VI. Current Movements

1. What is your opinion of the New Perspective on Paul?
When I first heard of this, I did not understand why it was unique. It confused me more than anything else... It still does.
I do think it is important not to read your own culture into the culture of the first century, so I like that part of it. The rest of it still confuses me, it is hard for me to see how this "new" perspective is any different than the one we already had.

2. What is your opinion of the Emergent Church?
Once again, I appreciate what this movement was trying to accomplish. Much like the philosophers and theologians we have explored, the emergent church wants to make the gospel palpable. It seeks a gospel that lives in today's culture.
Unfortunately this is at he cost of truth and sound theology. Because the emergent church wants to be real in ta post-modern society they become post modern. Rather than being in the world but not of it they choose to be in and of it.
Ideas like "cosmic child abuse" come from this type of thinking; ideas that degrade God's word in a most disrespectful manner. These are the kinds of things I can't stand hearing and I'm sure give the general public a confusing view of Christianity.
I think the proper way to approach a post-modern culture is in the ways we have explored in this class. The emergent church has blown things way out of proportion; turning Christianity into a motive for activism or degrading God's word into the social gospel.
There are a lot of good things the emergent church is dealing with, but they've sacrificed the most important things to get there.
can you go wrong with Piper?

3. Why was Vatican II important?
With my limited knowledge of Vatican II I found this article interesting.
http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0112/vaticanii.asp
I think there are a lot of assumptions there, with many being a little ridiculous. Still the article was rather entertaining assuming that Vatican II was the new way of getting rid of Protestants...by reeling them into Catholicism. I suppose it could be .
In reality I think Vatican II was important because it changed the face of Catholicism and Christianity. After it occurred, Catholics began taking part in this world and really reaching out in new ways. Also they admitted that Christians need to be united. I think those are important things...

4. What is Pannenberg's eschatalogical idea of resurrection?
I found this quote "he strongly asserts the Resurrection of Christ as a proleptic revelation of what history is unfolding"
In my understanding, Pannenberg's view of the resurrection is that it has a lot to do with Jesus' teaching on the kingdom and assumes a message within a larger picture. This is normal for eschatology, but what makes Pannenberg's unique is that the resurrection is a picture of history as a whole. I'm not too knowledgeable on this subject and am too tired to do further research. It's real heady stuff.

5. What is your opinion of Open Theism?
My experience with Open Theism is interesting. For a very short period of time there was a person who went to my home church who seemed to believe in open theism. Our pastor denounced open theism in a sermon and in a flustered mess this man stormed out of the sanctuary. He then told me I wasn't a Christian on Facebook because I thought the Bible was clear. An altogether interesting experience.
Open theism is a poor excuse for man to say that God doesn't control him. It says that God does not know the future, rather the possibilities according to what we choose. I think these kind of debates are what get us into trouble. Personally, I believe the Bible when it asserts God as all-knowing and all-powerful. That would mean that God knows the future. Just accept it, He is God after all.

6. Are you more complementarian or egalitarian? Why?

Totally complimentarian. My wife and I are not the same. We have different bodies, roles, and different abilities. We are not equal in that matter. I believe that God created man and woman for each other. After all, God even admitted that it wasn't right for Adam to be alone.
Here's my theme on this subject....
Ephesians 5:22,25
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..."
I don't know if we can remember this but... Christ died for the church, so when we get all pent up about wives "submitting" we need to remember that the sacrifice of the husband is even more extreme. Men and women complement each other, they do what the other can't and assume the roles they were made for. In a healthy marriage this does not look one-sided, rather it looks sacrificial on both sides.
"No Sacrifice, No Victory." -Sam Witwiki "Transformers"

V. Rejecting Schleiermacher/Fundamentalism

1. What is your opinion of Fundamentalism?
Before this class, I was under the impression that fundamentalism was more of the extreme side. I suppose I associated the title with fundamentalist Mormonism where polygamy still exists. Because of my associations I assumed the fundamentalists were the Christians damning gays to hell, not letting their children receive medical assistance, and so on
Now my impression is much different, especially since I realize that I... a fundamentalist. I base this off of the main beliefs of fundamentalism.

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

I believe all of these things, in fact they are fundamental in my belief in God. So in my opinion, the fundamentalists do and have done a great job of getting back to the basics. Our Christian influences become so blurred that it is hard to remember what to believe or what is true. Fundamentalism is a firm stand against theologically liberal movements such as the social gospel and others we have seen. Most Christian tenants stem from these core beliefs; a good guideline for the Christian in the postmodern world.

BTW, typing "Christian Fundamentalist" does not yield good results on Youtube.

Interestingly, I found this article of a Catholic view of fundamentalism. A side I probably wouldn't have thought of.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/fundamentalism
2. Why is the Charismatic movement important?
I think the Charismatic movement is important because it brings spiritual life back into Christianity. In many Christian circles, especially Baptist circles, we can get extremely bogged down by heavy theology, programming, and even some legalism. What we often forget is that God has given us the Holy Spirit as our helper. Charismatics realize this and attempt to use it as much as they can. I believe a healthy Christian understands the role of the Holy Spirit and realizes that they can do nothing on their own without Him.

The problem with these fundamentalist circles is that we try so hard to understand the text and live in a way that strictly adheres to it that we forget God is here to help. The Charismatic movement is important (even though it often takes things to extremes) because it reminds us of an important member of Christ's being we often neglect; the Holy Spirit.

good Driscoll Sermon  about Charismatic Theology



3. Are you an inerrant? Why or why not?
Here's the deal.
Yes I am an inerrant; I believe the God-breathed word is inerrant. I do not believe the translations of God's word are inerrant. I also understand that there are mistakes  or "variances" in the greek and hebrew texts, yet I am still an inerrantist. This is because I believe that the message is without error, not the recording. God wanted to communicate something perfect to us and he had to use imperfect people to do so, so of course the copying process may hit some bumps. Either way, what is being recorded is the Word of God, with or without spellcheck, we get the point. And yes, sometimes there are literature types present like metaphor, poetry, etc