RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

crankius -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:38:52 PM)

I've had you on block for a while. I've unblocked you today so I will respond to some of your posts.

To answer some of your questions means to go back to the very roots of theology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SD456

quote:

ORIGINAL: crankius
“you are meant to fill a place in the heart of God no one and nothing else can fill. He longs for you” (page 120).


That's a good one and so very true. We each touch a place in God's heart that no one else could ever touch or replace. Just like how we feel for each of our individual children. We love them each separately and not one of them could replace the other one in our hearts and each one touches our heart in a unique way. God definately longs for us or else He would never have pursued us with His love or sent His only son. That's the greatest love story that ever has been and ever will be.



God does not have a hole in His heart. He did not need us for fellowship. He was not lacking in any way when He made creation.

He created us solely for His glory--not for His needs.

Acts 17:24-25 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

Everything under heaven belongs to the Lord (Job 41:11 and Psalm 50:10-12)--as Grudem puts it, "no one has ever contributed to God anything that did not first come from God who created all things."

God had glory prior to our creation (John 17:5 "...the glory which I had with you before the world was made"... and 17:24 "...my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world."). The trinity had perfect love, union, and fellowship, prior to creation. God was not lonely and God does not have a need for us.

In Exodus 3:14 when God states "...I AM WHO I AM" it is also translated as "I will be what I will be." God's determines Himself, and He is not dependent upon any of creation.

Without creation, God would still be completely sufficient in Himself.

We are, though, created to give God glory. Isa 43:7 "every one who is called by My name, whom I created for My glory, whom I formed and made."

While we bring joy and delight to the Lord (Is 62:3-5) and while God even sings over us (Zeph. 3:17-18), He still has no need for us. God is complete in Himself.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:39:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

As far as eros goes, I think it's important to recognize that any earthly analogy at some point breaks down. For Eldredge, I believe he uses this imagery in nonsexual terms of desire & longing for God and by God. Clearly at some point you can push the analogy too far and into the ridiculous if you choose to bring in the human sexual connotations that come along with that analogy, which as far as I know he does not.


Exactly! Said far better than I can say it. I wish I had a gift to share my thoughts better than I do. Thank you, GroupW.

Eldredge definately uses this imagery in non-sexual terms. And yes, it is completely ridiculous the extremes that some on this thread will try and push this analogy into a place the writer never intended.

But we all know that some are very good at Hyperbole and pushing everyone's statements into the extreme.



earthless -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:43:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SD456

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sue
So which one is it SD. Are you against eros love from God or are you for it. You are talking about of both sides of your mouth.


Can you show me, sue, where I said that God has a lustful/sexual love for us? Please give me the post # and then I shall agree with you that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. (You guys seem so good at your little constant jabs at others. But I don't buy it.)



BUT you're defending a man who teaches and promotes that very thing! How can you not see this as being one in the same? Same difference.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:44:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

SD456,

I am now an Apostle. Apostle earthless, are you going to submit to my authority and revelation knowledge?!

This is getting old and is off-topic. Please stop.

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

Messages which disregard the words in red will be removed without warning and the poster may also be banned.



earthless -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:45:03 PM)

Nevermind.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:48:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crankius
God does not have a hole in His heart. He did not need us for fellowship. He was not lacking in any way when He made creation.

He created us solely for His glory--not for His needs.


I agree with this, and yet there is something very essential to God's nature in the act of creation. The Word was with God, was God, and through Him all things were made. There is something about the way this is worded in John that leads me in the direction that there is something about creation & the act of creation that was integral to who God is. Not that there is a hole per se, but ....

It's a little bit of mystery for me that is fun to ponder.

Deep thoughts from BT...



Kat_D -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:50:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crankius
God does not have a hole in His heart. He did not need us for fellowship. He was not lacking in any way when He made creation.


Exactly! We were the ones created with holes in our hearts that only He can fill. I have found that many twist that to make Him more like them, and in doing that, they make Him imperfect...which is so unscriptural I can hardly stand it!!![:@]



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:54:08 PM)

quote:

God does not have a hole in His heart. He did not need us for fellowship. He was not lacking in any way when He made creation.

He created us solely for His glory--not for His needs.


I would fully agree with that, as would Eldredge. I think you are confusing something. God's deeply loving us and longing for us does not = "He's desperately in NEED of us." He's not. But His love for us causes a longing in His heart for relationship with us.

"God showed His love for us, in that even while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." That is an amazing, passionate love that pursued a lost creation for the sake of love.

quote:

Everything under heaven belongs to the Lord (Job 41:11 and Psalm 50:10-12)--as Grudem puts it, "no one has ever contributed to God anything that did not first come from God who created all things."


I absolutely agree, as does Eldredge. Everything belongs to God. And we have nothing to offer to Him, which proves to me even more the astounding love in Him that wants me and draws me close to Him. I have nothing yet He still deeply loves me - amazing!

quote:

The trinity had perfect love, union, and fellowship, prior to creation. God was not lonely and God does not have a need for us.


Agree 100%. But you are again confusing the idea that because God longs for us that somehow that means He must be in desperate need of us. He's not. His love is not a needy, clingy love - His love is a pursuing, clean, passionate, all-consuming kind of love.

quote:

Without creation, God would still be completely sufficient in Himself.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Absolutely true. He is perfect in His self-sufficiency. Yet He chose to create beings that would be His children because He desired (not needed) to have children whom He could pour His love upon and whom would love Him in return. And He's very much in love with His children.



lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:54:42 PM)

Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.

Enough said.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 3:55:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

BUT you're defending a man who teaches and promotes that very thing! How can you not see this as being one in the same? Same difference.


I think you're making connections here that while understandable may not be accurate. Eldredge does not appear to associate sexuality with his metaphors of desire and love. There is a desire which is not sexual, and a love which is not physical. These nonsexual elements of love are present even within marriage, and thank goodness. If it were other than that, our marriages in our frail years would be sad shadows of love.

It appears to be those nonsexual elements of human love that Eldredge is basing his metaphor on. As it stands, the metaphor would hold only in part. Pushing it too far leads one into nonsense.



SirWintery -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:00:47 PM)

This God-as-lover romantic concept makes me think of other over-the-top Bride teaching leading to a God-needs-our-help mentality which morphs into manifest sons and manchild revelations, or so it seems and to me it's all poured from the same can--too much focus on us and not enough on Him.

The Apostles didn't play with this gooey stuff.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:03:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

It appears to be those nonsexual elements of human love that Eldredge is basing his metaphor on. As it stands, the metaphor would hold only in part. Pushing it too far leads one into nonsense.


Yes, I agree. His metaphors can be used only so far (as far as he intended to use them), and pushing them too far it becomes nonsense (and gross - we DO NOT have any kind of sexual love going on between us and God! Yuch! Eldredge would die if anyone ever said he believes that!)



Kat_D -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:09:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless
Can you show me, sue, where I said that God has a lustful/sexual love for us? Please give me the post # and then I shall agree with you that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. (You guys seem so good at your little constant jabs at others. But I don't buy it.)


BUT you're defending a man who teaches and promotes that very thing! How can you not see this as being one in the same? Same difference.


I think you're making connections here that while understandable may not be accurate. Eldredge does not appear to associate sexuality with his metaphors of desire and love. There is a desire which is not sexual, and a love which is not physical. These nonsexual elements of love are present even within marriage, and thank goodness. If it were other than that, our marriages in our frail years would be sad shadows of love.

It appears to be those nonsexual elements of human love that Eldredge is basing his metaphor on. As it stands, the metaphor would hold only in part. Pushing it too far leads one into nonsense.


Your way of quoting is wrong. I've seen you do it before, but I didn't say anything. You make it look as though Eartless said all of that. He didn't actually say the first paragraph that you quoted him as saying, he only said the last sentence. [8|]



WesP -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:09:44 PM)

quote:

we DO NOT have any kind of sexual love going on between us and God! Yuch! Eldredge would die if anyone ever said he believes that!)


Then, perhaps, he should choose some different examples. Hmmmm? Citing the parables in the bible would be good choices. For example: the prodigal son. That shows the relationship much more accurately without worrying about sinful things being thrown in. KWIM?



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:12:23 PM)

Not a bad idea.



earthless -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:14:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace

quote:

we DO NOT have any kind of sexual love going on between us and God! Yuch! Eldredge would die if anyone ever said he believes that!)


Then, perhaps, he should choose some different examples. Hmmmm? Citing the parables in the bible would be good choices. For example: the prodigal son. That shows the relationship much more accurately without worrying about sinful things being thrown in. KWIM?


Exactly..



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:15:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kat_D
Your way of quoting is wrong. I've seen you do it before, but I didn't say anything. You make it look as though Eartless said all of that. He didn't actually say the first paragraph that you quoted him as saying, he only said the last sentence.


Thanks for pointing it out. Not intentional, to be sure. Went back and deleted extraneous stuff just to be clear. You have no idea how often I have to go back and put the quote/end quotes in the right spots. I seem to have issues in that regard.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:32:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace

quote:

we DO NOT have any kind of sexual love going on between us and God! Yuch! Eldredge would die if anyone ever said he believes that!)


Then, perhaps, he should choose some different examples. Hmmmm? Citing the parables in the bible would be good choices. For example: the prodigal son. That shows the relationship much more accurately without worrying about sinful things being thrown in. KWIM?


He's a creative writer. There's no sin in choosing certain metaphors to creatively express your thoughts.

He's not throwing the sinful things in nor did I or many others who read his books ever get that idea. Just some on these threads are doing it, which is new to me. I've never heard anyone take Eldredge's ideas to the extremes that some here wish to.

As for good material - the Song of Solomon is pretty good in showing the desire and love that someone has for the object that is loved - and very scriptural for those who don't like to read anything but scripture.



WesP -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:34:54 PM)

Titanic was a movie centered around a relationship he made reference to. It is not hard to understand that such was an immoral relationship from the jump. How is that taking it to an extreme? Some of us find that kind of behavior to be totally against God. That is the only "extreme" present that I can see.



SD456 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:42:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace

Titanic was a movie centered around a relationship he made reference to. It is not hard to understand that such was an immoral relationship from the jump. How is that taking it to an extreme? Some of us find that kind of behavior to be totally against God. That is the only "extreme" present that I can see.


I'm sorry Wes if that offends you. I truly am. As GroupW pointed out, Eldredge is speaking about a desire that is not sexual when he uses these metaphors.

Perhaps the problem is you haven't read Eldredge's books to get his full meaning with all of his reasoning behind what he says?? I don't know if you have or haven't, but if you haven't and are just listening to little bits and pieces here and there about what his books are about, then you certainly won't be able to understand the analogies that Eldredge use and why. But I can understand your misunderstanding.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:43:45 PM)

Agreed there were probably better examples he could have used.

Still, I am capable as are most mature Christians of looking at a scene and seeing those things in it that are good and pure (one's strong affection for another) while discarding that which is not (steaming up the windows of a Model T.)

Within the movie, there is a theme of sacrificial love that is worth a look. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to explore that.

Again, maybe not what I would have done, but it's not my book and not my ministry.



lw9 -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 4:58:59 PM)

quote:

WesSavedByGrace: Then, perhaps, he should choose some different examples. Hmmmm? Citing the parables in the bible would be good choices. For example: the prodigal son. That shows the relationship much more accurately without worrying about sinful things being thrown in. KWIM?


Yes, it would have showed the relationship more accurately, but it doesn't work for Eldredge because that's not what he's trying to portray.

My take: The concepts he's working from are not Biblical in the first place, so to fit in with his ideas that the heart is good so follow heart and desire, and that God looks upon us as a literal romantic lover, he has to go beyond scripture and use worldly illustrations, even if it means associating Jesus as the sensual & sexual lover of an unmarried woman. He's created this fantasy world, and now he has to find whatever it takes to support and uphold it.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:07:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

My take: The concepts he's working from are not Biblical in the first place, so to fit in with his ideas that the heart is good so follow heart and desire, and that God looks upon us as a literal romantic lover, he has to go beyond scripture and use worldly illustrations, even if it means associating Jesus as the sensual & sexual lover of an unmarried woman.

I think this part is foreign to his actual intent.



GroupW -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:12:18 PM)

I think Redcape's question was actually an honest one based on a certain thread or two elsewhere that went too far & generated some questions. Exchanged a few PM's earlier on a related topic earlier as a matter of fact. The cape is still hanging around as far as I know, though silent at the moment.



doinkdom -> RE: RANSOMED HEART MINSTRIES & JOHN ELDREDGE: CULT? (4/29/2008 5:17:55 PM)

This has gone beyond debate and into emotional defensiveness.

Forgive my participation in pointing out the error in JE's books.

And with that said, I'll leave y'all to it.[sm=icon_smile_super.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI