Chamberlain Appeased Hitler
In the 1930’s an ominous power was rising in Europe. Adolph Hitler was consolidating his power and preparing his campaign to devour Europe and eliminate the Jewish People. Great Britain’s prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, tried everything he could to avoid war. He coddled and appeased Hitler, trying to make peace with an evil man. As Hitler moved forward, he stepped back, and the curse of Nazi Germany spread. Finally, under the leadership of Chamberlain’s successor, Winston Churchill, Great Britain took a stand against the Nazis. America and other nations eventually joined them and the Allies were able to stop the scourge of Hitler.
There is an important lesson here. People who love Jesus do not like to fight. But there is a time when each of us must stand and be counted. We cannot appease evil, or coddle it; we must stand against it. Evil must be opposed. No matter how much we desire to be loving and tolerant, there are some battles that have to be fought. Of course, we always need to be kind and tactful, but there is a time when we must pick up the “Sword of the Spirit” and go to war. If we tolerate doctrinal error, it will spread in the church the way Nazism did in Europe. The consequences will be severe.
The Great Wall of China
Centuries ago, the Emperor of China became concerned about the Mongol bands that were raiding and pillaging his nation. He embarked on one of the architectural wonders of the ancient world. He built the Great Wall of China to protect the Chinese people from those who would destroy them.
The Christian community needs just such a wall; a wall of orthodoxy to protect us from our enemies, those who would come in and destroy the work of God. There is some truth around which we must construct a brick wall of separation and protection. Jude 3 says, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The truths that make up our faith are worth fighting for. Sometimes, we have to contend with those who teach what is false, even to the point of separation. God’s word is a sword, and swords divide – right from wrong, truth from error. This world is hostile to our God and to the gospel. We must contend for the faith by holding fundamental doctrines without compromise. Some truth everyone must believe – if not, they have denied the faith. There can be no unity in the body of Christ with those who promote doctrines that threaten the very existence of that body.
A young couple sat before me telling me they were leaving us for another congregation. As they described the church, I realized that it was not just another Christian denomination. It was church with a skewed view of every fundamental doctrine of the faith. This young couple was shocked as I confronted them. “You are not just leaving this church,” I said. “You are abandoning the faith that saved you.” This was not just minor false doctrine – it was fundamental error. They were hurt by my forcefulness, but God worked in their hearts and they turned away from that which was false. There comes a time when we have to take a stand. It would not have been an act of love to let them embrace error. Love required a firm rebuke.
Scriptural Warnings
It seems to me that some Christians are willfully ignorant of the many scriptures that warn us about false teachers – those who come into the church and teach what is contrary to God’s Word to try to lead astray the children of God. They are horrified that a pastor might call something heresy – that is too divisive. How many must be deceived before we take these warnings seriously? Matthew 7:15 says, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” This is a clear warning that wolves would come among God’s sheep, intent on destroying and devouring the flock. They would pretend to be part of the Body of Christ, to be serving our Lord, but would actually be intent on destroying it. We are commanded to watch out for them. When we erect a brick wall of doctrine, it identifies the false teachers and protects the people of God. When we fail to erect a brick wall of separation around these basic doctrines, we disobey the clear command of God’s Word.
However you read passages about the end times, you must notice that nearly every passage that speaks of the events of the Second Coming of Christ carries a warning about false teachers, false prophets and false apostles. Matthew 24:11 warned that “Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9 predicts, “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders.” There will always be falsehood in the church, but as the days near to the end, scripture indicates that there will be an increase of deception.
Perhaps the warning in 2 Peter 2:1-3 is most direct.
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.”
Peter promised that there would be men who would bring destructive heresies in the church to lead astray the people of God. If the “Community of Faith” has no wall of protection, the inhabitants of the city become prey for those who would seek to exploit and destroy by way of these deceptive teachings.
Diving into Danger
Unheeded Danger
When I was in college, I took a scuba diving class. Our first ocean dive was at “The Wrecks” off the Palm Beach coast. We were diving into 60 feet of water to an artificial reef formed by derelict sunken ships. I flopped off the boat, and headed down the rope toward the bottom of the ocean. When I got about 10 or 15 feet down, I had a sharp pain in my ears – the pressure would not equalize. Norine, the dive instructor, came over to me and pulled my mask off. I put my mask back on and cleared it. To clear a diving mask underwater, you press in on the top of the mask, and blow through your nose. The air drives the water out the bottom of the mask and it clears. It worked. When I cleared my mask, my ears equalized. I headed to the bottom and had a wonderful time diving around the old wrecked ships.
I had only one problem. My mask kept filling up with this green fluid that looked like algae. I cleared my mask time and again. It kept filling up. Finally, my air began to run low and I headed up the rope back toward the surface. When I got about 10 feet from the surface, I remembered something they taught us in training. The first color you lose when you go underwater is red. The fluid in my mask was not algae, it was blood. Equalizing the pressure in my ears had caused a nosebleed. So, the whole time I was scuba diving in the Atlantic Ocean, I was putting out a signal to every shark in the area – Lunch! It is not smart to swim in shark-infested waters with a bloody nose.
It is just as foolish to walk through life without a solid understanding of the basic teachings of God’s Word. Christians who are not grounded in the truth are meat for the spiritual predators, becoming lambs for the wolves. There are few things as appealing to the enemy as a biblically illiterate believer. They are easy to deceive and lead astray.
Willful and Foolish Ignorance
Some Christians are unwilling to admit that this level of truth even exists. They refuse to exercise discernment, opting for the Rodney King philosophy of church life – “Can’t we all just get along?” I cannot count the number of times I have been told, “Let’s forget doctrine and just love Jesus.” But, it is not an act of unity to ignore false teaching. It is an act of ecclesiological suicide. It is tantamount to swimming in shark infested waters with a bloody nose.
We must stand against false doctrine to protect the church from its enemies. When someone violates a Level 1 doctrine, we must contend with them. We must erect a brick wall of separation. We can be kind, but we must also be firm as we contend for the faith.
Doctrines of First Importance
What are those doctrines, the truths that require a brick wall? We look to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as a guide.
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Paul tells us here that there are two essential facts that comprise the gospel, each verified by the events of history. First, Jesus Christ died for our sins. This is established as an historical fact by His burial. Second, Jesus rose from the dead. His resurrection was proved by his appearance to the disciples and as many as 500 people, then finally to Paul himself. In verse 3, Paul defines these truths as “of first importance.”
Brick Wall doctrine is essential to the gospel of Jesus. If you compromise this truth, you compromise the gospel and no longer have a saving faith. John gave a clear warning to his listeners in 2 John 10-11,
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
If anyone would come into the church teaching doctrines that disagree with the fundamental teachings of the faith, Christians were to have nothing to do with them. To welcome them into the church and treat them as fellow Christians would be to take part in their wicked works. We cannot treat those who chip away at the foundation of our faith as if they are brothers or sisters in Christ. We cannot welcome the wolves in among the sheep.
We must erect a brick wall of separation around the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith – those doctrines essential to our salvation. On other doctrines we may be gracious, but around these fundamental truths we must stand without compromise.
What is a Brick Wall?
What does it mean to erect a Brick Wall? How, in practical terms, would we do this?
Withholding Fellowship
First, when we erect a Brick Wall, we withhold the blessing of fellowship from that person or group. We do not accept them as our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. This was the process just described in 2 John. In the early church, there were teachers who would go from town to town, enjoying the hospitality of the church and instructing it. Some of these were false teachers. As we just saw, John instructed his readers not to allow these folks into their homes, not even to share a meal with them. They were not to provide hospitality to false teachers or share the Agape meal or any other fellowship with them.
Churches should not allow in their membership those who proclaim or promote false doctrine. Church discipline has gone the way of the Model T, but it is needed. Churches must enforce conformity on these fundamental doctrines. When someone compromises these doctrines, we must contend with them. We must not do anything that will give people the idea that we confer the blessing of fellowship on these folks. I will also not participate in public worship, fellowship, or ministry events with those who deny the fundamental doctrines of the faith.
Confront and Rebuke
The second aspect of this is probably the most unpopular. We must publicly confront and rebuke false teachings. In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul publicly identified Hymenaeus and Alexander. He told the Galatians (Galatians 5:12) that he wished that those who were trying to force Jewish law on Gentile believers would be castrated. Not very politically correct, was he? He was very willing to publicly confront those who promoted false doctrines. Peter, John, Jude – all publicly confronted those who were advocating fundamental error in the church.
It is my job as a pastor to identify and confront heresy in my church. It is easy to take this too far. I heard a tape of a sermon by a well-known pastor. It consisted of him condemning a series of groups he considered inimical to the faith. He blasted Hollywood, the communists (it was a long time ago), political and theological liberals, and anyone whose morality did not match the biblical standards. There was nothing but condemnation in his sermon. That is not what people need. But they do need their pastor to identify false doctrines and dangerous practices. It is the shepherd’s job to protect the sheep from predators.
When I lived in Cedar Rapids, I spent 11 years trying to establish a lawn on the acre lot on which we built our home. As fast as the grass grew, the weeds grew even faster. So, I put down “weed and feed.” I put down fertilizer to help the grass grow. But there was also a poison in the fertilizer that killed the weeds. The Bible is our spiritual “weed and feed.” It feeds the soul while it also confronts false doctrine. We must do both. We must feed people the positive truths of God’s power and grace, but we must also confront heresy. We must publicly rebuke false teachers.
Partnership Prohibited
Finally, the Brick Wall prohibits partnership. The Old Testament law prohibited yoking two dissimilar animals together to plow a field. Only like animals could join together under one yoke to pull a plow. Paul used this illustration in 2 Corinthians 6:14. “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” he warned. A Christian’s life, his convictions, his passions should be so different from the unbeliever’s that it would be impossible to partner. Whatever they call themselves, we must regard those who compromise the basic doctrines of the faith as unbelievers, and refuse to partner with them for ministry.
Soon after I began to pray with the pastors of Cedar Rapids, I was asked to lead a public prayer at a community prayer service at a city park. I said I would be glad to do it. I knew the others who would be participating were from a variety of churches with lots of doctrinal perspectives. I was looking forward to partnering publicly with them to pray for our city. Then, I was informed that a leader from the local Mormon church would be on the podium. I sadly refused to participate. I cannot stand in public to partner with a group I believe is outside the Brick Wall.
Rancor NOT Required
A wall of separation does not require rancor or hostility. There is no reason for a Christian to ever be unkind or abusive to another, even if that person holds or advocates heresy. It is possible to be direct and even confrontational without being obnoxious. I appeared on a discussion panel for a local television show. The subject was homosexual adoptions. To my right sat a lesbian who had adopted a child and proudly claimed that her church was supportive and affirming of her lifestyle. I had no choice but to directly confront her with the truth from scripture. But, the discussion, while pointed, was never angry. I never called her names, never raised my voice. Even though my message was offensive to her, I did not have to be.
We need to establish uncompromising doctrinal standards around the fundamental truths of our faith. If someone denies one of these doctrines, we can be kind to them, but we cannot recognize them as fellow-citizens of the Kingdom, as brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot cooperate in ministry with them. For the sake of the body of Christ, we must confront their falsehood and expose it publicly. Christians today, to protect the church from the work of these false teachers, must be willing to take a stand. Lines must be drawn and battles must be fought.
If someone denies the basic doctrines of the faith, I must withhold the blessing of Christian fellowship with them, confront them in a loving but firm way, and refuse to yoke myself together with them in Christian ministry.
In the next post, I will begin to try to define what doctrine is “Brick Wall” doctrine.
Dave, I thought you did an excellent job defining the “brick wall” already; (1) Christ died for our sins, (2) He rose the 3rd day. That is what makes us Christian. Wouldn’t everything else be what makes us Baptist, Methodist, etc?
Basically, yes, Ron. But I do think that there are some other doctrines that do not so much express the gospel as support it.
In this or any other triage, it is often easier to decide on the theory. The devil of the details comes in assigning doctrines their category. We often elevate doctrines and ignore others.
I don’t think so. If a denomination denied, or permitted pastors and those who taught in their seminaries to deny, the virgin birth or they suggested that God saves people through Jesus Christ but they may not realize that He saved them through Christ until they get to heaven (i.e. those of other religions can go to heaven without ever hearing the name of Christ) not only are they not Baptist** but they are not Christian. I say they’re not Christian even if they claimto believe that Christ died and rose again.
**Well, they’re probably moderate baptists, but well that’s another story all together.
There are a series of doctrines I define as “Brick Wall” doctrines. The doctrines you mention all are specifically related to the gospel in one way or another.
But you illustrate my answer to Ron above. The Virgin Birth is not specifically part of the Gospel, but it is essential to it. That’s why I cannot simply state what Ron does above. There are doctrines that undergird the twin gospel truths he mentioned above.
And in my most humble of opinions, the list of these brick wall doctrines that I would add in addition to those two is not terribly long. I’m not saying that, in order for me to affirm another person as a fellow believer that they have to agree with me on every single point of doctrine but the list is longer than just two points.
Dave,
Excellent opening paragraph and illustrations throughout. A very helpful article. As far as your follow-up comment about further defining “Brick Wall doctrines”, I guess I would be curious to hear more. In my years in churches (non-pastor) I have never seen someone come in and deny Christ’s death and resurrection. I’m sure it happens, I just haven’t been someplace where or when it has.
Given the centrality of Adam to theology and Jesus’ affirmations of creation, would that be a BWd? Should a pastor deny fellowship to a theistic evolutionist Christian? What about a Christian who is not convinced of Scriptural inerrancy? Or someone who does yoga, contemplative prayers, or says they also love [insert any word-faith or self-improvement preacher here]?
When I was in China in 2006 I got to go to the Great Wall and I heard the story you relate, but you know what I was told when I was standing there? It’s true, no outside invaders ever came. But, everything that ever toppled China came from within, ideologies the Chinese themselves embraced. For us, subtle false teachings are like poison seeping under the Brick Wall doctrines we must have.
Definitely not interested in starting a battlefield in the comments (especially considering your recent post about ‘em!) but can you please follow up with some thoughts for someone like me who is preparing to be a pastor someday?
Thanks!
Your comment about the Great Wall was very interesting. It goes along with the illustration in the last essay (#2) about tearing down the castle to build the wall.
We do need a Brick Wall of doctrinal protection, but if we ignore the internal dynamics of the church, we can do more damage from within than the enemy can do from the outside. Excellent thought.
As to the issues you raised, I will deal with them in future posts, but I am a little conflicted about them.
Two facts conflict to me: 1) Simple exegesis seems to clearly lean toward the young earth, special creation model. 2) There are a lot of Bible-loving, Christ-honoring people who disagree. So, I’m reluctant to break fellowship over that issue, though I think that the issue of the identity of Adam as a real person and special creation, not an evolved creature, is important to the gospel story.
My general rule is, when in doubt, don’t. So, I do not put day-age or other views that involve evolution in the creation process outside the Brick Wall.
I would say the issue depends on HOW they disagree. For instance, do they believe that God spoke the world into existence, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings created and that God created Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam’s rib but they don’t believe that the world was created in 6 twenty-four hour days? My response to them would be much different than to someone who doesn’t believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings created, that the first five books of the Bible are mythological and have no real basis in historical fact, and that God did not directly create the world by speaking it into existence. I wouldn’t break fellowship with the first over those beliefs where I most certainly would with the 2nd.
It’s a thorny one. Again, Paul roots the gospel story in the reality of Adam as the first man. On the other hand, some great Bible teachers and preachers to the other way on this one. So, its a tough one.
If it’s any help, the Bible does not lead us astray about God using ‘the dirt’ to form Adam’s body.
The ‘elements’ found in dirt are also found in the human body approximately in these proportions:
1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts) ”
After death, if a human body is buried directly into the Earth, the elements of the human body will ‘return to the earth’,
as is written: ‘dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return’.
“…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
(GS)
Am I being a smart aleck if I observe that I never considered the possibility that the Word of God was “leading us astray”?
Science has often led people astray, but not God’s word.
Dave,
Come on, now. Only ignorant, hate-mongerin’, fear-mongerin’ fundies actually believe the word of God to be literally true. L’s is just trying to help us out, yo.
Stating ‘the Bible does not lead us astray’ is not the same as entertaining the idea that is does.
For example, an ancient prayer of thanksgiving was ‘Blessed be God Who brings forth bread from the Earth.’
The understanding was there of this in ancient days, along with the understanding of the cooperation of the ‘work of human hands’ in making bread from grain.
But what was NOT known, by the ancients, were the scientific details of the thousands of processes involved in photosynthesis: the capturing of the Sun’s energy by chloroplasts inside green plant cells, and the conversion of that energy into food.
Sometimes scientific knowledge increases our amazement about the Creator: all those thousands of processes involved in photosynthesis do occur in a perfect sequence, perfectly ordered: a testament from science to the majesty of the Creator of all that is seen and unseen.
Actually JOE, I am trying to help you out respectfully. I don’t expect my contributions to be ‘accepted’, but considered.
And I don’t think my contributions are an ‘attack’.
I am aware of your belief in the Bible as a literal historical and literal scientific document.
My own belief is that, if the Bible contained ALL the details of what God has done, it be so large as to fill the entire Universe.
There is quite a bit of theological truth grounded in the biblical story of creation, Christiane. If the biblical account is untrue or inaccurate, that does in fact undermine a lot of biblical doctrine.
I am aware of your belief in the Bible as a literal historical and literal scientific document.
Yes, you’re right. I am just stupid enough to believe that God doesn’t lie when He tells people what He did and inspired them to write His word, which is inerrant.
Dave,
Regarding the young earth/old earth view, please read physicist Gerald Schroder’s excellent article, The Age of The Universe:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
It is awe inspiring and reminds me of what an awesome God we serve, and how finite our own thoughts of creation and the universe rerally are.
Gerald Schroeder is one of the few who have tried to reconcile the theology in Genesis and science in a way that makes sense.
I’m glad you mentioned him. He has studied under some famous rabbis, and has many academic creditials, from the likes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
I think he IS worth reading. Especially if people are thinking of ‘dividing’ from others over issues of Creation and science.
I think he can offer another insight that may be comforting and give hope for people who looking for answers to complex questions, and sadly now feel ‘threatened’ by the ideas of those who do not see things the exact same way that they do.
Going to go out on a limb here and cut my own self here so as to start my own bleeding and not wait for C.B. to cut me up later.
I left the Brick & Mortar Church because of Doctrine. Got tired of hearing what Pastors were taught in seminary and not of what God said in His word. Got tired of hearing God’s word spoken then twisted by “man” (false Prophets). Heard Adrian Rogers (rebroadcast) last week, straight by God’s word, then the “Add On’s” put in to change the meaning of scripture. Isee this a lot. In this case was the false doctrine of the “Rapture” that is taught in many churches. So if you believe or teach this false “fly away doctrine” I say you are not reading what God is saying…. If you are right and I am wrong, no problem, you will not be here, then again if I am right and You are wrong, YOU will be responsible for many souls dying and worshiping the Anti-christ, and going to hell. To me this End Times (Back Door) doctrine is just as important as the front door (Salvation Doctrine). Basically, Everything God teaches in his word is important. I would rather be right and be with God than be wrong and be in good fellowship…. Many of “the” so called “professional preachers” “whom ever they are” may want to re-examine everything to make sure “they” are not the “False Prophet” mentioned so often in the KJV. Judgment begins at the pulpit. Only God is judge.
Also in Dave above, “the young earth” clearly not young, but does not signify “no creation theory” to believe earth is millions of years old either. Do you believe in “three earth ages (times)?” Now is the 2nd, heaven is the 3rd, so what about the first? The time before Genesis 1:2? The time when dinosaurs roamed the earth? Do you deny their existence?
Again what about the doctrine of the six day creation? Man was created in Genesis 1:26-27. God finished, rested the 7th day, Genesis 2:2.
What about the doctrine of Adam created on the 8th day, Genesis 2:7, then Eve Genesis 2:21-23 from Adam’s rib (DNA)? Adam was the first man in the linage of Christ only.
One day with the Lord is 1000 years, so there is about 2000 years difference between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7. Here the bible does not contradict what science says.
Also the time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is millions of years or more apart, again the bible does not contradict science, it confirms it.
Sure these are not taught in the average SBC church, but it is in God’s word if you will only read the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. They do not “to my knowledge” teach this in SBC.
So, yea Dave, I would like to see you touch on some of these doctrines that are outside the “mainstream” church doctrines…
The Great Wall was a deterrent, no doubt. But it did not keep out invaders, just inconvenienced them. The Manchus and Mongols both conquered China.
“The Christian community needs just such a wall; a wall of orthodoxy to protect us from our enemies, those who would come in and destroy the work of God.”
The enemy is usually within. Those who create a Jesus of their own because the real one coming back with a sword in His mouth is too mean and it is hateful to tell people about that Jesus.
Lydia: If you are talking about the book of Revelation, I believe Christ already came back with a sword in his mouth in 60 AD. Read Revelation in the context of the first century Christians. Read Josephus and the fall of Jerusalem in 60 AD. Christ came back with the sword in his mouth. So I would disagree with your interpretation.
And it’s the delight some Christians feel that “the world will be destroyed” that is a problem as well. Scripture interprets scripture and the difference between Christianity is that we love, even those who do not have Christ, especially those who have Christ. To use the Bible out of context, as an excuse to spew hate and vile is blasphemous. Pure and simple. You then have to reconcile how Christ treated those who did not personally know him in his ministry and the verses that speak of the supernatural love God gives, with the supposed “wrath” messages. People see Christ through us.
Yes, those without Christ must fear God’s wrath, but we aren’t to be the wrath givers. We are to show Christ to the lost, not pretend we are God and exude it.
And your definition of “showing Christ” is to never tell someone their sin will send them to hell but Christ will forgive them if they repent and trust Him. Why don’t you take your “religion of nice” and go pander it with the people who sell snake oil and Benny Hinn? Too bad your church wasn’t kicked out of the SBC when your pastor was bounced off the IMB Trustee board for running his big mouth.
Joe: If you do not sincerely love the person you are talking to, you can sing their sins all day long. You can give the Gospel and according to the Bible it means nothing. And it won’t produce anything but a rant against that person. The Bible says you can have all the knowledge and without love it means nothing. Nada. (1 Corinthians 13 and 1 Corinthians 8:1-3)
“Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ This ‘knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” 1 Corinthians 8:1-3
John Piper puts it well when he said:
“One thing is clear: Knowledge that is loveless is not true knowledge. It’s imaginary knowledge, no matter how factual it is: “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” Knowing as we ought to know is a knowing for the sake of loving. Loving God and loving people.”
The Gospel can mean nothing based on the person giving it? Wow! Just Wow? So it’s not the Gospel that has the power to save but the person’s intentions and abilities presenting it?
Bess: Reread my comment and the accompanying scripture. I am simply saying what the passages say. Knowledge without love means nothing. It’s in the Bible in several places.
One can give the Gospel Bess but if you do not have love for the person it means nothing. Absolutely nothing according to the Bible.
FYI, Debbie – that was in 70 AD.
Joe, I disagree with Debbie on this point, but again, I do not think Debbie or Wade believe in Benny Hinn theology. Again, I am not agreeing with Debbie’s points here – I think she is wrong.
But neither is she denying the gospel.
Could I make a request of the two of you? Debbie, you think Joe is “unchristian” in his behavior. Joe, you think Debbie is “unchristian” in her theology.
You have both made your point, your opinion of the other, pretty clear.
Frankly, (and I’ll make some folks mad by saying this), I am glad that both of you comment here. But could you two please NOT comment to or about each other?
Joe, I know a side of you that some folks don’t. You are a funny guy with a horrible taste in athletic teams. I consider you a friend.
Debbie, you are passionate about your beliefs (and frankly, aren’t any better than Joe at picking sports teams). I have respect for your passion and courage in what you do.
The two of you together are like fertilizer and diesel fuel. And just about every issue we discuss brings a spark.
I just think that the two of you would be happier if you just agreed to kinda ignore one another’s comments.
Debbie, I promise to delete at least one of Joe’s comments every day. (I do that anyway, don’t I Joe?)
Joe, I promise to tell Debbie exactly where she is wrong! (I do that anyway, don’t I, Debbie?)
My goal here would not so much be reconciliation as just a holiday cease-fire. I’ve been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for Blogging and I don’t want to jeopardize my chances!
So deleting my comments is like your vitaman, huh? 1-a-day.
It keeps me young.
Hahaha
If I do win the Nobel prize, I’m willing to split it with the two of you (not equally, but 80-10-10 or something like that).
“”To use the Bible out of context, as an excuse to spew hate and vile is blasphemous.”"
I’ve reflected upon dozens of posts like this. It seems a very clear pattern emerges: anyone who might suggest that God is a God of Wrath and Judgment is a “spewer of hate,” and in this post the added perjorative of “blasphemous.”
When my doctor told me I was having a heart-attack, he did not say it very lovingly. Yet, he immediately had me rolled into an operating room and saved my life by his actions.
Would it have been more loving for him to have smiled and not taken the risk of alarming me as to my true condition? Am I any less alive because he presented the truth in a less than charitable and cheery fashion?
The problem with some people it seems to me is they begin their approach from an anthropological perspective rather than a theological one. I’m not a touchy feely kind of guy and probably not the best example of an evangelist, but I have led over 1500 people to faith in Jesus Christ.
I must say I cannot ever remember worrying about if I “loved” someone before I shared the gospel. Some, I shared the gospel with, I didn’t even really like to quite honest. I begin with theology (the power of the gospel) and consider anthropology (the reaction of man) only as a minor issue.
I could be all wrong but as a successful preacher once said to his critics: “I prefer the way I’m doing it wrong and getting something done, a lot better than the way you are doing it right and having nothing happen.”
PS–I just did a quick recalculation and 1500 may be too many. It may be closer to 1000 or so. Unfortunately, I never kept a record. But, that’s not my point.
My point really is: just give the gospel and trust God for the rest.
Frank: That is not what I said. What I said is if the speaker is full of wrath and hate, that him or her speaking the Gospel means nothing. The Bible is clear. Knowledge without love is fruitless, means nothing. Read what I write.
God’s wrath is only half the story. The other half is that Christ’s death, burial and resurrection appeased God’s wrath. He took the wrath of God that should have been ours to take. And by faith a person can be reconciled to God forever with his/her sins forgiven and never again to fear God’s wrath.
Hey Debbie,
No doubt the scriptures teach if I have all knowledge and no love I am nothing I agree 100 % with you on that. But the preaching of the Gospel has inherent power in spite of all of our failings. Consider these verses: “And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,” (Philippians 1:14-18)
The Gospel is powerful in spite of us and our bad attitudes, however I do agree with your sentiment that love for the people we preach the Gospel to is the most effective way to win them.
I agree with you John, if the heart is in the right place. If the motive is to desire the salvation of that person. We are imperfect people giving a perfect Gospel.
Debbie,
I did read what you wrote and I think you are wrong. Where does it say that the gospel only has power if delivered properly.
In fact, Paul said, and I paraphrase, “I don’t care why they are preaching the gospel as long as they preach the gospel.”
Your approach is anthropological–man centered. The gospel is theological–God centered. Feel free to change if you’d like to conform to the truth, but don’t take your frustrations out on me.
Just to be clear: the Bible is clear that the power of the gospel is inherant in the gospel itself.
frank and larry: Let me put it to you this way. Try yelling the Gospel at someone. See what result you are going to bring. Try pushing yourself on someone. See what kind of result you are going to have.
Debbie, you are implying that the human deliverer of the Gospel has something to do with the power of the Gospel. You can’t believe God can’t take a “screamed” Gospel message and not work on the heart of a sinner? It’s the Gospel that has the power not the man/woman who delivers it. The person who delivers the Gospel has nothing to do with how it’s received. God can and does use the Gospel regardless and often in spite of the imperfect people who are delivering it.
And Debbie you don’t always know the “result” of a Gospel presentation because it’s something that happens in the heart. You can have no idea how God may take a seed of even a “screaming Gospel message” and eventually lead that person to salvation.
So what made this successful preacher successful? Taking credit for what God did?
Lydia, it’s ironic that the ones who scream “love” the most are the ones who show love the least to their fellow Christians who disagree with them.
I admit having a low tolerance for jerks. I have an easier time loving the lost who can’t help who they are than those who call themselves Christians but are bonified, died in the wool, jerks.
I have a low tolerance for jerks, except when I am being one.
I have a low tolerance for jerks who call everyone else a jerk but refuse to admit they are a jerk themselves. And yes I readily admit I can be a jerk at times.
Not to be Johnny One Note or anything, but is it possible we’ve carried this as far as we need to?
I don’t want to be a jerk or anything.
Well, in the spirit of the season…. but I’m really only ever a jerk to jerks.
I’d really like your response to this attitude that where the Gospel is presented that the heart and intentions of the presenter can influence the affect of the Gospel. Also do you agree that the Gospel should be withheld until a relationship has been somewhat established?
DEBBIE, remember Michael Spencer. He had no trouble calling it either. I miss him a lot.
Me too Christiane.
“”The enemy is usually within”"
True. But we still need a wall to toss them off of when we catch ‘em
That’s funny.
DAVID, I am wondering when you write about the ‘brick wall’ enclosed doctrines, how your choices will compare with the doctrines in the historic creeds of the early Church councils.
I know you love cats. I hope you can handle the curiosity.
God loves cats, too, David.
I was just looking at those Creeds, and I think the Apostle’s Creed might have some stuff in it for you, and some of the Nicene Creed, but by the time you get to the Athanasian Creed, you will not like much of it, I’m sure.
It’s still interesting to read those creeds from the early councils because it gives you an idea of what the early Church was trying to build ‘a brick wall’ around in response to the early heresies.
I think you can call your new list of ‘brick wall’ doctrines:
THE DAVID CREED
that has a good ring to it. Or is you want fancy:
the Davidicus Credo, or maybe something in Greek would be nice..
“not pretend we are God and exude it.” Should be not pretend we are God and exude wrath. That is not who we are in Christ. We have to remember who we were before Christ saved us. We too were the objects of God’s wrath and on our own we would still be the objects of God’s wrath. God sees Christ when he looks at us. That is the only thing saving us from God’s ultimate wrath.
Here’s my general problem with what you are advocating. Gospel presentations in the Book of Acts were decidedly confrontational and direct.
I think this debate centers around this idea that you have to “build a relationship” before you can share the Gospel other wise you’re banging someone upside the head with it.
Dave, maybe you could tease out exactly what you think the role the Holy Spirit has where the Gospel is presented. It’s pretty disturbing to me that anyone is advocating that the person presenting the Gospel has to have “the right spirit or intentions” or whatever for the Gospel to have any effect.
I wouldn’t say you have to build a relationship, but ask a group of Christians whether they were led to Christ by a family member or friend, or by a stranger,and you will get the idea that the relationship has quite a bit of value.
Definately, the relationship has value. I think the question is whether you withhold the Gospel until you deem that a relationship has been established for fear of being offensive. I think there’s a way to make it very clear early in a relationship what you believe the Gospel is. Personally, in any relationship I develop with a nonChristiian I think it’s important to give the Gospel early on and frequently thereafter.
I’m not sure building relationships is necessary to sharing the gospel — except for having a relationship with the Lord.
Truth delivered with grace is the only requirement I see. There is nothing in the Great Commission that says anything about “building relationships” until after the seed has been planted and harvested (baptizing).
I’m not saying that relationships are not helpful or important, just not necessary or primary to sharing the gospel. The gospel itself is “relational.” I think this is often neglected.
I think there is a serious problem and just perhaps a misunderstanding of the Gospel when you have people who would make a statement such as ” I haven’t reached the place in our relationship where I can share the Gospel yet.”
Sometimes Bess, it takes a relationship, and relationships take time to develop and I am fully convinced through scripture that God will not take the person he fully intends to save. There is time and no rush is necessary. God is God.
I don’t disagree that relationships are good. What I reject is the idea that you withhold the Gospel until you feel it’s the “right time” There is never a wrong time for the Gospel. It’s not about human ability or feelings but about the power of the Gospel. Whether it’s a conversation with a person in a doctors waiting room that you will never see again or a relationship that develops through years of interaction. There is never a wrong time to present the Gospel. There are wrong ways, but never a wrong time and God can even use wrong ways.
Good point Bess.
Dave: Yes it was, but Paul also said that he wished he could give up his own salvation in order for the Jews to obtain salvation. The confrontation wasn’t done from hate, but from love. A deep love. That is the difference. If you want to wrestle with someone to enjoy throwing them join WWF. Christ wept over Jerusalem for example. He ate with sinners. The lowest of the low. He loved them.
Dave: Yes it was, but Paul also said in Romans that he wished he could give up his own salvation in order for the Jews to obtain salvation.I would even say that Christ was pretty confrontational with Paul. But it was from love. Concern. Not hate. The confrontation wasn’t done from hate, but from love. A deep love. That is the difference. If you want to wrestle with someone to enjoy throwing them join WWF. Christ wept over Jerusalem for example. He ate with sinners. The lowest of the low. He loved them.
Sorry, that posted twice. The first one stuck or so I thought.
I never said anything should be done from hate. My point is that while our motivation is love, we have to confront sin as a part of the process.
I agree 100% with your statement here Dave. But we also must make sure that it is indeed false doctrine and that we are not wrong.
Debbie,
With all due respect the date you’re looking for is 70 AD not 60 AD. Further, there are some big problems with your view that Rev. 19 was fulfilled in 70 AD.
1.) Most scholars believe the book wasn’t written until the 90s AD about 20 years later than the overthrow of Jerusalem. My friend, Mark Hitchcock, wrote his PHD dissertation at Dallas Theological on the date of the book of Revelation. It’s all over the net and I would highly reccommend it. I was at the debate between Hitchcock and Hanegraaff about the dating of the book and Hitchcock mopped the floor with Hanegraaff.
2.) Also, it’s clear that Rev. 19 is a judgment against all nations not just Jerusalem. See also Acts 17:31; 2 Thess. 1:7-9
John, John, John,
You don’t understand how this game is played to you. Once The Debbie has spoken, the discussion is over. In Debbie’s world, things are what she says they are. It’s easier to just let her believe that because the truth and facts confuse The Debbie.
You are absolutely right John. 70 AD is correct. I type much too fast. BTW Hanegraff has nothing to do with my view. I know Hanegraff’s view and share it, but not because of Hanegraff. I believed this way before Hanegraff shared his view. My view came from my personal study as I was teaching at the time, and reading Josephus, who wrote on this quite extensively and it fits Revelation and prophetic passages in my mind. We would disagree based on scripture and on history, but that would be another post wouldn’t it. I won’t debate this.
John, Can you link to the dissertation?
I don’t type very fast and I still have a lot of typos…lol.
Dave: … a wall of orthodoxy to protect us from our enemies, those who would come in and destroy the work of God.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): What wall did Jesus construct to protect himself or his followers? Seems he and they lived to tear walls down in order to make people accessible to each other and God. Jesus had a way of being that put himself and his message at risk. That people destroy what we do in God’s name is less important than what we do after such is destroyed or in process of being so.
I am quoting STRIDER who wrote this over on SBCImpact:
“Love is the strongest weapon we have to face any enemy.
We keep saying we believe in love but we keep acting in fear.”
The ‘enemy’ ? Satan, sin, death: Satan, the ‘ancient enemy’.
Our Lord said ‘I have overcome the world.’
Is HE our shield and our protection against the evil one ?
The old ones thought so:
“Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul.
Christ shield me today:
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me,
Christ in the eye that sees me,
Christ in the ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Three-ness,
Through a confession of the One-ness
Of the Creator of creation”
St. Patrick (ca. 377)
“”What wall did Jesus construct to protect himself or his followers?”"
Often we hear questions raised like this that imply Jesus never held anyone accountable or offended anyone in any way. Such questions indicate an incomplete picture of Jesus Christ.
Meekness means “power.” Jesus erected walls of protection constructed from His powerful presence. His disciples had a healthy fear instilled by watching a fig tree wither at His command or a group of n’er-do-wells scatter at the end of His whip.
We see this same kind of power in the O T as with Uzzah’s quick departure after merely touching the Ark.
The very idea of holiness seems to be a rather tall wall to protect orthodoxy. This no doubt is what God meant to convey through Jude in exhorting us to “contend for the faith.”
“”Jesus had a way of being that put himself and his message at risk.”"
This statement also could be misleading. Jesus was “never at risk” of compromising the truth — never. Any perceived “risk” focuses only on His human nature and not his complete nature.
“”That people destroy what we do in God’s name is less important than what we do after such is destroyed or in process of being so.”"
I don’t think bad behavior of a minority is an excuse for bad theology. Fighting the good fight is necessary to living the good life.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): What wall did Jesus construct to protect himself or his followers?
Frank and Larry: Often we hear questions raised like this that imply Jesus never held anyone accountable or offended anyone in any way. Such questions indicate an incomplete picture of Jesus Christ. Meekness means “power.” Jesus erected walls of protection constructed from His powerful presence. His disciples had a healthy fear instilled by watching a fig tree wither at His command or a group of n’er-do-wells scatter at the end of His whip. We see this same kind of power in the O T as with Uzzah’s quick departure after merely touching the Ark. The very idea of holiness seems to be a rather tall wall to protect orthodoxy. This no doubt is what God meant to convey through Jude in exhorting us to “contend for the faith.”
Norm: Still, what wall did Jesus construct that protected his message or his being? He did die, no? And was he not also concerned that his message might die with him? We have at least in Mark a view of the disciples being a bit slow on the uptake. There were no tests that one had to pass to be with him, but if they wanted to be like him, they would come to understand that following God could often be a bit disorienting.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Jesus had a way of being that put himself and his message at risk.
Frank and Larry: This statement also could be misleading. Jesus was “never at risk” of compromising the truth — never. Any perceived “risk” focuses only on His human nature and not his complete nature.
Norm: This is not the point I was making. Again, he did die for his beliefs; beliefs surely he wished that others would embrace as meaningfully as he so embraced. Whether others did or did not, with and without doubt he was determined to be faithful.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): That people destroy what we do in God’s name is less important than what we do after such is destroyed or in process of being so.
Frank and Larry: I don’t think bad behavior of a minority is an excuse for bad theology. Fighting the good fight is necessary to living the good life.
Norm: In what way can the Christian assure bad behavior does not result, especially in those that do not respect his or her religious tradition? He/she contends with it in others and he/she contends with it in him-/herself, thus the abolition of evil is beyond the responsibility or capability of any of us; but we can, when confronted with it, embrace it and be forgiving. Jesus taught us this. Surely we realize that our power is not rooted in coercion or even prevention, but in restoration. Why build new walls when others have been destroyed? That is, we all build walls (slowly, perceptibly and imperceptibly), Christian and otherwise, and the more faith we put in them, the weaker they become, to the point that of their weight they fall and we with them. When they are gone, do we then need more walls preventing us yet again from the restorative and sustainable presence of God and God’s people (humbled by their own foibles and need for grace)?
“Again, he did die for his beliefs; beliefs surely he wished that others would embrace as meaningfully as he so embraced.”
I don’t get this. Died for “His Beliefs”?
He was GOD in the flesh, for crying out loud. It was not about “His Beliefs”. It is about WHO HE IS.
he did die for his beliefs
You are an idiot. By the way, that is a professional observation not a personal opinion and you are more than welcome to quote me on that.
Christ died to pay the price for sin and appease the wrath of God the Father. It’s called Romans 3:25. Why don’t go buy a Bible (you need one) and read it.
Heretics often speak far more truth than the “preservers of the status quo”!!!!!!!
Thinkers often have thoughts no one else if willing to venture!
Thanks!!!!
Norm,
It really doesn’t matter how many times a fallacy is repeated, it still remains a fallacy.
The message of the gospel is never at risk. You point out that “Jesus did die,” but leave out, “He didn’t stay dead.” So, you simply restated your position, you didn’t defend it.
“”embrace it”
I don’t don’t know of any passage that exhorts believers to “embrace evil.” And while I agree with you that we cannot abolish evil, we can and should (with proper walls to keep with the metaphor) contain evil’s effects (or effectiveness).
“” Surely we realize that our power is not rooted in coercion”"
I’m afraid you have introduced an idea into the wall metaphor that is new. I’ve never said anything about coercion. My idea of “wall-building” is for “containment.”
Having spent my military career around nuclear power plants, I understand that “containment” is a positive feature because it prevents collateral damage. That is my concept of “wall-building.” Certainly, as a Baptist I do not agree with coercing anyone to belief anything.
It is obvious that you and I completely disagree on how a Christian should be “in the world and not of the world.” In reality, we both must give a personal account of our lives and I am very comfortable that Jesus taught and modeled a life of holiness that necessitates we erect certain walls of righteousness in our lives.
Frank and Larry: Norm, It really doesn’t matter how many times a fallacy is repeated, it still remains a fallacy. The message of the gospel is never at risk. You point out that “Jesus did die,” but leave out, “He didn’t stay dead.” So, you simply restated your position, you didn’t defend it.
Norm: If the message of the gospel is never at risk, for what reason do people wish to build a wall around it, noble but wrong-headed intentions notwithstanding, to protect it and those that embrace it? I believe the gospel will not fail and that God will prevail and be all in all, but that does not preclude the risk of the gospel in a particular locale at a particular time. Moreover, correctly anticipating a violent death is troubling enough, but facing such with concerns about whether the meaning of one’s life would be preserved and embraced would be even more difficult. Dying people that I have had conversations with about death were less concerned about the physical realities related to such than they were about the efficacy of their life’s contributions. What of me will live on and suggest that I made a difference?
The point of asserting the death of Jesus is that the message he brought did not protect his life. History teaches us that following Jesus is often not a path to comfort and security, but rather such has an opposite effect.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): … embrace it ….”
Frank and Larry: I don’t don’t know of any passage that exhorts believers to “embrace evil.” And while I agree with you that we cannot abolish evil, we can and should (with proper walls to keep with the metaphor) contain evil’s effects (or effectiveness).
Norm: That is what Jesus did and is best seen with him upon a cross. Evil will come our way and when it does we may release it (i.e., propagate it, thus add to its efficacy) or we will end it (embrace it and ask for God’s grace in dealing with it), such as, for example, when we turn the other cheek.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Surely we realize that our power is not rooted in coercion.
Frank and Larry: I’m afraid you have introduced an idea into the wall metaphor that is new. I’ve never said anything about coercion. My idea of “wall-building” is for “containment.” Having spent my military career around nuclear power plants, I understand that “containment” is a positive feature because it prevents collateral damage. That is my concept of “wall-building.” Certainly, as a Baptist I do not agree with coercing anyone to belief anything.
Norm: Introducing something new is generally a good thing, assuming of course that it is relevant. Walls may function as threats, too, that is, unless ‘A’ one will be on the side of ‘B’ which the wall was constructed to maintain said distance between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Thus, the message, do not be ‘B’. But to remove risk is to also to remove the likelihood of gain and that creative forms of thinking and being, by definition not sufficiently capable or being properly evaluated by previously established ways of thinking (which were once questionable themselves), are dismissed prematurely.
I think it a good thing to contain nuclear materials, but I hardly think it an appropriate strategy for the gospel and its life-giving message. People are a bit more complex than nuclear processes, thus the analogy is a bit forced, but like nuclear waste, the gospel may also have “collateral damage” on people, that is, it has a tendency to upset that which we think are definitively and exclusively secure and properly-received ways of thinking and being.
Frank and Larry: It is obvious that you and I completely disagree on how a Christian should be “in the world and not of the world.” In reality, we both must give a personal account of our lives and I am very comfortable that Jesus taught and modeled a life of holiness that necessitates we erect certain walls of righteousness in our lives.
Norm: That is a pretty sweeping thing to say with only a few conversational exchanges done in cyberspace. Surely more exchanges would help, as would conversations in which one’s corporeal being is present. Perhaps not. Another, confronted with a similar thought, once responded to such by manifesting his word in the flesh. But we pretty much ignored it, too.
Secondly, erecting a wall of righteousness seems to me an oxymoron. My righteousness is best expressed when I am not walled off from other people, station or state of being notwithstanding, or asserting that I am better than any other. My standing before God is not earned; it is given. I am a sinner being made whole through grace, and again, being an undeserving recipient of grace (a beneficiary of God through Christ reconciling the world to himself), and the humbleness that such surely requires, would mean I have no reason to erect anything that sets me apart from another; God loves me no more or less than any other. For me, a thing that I would prefer to be distinctive about Christians is that their fiercest critics would say of them, “we really don’t prefer them or their beliefs, and even treat them badly at times, but they keep loving us, make no demands of us, and say, ‘hey, we always have room for you and are interested in what you are thinking,’ nonetheless.”
Norm, your question deserves an answer – more involved than I can give until later. But Jesus called out the PHarisees, let the Rich Young Ruler walk away, etc.
I think that some have created a fictional Jesus different from the Savior presented in Scripture. That’s about all I’ve got right now.
Dave: Norm, your question deserves an answer – more involved than I can give until later. But Jesus called out the PHarisees, let the Rich Young Ruler walk away, etc. I think that some have created a fictional Jesus different from the Savior presented in Scripture. That’s about all I’ve got right now.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Notwithstanding everyone’s, yes everyone’s, propensity for projection in creating an historical Jesus, did not Jesus, nonetheless, invite the Pharisee and the Rich Young Ruler? Was it not they that walked away from his presence? That Jesus had a system of belief that guided his life is not disputed, but said way of being and believing did not reveal a value for constructing barriers that prevented his participation with others.
Norm,
Jesus did not participate with the with the rulers of the Temple. He spoke judgement against them and stated their religious system would fall.
Jesus erected a barrier (brick wall) between Himself as the “New” Temple and the failed religion symbolized by the “Old” Temple.
Norm, Sorry about the double “with the” there.
My little girls like to talk to me every time I begin to post. I forget where I was in the sentence. Maybe I should leave comment threads alone completely and just talk to my girls. Such is probably of far more value.
We missed you, C.B.
Hope all is well. Or as well as can be.
CB: Jesus did not participate with the with the rulers of the Temple. He spoke judgement ….
Norm: He ate with sinners, etc., but no, you are correct, he did not condone various attitudes and behaviors, even as he often and intentionally located himself around such. As Dottie once sang, “he looked beyond [the faults and saw the need.]” Jesus came to heal the sick. And he made house calls, too.
The integrity of Jesus, less in what was said, linearly speaking, more in how the message was lived. That is, as we have been told, and very pertinent to the season that we are in, the word was fleshed out with and among us.
Wow! Find myself agreeing with CB on this one!
Now the question of the day ~ Would Jesus agree with the “rulers of the Temple (church preachers) today?
CB is “one leaving a church for doctrine reasons” the same as an erected a barrier (brick wall) between Himself and the B&M church?
Norm, the point I would make about “Brick Wall” doctrine is that we are essentially recognizing that these folks have, in fact, walked away from Jesus and that is demonstrated in their heinous doctrinal compromise.
I started the process of identifying those doctrines in the post I just put up.
“The integrity of Jesus, less in what was said, linearly speaking, more in how the message was lived. That is, as we have been told, and very pertinent to the season that we are in, the word was fleshed out with and among us.”
Don’t forget that Jesus Christ was crucified because of Who He claimed to be. Not because He was a nice guy. Remember, that most everyone wanted a miracle and/or to be healed, etc. Some of these same people were later yelling “crucify Him”.
Not always true. Sometimes individuals build a “brick wall” by leaving a church where the “leader” is teaching “false doctrines” as stated in the KJV as being a “false Prophet”.
Sometimes staying where “false doctrine” is taught is demonstrated as a heinous doctrinal compromise.
Where can you find a church today like Smyrna and Philadelphia?
Could it be that the “Brick Wall” idea is not so much whether we build it but where.
Not around our lives to isolate us from the world, but around our heart to innoculate us against error.
So, does this have any relationship to the Berlin Wall built to keep good people in more than bad people out????
Yes, F&L.
Unbelievably ridiculous, Gene.
Dave,
Was that a #3 or a #1? LOL
For no particular reason:
“He drew a circle that shut me out
heretic, rebel, a thing to flout
But love and I had the wit to win
We drew a circle that shut him in.”
For no particular reason
Coming from someone who affirms the Christianity of a group of people he said told him that Jesus might have been the son of a Roman soldier but He’s still the Savior, your claim of “no paticular reason” is a little, how you say, suspect.
JOE, JOE !!!!!!!
You want everyone to be up to ‘your standards’ to be accepted ‘as real Christians’,
but you forget . . . one of the most moving prayers in all of the Gospels is when a desperate father, seeking healing for his son, says to Our Lord,
“‘LORD, I BELIEVE. HELP THOU MY UNBELIEF!’
Don’t ever give up on people, Joe.
Joe—
Have you ever been joyful?
Why do you insist everyone join you in miserable narrowness???
Just for the record . . . I may have missed it but I don’t recall Joe ever insisting on anyone joining him for anything. In fact, I only see him responding to other posts, not pushing an agenda.
The fact that Joe’s theology is narrowed by Scriptural limits is not “insisting” on anything. The fact that you don’t seem to “insist” that anybody believe anything 100% does not necessarily make you magnanimous, just wishy-washy.
It is unlikely you are ever going to appreciate someone who believes salvation is by a “narrow” way.
That’s because you have never disagreed with him!!!!
He plays the same worn out record over and over and over and……..I have never seen any change from his narrow gage little electric train trying to run over others.
Sorry!!!!!
Also the words “believe” and “100%” are incompatable. True faith always involves an element of doubt—otherwise it would be fact and not faith.
Joe, the ease with which you stated that Debbie’s pastor had been ‘bounced off the IMB Board…” tells me all I need to know about what you are.
It took no effort at all. Trust me.
That’s it. I’m making you a ‘dragon suit’, flame-proof so you don’t set yourself on fire.
Hi BOB,
Whenever I think about ‘walls’ and ‘barriers’, along comes someone wonderful like Emily Hunter McGowin, as restores my faith in the ‘good will’ of Christian people. She’s a Southern Baptist, as you know. She is ALSO in a doctoral program at a Catholic school: the University of Dayton. I can only imagine how fortunate they feel to have her with them:
She wrote this on her site:
” . . . from my second year forward, I will teach two sections of the introductory level Religion course for UD undergraduates (a required class for all degree programs). This kind of responsibility so early in the Ph.D. process is an invaluable experience for those hoping to teach theology in the future.”
I know that the Christian diversity that Emily, as a Southern Baptist, brings to Dayton Univ. is valued by the Catholics there as a positive asset. I’m glad they didn’t have a ‘brick wall’ policy that kept her out; they would have been the poorer for it.
By the Spirit inherent in the Gospel of the Kingdom, they are very appreciative of the gifts she brings to share with them.
http://thinklaughweepworship.blogspot.com/2009/08/whats-next-august-09-to.html
She’s also a moderate. Therefore, her opinions as to any theological topic should elicit a response of “That’s nice, dear” and a pat on her head before sending her off to bed with some warm milk.
Great reminder of a jewel of the faith, Bob = THANKS!!!!
Here’s the thing, everyone. The question is whether there are, in fact, sharks in the water. Are there, as Jesus, Paul, Peter and Jude promised, false teachers in the church?
If there are, then a wall of separation and protection is necessary.
They are there for sure, Jesus said it and I believe it, and in the seminaries also.
There is a stained-glass window in a chapel showing four Navy chaplains standing together, locked arm-in-arm, on board the USS Dorchester as it sank, in ‘torpedo alley’ during WWII. ‘Arms locked together and eyes looking up to heaven’, is how the eye-witness survivors in the life boats last remember seeing the four chaplains.
They had given their own life-jackets away to men who had none, and they stayed on board to comfort them and minister to the injured.
“Survivors gave testimony that the only fragment of hope came from the four-army chaplains who were able to calmly guide men to their lifeboat stations. They opened a storage locker for lifejackets and began to hand them out. One soldier tried to return to his cabin to retrieve is gloves. One of the chaplains stopped him and told the soldier he could have one of his pair of gloves. The soldier, a survivor of the sinking, realized later that the chaplain did not have two pair of gloves.
The chaplains coaxed men to go over the side of the ship to the safety of the lifeboats. When the supply of lifejackets was exhausted, it was reported by some of the survivors that each chaplain removed his own lifejacket and handed it to the next person in line, essentially giving away their only means of saving themselves in order to save others.”
When I think about what ‘divides’ people, and then I think about what can bring them together, and I remember those chaplains: one Jewish, two Protestant, and one Catholic, I can’t say I honestly understand OR know the names of all the ‘doctrines’ that divided them;
but whatever teaching it was that brought those chaplains together to give up their lives for others, THAT is a doctrine worth defending.
Christiane, How does this change the fact that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and eternal life? If the Jewish chaplain did not believe in Jesus Christ, he was not saved even if he gave his life for others. That is the real tragedy.
Hi LYDIA,
We don’t accept the revocation of God’s Covenant with the Jewish people, Lydia. That is one major difference in our beliefs, I think.
Here’s some insight into why:
“The strongly Jewish character of Jesus’ teaching and that of the primitive Church was culturally adapted by the growing Gentile majority and later blurred by controversies alienating Christianity from emerging rabbinic Judaism at the end of the first century. “By the third century, however, a de-Judaizing process had set in which tended to undervalue the Jewish origins of the Church, a tendency that has surfaced from time to time in devious ways throughout Christian history” (Statement on Catholic-Jewish Relations)
In the second century, the heretic Marcion carried it to its absurd extreme, teaching a complete opposition between the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and declaring that different Gods had inspired the two Testaments.
Despite the Church’s condemnation of Marcion’s teachings, some Christians over the centuries continued to dichotomize the Bible into two mutually contradictory parts.
They argued, for example, that the New Covenant “abrogated” or “superseded” the Old, and that the Sinai Covenant was discarded by God and replaced with another.
The Second Vatican Council, in Dei Verbum and Nostra Aetate, rejected these theories of the relationship between the Scriptures.
In a major address in 1980, Pope John Paul II linked the renewed understanding of Scripture with the Church’s understanding of its relationship with the Jewish people, stating that the dialogue, as
“the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, a dialogue between the first and second part of its Bible” (Pope John Paul II, Mainz, November 17, 1980).”
“We don’t accept the revocation of God’s Covenant with the Jewish people, Lydia.”
Huh? Jesus Christ came as a Jew, Christiane. In any event…What does that have to do with Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation and eternal life?
You didn’t know that ????
EVERYONE knows we don’t accept that revocation.
Jewish people were never saved by any covenant. The only way any human being has ever been saved is by faith. Period.
This might BEGIN to explain the idea of the ‘unrevoked’ Covenant:
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=814#catholic
Of course there are. But it seems to me that the truth is the counteractant to that. And walling them off also keeps you from reaching them with the truth.
And of course we cannot let false teachers teach in the church. They must be confronted with the truth.
If you will look, the point of the “Brick Wall” is not to keep Christians away from sinners, but to keep false brethren from steering the church in the wrong direction.
I agree Dave. There are definitely some times when we have to separate and for the very reason of not polluting the church. Contentious people(those who abuse) and false doctrine, but some of what is being called false doctrine isn’t. And there lies the problem.
I have a hard time equating “a brick wall” with Church Discipline. Unless all else fails.
By false brethren from steering the church in the wrong direction, you are including the preachers & pastors I hope.
What’s really hillarious is that certain commenters have this idea that ANY separation is hateful. In their view, it seems, if someone claims faith in Jesus Christ we HAVE to accept them as Christians. Maybe those commenters ought to take a gander at 2 Peter–he called false teachers brute beasts along with some other pretty harsh descriptions.
I don’t think the list has to be long and certainly someone does not have to agree with me on every doctrine before I can affirm them as a Christian. Lydia and I disagree on a few points but I’m pretty sure she would affirm me as a Christian and I certainly do the same of her. Our disagreements are pretty serious but I’m not calling her a heratic. But there has to come a point where if someone says, for instance, “Christ was not born of a virgin” or “I don’t mind if someone who rejects the virgin birth is teaching in our seminaries or preaching in our churches” a Christian is going to say “Um, I don’t think so” and break off fellowship.
That’s just one example, of course. But if it is mean spirited to break fellowship over docrtine, call me mean spirited.
It’s not mean to break fellowship with nonChristians who continue to push false teachings. I also don’t think it’s mean for a denomination to have certain standards and say “this is where we stand and you don’t have to agree to be a Christian, but if you want to fellowship with us you should probably agree and not stir up division and discord by trying to change us.” I don’t want to see the SBC become non Denominational. We have a wonderful Lutheran friend and I wouldn’t dream of going into her denomination and try to change it so why is ok to try to force the SBC to change what have been core beliefs for years and call us hateful for not changing?
It’s revisionist history. Give me someone who whines about “autonomy”, “historic Baptist principals”, “serparation of church and state”, and “we used to tolerate various opinions on doctrine” and I’ll bet you a Hardee’s thickburger they’re a moderate.
See, that’s the difference between Christian theology and moderate theology. Christians build brick walls to keep false teachers out. On the other hand, moderate christians build walls like the walls for Les Nessman’s office on WKRP in Cincinatti–just some tape on the floor. They ponit to it and say “We believe in doctrine too, see” and they pretend like something is there but in the end they just ignore it and it doesn’t do anything.
I guess I’m a moderate, since I don’t believe that Nashville should tell the church I serve what to do or anyone but the Lord tell me what to preach: “Autonomy.”
I do not want the government enforcing Islam or teaching a wacky version of Christianity in school or teaching the atheist philosophy of most evolutionists; “Separation of Church and State.”
I am willing to allow someone to stay in a congregation, though not teach, if they disagree about the correctness of Scripture, the truth of miracles, the reality of sin, so that they will hear Biblical preaching and teaching in hopes they’ll correct their errors “tolerating various opinions on doctrine.”
I am willing to let someone teach that differs from me on exactly what order things happen when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back, as long as they understand He’s coming back.
And the “historic Baptist principles” I’ve been taught are: believer’s baptism, congregational polity, focus on the Word, support missions, do evangelism.
So, if believing in those things outweighs trusting the literal truth of Scripture, be it Genesis or John, Kings or Esther, the substitutionary atonement, and the need for all to come to repentance to be saved, then label as you will.
But the difference between what you’re saying (which I would agree with) and a moderate is that, to a moderate, autonomy means the SBC had no right to kick Broadway Baptist out of the convention. Seperation of church and state means shilling for left-wing politics. Being willing to allow a difference of opinion on variious doctrines extends to allowing someone to teach who believes that Jesus was not born of a virgin or that people of other religions can be saved by Jesus without know that He saved them until they get to heaven. These are the things they view as “historic baptist principals” and they are more important to them, exponentially so, than the gospel.
Great post.
The illustration of the blood in your dive mask is really vivid.
Every organization, those of all stripes, have philosophical, theological, programatic boundaries.
It is absurd to argue that an organization should have no boundaries.
In the church, as you have pointed out, we are called to have boundaries. The trick is to know 1) how to properly define the boundaries, and 2) how to apply them with wisdom.
Hello Louis,
I think people of faith have to be VERY SECURE in who they are ‘in Christ’ not to be afraid to sit with people that some have marked as ‘doctrinally unclean’.
I would like to see people more aware of how the mysteries of ‘the Gospel of the Kingdom’ give us permission to sit with those some call ‘unclean’, outside the gate.
I have a feeling that, at the heart of seeking a solid doctrinal core that is ‘not to be compromised’,
there exists today, among many, as real a longing for a stronger identity ‘in Christ’ as existed two thousand years ago,
when the Holy Spirit came to the cowering Apostles in the Upper Room at Pentecost.
There is certainly nothing wrong with that longing.
Christiane:
Great thought. I believe that truly befriending and sitting down with people of different doctrinal thoughts is both healthy and necessary.
Far too many people hang out with people that only agree with them.
So, despite the necessity of having organizational boundaries, they should not be the kind of things that keep us from genuine friendships.
But she’s not talking about friendships. She’s saying if a church recognizes another church holds to and teaches false doctrine and therefore seperates from that church then they are wrong to do so. In her mind, we have to right to claim or insist on any doctrinal absolutes except for the fact that there are no doctrinal absolutes.
In her mind, we have no right to claim…
Typo
Hi JOE
Israel was defined and justified by its rules and laws. That served as a barrier between Israel and the non-believers.
So then Paul gets knocked off of his horse. And all that changed.
He realized that, because of the Resurrection, those barriers were not needed anymore. People could find their identity and their law and their justification in their faith IN CHRIST ALONE, but it was NOT to be a faith without the expression of charity, and here’s why:
“justification “by faith alone” is true, “IF faith is not opposed to charity, to love.
Faith is:
to look at Christ,
to entrust oneself to Christ,
to be united to Christ,
to be conformed to Christ, to his life.
And the form, the life of Christ, is LOVE;
hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into His love.”
So MY point is this: the more a person is secure in their identity ‘in Christ’, the more they are called to go out and serve among the ones who need Him,
honoring them, respecting them, caring for them, working with them on matters of the common good, and always while doing this, pointing to Christ in the way they show the love of Christ to others.
If a person’s identity is not strong ‘in Christ’, they may wish to create their own identity by pointing out how righteous they are in comparison to ‘the others’.
This can lead to disparaging ‘the others’, disrespecting them, even demonizing them, all forbidden behaviors against the new law of charity, to which people of faith ‘in Christ’ are bound.
Paul getting “knocked off his horse” had nothing to do with changing the fact that there is truth and that truth is defined by the Bible. If a church, for example, claims that people of other faiths can go to heaven without ever having heard of Christ or that Jesus was not born of a virgin then that church is not a true church. Christians are called to separate from that group and not cooperate with them because they preach a false gospel. That did not change after the resurrection.
Oh, and Israel was not justified by the law. People are, and always have been, justified by faith alone. Thanks.
Joe B:
You said–”It’s revisionist history. Give me someone who whines about “autonomy”, “historic Baptist principals”, “serparation of church and state”, and “we used to tolerate various opinions on doctrine” and I’ll bet you a Hardee’s thickburger they’re a moderate.”
Autonomy
Historic Baptist principles
separation of church and state
we used to tolerate various opinions on doctrine
to you equals a moderate
Simply not true. History is not being revised. These items actually existed.
Too many different definitions of moderate and conservative exist to make such blanket statements by you or anyone.
I suspect that at leaqst some of those who have taken issue with this post are doing so because the analogy of a “brick wall” is distasteful. It implies some things, at least to some (including me) that you probably do me mean. The Great Wall of China did not keep the invaders out, as someone else said. The invaders went around it. There are and have been too many walls in American culture–walls of income, walls of race, walls of prejudice. Jesus, I am convinced, would have been all for tearing those walls down.
What I think you are saying is that boundaries are healthy, something I totally agree with. They are healthy on a cellular level–problems ensue when cellular boundaries are breached. Cells die, or become infected, and the entire organism becomes sick or dies. They are healthy on an organizational level as well, and for the same reasons. Consequently, the church must have boundaries in order to be and to remain healthy. Of course, establishing exactly where and what those boundaries are is (as you, Dave, have pointed out) is a bit more tricky. Some would say boundaries should keep out those who do not affirm the word “inerrant” and those who like to use it. Others say they should be around various historic orthodox positions. Myself, I like the “kerygma” that inerrantist British Baptist C.H. Dodd identified, which did not include inerrancy.
John Fariss
Happy Hanukkah everyone!
Matthew 13:24-53
The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds
24 He presented another parable to them: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. (A) 25 But while people were sleeping, his enemy came, sowed weeds [a] among the wheat, and left. 26 When the plants sprouted and produced grain, then the weeds also appeared. 27 The landowner’s slaves (B) came to him and said, ‘Master, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the weeds come from?’
28 ” ‘An enemy did this!’ he told them.
” ‘So, do you want us to go and gather them up?’ the slaves asked him.
29 ” ‘No,’ he said. ‘When you gather up the weeds, you might also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I’ll tell the reapers: Gather the weeds first and tie them in bundles to burn them, but store the wheat in my barn. ‘ “
Some one mentioned earlier that a person’s faith and confidence must be strong to associate with people whose ideals and values are less than theirs. Not necessarily in my way of thinking. Many people have “taken a walk on the wild side” and might recognise themselves and know they have the same chance to change as they did – after all their in church. That’s a big start.
I think “brick walls” as it were are absolutely necessary for a church to have in place, especially with all the “spurious” teachings out there. In fact, when I became an elder, my kids asked me “What does an elder do?” My answer to them (among other things) was “Guard the church.”
That IN NO WAY means that we can’t talk to others with differing beliefs, eat with them, or even invite them to our church. What it means is that we cannot allow them to have a leadership position (teacher, ministry coordinator, etc.) if those “differing beliefs” are not foundational.
It does mean however, that we cannot be afraid to define these “foundational” beliefs and call error what it is. If I truly love my friends who are either unbelievers or who attend churches where the gospel is perverted into a false one that cannot save, it is my duty to tell them that unless they repent and trust in Christ, they will not be saved.
Jesus did that. The apostles did that. The prophets did that. And we should too. Heck, if we lived by “WDJD” (“What DID Jesus Do”) rather than “WWJD” (“What WOULD Jesus Do”) we would turn 5000 people away who were wrongly seeking Christ. We would be so zealous for God that we would drive out unrighteousness from the churches, with whips if need be. We would comfort women at wells with the truth of their sin and their need for a savior. We would call men to sell everything they depend on and follow Jesus. We would confront religious leaders with their hypocrisy and evil of leading their people straight to hell.
But we would also love the poor. Have compassion for the weak. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, pray for our enemies.
Having “brick walls” in our church says nothing about how we are to treat people. It says everything about how we are to handle what people believe.
And people believe all sorts of wrong. The brock wall prevents the wrong, not the truth, from spreading.
(sorry – typo):
What it means is that we cannot allow them to have a leadership position (teacher, ministry coordinator, etc.) if those “differing beliefs” ARE NOT foundational.
should be
What it means is that we cannot allow them to have a leadership position (teacher, ministry coordinator, etc.) if those “differing beliefs” ARE foundational.
Metaphorically speaking . . . I think it is interesting in light of those who abhor religious wall-building, that so much of the Old Testament later history focused on building a wall around the Holy City.
It seems God felt it important to “build at least one wall.”
While I’m in a metaphorical mood . . . seems there were some significant issues of “separation” in the Tabernacle at the direction of God Himself.
Of course, they were not “Brick Walls,” but very thick curtains.
Seems that the whole idea of holiness and righteousness involves clear boundaries — eg. “walls.”
Joe:
I realize that your post was some time ago, but when I responded to Christiane, it was to what she said – that people should sit down together.
You might infer what she said, but she did not say so outright, so I addressed what she actually said.
She is a member of a church that above almost all expressions of the Christian faith is known for its strong doctrinal stands.
Good Morning, LOUIS,
Thank you for explaining that to Joe.
Joe likes to ‘paraphrase’ what I say, but with a ‘twist’.
He gets it wrong. A lot. He’s forgiven. He knows I’ll forgive him.
I don’t think it matters much that he knows he’s forgiven, but someday it will matter to him in a good way. I do know that.
And the searching for a central core of doctrines on which there is no compromise, that is not a bad thing in itself. To say: ‘this is what we believe, here we stand.’
What one hopes is that the IDENTITY a Christian group seeks, by clarification of doctrines, is an IDENTITY ‘in Christ’.
And that living in that ‘imago Christi’, will give a group the confidence to be unafraid to reach out to ‘others’, to respect them as people of conscience, to appreciate their goodness (as all that is good in people comes from ultimately from God),
and, as you say, ‘to sit down with them’.
I think you did understand my remark earlier. And anytime you can help Joe, that is a good thing.
It’s one thing to decide what to allow in & around your church but what about outside. Bowling , Softball Teams, volunteer rescue squads and fire departments. Should a Christian not belong if a Jew is the Chief or Team Captain ? That’s fellowshipping in a big way>
Joe, I guess that’s a wonderful statement but can you offer any insight to the question I asked ?
Christiane:
Thanks.
I was just trying to explain my response.
It was not meant to help Joe.
Hope you have a Merry Christmas.
Comments on this entry are closed.