Reflections on the Emergent Church: Should Gospel-Believers have reservations about God's Wrath and Judgement? - A Response to IanJMatt

I am going to respond to Ianjmatt.

Here were his thoughts and questions:

"Hmm. I think you have confused a few things.

If you read the opening chapters of Lost Message, you will see that Chalke and Mann are not denying 'original sin', they are asking whether or not focussing ont his is a good way to evanglise. Their phrase 'original goodness' is about the fact that the Father saw every human being as worth saving through His Son - that every person is someone God wants back. Really, your disagreement is one of practice, not doctrine, as that is what they were discussing at this point. Surely that is a lesser issue?

On the issue of wrath there are two distinction. Did the Father NEED to pour out his wrather upoin the son to forgive, and does He still act wrathfully after the sacrifice of the Son?"


Here is my response:

First, it would be wonderful to correspond with you by e-mail as well.

Second, thank you for your comments as they prove helpful to re-think my statements and to verify their validity.

Thirdly, you are right in that Chalke and Mann are arguing that original sin is not important to convey in evangelism. However, you are very wrong in that they are saying that don't believe in original sin. You are arguing from a literal standpoint from what is written, but judging from their further arguments and their own logic; that is what they are saying. Of course I am not shocked seeing that is what most in the emergent church do anyways; attempt at denying essential doctrinal truth so everyone can be "happy".

Fourth, the Father did need to pour out his wrath on his son in that there was no other way as Scripture speaks from Genesis to Revelation. He does act wrathfully on individuals today in order to get people to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel (Check out Luke 13 and the tower of Siloam).

Fifth, the Father will continue to pour out his wrath on sinners and sin itself as the Bible states that he will send his Son Jesus to judge the living and the dead. I believe Revelation is very clear that he will come riding on a white horse with a flaming sword in his hand to strike down all who oppose him. Really frightening unless you have trusted in Jesus and in that case, it will be glorious and beautiful as sin will be removed forever.

So in conclusion, I believe you have confused a few things.

First, you need to distinguish what is essential in the Scriptures that is a part of the Gospel (the finished work of Christ on the cross for sinners).

Second, you need to see those essentials as they are, essential and to not shrink back as Paul declared he would not do from declaring the full counsel of God (which is the Gospel and all its doctrinal teachings).

Lastly, you need to quit doubting Christ's work on the cross that is complete and that is was not for you and me that he died essentially, but for the Father's glory. As Romans states, "There is nothing good in us, nothing." He did not come to bring out the potential there is in us and he did not come to die so he could rejoice in us as if there was something valuable inside of our lives. Christ came to give glory to the Father that by his sacrifice you might come to the knowledge of his glory. That is the Gospel and he took our place as our substitute to pay the penalty we deserved.

Think about those things I just mentioned and read the Bible with it's "objective" propositional truth ianjmatt.