Comments on: The Power of Religious Movements http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:14:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Bene Diction http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/#comment-4391 Bene Diction Fri, 27 May 2005 00:06:28 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1469#comment-4391 It's okay Doug, everythings cool. Since we have been vigerous in our disagreements (and probably will be again:^) your surprise is warrented, understood and accepted. I haven't read Mark Noll or about Mark Noll and didn't think I should comment on someone and something I don't know about. It’s okay Doug, everythings cool.
Since we have been vigerous in our disagreements (and probably will be again:^) your surprise is warrented, understood and accepted.

I haven’t read Mark Noll or about Mark Noll and didn’t think I should comment on someone and something I don’t know about.

]]> By: DH http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/#comment-4390 DH Thu, 26 May 2005 23:59:39 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1469#comment-4390 Bene, I probably went a little over board in my responses. I probably was shocked at how much we agree on this posts and that clouded my judgement with my response. I hope with all sincerety that both sides can work on this "extra-biblical" thing. Bene, I probably went a little over board in my responses. I probably was shocked at how much we agree on this posts and that clouded my judgement with my response. I hope with all sincerety that both sides can work on this “extra-biblical” thing.

]]> By: Bene D http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/#comment-4389 Bene D Thu, 26 May 2005 09:44:34 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1469#comment-4389 Hey Smile - I'd encourage you to seek the answer to your own question.:^) Hey Smile - I’d encourage you to seek the answer to your own question.:^)

]]> By: DH http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/#comment-4388 DH Wed, 25 May 2005 21:42:28 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1469#comment-4388 You said,"...we should believe that God would do all that he said he would do." To me what He said He would do is in His Word or consistent with the Word of God. Some would say gifts or all of Toronto was "extra-Biblical" when in fact it was consistent with the Word. I did say "some" not all of Toronto was "extra-biblical". You say "...swept up in just a mental assent to the word." This is where there gets to be a misunderstanding. To me it is not mental assent to not be "extra-biblical". "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and mind." I personally believe what the Bible says with all of my heart, soul and mind. So therefore it is not "mental assent" like you say. Go back to my over-categorizing the extreme comment. I feel that Dr. Noll is doing this and saying things that are "mental assent" that are not. For those who extreme Evangelical you can say this, but a majority of Evangelicals believe what Noll categorizes as "intellectualism", when in all actuality it is a heart, soul and mind Faith. I feel this does a disservice to those who have true Faith just because they are "Evangelical". To me that is not a "scandal" especially if you are talking about "foundational" Truths of God. To me it is "extra-biblical" to look at for example Romans 1 for anything else than what it says. You said,”…we should believe that God would do all that he said he would do.” To me what He said He would do is in His Word or consistent with the Word of God. Some would say gifts or all of Toronto was “extra-Biblical” when in fact it was consistent with the Word. I did say “some” not all of Toronto was “extra-biblical”. You say “…swept up in just a mental assent to the word.” This is where there gets to be a misunderstanding. To me it is not mental assent to not be “extra-biblical”. “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and mind.” I personally believe what the Bible says with all of my heart, soul and mind. So therefore it is not “mental assent” like you say. Go back to my over-categorizing the extreme comment. I feel that Dr. Noll is doing this and saying things that are “mental assent” that are not. For those who extreme Evangelical you can say this, but a majority of Evangelicals believe what Noll categorizes as “intellectualism”, when in all actuality it is a heart, soul and mind Faith. I feel this does a disservice to those who have true Faith just because they are “Evangelical”. To me that is not a “scandal” especially if you are talking about “foundational” Truths of God. To me it is “extra-biblical” to look at for example Romans 1 for anything else than what it says.

]]> By: smile http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/#comment-4387 smile Wed, 25 May 2005 20:15:20 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1469#comment-4387 How is what he was saying extra-biblical? He was saying that instead of just knowing God word, we should believe that God would do all that he said he would do. He is saying we need God and his holy spirit to show up and touch those who are sick and need healing/delieverance and let the Word affect our lives and no be swept up in just a mental assent to the word. (there many be some bias there about intectualism -see mark noll's the scandel of the evang mind. How is what he was saying extra-biblical? He was saying that instead of just knowing God word, we should believe that God would do all that he said he would do. He is saying we need God and his holy spirit to show up and touch those who are sick and need healing/delieverance and let the Word affect our lives and no be swept up in just a mental assent to the word. (there many be some bias there about intectualism -see mark noll’s the scandel of the evang mind.

]]> By: dh http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2005/05/25/the-power-of-religious-movements/#comment-4386 dh Wed, 25 May 2005 19:30:24 +0000 http://ss75.shared.server-system.net/~benedictionblogson.com/?p=1469#comment-4386 I'm amazingly in agreement with what you said here. I do know that the Holy Spirit "gives us power". (many in Toronto were helped Spirit and others due to flesh weren't) To me there is a balance, We must discern between flesh and Spirit. Sometimes out of the same "moverment" is Spirit and flesh at different times. Bible says "test the spirits to see if they are of God". We must not say something is flesh when it is Spirit or vice versa. Both are equally wrong. I also know many who use "extra-biblical" teaching who say they are Berean who say certain things are not sin. To me that is just as bad as the extra-biblical on the other end. (not that you are in this case because you aren't)I personally don't like to define groups based on the extremes within groups. To me it does a dis-service to the Body of Christ. Some attack Evangelical based on extremes (fundamentalism even though I am to a point with my views on inerancy but that is another day), others attack Emergent because of the extremes. This is throwing the baby out with the bath water. We must correct the extremes withoutcategorizing people who are in a particular group but are not extreme within that group. Does that make sense or not? I open to give clarification on what I just said. I’m amazingly in agreement with what you said here. I do know that the Holy Spirit “gives us power”. (many in Toronto were helped Spirit and others due to flesh weren’t) To me there is a balance, We must discern between flesh and Spirit. Sometimes out of the same “moverment” is Spirit and flesh at different times. Bible says “test the spirits to see if they are of God”. We must not say something is flesh when it is Spirit or vice versa. Both are equally wrong. I also know many who use “extra-biblical” teaching who say they are Berean who say certain things are not sin. To me that is just as bad as the extra-biblical on the other end. (not that you are in this case because you aren’t)I personally don’t like to define groups based on the extremes within groups. To me it does a dis-service to the Body of Christ. Some attack Evangelical based on extremes (fundamentalism even though I am to a point with my views on inerancy but that is another day), others attack Emergent because of the extremes. This is throwing the baby out with the bath water. We must correct the extremes withoutcategorizing people who are in a particular group but are not extreme within that group. Does that make sense or not? I open to give clarification on what I just said.

]]>