Comments on: Internet Radio Podcast #93

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:55:53 +0000

Michael,
Good podcast. I hope you feel better soon.
Glad to hear your Reds are back on your cable package. I think the young pitcher Cueto is a jewel. I watched him against Arizona and he looks like a special kid.
Have a good day.

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:45:00 +0000

Upon further reading your comment did address my question. Thank you, sorry for not seeing it. You know basically where I am coming from as inferenced by my question, so although you anticipate my disagreement I will not pursue it further.

I do have some perspectives that making those at my “table” very uncomfortable, including participating on your blog. I have always been treated fairly.

Even though you have refused to say the sinner’s prayer!!

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:16:02 +0000

Rick: Your question was about teaching? I pointed out that the two major areas of disagreement- justification and authority- are not sufficient to divide the table imo.

What am I missing?

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:03:05 +0000

I accept Roman Catholics as my full brothers and sisters in Christ and thank God they accept me the same.

I do not believe that errors involving justification or authority are sufficient to reject someone as a Christian.

By: Rick Frueh

Rick Frueh — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:03:06 +0000

Good podcast. A few observations and/or questions. We must realize that any type of spiritual search within evangelicalism in all its forms represents an incredibly tiny element of professors. So all of us who would even be interested in such discussions represent a puny subset of those who would call themselves “Christians”. So the vast hordes of others will continue to be willingly led/manipulated/corralled by the kinds of systems about which you object and in that God’s grace is still sufficient.

And any kind of spiritual journey that leads from one perspective to another will always view their journey as epiphanous and by implication if not overtly insinuate the spiritual place they have left is wanting. Such is the nature of these things. For instance, the “post evangelical” who leaves to find Calvinism now references his post evangelical days in subtle and sometimes not so subtle condescending terms. And this scenario plays out in all sorts of ways and with doctrinal journeys in all different directions.

The one alarming implication that has to me substantive implications is the notion that all kinds of professors of Christianity can sit at the same table. This suggests not that we should show humility and love, this, without qualification, seems to suggest that truth is not important. I reject harshness and self righteousness even while sometimes exhibiting it, but do you have some guidelines that you teach others not so invested doctrinally so as to avoid deception?

Simply put, can a post evangelical embrace the teachings, not the people, of the Roman Catholic Church as a legitimate part of this table?