Comments on: An Explanation of My Tongue & Cheek “Reformed” Post http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2006/07/10/an-explanation-of-my-tongue-cheek-reformed-post/ irregularities and other absurdities Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:23:50 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mike http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2006/07/10/an-explanation-of-my-tongue-cheek-reformed-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1063 mike Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:38:24 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/?p=1001#comment-1063 no doubt man, no doubt. keep up with the good postings. oh and your video thing and podcast and all that made me covet a mac... so yeah. no doubt man, no doubt.

keep up with the good postings.

oh and your video thing and podcast and all that made me covet a mac…

so yeah.

]]> By: Josh http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2006/07/10/an-explanation-of-my-tongue-cheek-reformed-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1061 Josh Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:00:26 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/?p=1001#comment-1061 no worries mike. you can use any type of language that you want. i just tend to get nailed by all sorts of people for a good portion of what i say or think or link to. so i tend to be a little cautious on my end. but its definitely kosher by me. as far as your comment, i agree, i probably was resorting to stereotypes and i grew up in and was schooled in a very reformed tradition. so my comment was really more just a tongue in cheek comment on why the original quesiton and answer bothered me. not with reformed theology in general. just with the idea that the interviewed guy had that if you weren't reformed, you were dumb. or just a limp wristed pansy. and that's not the case for me. no worries mike. you can use any type of language that you want. i just tend to get nailed by all sorts of people for a good portion of what i say or think or link to. so i tend to be a little cautious on my end. but its definitely kosher by me.

as far as your comment, i agree, i probably was resorting to stereotypes and i grew up in and was schooled in a very reformed tradition. so my comment was really more just a tongue in cheek comment on why the original quesiton and answer bothered me. not with reformed theology in general. just with the idea that the interviewed guy had that if you weren’t reformed, you were dumb. or just a limp wristed pansy. and that’s not the case for me.

]]> By: mike http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2006/07/10/an-explanation-of-my-tongue-cheek-reformed-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1058 mike Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:24:52 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/?p=1001#comment-1058 josh, as with james i am glad you opened this up a little more. i like that you emnbrace uncertainty, i think that [certainty] is the log in the eye of modern (little m) christianity. however, i would like to insert that none of the things you listed, or rather, the way you describe them are reformed dogmatics. having been steeped in the tradtion for a decade i would like to think i have a little room to say that - AND with all respect to you josh - man i hope i don't sound all jerk***. but i can see how one would perceive those things in reformed theology esp from some of the folks who think they are reformed. but that is another conversation. anyway thanks again for flushing this out man. this stuff needs to be talked about. oh and sorry for the primetime language. i will be more careful next time i comment! josh,

as with james i am glad you opened this up a little more.

i like that you emnbrace uncertainty, i think that [certainty] is the log in the eye of modern (little m) christianity.

however, i would like to insert that none of the things you listed, or rather, the way you describe them are reformed dogmatics. having been steeped in the tradtion for a decade i would like to think i have a little room to say that – AND with all respect to you josh – man i hope i don’t sound all jerk***.

but i can see how one would perceive those things in reformed theology esp from some of the folks who think they are reformed. but that is another conversation.

anyway thanks again for flushing this out man. this stuff needs to be talked about.

oh and sorry for the primetime language. i will be more careful next time i comment!

]]> By: Nicholas http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2006/07/10/an-explanation-of-my-tongue-cheek-reformed-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1048 Nicholas Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:53:58 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/?p=1001#comment-1048 Yeah, stirring up the pot huh? The quote is troubling because it is a binary reduction of sorts. I don't see these two theologies being 1) Correctly defined 2) nor do I see them being the two 'hot' theologies of the day. I see an array of theologies that are 'hot'. Is driscoll saying that if I am part of Emergent Theology, I agree with his idea of what that is. I mean I haven't seen him at the conversations so I don't know how close he is to what my theology is. But either way I don't think God crushed Jesus. I am pretty sure it was the Romans who did that. Yeah, stirring up the pot huh?

The quote is troubling because it is a binary reduction of sorts. I don’t see these two theologies being 1) Correctly defined 2) nor do I see them being the two ‘hot’ theologies of the day. I see an array of theologies that are ‘hot’.

Is driscoll saying that if I am part of Emergent Theology, I agree with his idea of what that is. I mean I haven’t seen him at the conversations so I don’t know how close he is to what my theology is.

But either way I don’t think God crushed Jesus. I am pretty sure it was the Romans who did that.

]]> By: Josh http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2006/07/10/an-explanation-of-my-tongue-cheek-reformed-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1040 Josh Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:41:31 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/?p=1001#comment-1040 make sure you go and read seth's pingback. it's really good. and has to do with my 4th issue. make sure you go and read seth’s pingback. it’s really good. and has to do with my 4th issue.

]]>