The Worms Will Live In Every Host

I'm going to use my website as a forum for discussion of the things that I see on other people's blogs. The context for this post can be found at
.

There are two posts that I'm going to respond to. The first one is from ChrisP:

Spencer
You are reading into what I posted.
The scriptures are what Deut 29:29 is speaking of. God has given us His Word, His Law to hear, understand and perform. How can we keep His Word if we don’t understand it? The real disconnect in the church is not the emergent’s ancient/future connestion, it is the gap between hearing and doing.

Proverbs 3:
13Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
and the one who gets understanding,
14for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
and her profit better than gold.

This gap is caused by lack of understanding.
This is why there are so many useless arguments re: cultural and historical context etc.
God’s Word stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8)
This is why there is the rampant false teaching that any good work is God’s good work.

Cultural and historical context are not the primary means of sound exegesis. The text speaks for itself, and the Holy Spirit brings revelation.
I have been accused of being a modern gnostic as I believe that the Spirit and the Word work together, or it doesn’t work at all.
My accuser thinks we all have to be 1st century talmudic scholars to understand the bible.That would make God a rip-off.

You are assuming that I am criticizing your walk and where you are at in it. I am not, and I never said anything that should lead you to believe that it was I meant. You also assume that I am sayng I know everything about the Scripture. I never said that either. I said there are those who are farther along.
I am saying that the Scriptures are given to be understood, else the Lord is a cheat and a liar.
I am not even saying that I have never learned something in debating emerging types or whomever. Such debate drives me to the Word to gain undestanding, however that understanding does not necessarily mean I am going to accept another’s pov.
We are too hung up on “dialogue as changing each other’s minds”. That is not fellowship as I see it portrayed in the bible.

I totally agree with what your first paragraph says. I think that the difference between you and I is that I believe that understanding is not immutable. I still believe, however, that we should act according to what we understand the scriptures say. Hypocrisy is a huge problem that I have been working to counter, both within the church and within myself. Blatant hypocrisy was actually the reason that I left the church several years ago (and returned with a truly believing heart).

That is pretty funny that someone called you a gnostic. I agree with your point in these paragraphs, also. The meaning of the gospels doesn't rise from their cultural and historical context. Sometimes I find that cultural context is helpful when reading Paul because so many of his writings were addressing culture, but even then, I think that works in a holistic approach to his principles much better than when deriving meaning from individual verses. I do believe that some objective meaning of the scriptures has contextual applications to us, like commands regarding modesty or alcohol consumption, but the contextualization occurs after the meaning has already been derived. So I'm pretty much with you.

You're right, I was making those assumptions, and I'm sorry. I became defensive because of them. I agree with you that God gave us the scriptures to be understood, again, you and I just disagree with on the concept of understanding. I can let that rest, however, seeing how many other points that you and I agree on. Thank you for such stimulating conversation. You are welcome to comment on my blog whenever; in fact, I look forward to it. You seem wise, and like someone who can catch the flaws in what I may say over here, so I hope to see you back.

Now, in response to Darrel:

Spencer, I don’t know who you are trying to convince that all is O K with you and the Lord of heaven and earth-probably yourself. You’ll forgive me for lumping you in with all the other EC’ers, but you all sound alike. The double speak is a dead give-away. Dancing around the truth with your creeds is another. The “great swelling words of vanity” is the clincher. You can recite all the creeds of all time and be baptised a million times, but the question still remains: what has changed in your life since you claim to have met Christ? (I realize in saying that, that you have yet to make such a claim). Don’t forget, the devils in hell “believe” and tremble. They have enough sense to fear God, do you? You scare me, for I cannot help but think that maybe you are one of the ones who will say to our Lord “didn’t we prophesy in Your name and cast out devils in Your name? And the Lord will say to them ‘depart from me for I NEVER knew you’”. What is sin to you? Does the thought of sinning against our Lord repulse you or is it no big deal? Does the rememberance of former sin disgust you or is it no big deal? Are you plagued with same besetting sin over and over or has the Lord Jesus truly delivered you from your sin? What about the Word of God? Do you love to read it everyday or is the Bible just a tool to make your next point? Do you love the thought of the SOON return of the Lord Jesus or is it just a possible event in the far distant future? When Christ comes to dwell in your heart by faith things change. The things that you once loved you now hate. The things that you once hated you now love and even long for. You may boast of your knowledge, your creeds, your discernment, your baptism, but it would be far better to boast of Christ and Him alone. When that happens all of the double speak, words of wisdom and especially the pride will melt away and Jesus Christ will be honored. There won’t be any more arguments as to the virtues of the “emergent” church. When Christ is exalted it is easy to see the idol worship being forced on the people of God. I hope it is not your desire to be proven ‘right’. Rather, that in all things “He must increase and I must decrease”. May the Lord be gracious to you and save you from your sin.

Darrel, I don't have to convince myself. That's what I was saying with regard to the creeds and my baptism. They aren't what gives me salvation. As acts, they have no inherent power. They are useful, however, if I do question my salvation. I can return to the creeds and my baptism (as they both are statements of belief) and realize that I am grafted into God's grace, and am thus saved from my self. Please tell me how I am "dancing around the truth with my creeds?" I think that the creeds are a pretty clear statement of what I believe is the truth. Also, I'd love to see where you have the authority to question my salvation. Pretty sure that the Bible is pretty clear about you, as a human, not being able to know another man's heart.

I also love how you point to me using "great swelling words of vanity" and "doublespeak." Tell me, what is the syllable count that makes a word greatly swollen? We're having a conversation regarding theology. There's going to be big words used. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that God wants me to speak like an idiot, or use "little words" only. The words that I use are carefully chosen because they are the most specific representation of the thoughts within my head. I am attempting to circumvent linguistic shortcomings by tuning my phraseology to be as close to linearly interpretable as possible. In that pursuit, I am deliberately avoiding doublespeak. Since that word has three syllables, and is 11 letters long I'll forgive you for not understanding its meaning. Doublespeak is a propagandization technique that masks words' true meaning by way of connotative shift. Or, maybe I should say doublespeak makes mean words sound nice. When you're trying to identify it, look for ambiguous words that aren't very specific. I think you'll be hard pressed for find ambiguity in what I say. I don't understand why some people feel that it is valid in argument to bring up my use of complex syntax or ultra-specific verbiage. If you have a problem with big words, it is probably wise to stay away from discussions of theological nature.

I've also never seen someone use my writing style as a basis to question my faith. I think that's a pretty big stretch. And thank you Darrel for giving such a specific account of what happens when one becomes a Christian. I must not be a Christian: I hate reading the bible, and I love to sin. Sin sin sin! I get pretty excited when I realize that I am doing something that contributed to the pain and suffering of my saviour! (all of that was completely sarcastic).

I love to talk about and read the Bible. I think that this is a Godly pursuit. So when I reference the Bible in making a point, I think that it is a reflection of my desire to be Godly. I don't really understand how that is bad, but I'd love for you to tell me. Simple language though please.

I don't really know when Jesus is coming back because, like he says, "the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." I'm pretty stoked about it, whenever it is, and I live "in the day" as Paul says (1 Thess. 5 NKJV).

I don't even know how to respond to you Darrel. You aren't even arguing anything. Its like you just got pissed at what I said or something and decided that to be distracting you'd question my faith. I don't really appreciate that, but whatever man. You're welcome to post over here too, as I consider my weblog a public platform and anyone can say anything they want, but I'm warning you, saying stuff like what you just did is just going to make people not listen to you.

Peace and good vibes everyone. I look forward to some responses.

In the Light

-Spencer

"We must always seek to ally ourselves with that part of the enemy that knows what is right”
-M. Ghandi-