You are right, I am deaf so I can't hear the video. I am basing my remarks on the many people who condemn everything about the new movement that originated with a better understanding of what we had lost.
It is a very loose movement, you cannot go to a central council like some denominations have listing their interpretation of bible. None deny Christ. One of the reasons the world gives to attack them is that most seriously study the OT as how God prepared the world for the resurrection of Christ. They look at Christ as fulfilling the OT, rather than looking at Christ as apart from the OT. Most of them also believe in the feasts, as it is told in Col. 2: , when Paul was addressing a strange cult that did things like worshipping angels, and spoke against Passover. Paul said not to listen to them, but go ahead an honor Passover in spirit and in truth. Col 2: 16-18 Therefore, don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his unspiritual mind.
I watch the world condemn all these Christian scholars found out about our history, and how it pertains to our Lord. It is right to point out the ways some who profess to be part of this movement are not true to scripture, but it is not right to try to close out everything that opens up scripture truth to us.
I'm sorry you can't hear very well. My husband has hearing issues, and it drives us both crazy. Mind you, when he wears his hearing aids, I can actually talk to him in a normal voice!
I still think it is unethical to comment on things which you do not know anything about.
I am basing my remarks on the many people who condemn everything about the new movement that originated with a better understanding of what we had lost.
There are movements which are of God, such as the Reformers! However, there are also a lot of heresies in new movements which are basically trying to reinvent the wheel, without really using the Bible.
Here is a page of articles which Christianity Today featured on the emergent church movement.
Emergent Movement | Topics | Christianity Today
I am going to set about reading them. I think Crossnote is right, in that this movement has seen its time and is on the way out.
DA Carson in his book
Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church notes:
"Generally known to be an even-tempered and even-handed scholar, Carson has
been particularly vocal in his criticism of McLaren's doctrinal views, saying "I have
to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything,
both McLaren and [Steve] Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel"
(D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, (2005), p.186)"
Apparently, the emerging church does not believe in substitutionary atonement.
More...
Apprising Ministries encourages you to listen carefully to the words of McLaren for yourself as he deconstructs [read: attacks] the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ and the Cross as well as the doctrine of hell. How sad is the spiritual blindness that they cannot see that God, in His glorious Gospel of the incredible sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the Cross, demonstrated precisely what I highlighted from the transcript of the clip below:
Brian McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice, right? But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.
Leif Hansen: Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soap box there and you know—Because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples you could give that show why the traditional view of hell completely falls in the face of—it’s just antithetical to the cross. But the way you put it there; I love that. It’s false advertising. And here,
Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well, do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s gonna get’em.
Brian McLaren: Yeah. And I heard one well-known Christian leader, who—I won’t mention his name, just to protect his reputation. Cause some people would use this against him. But I heard him say it like this: The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.
BRIAN MCLAREN ATTACKS THE SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT : Apprising Ministries
These words make it hard for me to accept anything this movement produces!
