Received: from tu6436.pg.com by great-miami.iac.net with ESMTP id LAA15575;
Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:41:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199609031541.LAA15575@great-miami.iac.net
From: "Dale Lature" <dlature@comcast.net To: "Dale A Lature" <dlature@comcast.net
Subject: Fw: Your Campolo "expose" Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:30:16 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail
4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: 841765298.000 Status: RO
Copy of original message I sent to Rick M.
---------- From: Dale Lature <dlature@comcast.net To: rambdm@tima.com
Subject: Your Campolo "expose" Date: Thursday, August 29, 1996 12:03 PM
It seems to me that you have most all of your emphases backwards, Rick.
You seem likely to attack theologically just about any person who is "active"
in their faith; ie. They "DO" something about it. Case in point, Tony Campolo.
If his "distorted" theology is so detrimental, how come he does so much
"ministry", and does it with more organization, outreach, aid, and working
solutions than most of the "fundamentalist" world combined?
Jesus said that "you shall know them by their fruits", but I suppose
you think that fruits are on the inside, in the way one thinks about their
"system of doctrine". That is backwards from what Jesus was trying to get
across there.....he was emphasizing the actual effect of the Kingdom of
God upon the receiver's LIFESTYLE; what they actually DO with this "good
news". MOst of the fundamentalist world spends its time hunting down "infidels".
Well, Rick, it seems to me that Jesus emphasized "fruits", and the actions
of love.
Your rantings are purely philosophical and intellectual, and based on
a highly specialized reading of Scripture that I would consider highly
suspect and seems to be completely selective and "predetermined" on your
part. Your assesments of Campolo would be downright hysterical if it weren't
so sad first and foremost. IN one example, you attack Campolo for saying
that faith comes by praxis, and quote "without faith, our works are as
filthy rags", but you leave out the other side of the equation: Faith without
works is dead" (from James). You seem to have a very selective "theological
system" yourself. But such things are a problem for people who can't seem
to grasp the idea of paradox......that everything can't be neatly tied
up into some kind of "thought system".
Your protesting Campolo's implication that the Holy Spirit is present
in "non-believers" is nonsense. God has "immanence", which means his reality
permeates all things. He is in ALL (and there are scriptures that say so,
much more clearly so than some of the things you use to bolster some of
your arguments for "pure, Biblical" faith. If you are saying that what
Campolo and these other people articulate about their beliefs is more important
than what they actually DO in terms of their lifestyle, your theology amounts
to nothing more than a pile of crap (filthy rags), because you have entirely
missed the boat. I know that I speak for many, many Christians when I say
that you have a big problem that stems from your "boxing up" of theology
into some neat little point by point system, and a strictly, linguistically
particular one at that.
Actually, Tony Campolo has a much clearer, more Biblically sound theology
than yours appears to be. IN fact, Tony has been known to say "What good
does it do to say you believe in the Bible as God's word, and NOT do what
it says?" Also , your assesment that love cannot be higher than truth is
just a way of making it subservient, and you cannot separate these things.
It is said that "The Greatest of these is Love", and in your system, that
seems rather clear that your assertion that "love cannot be higher than
truth" is in error.
It plainly says "The greatest of these is love". Then the problem of
your view of "truth". To you it is a system of doctrine, and in the gospel,
it is a realization; a reality which "hits home". I would agree that love
and truth are inseparable, but you seem to define "truth" intellectually,
in terms of "systems of dogma". DOING what Christ leadsus to do is the
only mark of theChrstian. Otherwise, it's just a mind game. Which is what
this whole little system of "discernment" you have set up concerning all
this "false teaching" seems to be. Concern yourself instead with whether
or not people are being loved, and helped to see that God loves them, and
needs all of us to contribute to the Kingdom.
Dale Lature
New Media Commuications
http://www.iac.net/~dlature
Subject: Tony Campolo
X-UIDL: 841406331.004
Status: RO
Dale,
You wrote:
>It seems to me that you have most all of your emphases
>backwards, Rick.
> You seem likely to attack theologically just about any person
>who is
>"active" in their faith; ie. They "DO" something about it.
>Case in
>point, Tony Campolo. If his "distorted" theology is so
>detrimental,
>how come he does so much "ministry", and does it with more
>organization, outreach, aid, and working solutions than most
>of the
>"fundamentalist" world combined?
Now there's a good pragmatic approach! Big results, big ministry, big
money, big talk, equals approved by God? Since when. Any bozo could fill
a
stadium, have a big outreach, etc., as long as it's ecumenical enough.
Standing for the truth and separating from error will almost always
guarantee a "small" ministry, by your human standards. Are you not
concerned with the doctrine taught by Campolo, or are you only interested
in the outward show?
>
>Jesus said that "you shall know them by their fruits", but I
>suppose you think that fruits are on the inside, in the way one
>thinks about their "system of doctrine".
No, doctrine is on the outside. Read Matt. 7:22-23 -- those "evil doers"
certainly thought they had all the fruits, didn't they? They had all the
showy stuff -- prophecy, casting out demons, miracles -- and the Lord
condemned them to hell! Why? Because they were the false prophets Jesus
described in the preceding verses (15-21).
That is backwards from
>what Jesus was trying to get across there.....he was emphasizing
>the actual effect of the Kingdom of God upon the receiver's
>LIFESTYLE; what they actually DO with this "good news".
Then why did He condemn them for their "fruits" of false teaching?
>
> MOst of the fundamentalist world spends its time hunting down
>"infidels". Well, Rick, it seems to me
>that Jesus emphasized "fruits", and the actions of love. YOur
>rantings
>are purely philosophical and intellectual, and based on a
>highly
>specialized reading of Scripture that I would consider highly
>suspect
>and seems to be completely selective and "predetermined" on your
>part.
Your generalities cannot be answered (which is probably why you only speak
in general terms). If you want to be specific as to where I have my facts
wrong, then write me back. Otherwise, I don't have time to dialogue with
somneone with a guru complex.
>Your assesments of Campolo would be downright hysterical if it
>weren't so sad first and foremost. IN one example, you attack
>Camplol for saying that faith comes by praxis, and quote
>"without faith, our works are as filthy rags", but you leave
>out the other side of the equation: Faith without works is
>dead" (from James). You seem to have a very selective
>"theological system" yourself. But such things are a problem
>for people who can't seem to grasp the idea of paradox......that
>everything can't be neatly tied up into some kind of "thought
>system".
What are you talking about?
>Your protesting Campolo's implication that the Holy Spirit is
>present in "non-believers" is nonsense. God has "immanence",
>which means his reality permeates all things.
Now you're into New Age theology. If you truly believe this, there is less
hope for you than Campolo.
He is in ALL
>(and there are scriptures that say so, much more clearly so
>than some of the things you use to bolster some of your
>arguments for "pure, Biblical" faith.
Shirley MacClaine says so, the Bible doesn't.
>
>If you are saying that what Campolo and these other people
>articulate about their beliefs is more important than what they
>actually DO in terms of their lifestyle, your theology amounts
>to nothing more than a pile of crap (filthy rags), because you
>have entirely missed the boat.
First, keep your foul words to yourself. It just reveales your intellectual
poverty. Secondly, it is you who have missed the boat. I take you back
to
Matt. 7:23-24 again. Those false prophets had piles of good works. And
where did it get them without sound doctrine -- a one way ticket to Hell!
>
>I know that I speak for many, many Christians when I say that
>you have a big problem that stems from your "boxing up" of
>theology into some neat little point by point system, and a
>strictly, linguistically particular one at that.
You indeed speak for many, many PROFESSING Christians.
Actually,
>Tony Campolo has a much clearer, more Biblically sound theology
>than yours appears to be. IN fact, Tony has been known to say
>"What good does it do to say you believe in the Bible as God's
>word, and NOT do what it says?"
Tony is doing what it says? The Bible says that we are to test all
teachings (I John 4:1,6), expose those teachings that are false (Eph.
5:11), confront and rebuke the false teachers (Titus 1:9,13), and then
separate from those who persist in false teaching (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10),
lest in the end, we are disqualified for service (2 Tim. 2:20,21), or worse
yet, we are identified with the false teachings and the false teachers
themselves (2 John 10,11). I'm afraid you're identity is clear. May God
have mercy.
>Also , your assesment that love cannot be higher than truth is
>just a way of making it subservient, and you cannot separate
>these things.
Of course you can, because the Bible does exactly that. Without truth,
so-called love is worthless. Eternally, it achieves nothing for anybody.
It is said that "The Greatest of these is Love",
> and in your system, that seems rather clear that your
>assertion that "love cannot be higher than truth" is in error.
You're out of context again. The passage with this in in doesn't even
mention "truth." It speeks of "faith, hope and love." The greatest of these
THREE is love, while doctrine and truth are necessary PREREQUISITES for
Biblical faith, hope, and love. Without doctrine there can be no faith,
hope, or love. (Love rejoices in the truth [1 Cor. 13:6], because without
truth, love cannot even exist [1 Pe. 1:22].) Moreover, the Bible teaches
that love is the result (i.e., the fruit) of sound doctrine, not vice versa
(1 Tim. 1:3-5; 1 Pe. 1:22). Read the verses from the Bible and not from
the
Campolo handbook.
>It plainly says "The greatest of these is love". Then the
>problem of your view of "truth". To you it is a system of
>doctrine, and in the gospel, it is a realization; a reality
>which "hits home". I would agree that love and truth are
>inseparable, but you seem to define "truth" intellectually, in
>terms of "systems of dogma".
You're so far out in left field -- do you own a Bible? Read it in context.
>
>DOING what Christ leadsus to do is the only mark of theChrstian.
> Otherwise, it's just a mind game. Which is what this whole
>little system of "discernment" you have set up concerning all
>this "false teaching" seems to be. Concern yourself instead
>with whether or not people are being loved, and helped to see
>that God loves them, and needs all of us to contribute to the
>KIngdom.
What nonsense. What kind of an ecumenical gathering is the "New Media
Communications"?
Rick Miesel
P.S. Never mind. I just visited your web site -- Your "Balcony People"
page says it all -- a who's who in apostate Christendom!
Don't bother to respond. I don't have time for apostates.
__________________________________
Rick Miesel
Biblical Discernment Ministries
rambdm@tima.com
http://www.eznet.com/~simmply/bdm
__________________________________
Rick Miesel
Biblical Discernment Ministries
rambdm@tima.com
Back
to Sept.2 Dailogue
Back
to Home Page
Back
to Dialogue Index
Send
me mail with comments