9 thoughts on “The MB Herald vs. The Book of Genesis – 5 Part Series

      • Thanks! I’ve gotten quite a few notes from some saying that it’s been an encouragement, and it seems like others aren’t terribly happy that I’m engaging the ideas peddled in the Herald so critically.

        I don’t know why anyone who thinks that their ideas are actually true should fear public, focused, critical engagement…unless they’re afraid of how their ideas will stand up.

        Truth loves the spotlight.

      • If they believe their ideas are true they should welcome the chance to debate.

        Truth fears no questions.

  1. mennoknight wrote- “it seems like others aren’t terribly happy that I’m engaging the ideas peddled in the Herald so critically.”
    As one of those who engaged him on his blog- I am not aware of anyone who expressed unhappiness with MK for critically engaging any idea, as part of the MBH discussion. It seems like another example of MK re-writing facts at hand to create a narrative that suits his theological purposes.
    My frustration with him was with his suggesting, on the one hand that my views are due to an unregenerate mind, followed by vociferous declarations that he is not doing exactly this. It does seem like a conversation out of Alice in Wonderland at times.
    Observing this should not be confused with not wanting a critical look at the MBH. I for one welcome it.

    Since mennoknight is making his grand exit from the MB world I wonder if he will now change his moniker to macarthur’sknight? It does have a nice ring to it and it is probably more accurate in any case.

    • Hello James,

      While the Genesis debate is important, its ensuing rabbit trails and their inevitable bottomless holes can be time consuming and are often fruitless.

      Where Mennoknight is called next to engage in the ongoing battle is between him and God. As we are all in various stages of sanctification in this walk, we wish him well as he grows in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

      Glad to hear you are open to critical thinking in regards to the MBH.

      • “While the Genesis debate is important, its ensuing rabbit trails and their inevitable bottomless holes can be time consuming and are often fruitless.”
        Amen! I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly- but he took it on as his last MB hurrah. It hardly seems like an appropriate defence after having introduced numerous rabbit trails to use that, and unregenerate minds of all who disagree with him, as the exit strategy. I trust that is not what you intend when you talk about critically examining the MBH.

      • What better way to finish off with a big bang? 🙂

        As far as trails go, I just try to keep my eyes on the Good Shepherd and let Him take care of the defense and strategy.

  2. Maybe I can bring some clarification:

    1. James, you said “I am not aware of anyone who expressed unhappiness with MK for critically engaging any idea”.

    Well, that would be because I mentioned “I’ve gotten quite a few notes”, not “I’ve gotten quite a few blog comments”. I’ve received e-mails and private communication that have been both positive and negative. You’re not privy to those.

    2. “It seems like another example of MK re-writing facts at hand to create a narrative that suits his theological purposes.”

    Feel free to re-interpret all facts and language used by others to make things easier to digest for yourself. I definitely cannot stop you.

    3. “My frustration with him was with his suggesting, on the one hand that my views are due to an unregenerate mind, followed by vociferous declarations that he is not doing exactly this.”

    I’ll keep saying what I’ve been always saying; you’re being inconsistent. I have no knowledge of whether or not your regenerate, and I have never suggested that you’re an unbeliever. Being deceived by unregenerate thought and being unregenerate are two completely different scenarios. I’m increasingly curious why you’re covering your ears and singing whenever I attempt any clarification on this.

    4. “Since mennoknight is making his grand exit from the MB world I wonder if he will now change his moniker to macarthur’sknight? It does have a nice ring to it and it is probably more accurate in any case.”

    Nope. I’m not changing anything. I’ve been “Mennoknight” online since 1996. It’s my hotmail address that became an online moniker simply because “Mennonite@hotmail.com” was taken. I believe I even explained that on Ryan’s blog. I’m not a MacArthurite; we agree on a lot but disagree in several areas. Besides that, he has Canadian Anabaptist roots and the dean of The Masters Seminary (Irvin Busenitz) is a Mennonite that MacArthur hand-picked. MacArthur’s who got me interested in Mennonite history and historic anabaptist theology in the first place.

    Do not misunderstand Toews. I serve Christ alone and stand behind MacArthur and Menno in a long line of historic, reformed, anabaptist Christians.

    I’m a historic Anabaptist who has made his way into the 21st century and shed off the inconsistencies I’ve found in historic Anabaptism that are demanded by clear and consistent application of scripture. I can say, with sound conscience, that I’m sure that Menno Simmons would welcome the 10 stories of growth, internal structural changes and minor exterior cosmetic changes I’ve added to the 150 story building of theology that he handed down to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s