This blog is my personal blog. All views and articles expressed and written here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my church or denomination or anyone else. Most posts are written for my own personal edification, and are not written in response to any external situation, unless otherwise and explicitly stated. Nobody should be reading into them anything other than what is explicitly stated, unless otherwise confirmed by me in writing.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Another article on judging
I would just like to link to this article on the topic of Judging here, especially for those people who are tempted to pass judgment on what I am doing without even proving anything. Here also is my earlier article on judging, on my website.
I agree that we need to evaluate what people preach and not absorb things mindlessly.
However it does seem to me that you do have a tendency to jump (sometimes with a leap of logic) to excessive criticism and/or extreme conclusions over many of your points.
I feel it would be good if you can temper your eagerness for truth with more tact and love. Not only would your writings be more palatable, but may also make you less prone to getting carried away and overstating your points.
If you are talking about the Ed Silvoso situation, let's just leave it for the moment that I think I do have biblical reasons for why I did what I did, and I will prove from the Scriptures my case later. If you are talking about any other situations, it would be good if you can help me by telling me which ones you think do exhibit a leap of logic and I will look into it.
Also, I think we must always check whether we are trying to impose an unbiblical, wordly view of what we think being loving is on others or whether we are letting Scripture dictate to us the correct view of love. I don't exactly think Paul was being loving (according to the secular sense of the word) when he condemned the Judaizers to hell, did he? For more information, see also my post on this topic at http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2006/05/response-to-comment-by-livebygrace-on.html
You send this letter to GDOP Singapore and accuse them of supporting a heretic cuz he appears in a video, asking them to repent of their sins. I check out the links you provided, none of his direct quotes or mission statements are wrong per se, but the accompanying comments in the links condemn him as a heretic and it seems you have done so as well.
Now i am not familiar with TD Jakes teachings, but from taking the church statement in its entirety and the direct quotes from him in the links you provide, i see nothing to convince me that he is a heretic. The sites you provide only show me that people think he is a heretic.
Also, i did watch the video, and i did not even know who TD Jakes was or where he appeared in the video. The video may not have seemed fine to you, but it certainly did to me.
Now dont tell me you are going to call me a heretic as well?
I don't call compromisers heretics; I call them compromisers. Compromisers ≠ heretics. And ignorant people are also not heretics; they are ignoramuses. The organizers of the GDOP are not heretics; they are compromisers.
As for T.D. Jakes, he is in the video, when the video is showing the GDOP event in Dallas, Texas, USA. He appears either before or after Rick Warren's appearance in the video. As to his teachings, the reason why you can't detect his heresy is because you do not know basic Christology or theology proper. I don't blame you for this, but just because you cannot discern heresy due to your ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't give you the right to condemn me. Perhaps it would be good for you to read up more on the Trinity. Also, it would be good for you to read up on the Christological controversies in the early church period, especially those pertaining to the Trinity.
for those like Munchy, perhaps if you want to be more focused on your analysis of T.D. Jakes, ask yourself and find out for yourself what is the difference between 'persons' and 'manifestations', if any. Then ask yourself whether the word 'manifestation' is an appropriate word to be used to describe the Trinity.
hmm.. ok i agree that manifestations is not a good word used to describe the trinity.. but the church statement does not just end there, it also talks about Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in subsequent paragraphs. Thats why although "manifestations" seems a wrong word to use, the subsequent paragraphs do clarify the issue. And I am definitely not prepared to call someone a heretic based on one word alone!
And as for the direct quotations of him, they are insufficient to convince me that he is a heretic as well. Unless you would like to point out to me otherwise.. And even then, how can I know that these quotes have not been taken out of context?
but then TD Jakes is not my original intention in posting my comments.. my original concern was the nature of the letter that you sent to the organisers, which i felt was extreme.
Assume I am an organiser and church leader and even though I am not a fan of mass events, I would like my church to be involved in this event as it is a good opportunity for my congregation to come together in unity with other christians to pray and pray for singapore as well. Why? Being in CC I think you can empathise to a certain extent rite
Now I do not know TD Jakes, and I see this utterly uncompromising email saying that is is "UNBIBLICAL to associate with a trinity-denying heretic" and it condemns the event and all that.. now seriously how do you expect me to respond. Cancel the event cuz of your email? Jus cuz someone who is a heretic is in someway associated with it? Does that alone automatically make the event a sinful one? The whole tone of the letter does seem to go overboard, and I dont really want to go into all the details about what I think is too extreme about the letter here. After all you do know that you are accusing them of a lot of things right?
I got your site link from sharon whom you went on a mission trip with recently. we're in the same church, and im in nus vcf currently
Anyway, my church is embarking on 40DOP soon and I must say though I have yet to read the book, I already have deep reservations about the program because to me it seems to 'sell' a very diluted gospel message, for eg. it hardly touches on key issues such as sin and repentance.. this makes me very uncomfortable indeed!
But im willing to submit and be a facilitator. 1) i think it is a gd opportunity to be doing something together as a church. 2) something is better than nothing, esp for the many nominal christians it is a chance for them to re-examine their lives 3) in my group i too have a chance to guide the discussion in a doctrinally sound manner 4) i am not in a position to propose AND carry out a better alternative than 40DOP for my church to embark on, not like im a church elder or something 5) 40DOP though dubious, has great opportunity to do good as well
If you agree with my stand on 40DOP, then perhaps you to can understand a bit of what i am trying to drive at when i feel you are being too extreme in the case of the GDOP letter that you posted on your homepage
P.S. Trinity isnt even mentioned in the bible right? it is a doctrine that is biblically and realistically sound, but one that has been fleshed out in words by man (whilst being inspired by god). The bible does speak different things to different pple, and though sometimes one's interpretation may be wrong, i hope you do not rule out the possibility that different views and not necessarily conflicting views. (For eg. maybe such as arminiansm & calvinism ?)
10 comments:
I agree that we need to evaluate what people preach and not absorb things mindlessly.
However it does seem to me that you do have a tendency to jump (sometimes with a leap of logic) to excessive criticism and/or extreme conclusions over many of your points.
I feel it would be good if you can temper your eagerness for truth with more tact and love. Not only would your writings be more palatable, but may also make you less prone to getting carried away and overstating your points.
Hmmm...
If you are talking about the Ed Silvoso situation, let's just leave it for the moment that I think I do have biblical reasons for why I did what I did, and I will prove from the Scriptures my case later. If you are talking about any other situations, it would be good if you can help me by telling me which ones you think do exhibit a leap of logic and I will look into it.
Also, I think we must always check whether we are trying to impose an unbiblical, wordly view of what we think being loving is on others or whether we are letting Scripture dictate to us the correct view of love. I don't exactly think Paul was being loving (according to the secular sense of the word) when he condemned the Judaizers to hell, did he? For more information, see also my post on this topic at http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2006/05/response-to-comment-by-livebygrace-on.html
One example of what i feel is extreme.
You send this letter to GDOP Singapore and accuse them of supporting a heretic cuz he appears in a video, asking them to repent of their sins. I check out the links you provided, none of his direct quotes or mission statements are wrong per se, but the accompanying comments in the links condemn him as a heretic and it seems you have done so as well.
Now i am not familiar with TD Jakes teachings, but from taking the church statement in its entirety and the direct quotes from him in the links you provide, i see nothing to convince me that he is a heretic. The sites you provide only show me that people think he is a heretic.
Also, i did watch the video, and i did not even know who TD Jakes was or where he appeared in the video. The video may not have seemed fine to you, but it certainly did to me.
Now dont tell me you are going to call me a heretic as well?
Eh Munchy,
I don't call compromisers heretics; I call them compromisers. Compromisers ≠ heretics. And ignorant people are also not heretics; they are ignoramuses. The organizers of the GDOP are not heretics; they are compromisers.
As for T.D. Jakes, he is in the video, when the video is showing the GDOP event in Dallas, Texas, USA. He appears either before or after Rick Warren's appearance in the video. As to his teachings, the reason why you can't detect his heresy is because you do not know basic Christology or theology proper. I don't blame you for this, but just because you cannot discern heresy due to your ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't give you the right to condemn me. Perhaps it would be good for you to read up more on the Trinity. Also, it would be good for you to read up on the Christological controversies in the early church period, especially those pertaining to the Trinity.
Regards,
Daniel.
Oh, just an addenum,
for those like Munchy, perhaps if you want to be more focused on your analysis of T.D. Jakes, ask yourself and find out for yourself what is the difference between 'persons' and 'manifestations', if any. Then ask yourself whether the word 'manifestation' is an appropriate word to be used to describe the Trinity.
hmm.. ok i agree that manifestations is not a good word used to describe the trinity.. but the church statement does not just end there, it also talks about Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in subsequent paragraphs. Thats why although "manifestations" seems a wrong word to use, the subsequent paragraphs do clarify the issue. And I am definitely not prepared to call someone a heretic based on one word alone!
And as for the direct quotations of him, they are insufficient to convince me that he is a heretic as well. Unless you would like to point out to me otherwise.. And even then, how can I know that these quotes have not been taken out of context?
but then TD Jakes is not my original intention in posting my comments.. my original concern was the nature of the letter that you sent to the organisers, which i felt was extreme.
Assume I am an organiser and church leader and even though I am not a fan of mass events, I would like my church to be involved in this event as it is a good opportunity for my congregation to come together in unity with other christians to pray and pray for singapore as well. Why? Being in CC I think you can empathise to a certain extent rite
Now I do not know TD Jakes, and I see this utterly uncompromising email saying that is is "UNBIBLICAL to associate with a trinity-denying heretic" and it condemns the event and all that.. now seriously how do you expect me to respond. Cancel the event cuz of your email? Jus cuz someone who is a heretic is in someway associated with it? Does that alone automatically make the event a sinful one? The whole tone of the letter does seem to go overboard, and I dont really want to go into all the details about what I think is too extreme about the letter here. After all you do know that you are accusing them of a lot of things right?
I got your site link from sharon whom you went on a mission trip with recently. we're in the same church, and im in nus vcf currently
Anyway, my church is embarking on 40DOP soon and I must say though I have yet to read the book, I already have deep reservations about the program because to me it seems to 'sell' a very diluted gospel message, for eg. it hardly touches on key issues such as sin and repentance.. this makes me very uncomfortable indeed!
But im willing to submit and be a facilitator. 1) i think it is a gd opportunity to be doing something together as a church. 2) something is better than nothing, esp for the many nominal christians it is a chance for them to re-examine their lives 3) in my group i too have a chance to guide the discussion in a doctrinally sound manner 4) i am not in a position to propose AND carry out a better alternative than 40DOP for my church to embark on, not like im a church elder or something 5) 40DOP though dubious, has great opportunity to do good as well
If you agree with my stand on 40DOP, then perhaps you to can understand a bit of what i am trying to drive at when i feel you are being too extreme in the case of the GDOP letter that you posted on your homepage
P.S. Trinity isnt even mentioned in the bible right? it is a doctrine that is biblically and realistically sound, but one that has been fleshed out in words by man (whilst being inspired by god).
The bible does speak different things to different pple, and though sometimes one's interpretation may be wrong, i hope you do not rule out the possibility that different views and not necessarily conflicting views. (For eg. maybe such as arminiansm & calvinism ?)
Hello Munchy,
I will respond to your comments in subsequent post. =)
God bless,
Daniel Chew.
Post a Comment