so ), it seems quite clear he has Yeshua and his teachings on his mind ( I did look through the transcript of CNN's Christiane Amanpour's interview - yes, other parts of that program received much criticism! ). Besides that, he's obviously well-educated ( this is a "worldly plus", but so was Moses ), "escaped" from Roman Catholicism and Oneness Pentecostalism ( apologies and Shalom aleikhem! ~ "Peace be upon you!" to Roman Catholic and Oneness Pentecostal readers out there! This is quite a "unique background" giving him a better ability to reach those caught up in heterodox teachings ) and is apolitical ( to the point of losing a lot of G.O.P. congregants for not giving "public support for conservative political issues"; IMHO, a "big plus" ). He is also critical of those liberal "Jesus Seminarians" ( as if some liberal Western non-Jewish "scholars" who don't carefully look at the Aramaic can really determine what Yeshua said! ). IMHO, I'd rather listen to a sermon from Greg Boyd rather than from any of the aforementioned clergymen, with the possible exception of Paul Washer ( and I don't agree with everything Washer says ).

Fair enough. I am not familiar really with Bell's book. I do however think that destroying the horrible misinterpretation of hell that the traditional church has clinged to for so long, is important. And I have yet to see a decent argument for the eternal torture view of hell, so I will have to automatically side with Bell on this one.

Ok, good deal. Thank you for answering and taking the time. Boyd has changed my outlook on Christianity, and if I was not introduced to him I doubt that I would be a christian (if you can call me that) today. So I am always curious as to what other people (that I respect their opinion) think of Boyd.