I haven't really commented on the Da Vinci Code here at Attention Span. For one reason, I really haven't been around much to do any extraneous blogging. But secondly, there isn't much I could add to the 14 ka-jillion posts on DVC around the blogosphere. But it's amazing how subjects come together.
The "What is Christianity?" debate on the comments of my post, Fakin' It, tie in incredibly well with two posts at Al Mohler's blog written earlier this week. They each deal with DVC and Gnosticism. Understand that the Gnostics were branded as heretics by the early church and that they believed there was "secret knowledge" about God that we had to seek out which is key to our salvation.
The first post is called "Da Vinci Christianity" and deals with the use of the terms "Christian" and "Christianity".
The second deals with the same idea through DVC and also the Left Behind books. In The Danger of Gnosticism -- And it's Attraction, Mohler discusses the idea that the Church has the wrong idea about Christianity and that the truth is somewhere else.
I'll probably expound on these ideas next week, as time allows.
And while you're at Dr. Mohler's blog, scroll down. He also picks apart a Brian McLaren interview on the subject and offers facts in response to DVC claims.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Trying to focus on what is important and occasionally succeeding.
About Me
- rev-ed
- I'm married with three kids, not to mention three jobs. My calling is serving as pastor at a small country church. I also work at a small-town newspaper and do some government work on the side. Needless to say, I'm a busy guy, but you can contact me at rev-ed at verizon.net
3 comments:
I totally agree with Mohler's point that there is no difference between the gnosticism of Brown's DVC and Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series. I would go farther and say that LaHaye's work is FAR more dangerous to the gospel than anything Brown has written, because he claims to be a Christian with all the answers. I'd much rather sit and have a conversation with Brown, who admits he doesn't know it all.
Interesting that Mohler has exactly the opposite opinion as you. He points out that Brown (who doesn't know it all) is messing with essential Christian doctrine while LaHaye is dealing with non-essentials.
Although I must say I doubt I'd enjoy a conversation with either LaHaye or Brown. Now Mohler would be fun to talk to. :)
Interesting! I'd love to pick Brown's psyche over a nice cold beer. If I saw LaHaye coming, I'd run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. :)
Post a Comment