Something I watched today

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He wrote an entire book about us, claiming he had once been one of us, then 'saw the light'. His book recites all the standard arguments, so it actually looks like he just discovered he couldn't make money being on the outside of the mainstream, at least until he got some name recognition, so he wrote a book about how we are a cult, and the trinity (and standard Arminian Baptist soteriology) is correct, got some traction, then started going off into 'other' areas. Almost like he was working a marketing strategy...

You're 'almost' ascribing ungodly motives to him that if you truly have read his writings or listened to his sermons would know are not true. I agree with you about his book on oneness. I thought it was kind of lame. I disagree with the doctrine of the trinity (actually find it somewhat detestable but understand the confusion) and baptist soteriology as a watered-down version of what the apostles taught in the book of Acts. But after listening to many of his sermons, I would find it quite a stretch to apply money -grubbing to him. Far from it. He preaches simplicity of lifestyle and generous giving to the work of God. IMO, you are way off the mark on Greg Boyd.

[Esaias]

I HAVE read his writings AND I've watched videos of his sermons. My observations of him are what lead me to my conclusion: he has all the marks of a "change agent" intentionally trying to lead people to a particular view of God. I could be wrong. He may just be deceived.

It's nothing personal, I dont know the guy. I only know what he says and how he says it.

He's wrong on so many levels it isnt funny. Just because he goes on and on about 'love' doesnt mean anything. Bagwan Sree Rajneesh was big into "God's love" too.

[Esaias]

About money:

http://nonprofits.findthecompany.com/l/804193/Reknew

[Esaias]

Caveat on the source, but this is interesting: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-ev.../article/13664

"In May, his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church, was released, cataloguing his theology on religion and the state. He wants the church out of politics, to stop its focus on sexual issues, and to abandon any notions of a Christian America, past or present. Boyd may represent a trend among a new generation of evangelical clergy who want to overturn conservative stereotypes about the evangelical subculture.


BOYD IS A PRINCETON and Yale-trained minister who founded Woodland Hills Church in suburban St. Paul in 1992. "

If the article is true, it inclines me to suspect he's a communist subversive. Yale and Princeton in his bio is NOT a good thing. He seems like a typical liberal anti-American leftwing humanist "theologian".

Assuming the article is correct, of course.

[Esaias]

" Indeed, while it raises a host of interpretive issues which I am addressing in my forthcoming book The Crucifiction of the Warrior God, Jesus’ radical teaching on enemy-loving non-violence stands in tension with every OT narrative in which Yahweh is depicted as acting or sanctioning violence. For example, it’s significant that when James and John wanted to follow the precedent of Elijah and “call fire down from heaven to destroy” a Samaritan village, Jesus “rebuked” them and, according to many early manuscripts, told them; “You do not know what spirit you are of” (Lk. 9: 54-55; cf. 2 Kg 1:10, 12, 14). As shocking as it is, this episode clearly suggests that Jesus regarded Elijah’s enemy-destroying supernatural feat to be ungodly, if not demonic."

http://reknew.org/2014/10/eye-for-ey...ment-teaching/

[Esaias]

So when Elijah asked God to send fire down upon soldiers coming to arrest him, and God answered him, that was "ungodly, if not DEMONIC"??????

The guy is evil. When I first watched a video of him I couldn't put my finger on it. He seemed... off, in some sense.

Now it's confirmed.

[Esaias]

Here's his article on abortion: http://reknew.org/2012/10/qa-what-is...e-on-abortion/

Reading, I ask "Now what is the overall conclusion a reader would come to? What is the rhetorical goal of this piece of deliberative oratory?"

And that goal is clear: the reader is led (primarily by the writer's use of pathos) to the conclusion that being pro-choice is the way to go, in actual practice. While allowing people to feel that abortion is bad, they must be made to see that it must be ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

Yep, he's an intentional subversive, I'm 99% convinced.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

" Indeed, while it raises a host of interpretive issues which I am addressing in my forthcoming book The Crucifiction of the Warrior God, Jesus’ radical teaching on enemy-loving non-violence stands in tension with every OT narrative in which Yahweh is depicted as acting or sanctioning violence. For example, it’s significant that when James and John wanted to follow the precedent of Elijah and “call fire down from heaven to destroy” a Samaritan village, Jesus “rebuked” them and, according to many early manuscripts, told them; “You do not know what spirit you are of” (Lk. 9: 54-55; cf. 2 Kg 1:10, 12, 14). As shocking as it is, this episode clearly suggests that Jesus regarded Elijah’s enemy-destroying supernatural feat to be ungodly, if not demonic."

http://reknew.org/2014/10/eye-for-ey...ment-teaching/

ah, ok. well i doubt that Jesus regarded Elijah that way, but who doesn't struggle with OT lessons? If even God called that the Time of Death, the dispensation of Law, and Christ clearly rebuked that spirit in the opening of the Dispensation of Grace, then by inference Christ surely considered that ungodly now, when He walked the earth.

Now to say that Christ thought that that was ungodly then might be a stretch, but if Law is anathema to Grace--which isn't the exact relationship, but they are certainly opposed at many points--who can say? A case can be made that those actions were poisoned fruit, from a poisoned tree, allowed to establish that man's free will to do good works would not save him, but result in death. Are those deaths then "Godly?"

Sanctioned, surely, but if that was the "time of death," then any legal remedy was also demonic in a sense, God's apparent willingness or even leading in the matter notwithstanding.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Here's his article on abortion: http://reknew.org/2012/10/qa-what-is...e-on-abortion/

Reading, I ask "Now what is the overall conclusion a reader would come to? What is the rhetorical goal of this piece of deliberative oratory?"

And that goal is clear: the reader is led (primarily by the writer's use of pathos) to the conclusion that being pro-choice is the way to go, in actual practice. While allowing people to feel that abortion is bad, they must be made to see that it must be ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

Yep, he's an intentional subversive, I'm 99% convinced.

ok well, you have put him in the pro-choice camp, when he states something different:

"I am pro-life to the core."
"So obviously, I am opposed to abortion."

and he then goes on to provide a quite elegant explanation of why he will not be voting that way; or any other way, culminating in

"On the abortion issue, as on all other issues, the Kingdom is not about how we vote. It’s about the sacrificial way we live."

And you are suggesting this guy is evil? For confronting our proclivity for OT solutions, even today, and refusing to participate in human government--the chief advocate of those solutions--with you? Evil how? What is your eye seeing that mine is not?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok well, you have put him in the pro-choice camp, when he states something different:

"I am pro-life to the core."
"So obviously, I am opposed to abortion."

and he then goes on to provide a quite elegant explanation of why he will not be voting that way; or any other way, culminating in

"On the abortion issue, as on all other issues, the Kingdom is not about how we vote. It’s about the sacrificial way we live."

And you are suggesting this guy is evil? For confronting our proclivity for OT solutions, even today, and refusing to participate in human government--the chief advocate of those solutions--with you? Evil how? What is your eye seeing that mine is not?

I get pretty frustrated sometimes by your apparent failure to READ what you are responding to. I did NOT SAY HE IS PROCHOICE. READ what I said: he uses basic rhetorical techniques to promote NEUTERING any pro-life political action and support.

In regard to calling God's actions in the OT "ungodly" and "demonic": Anyone who suggests such a thing is either COMPLETELY ignorant of both the OT and NT - to the point of having nothing more to say about them than a 2 year old chimpanzee - OR they have an AGENDA. Kind of like a guy named Marcion...