"To be discontinuous from God as I am discontinuous from you would be annihilation." CS Lewis –Letters to Malcolm
David Platt
I apologize, in advance for the disjointed nature of this post. I forgot that I was supposed to post today.
I plan to look at a number of opinions on this subject as well as to explore difficult Bible verses surrounding heaven and hell. I do not intend to provide a lot of answers but hope to stimulate discussion. Today we look at one Bible passage and one opinion.
As many of you know, despite my personal aversion to rigid, 5 Point Calvinism, I have been impressed with David Platt and his commitment to living a sacrificial lifestyle. This has earned him no end of snarkiness from certain hotshots of the Calvinista set who seem to be irritated by his seeming lack of interest in amassing personal wealth and wealthy friends. Some complain that he is advocating the “New Asceticism.” Link here to read one of my posts on Platt entitled “David Platt and Ed Young Jr. Live in Alternate Universes.”
I chose the short video at the end of the post because Platt presents what I consider a fairly standard evangelical response to the issue of hell. Please keep in mind that this is just one of many videos and points of view that I will present in coming posts.
A confusing Biblical passage: Matthew 25: 31-46 (NIV-Bible Gateway)
However, before the video, let’s take a look at the following Bible verses regarding the sheep and goats. This passage is frequently used to justify the concept of eternal punishment and eternal life.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
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, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
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, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
What is this passage about?
- An event that has not yet happened
- The Second Coming of Jesus
- A division of all people (nations) into two groups-sheep and goats.
- Sheep will receive eternal life.
- This eternal life appears to include an inheritance in a kingdom that was prepared for the sheep before the creation.
- The sheep are blessed.
- Conversely, goats will receive eternal punishment.
- The goats are cursed.
- This punishment is linked to being thrown into the same eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
- Eternal life is linked to this inheritance.
- Eternal life is not used to describe eternal punishment.
Now, according to this passage, how does one become a sheep or a goat?
Note: Does it say that one must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? If this is important, why is it not mentioned in this passage? Thoughts?
Here is a list of actions that qualify for sheep status:
- Feed the hungry
- Give a drink to the thirsty
- Make a stranger feel welcome
- Clothe those who have no clothes
- Care for the sick
- Visit those in prison
Jesus appears to link whether one becomes a sheep or a goat with performance of these acts for the least of the brothers and sisters. He also claims that, when it is done for these people, it is being done directly for the King. By using the words "the least of these", it probably means to do this to those who have no way of paying the giver back. Many theologians interpret this passage to mean that Christians should do these things for other Christians-hence the passage referring to brothers and sisters. However, there are others who would interpret this to include those outside of the faith.
However, this passage is somewhat difficult because it appears to be saying that good works are equated with being called a sheep. But isn't accepting Jesus the prerequisite for being called a sheep? Some would say that, if one is truly saved, then one would be motivated, via the Spirit, to do good to others.
So, does a man who has accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior but never, ever lifts his finger to help others, become a sheep?
With that question in mind, listen to David Platt he explains his views on salvation. He is one who well lives out Matthew 25 in his life.
Lydia's Corner: Judges 4:1-5:31 Luke 22:35-53 Psalm 94:1-23 Proverbs 14:3-4
I hope all the brouhaha leads us to re-examining our “beliefs”, and that more light is granted by the Father.
Therein lies the problem word folks–“beliefs”. What the heck does that mean exactly ? After all ,this blog and many others were spawned largely by the callousness of those who, in the main, hold to the same “beliefs” as Dee and the gang. I guess right-thinking is not the end all and be all of “orthodoxy’ ( sorry Dr. Mohler ).
No, Mr. Platt; the “crux of the bible” is not “clear”. It hasn’t been for while now.
Pingback: Revisiting Bell, Hell, and Platt | Civil Commotion
Yinka
I agree with you on the subject of “orthodox” beliefs. The Christian faith has moved from a simple set of agreed upon understandings to a rule book filled with necessities. We must now reject science ad believe in a young earth in order not to deny the doctrine of the atonement (according to Mohler and Ham-what a pile of rubbish, btw). We must believe, without a doubt, in 5 Points of Calvinism, in the Eternal Subordination of the Son and its corollary-the eternal subordination of women, specific gender roles, premil, pretrib, and on and on and on and on…..
The faith has become a book of men’s absolutes and Jesus gets lost in the crossfire.
Dee said “As many of you know, despite my personal aversion to rigid, 5 Point Calvinism, I have been impressed with David Platt and his commitment to living a sacrificial lifestyle. This has earned him no end of snarkiness from certain hotshots of the Calvinista set who seem to be irritated by his seeming lack of interest in amassing personal wealth and wealthy friends”
I don’t sit around and read internet blogs all day…but I do browse around a bit and I’ll admit I’ve never seen anyone from the Reformed/Calvinist crowd taking potshots at David Platt. Could you please provide specific examples?
Shato
On this very blog we had such comments. Also on Wade Burleson’s blog and others. They call him the New Ascetic. He, along with Frances Chan, are viewed with suspicion by the Calvinistas. There is a great video of Mark Driscoll and Josh Harris showing irritation at Chan. See Francis Chan and David Platt: Two Calvinistas I Could Grow to Love on this blog for the reference.
Can I ask you a question about your name? Does this have something to do with the guys who protected the Tang Dynasty from incursions by marauders from outside the borders?
Ha ha ha….you are funny. You Googled my name? Shato is my cat’s name….my daughter named her that 8 years ago when she was 15 as she was crazy about Japan. She probably got it from an Anime cartoon or something.
I was asking for specific references to leaders within the Calvinist/Reformed movement being snarky about Platt. I am all for when you make a charge/complaint/criticism about someone, you need to be able to back it up with facts.
I’ve seen the video of Harris, Chan, and Driscoll. It’s been quite awhile but I don’t remember irritation. Besides, how they responded to Chan has nothing to do with your allegations of how they respond to Platt.
And you’ve had actual comments on your blog from leaders within the Calvinist/Reformed movement? Who identified themselves? And so has Wade? BTW, I really like Wade. He backs up what he says.
I’ve read Platt’s book and I think he is right on with most of what he is saying.
I think you need to remember that someone who stumbles upon ths blog might take something you say as truth. You’d really better make sure everything you say is truth, and not a statement you made because you clearly hold certain Christian leaders in such disdain.
From Josh Harris’s website–>I am too often guilty of “functional universalism.” I’m grateful for the challenging words and challenging personal example of David Platt.
Doesn’t sound like a “Calvinista” being snarky to me!
DR Randle, pastor, SBC Calvinista and Mohler follower, made such a comment on this blog but I am not going to look it up for you. Also, the video with Driscoll and Harris is available here but I doubt you will catch the disdain unless you have spent a lot of time following these guys and their careers.
There has already been a long thread about this a while back. You are free to search the blog instead of having others do the work for you.
Perhaps you don’t know how it works. When they get caught being snarky, they delete and then present a better image. Harris has been one to delete quite a bit but then why believe me? It is deleted.
Is Chan a Calvinist?
Shato
You have accused me of disdain, untruthfulness and treated me with condescension. Whoever you are, your name fits your attitude. You are not here for a conversation, merely to lecture me. So, knock yourself out.
Warrior of Tang
Go over to Kevin DeYoung’s blog. He should appeal to you and do some reading. You seem to know about google yourself.
Matthew 5-25 is one of the best parts of the Bible. Jesus is giving great hope to lowly Jews and rebuking the religious leaders. It is all there. They have been subjected to corrupt religious leaders who not only put heavy burdens on them but are arrogant and greedy. And HUGE hypocrites. ((Sound familiar?)
Read some of the secular political history of that time period in Palestine) Of course these corrupt religious leaders were not saved. Anyone can read the OT to see that. There are several times God says He is only saving a small remnant because they were so evil.
This passage does talk about good works and salvation but think of the context. Jesus has not been crucified and resurrected at this point. He has not sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in hearts. He is…. perfectly keeping and teaching the Law.
I liken it to how some people think Christianity is all about the B issues. They believe this because they have been taught this for so long they cannot imagine it differently. It is almost impossible to convince them that institutional Christianity has NOTHING to do with scripture. The Jews of this time were like that. The oral law was more important than the spirit of the Law in Torah. They knew what the teachers of the law told them. Jesus was teaching different.
I have been studying the word, Righteousness, as it was understood by Jews in the 1st Century. It was understood as encompassing “Justice” as well as mercy and compassion. It was not understood as a standard of ethics as we tend to think of it today. This idea of Justice was very important to them. And we can see it in the OT. We have redefined the word and it keeps us from seeing the total picture.
There was NO justice when it came to the religious leaders of the 1st Century. What Jesus was saying about giving drinks drinks, feeding, clothing the least of these, was music to their ears. It was NOT being lived out by the religious leaders.
Lydia
Well, he was part of the crowd.He endorsed the ESV. But, his willingness to give up stuff like his megachurch, was not particularly well received.It seems some of his former buddies think running a megachurch is far more important then working with sex slaves in a third world country.
In fact, I read somewhere that he sent out an email saying people could sit around and discuss whether or not what he was doing was good or not but he was leaving to do what God was calling him to do. Obviously he was irritated at the response he received, contrary to Shato the Warrior’s observation.
So, Chan is now on the list to watch for error. Naughty boy, that he is. You might get a kick out of this little review of his book at Calvary Chapel. http://calvarychapeloncalvinism.com/francis_chan.html
Lydia
Good points on Matthew 25.In fact, it sounds a bit like the Chan situation. He actually is going to comfort those in pain in Third World countries. There a quite a few of the hot boys who would rather fuss about minutiae of doctrine than actually physically get their hands dirty. One of the Calvinista crowd likes to brag about his home theater and his affinity for certain alcoholic beverages and his private plane flights on “mission” trips. You know whom I am referring. I’ll let Shato do some google searches.
In case anyone is confused, I am NOT implying that anyone was saved by the law in the above comment. They were saved by faith in the OC. The law was to be like a tutor. But what do they do with it? Make up their own “oral law” to control others.
Sound familiar?
There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Lydia
I would never think you would imply such a thing.You do such a good job explaining Scripture, especially the heart and intent behind it.
Dee and Lydia,
Shato may not have communicated it in the best way, but it makes sense to link to or copy quotes when making allegations so people can read for themselves. Everyone has been guilty of reading/hearing something based on their own perceptions of people and situations at some time or another and the only way readers can make sure the glamorous blog queens are not skewing it based on their perceptions is to let other people know exactly and specifically to what they are referring.
Expecting someone to spend large quantities of time looking for things you must know the location of, since you’re referring to them and all, seems kind of lame. So does getting your panties in a bunch when someone calls you into question for not giving full details when making allegations, even if they don’t do it as nicely as you think they should.
The reason I asked about Chan and Calvinism is because I remembered reading about Chan over at Pyromaniacs about 5 years ago. one of the contributors linked to a video Chan did on salvation and commented something to the effect that it was pretty good despite the Arminian theology.
I remember looking at the video and thinking it was truth so what did it matter. This is another reason I get so weary of the Calvinistas.
Jenn
I am more than happy to provide links. Please look at the link I gave to Lydia in a comment after Shato’s. This had nothing to do with providing a link and far more to do with someone who is interested in something else than the discussion at hand. If you look at TWWs responses throughout our two years of discussion, you will find us most cooperative , even with those who disagree with us. As I have often said “Disagreement is the life blood of a blog.”
Some people, however, push beyond disagreement and have an agenda at hand that no number of links will satisfy. This is one of those situations in my opinion.
Jenn, Wade deleted all of his past comments. And, we do know that many of the leaders delete things all the time. I know one SBC pastor who went back a year later and deleted all his comments on 3 different blogs because he was looking for a new pastor gig and did not want the comment trail. I think he was thankful they were all “blogger” accounts. Which is one reason I have not seen him on WordPress blogs.
What you are asking is not always possible. And these guys are very good at spinning, deleting, obfuscating, redirecting, etc. I know, I used to help them with it.
I did not think that what Shato said was really all that bad. He did run with a small portion of the blog post.
This is probably the simplest comment, but how did he know that you Googled him? If you did, so what? Don’t we all Google people all the time?
Shato writes well. I hope he will stay around. Heaven knows we have all sorts of folks visiting blogs with all sorts of names.
Anonymous
He is welcome to stay. That doesn’t mean I have to like what he says. I have only kicked about a couple of people off this blog in two years and they were more than well deserved. But, I, too, can have an opinion and sometimes,even get my panties in a wad. Oh, my irritation has nothing to do with the google comment.
Anonymous –
I didn’t think Shato was out of line either, but Dee seemed to. =)
I think that if allegations are going to be made, then proof needs to be given. Take a screenshot ot something and you’ll still have it after it’s deleted. Even if someone has an ax to grind, responding to reasonable requests (like proof of allegations) is a good thing to do.
Jen
I try so hard to document all of the comments that I make. Take a look at this post from just a couple of days ago-http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/04/28/fundamentalists-or-evangelicals-where-do-i-fit/
The person in question made some statements about my untruthfulness, my disdain, etc. This was not a request for info but what appears to be a personal attack. It was responded to in the same light.
@ Dee: check your inbox.
[/tangent, sorry]
*
I agree re. Shato’s comments coming across as a personal attack; was a participant in the previous thread that Dee mentions and read what Shato was saying there, as the discussion was going on.
Dee stated in the post:
“Some complain that he (David Platt) is advocating the “New Asceticism.” ”
Sorry to be joining the discussion late. For naysayers who don’t believe Platt’s ‘radical’ approach to Christianity has drawn any criticism, please read Kevin DeYoung’s review of Radical which is posted over at TGC.
http://tgcreviews.com/reviews/radical-taking-back-your-faith-from-the-american-dream/
Here’s how Kevin introduces his concerns about Platt’s highly successful book:
“Radical is a stirring book that will help many Christians.
A Few Concerns
But not everything here is helpful. Let me highlight a few concerns I have with the book and with the some elements of the larger “get radical, get crazy Christianity” that is increasingly popular with younger evangelicals. I hesitate to mention these concerns because there is so much in the book I agree with and because David does provide caveats here and there to soften the blow of his rhetoric. But people tend to hear what we are most passionate about, and I’m afraid the take-home message from Radical for many people may reinforce some common misconceptions about what it means to be sold-out for Jesus.
Here are a few concerns in increasing order of importance.”
Please go and read them. Then we can continue the discussion.
Dee and Num:
Thanks for the background. I missed or forgot the other thread Numo mentions, so I am oblivious to that.
No worries about any of this. And you are correct, none of us has to like what anyone else writes.
I think that Platt’s standing is pretty firm in the Reformed camp. If Platt goes to the Convention, I suspect that he will be at the 9 Marks meetings. Those have been the best thing about the last 2 conventions.
Btw, this is completely off topic, and I am sorry for not remembering. But it was either you or Deb or both (sorry I can’t remember) who said that they left an SBC church and joined another church in NC. I can’t remember or maybe you haven’t said, but what type of a church is it? Is it affiliated with a denomination or completley independent non-denom? I have no interest in the name.
I may have told you, but I have a friend of many years who has been on staff at Forest Hills in Charlotte for 22 years. Great guy. He and I became Christians at the same time back in our high school days.
Anonymous
Twas I who joined an SBC church for the first time, stuck it out 8 years, and finally left over a final major incident albeit I was on my way out the door when they started teaching kids to get married ASAP and preferably before college and encouraging a YE hit squad to function within the church.
I joined a nondenominational Bible church that has been around for a long time. I was a member in the far flung past so they knew me and which helped in case my former losse cannon pastor attempted to besmirch my name.
Dee,
I know both you gals work hard at giving full details, links, quotes, etc. The problem is that it really should be done every time, or at the very least you should have specifics available when they’re asked for.
I saw the other thread with Shato and the whole Longstocking thing. Honestly, I thought you were both being kind of silly there, because there was plenty of room for you to both be right. 🙂
In this thread Shato said: “I was asking for specific references to leaders within the Calvinist/Reformed movement being snarky about Platt. I am all for when you make a charge/complaint/criticism about someone, you need to be able to back it up with facts. I think you need to remember that someone who stumbles upon ths blog might take something you say as truth. You’d really better make sure everything you say is truth, and not a statement you made because you clearly hold certain Christian leaders in such disdain.”
Now, it may not be nice to suggest that you’re just making stuff up, but without proof texts how do we really know you’re not (I don’t believe you are making stuff up by the way). I can’t imagine anyone reading this blog not walking away with the impression that you hold many Christian leaders in disdain, so it really makes sense for someone who disagrees with you to want all the info.
Jenn
Thank you for your input. Here is the bottom line for me. I made a statement about what some people said to me. Don’t really care if they are right or wrong. That is their perception and that is how they view the faith.
For these folks, the faith is linked to a dress code. And that was the jist of my argument.
Don’t care if Holland Christians do or do not wear longstockings. This is what was the problem for these folks.
So, let me say this as clearly as possible: I don’t know what Holland Christian wear, don’t care. I really, really. really care for the faith of these nonChristians far more. And that was the emphasis of the post. Please pray for them.
Glad you enjoy Shato’s comments. That is the value of a blog that allows for opposing comments. We can all duke it out.
I missed the part where I said I enjoyed Shato’s comments and already said I thought there was plenty of room for you to both be right about Christians in Holland. Personally, I find your responses to the “opposing comments” and the way you “duke it out” hilarious, but it’s your blog so whatever floats your boat is fine by me. I kind of figured based on previous times I entered the comments that it wasn’t really worth trying to defend Shato’s point of view, but thought it was at least worth a try.
Hope God blesses the work you all are doing here!
Jenn
Look, I know you and I have differing points of view, especially on the subject of child rearing. If I remember correctly- you tend to defend both Ezzo and Pearl, at least in some areas. I don’t like either and find some of their stuff downright weird.
My guess is that Shato and you would share viewpoints on a wide variety of topics based on your writing styles and your thoughts on the use of humor. I bet you belong to similar churches as well.
Of course, it is always worth a try to defend yours or another’s point of view. However, just like child rearing, many will not concede to certain forms of punishment, no matter how well verbalized. And people do change their viewpoints over time. I can assure you that i am very different today than i was 20 years ago.
Others will read your comments and decide whether they agree with you or me. At least, on this blog, we do allow for opposing points of view, unlike some churches and groups that only allow for one point of view-theirs. This is the marketplace of ideas and it sure beats one rigid viewpoint.
I hope God blesses what we are doing here as well. Once again, please pray for the people I talked with in Alaska. That, above all, is our most important bottom line.
Thank you for the link to that video of David Platt. I had never watched or listened to him. I am intrigued and will search out more. However, at the end of that video came up a video of Rob Bell being interviewed by Martin Bashir on MSNBC. Worth watching. The first thought that came to mind regarding Bell in that interview? “Creepy.”
Observer
I plan to show that video. I found it very illuminating. I also enjoyed Bashir’s questioning.
I have been to Platt’s church on 3 occasions. He is both an understated speaker-no hand waving, shouting type stuff. Quiet, yet compelling, very compelling.
I haven’t read all of these comments, but after watching the video of David Platt, it gave the option to watch another video, so I clicked and watched. It is an interview with Martin Bashir, and Martin sure did challenge Bell who did not answer a single question posed to him. It makes no sense to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA
Oh shucks. Just as I hit “post comment,” I saw that someone made the same comment I did. Great minds think alike.
Cindy
I planned to use that video in the next couple of days. So, do I get to join the “great minds” club?
Anyone who fears the Lord is wise which makes the mind great. The cool thing about it is that there is no club! But you’re certainly a great mind, with or without the video.
Just watched the Bashir interview and am surprised at Bashir. I could not believe the pointed questions he asked Bell. Kind of surprising. But he ate Bell’s lunch. He did ask the questions that I would have asked Bell. But Bell can say that “hearts will melt” in implying that God saves all but yet it is very important to respond to Christ appropriately in this life. Does this make sense? Bashir pointed out that it does not make sense. What scares me is that it makes sense to Bell! This is also my experience in Bell from years ago.
Dee said –>This has earned him no end of snarkiness from certain hotshots of the Calvinista set who seem to be irritated by his seeming lack of interest in amassing personal wealth and wealthy friends”
To me “no end” is a lot, and “hotshots” are well known people. The quote by Kevin DeYoung above is polite. Kevin DeYoung is well known. I’ve never heard of DR Randle, and neither have most people.
I have not seen “no end” of evidence of Reformed/Calvinist leaders irritated at Platt by his lack of interest in personal wealth or having wealthy friends. That is your opinion, you are entitled to it but it simply isn’t true. I found several quotes online by well known Reformed leaders commending Platt and his book. With a book that popular, you are going to find criticism. Criticism is different than snarkiness.
All I am asking you to do is be FAIR in what you are writing. If you were writing any of this stuff for a paper for college you’d fail miserably because of lack of documentation.
Look at the letter you posted by someone who went to an SGM church in Richmond, VA. Did the letter rant and rave about “Calvinistas” or what a loser CJ Maheny is, or how his wife and daughters write stupid blogs, or how Joshua Harris’s book I Kissed Dating Goodbye is wrong, etc etc etc? No, it didn’t. It was obvious the guy loved his church–I doubt he would have stuck around for 30 years if he didn’t. He was calm, he was fair, he gave scriptural evidence for what he was saying. That is a very good example of what criticism is about.
Deb said–>Sorry to be joining the discussion late. For naysayers who don’t believe Platt’s ‘radical’ approach to Christianity has drawn any criticism, please read Kevin DeYoung’s review of Radical which is posted over at TGC.
Not sure if that was directed at me, but I never said there wasn’t any criticism. I said I wanted proof that there was according to Dee “no end of snarkiness from certain hotshots of the Calvinista set who seem to be irritated by his seeming lack of interest in amassing personal wealth and wealthy friends”
I think that’s a huge charge to make against someone. Can anyone show where the likes of Johh Piper, Albert Mohler, Joshua Harris, CJ Mahaney, Matt Chandler, Mark Dever and other Reformed/Calvinist well known leaders are irritated that Platt renounces wealth? Taking exception with him theologically is one thing, but a personal attack by Dee on well known pastors is another.
Dee–>Don’t care if Holland Christians do or do not wear longstockings. This is what was the problem for these folks.
So, let me say this as clearly as possible: I don’t know what Holland Christian wear, don’t care. I really, really. really care for the faith of these nonChristians far more. And that was the emphasis of the post. Please pray for them.
Can fundamental dress be a deterrent to witnessing? Yes, it probably can be from a human standpoint. But I was really thinking about this….dressing conservatively is a preference by some groups. I am not aware of anyone who teaches you must dress this way to be saved. Not in a “normal” IFB church anyways. Is God so small He can’t use a conservative Dutch Christian to reach a very worldly Dutch Christian? Can the Holy Spirit not work if people aren’t “dressed” right? That’s why I don’t think clothes are worth complaining about.
How about this?
– agree to disagree
– give each other the benefit of the doubt
– let things go and start fresh
-Sound good to anyone?
Numo
Yep-well stated
Deb
There are certain ministries that use certain tactics to tire out those who might seek to challenge the status quo. Can you figure out to what I am referring?
None of the big cheeses come out and criticize like some are looking for here. What they do is have ‘talking points’. And they are subtle to most who live in this world of constant messages and are tuned to follow the celebrities as experts.
If you surf around enough you get a whiff of it because you see some of the same descriptions such as “New Asceticism.” I saw that on several pastor type blogs. And no I do not remember which ones. I do remember one pastor saying that Platt laments pastoring a mega church while continuing to pastor a mega church. :o)
In fact, many of the same people who are “subtly warning” about asceticism will embrace Platt at conferences. There is more finger sticking in the wind than most can imagine who have not been behind the curtains. Your hero’s are not as principled as you might think. Much PR goes on that folks have no idea about. Maintaining the “brand” is very important.
That is similar to what happened with Driscoll who was not well liked by some of the ruling elite but many of their followers were enamoured with him so they were very careful. Piper all out embraced him thinking he could change him but instead ended up being influenced by him!
You cannot be a big cheese without followers. And the problem with guys like Platt and Chan is that they are orthodox so they have to be vey careful in how they approach this. Ergo the warnings about asceticism. The irony is that Platt and Chan are more like old time religion types like Lottie Moon and others who gave up comfortable life to serve God. In Chan’s case, he gave up celebrity position. It is a threat to the ruling elites so many look to as a role model for life. And they do look to them instead of Christ, unfortuantly.
There are folks who will watch the video of Driscoll, Harris and Chan and not see anything amiss. That is just the way it is.
“Taking exception with him theologically is one thing, but a personal attack by Dee on well known pastors is another.”
Well known pastors should get a pass? Here are some interesting stats for you when it comes to doctrine vs wolves in sheeps clothing:
The Word of God does not focus on the evaluation of teachings or doctrine when identifying “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” We should identify them primarily through their works and their fruit:
Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (12%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
Source: Undermuchgrace via Paul Martin
Dee and Deb, The next time you go on a cruise, would you please take a camcorder and record what the people from Holland say? We must have proof.
Here is hoping that everyone who wants documentation over every single thing, never has a kid who is molested. There will be no documentation because pedophiles are smart.
Lydia
Right on, sister. The pedophile situation in churches is horrendous. Remember the Gilyard incident? And Paige Patterson’s involvement?
BTW, I was also criticized for my whale watching expedition-I can’t even see whales bubble net feeding correctly. Next they will tell me I wasn’t on a cruise, I have never been to Alaska and I have fotoshopped all my pictures. This is how they get away with abusing people in “certain” ministries.
Funny thing, though, the one time we actually caught a comment on a recorder that implicated someone in a church, we were told that it was horrible to record the incident. They refused to acknowledge the information and wouldn’t put it in their official report. I swear I am dealing with crazies. So, even recordings doesn’t work. You know the old saying-damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
“Funny thing, though, the one time we actually caught a comment on a recorder that implicated someone in a church, we were told that it was horrible to record the incident”
Yeah, the “proof” sin. It only proves you are hateful, bitter, divisive. Love does not keep score, remember? Only the leaders can keep score and call it “love”.
Jesus hung on the cross so those with titles and followers can sin freely and never be questioned by the lowly peasants. Those with titles get to define sin for us. We don’t need the Holy Spirit anymore. We have them.
Trust me, I know the playbook. I carried out many a play in my time. And if you signed a covenant, you are sinful for even noticing the hypocrisy and are now a liar for mentioning negative truths because YOU signed the covenant! You have a “critical spirit” or Jezebel spirit.
If you were really saved, you would not have noticed. :o)