As for the matters of belief; i consider there are very very few “essentials”, but am persuaded that there are some. When it appears to me that some teacher is attacking the foundations, “in the Name of Jesus, then i am not inclined to be especially gracious. To my mind, a post-modernism demands the relinquishing of all foundations - hence i find myself at odds with those that would seek to introduce such teaching into the church.

Yes, let us show abundant grace to those that in darkness, but much less grace to those who would lead others out of the light and back into darkness! Grace to the deceived that deceives, but little grace to the deceiver who knowingly deceives. … just some rambling thoughts

The early church was persecuted because the message of Christ was at odds with the philosophies of the day. The gospel was rejected by the culture of the day.

The Pope’s not infallible …. oh nooooooooooooo~

Re abtruth, iron sharpens iron! Better to have heated debate than luke warm unity.

Why are so many prostestants turning to all forms of law? Observing Lent, painting icons, tithing, looking to pastors as priestly mediators … all justification WITHOUT faith.

Simpson desert? Only if we get “home and away” on widescreen

“Can we possibly be built into a temple that is holy and pleasing to God? If so, how? with so much foundational division?” This is demands a more thoughtful response. On the one hand, post-modernism would have unity at the expense of truth; there is no absolute or objective truth - only subjective truth and we can have unity only by affirming the subjective truth of all others. Here we have unity founded upon the rejection of all absolute truth, especially the rejection that Christ is The Way, The Truth, The Life. Unity, but not pleasing to God.

On the other hand, we have Christian denominations founded upon their creeds. The creeds may contain truth - but God did not found the church upon any creed, God has given us His Word. In the words of the hymnwriter, “the churches one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord …” I submit Christ Himself as the only foundation upon which we may build both unity and also be pleasing to God. Methinks that our main problem is we are not willing to accept simplicity of the gospel - man wanting to be wise before man, we make ourselves foolish before God.

Am i at all modernist? I may not hold to past traditions per se, but i would argue that truth has not changed: Christ the same today, yesterday and forever. … anti-modernity.

Monk, i would be interested in your thoughts on the post-modernisation of your “creed”.

in regard to abtruth ( not the signposter, but the beast itself) and unity: Judging from your position, then there never will be unity in the body of Christ, because each branch of the church ( i call them branches coz I think the three main streams are much bigger than what most of us understand as “denominations”) holds to certain”creeds” that the others reject. Not prepared to accept the infalliblity of the pope? neither am I. But why are so many protestants turning to ancient Catholic practices like Lent? Or the painting of Icons for meditation? twenty years ago, there would be no such acceptance.. or even knowledge of other traditions save for consigning them to being a sect that exists “outside” the one “true” Church.

Jesus is still the capstone, as i understand it James. Still the only thing left within all creeds that is foundational to ALL. Is that a coincidence? maybe… Can we possibly be built into a temple that is holy and pleasing to God? If so, how? with so much foundational division? Perhaps post modernism isnt the beast we think it is.. perhaps your more of a modernist than you think James?

“but personally, I like the idea of post Protestantism.. the only “creed” left
that is worth having is Jesus.

Jesus the man
Jesus the God
Jesus the sacrifice
Jesus the truth
Jesus the life
Jesus the way”

Rather like your creed; but i would expect the post-modern creed to read something like:

Jesus can be a man if you want to believe he is
Jesus can be a God to you if you want to believe he is
Jesus can be your sacrifice if it pleases you to see him that way
Jesus can be your truth
Jesus can be your life
Jesus can be a way, your way if you like just along as you respect that there are many ways that are all equally valid and all equally lead to God.

As i understand, there is no place for in post-modern philosophy for absolute truth. This is one reason why post-modern christians can so embracive of each other. Unity sounds great, but at what cost: the cost of all absolutes, including the singleness of the Cross, the uniqueness of Christ and so it goes.

Now i accept that no denomination has absolute truth - most of us methinks struggle to find much truth at all. But that does not mean, as the post-modern philosophers would have us believ, that absolute truth does not exist. Nor do i deny that other world views may contain some truth and wisdom - the unsaved are often wiser than believers in Christ. But i do agree and do assert: Jesus is The Man, The God, The Sacrifice, The Way, The Truth … Accordingly, i am rejected by post-modern society and in turn i repute post-modern philosophy.

Nor am i a Modernist as McLaren incorrectly tags the conservative fundamentalist christian. …

We are faced with a context wher we need to accept these divergences.. this is not the fourth century.. It is pointless to do other wize, unless we are going to start some twenty first century crusades… And therefore, the church HAS succumbed to the beast of post modernism. What choice does it have?

Well, i don’t know about he body of Christ, but, having skim-read McLaren’s, “A New Kind of Christian – A tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey”, i am absolutely convinced that he is entirely sold out to the Post-Modernist philosophy. His hero Neo, reminiscent of the Matrix, embraces all paths to God, mocks only at fundamental Christians and, to my way of thinking is one of the most dangerously deceiving pieces of anti-christ literature. With love, of course!