Clarifying the Distinction between Stetzer and Land on Mormonism (by Wm. Dwight McKissic Sr.)

by Guest Blogger on October 23, 2012 · 55 comments

Wm Dwight McKissic, Sr. is the pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX. He blogs at Wm Dwight McKissic, Sr. This post is a clarification of his previous post which went up on Sunday.

I recently published a Blog Post that inaccurately and unfairly conflated the published positions of Ed Stetzer and Richard Land as it relates to how these Southern Baptist Convention leading figures view Mormonism. The purpose of this writing is to briefly and accurately make the distinction between their beliefs crystal clear and to publically apologize to Ed for having done so.

Here is my quote unfairly conflating and equating Stetzer’s and Lands’ positions on Mormonism:

“Even Ed Stetzer and Richard Land have taken a softer view on labeling Mormonism as a cult. Why? Stetzer and Land want to label Mormonism a fourth great world religion. Why? Unbelievable! Are Southern Baptists that desperate to elect Mitt Romney?”

Now to set the record straight, Stetzer makes it undeniably clear that he maintains that Mormonism is a cult, although he makes a case for distinguishing between Mormons being viewed as a theological cult as opposed to a sociological cult. Stetzer then goes on to argue for Mormonism to be viewed as another world religion without denying that Mormonism is a cult. Here are Stetzer’s exact unedited words as they appeared in a Christianity Today article:

“Mormonism fits the traditional evangelical definition of a ‘theological cult,’ but that is not what most Americans think of when they think of a cult; they think of a compound in Waco. I think it is more helpful to call it a different religion, like Islam and Judaism, and to share the gospel of Jesus with them accordingly.”
Ed Stetzer, president, LifeWay Research

Based on the above quote, I labeled Stetzer’s position as taking a “softer view on labeling Mormonism as a cult.” He objects to that characterization of his position, and I agree with him. He does think it is “helpful to call it [Mormonism] a different religion, like Islam and Judaism, and to share the gospel of Jesus with them accordingly.” I hope this clarifies Stetzer’s position and underscores the point that he never denied that Mormonism is a cult.

Richard Land unequivocally refers to Mormonism as a “fourth Abrahamic faith,” without labeling Mormonism a cult. Here are Land’s exact words unedited from http://apprising.org/2010/08/31/sbcs-richard-land-says-mormonism-fourth-abrahamic-faith:

“I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.” …“Not a Christian faith.”

By referring Mormonism as “the fourth Abrahamic faith” and not labeling it a cult, it appears that Land is trying to dignify and legitimize Mormonism to make it more palatable to the SBC and the masses. Land’s view of Mormonism is equally as damaging to me as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s view. They have essentially adopted the same position. I hope this clarifies this matter.

1 Bruce H. October 23, 2012 at 10:20 am

When I read this I had to get the definition of Cult down in my mind. Here is the definition I found that seemed to bring it together for me. If others can better define it please add or correct at will.

“Cults are most often religious groups that use teaching and social structures to exhibit strong and/or controlling influence over its members’ financial, material, and social circles. The beliefs are typically driven by a single cult leader and a specific set of religious beliefs unique to that group.”

I got that from here. http://carm.org/cults

2 Bruce H. October 23, 2012 at 10:39 am

I’ve been in some Independent Fundamental Baptist “KJV 1611 only” churches that fit that definition.

3 Bart Barber October 23, 2012 at 10:23 am

You’ll want to change that byline again, before some reactionary jerk starts flinging accusations against you, Dave, for the content of this article.

;-)

4 David Norman October 23, 2012 at 11:54 am

While I’m not certain as to the context of Dr. Land’s statement, is it possible that his intention was to draw a clear line between the Christian and Mormon faiths – thereby removing the misunderstanding that Mormonism is just another Christian denomination?

5 Ed Stetzer October 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm

No, I do not use the phrase, “4th Abrahamic faith.” But, I don’t think that is ALL Richard Land said on the subject.

Richard (in the Washington Post) did say that Mormonism fits the theological definition of a cult. If I recall, that is also what Robert Jeffress says as well.

My point: it fits the definition of the “theological cult” and I think it is important to acknowledge that and not water that down during an election season– I am glad that NAMB has kept their page as it is listing Mormonism, Unitarian Universalism, and Armstrongism as theological cults because, well, they are. You can read me saying that in the Salt Lake Tribune, btw.

However, I think it is more helpful to call it a different religon, filled with people who need to hear and respond to the true gospel. I believe people will hear our message more clearly when to approach it that way.

God bless,

Ed

6 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Ed,

We are then all in agreement. What though is the point of labeling Mormonism the fourth great Abrahamic religion? That unusual labeling had some intent behind it. The language certainly seems intended to elevate, legitimize, sanatize, “normalize,” & dignify the Mirmon religion. Why give Mormonism such a lofty labeling during an election season. I’m glad to learn that in the WP Land referenced Mormonism as a theological cult. But, again, why the “fourth great Abrahamic religion” label? And, is that actually true? If so, what makes it true?

Finally, the Jeffress “switch” had to do with him switching from voting for a Christian vs. the “non-Christian” or cult member. Jeffress switched that position once Romney won the primary. I heard a lot of table talk criticism of Jeffress for his switch. I was once asked to participate in a press conference, shortly after his switch, denouncing his switch. But, I declined, and it was eventually decided not to do the press conference. But, in principle , I agreed then & now that Jeffress switched his viewpoint about voting for a Christian over a non-Christian, if u consider President Obama a Christian, as the vast majority of people that I know do. But, viewing President as a Christian opens up another can of worms for the vast majority of the SBC. That might be the real elephant in the room in this conversation.

Dwight

7 Chris Roberts October 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm

No elephant. Obama needs to get saved.

8 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Chris?

What is your basis for believing he is not saved?

9 Chris Roberts October 23, 2012 at 6:37 pm

(1) his politics and policies; I do not believe a born-again Christian can take his position on abortion and homosexuality.

(2) his testimony; similar to the concerns Bart Barber has expressed elsewhere, his description of sin and salvation are not remotely close to the biblical message.

(3) his church and denomination: the United Church of Christ is one of the most apostate groups out there and has no real connection with Christianity. I suppose it is possible that there are Christians in that denomination, but from what I know of the denomination itself, I would be hard pressed to believe it.

10 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Chris,

Thanks for your response. My response is by way of Scripture:

“That if thou shalt confess with thou mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation…For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”(Romans 10:9, 10, 13).

President Obama has met these standards if one believes the testimony so graciously provided by Ed Stetzer in the comment thread on the “Graham-Jeffress”post. Therefore, your three points would have no bearing on his salvation. But the Word of God does.

11 Chris Roberts October 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Dwight,

The Bible holds more than one or two verses on the subject of salvation and the born again life. Considering the whole, Obama fails. If you accept his testimony, then you see no need to pray for his salvation and for the gospel to be clearly heard by him and you are content to leave him in his unrepentant sins.

12 Bart Barber October 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm

Dwight,

Chris’s point is well-taken that soteriology cannot be reduced solely to the content of Romans 10:9-13. Heaven forbid that we should take those verses OUT of our soteriology, but neither should we remove the remainder of the New Testament.

And I’m certain that you agree with me (and with Chris) about this. After all, Mitt Romney meets quite well the test of Romans 10:9-13, doesn’t he? He would say that Jesus is Lord. He believes that God raised Jesus from the dead. He has called upon the name of the Lord for salvation.

13 BDW October 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Here is what Land said:

“I wouldn’t call it a cult but it claims to be Christian and isn’t. Its theology is like a cult but socially and culturally it doesn’t act like a cult.”

I agree. A theological definition of “cult” alone is of little value because we don’t live in some Christian bubble. Instead, we are Christians in a society that defines and has defined “cult” to have social/cultural components.

The “cult” terminology causes some problems for a swath of evangelicals —including many folks here—who don’t regard Catholics as Christians. Are they cult members too as that associate pastor from FBC Jacksonville (I believe) claimed a couple years back? That’s another can of worms.

Land’s calling Mormonism the “4th Abrahamic Faith” demonstrates a respect for religious diversity, IMO. For him, the word choice is also politically motivated. But, with the exception of New Agers, Land has shown a willingness to be friendly to and dialogue with folks from different religions (of course these are more often than not folks who share his political perspective!).

As to Obama and whether he is or is not a Christian, Land has described the President as a very “typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant Christian.”

14 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 6:12 pm

BDW,

Thanks. Great info. Could you tell me the source of the Land quote above(your comment # 9)?

15 BDW October 23, 2012 at 10:14 pm

It was in the Washington Post. I think this is the same article that Dr. Stetzer was referencing above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/southern-baptist-convention-leader-talks-christianity-cults-and-2012/2011/10/10/gIQAvm0PcL_blog.html

16 Bill Mac October 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm

The only religion Abraham wants his name associated with is Christianity.

17 Christiane October 23, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Hi BILL MAC,

not sure about that . . . take a look:

Genesis 17:20

New International Version (NIV)

20 “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you:
I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers,
and I will make him into a great nation.”

Bill, the descendents of Ishmael are the Arabic peoples, some of whom are Christian, and a few who are Jewish, but primarily, these people are Muslim.

18 Bill Mac October 24, 2012 at 6:56 am

By this time there are probably a lot of “religions” whose adherents have Abraham as their ancestor. That does not make their religion Abrahamic. No Christian can remotely suggest that Abraham approves of Islam.

19 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Bill Mac,

I’m assuming you are Southern Baptist. I’m glad to know Southern Baptists exist with this viewpoint. I agree with you 100 %.

I can see only one reason Southern Baptists are embracing this “fourth great Abrahamic religion” talk: politics; pure and simple.

20 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 10:51 pm

Bart and Chris,

I agree with Dr. Land as it relates to President Obama’s Christianity 100 %: President Obama is a “typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant, Chrisitian.” But indeed a Christian. What more do you need ?; the testimony of the Apostle Paul(Romans 10: 9, 10, 13), and the affirmation of Dr. Land. I’m sure you guys wouldn’t disagree with Dr. Land, would you?

Seriously, I’m glad that we can have a civil conversation on this subject without getting into name calling, and questioning each other’s character. Nevertheless, out of respect to Dave’s wishes–as I discern them–I will refrain from commenting further on this subject. Neither one of us are going to change the other’s mind. And as Dr. Eaves taught us in a evangelism class at SWBTS–”We must ultimately leave the salvation of all men in the hands of God.” Thanks for the dialogue.

Dwight

21 Chris Roberts October 23, 2012 at 11:14 pm

I don’t mind calling him a “typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant, Christian” so long as people understand that when I say that I don’t usually mean a born again Bible believing child of God, I mean someone who has adopted a liberal religion and slapped the name “Christian” on it. If someone were to ask me Obama’s religion I would tell them Christian. When I say that I don’t mean that Obama is born again.

22 Bart Barber October 23, 2012 at 11:17 pm

And while I was writing that ten-mile-long dissertation, Chris basically said the same thing in 10% as many words.

I’ve still got it.

23 Bart Barber October 23, 2012 at 11:15 pm

Dwight,

Not to prolong belligerently a conversation that you’re graciously trying to end, but simply in an effort to make certain that we understand one another…

I think you may be making too much of Dr. Land’s statement. Either that, or I think you may be misunderstanding me.

I don’t believe that Dr. Land is offering, in the quote you give above, an opinion as to President Obama’s eternal destiny. Rather, in a world in which so many people flatly and erroneously assert that President Obama is a Muslim, Dr. Land does well to state unequivocally that the President is not a Muslim but is, instead, a faithful adherent of what we must culturally call a Christian church.

Is President Obama a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Hare Krishna, an Atheist, or a Christian? Ask me that question, and give me those options alone, and I’d be likely to say, with Dr. Land, that President Obama is a “typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant, Christian.”

Now, the further question for Dr. Land, for you, and for me, is this one: Knowing what we know about the New Testament, the gospel, and what has happened in typical mainline liberal Protestant Christianity over the past 200 years, can we safely presume that the typical mainline liberal Protestant Christian has been born again?

Well, I don’t even presume that the typical Southern Baptist has been born again. Indeed, looking around at us, I think if all the millions of us really were born again, things would look a lot different. And certainly, with regard to typical mainline liberal Protestant Christianity, I sadly presume that the majority of them are lost.

A lot of these young whipper-snappers around here are abandoning the word “Christian” in favor of terminology like “Christ-Follower.” The conversation we’re having may be one of the reasons why they are doing so, and indeed, it might move our conversation forward if, for a moment, we were to accede to their wishes and switch our terminology: Is President Obama a Christian? Absolutely yes, if we regard that as a cultural word dealing with “religion” rather than with one’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Is he a Christ-Follower? Clearly no.

24 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 11:36 pm

Bart and Chris,

Understood, but don’t quite fully understand now, what Dr. Land, Chris, and Bart, exactly mean now by the word “Christian” as used by Dr. Land as it relates to President Obama. Nor do I understand how the two of you are willing to use the word “Christian”–as it relates to Obama–but not really mean “Christian” in the way that most evangelicals use the term. To paraphrase the father of the demon possessed boy:” I understand, but help my misunderstanding.” And forgive me for not being able to resist the temptation to further comment.

Dwight

25 Bart Barber October 23, 2012 at 11:41 pm

Well, trying to facilitate better conversation, I’ve changed the way that I’m using the word “Christian” over the course of this dialogue.

Confusing, huh? ;-)

If, by “Christian,” we mean, “a born-again, bound-for-heaven believer in Jesus Christ,” then I’m arguing that any person who has never repented of his or her sinful offenses against God is not a Christian. President Obama’s interview indicates that his concept of sin is something other than this.

If, by “Christian,” we mean, “a member of a religious group that is historically connected with Christianity,” then under those terms I agree that President Obama is a Christian.

26 Dwight McKissic October 24, 2012 at 8:25 am

Chris & Bart,

At least we are now all using the same vocabulary, “Christian,” as it relates to President Obama. We still are not using the same dictionary as to how I’m using the word “Christian,” & how I like to believe Dr. Land is using the word. Nevertheless, I agree with Bart, it sure facilities dialogue & I might add–family relationship when we can at least use the word, in either context, & understand each other, & their use of the word.

27 Bart Barber October 24, 2012 at 9:50 am

Dwight,

I’m thankful that we’re coming to greater agreement. I do not see, however, why this item upon which we have agreed would have any impact upon our voting patterns. The meaning of “Christian” that we have embraced here casts a pretty broad net and tells us very little about those upon whom we have hung the word.

For example, every member of the KKK is a Christian by this definition. I’ve never met a Mormon I wouldn’t support for President over any member of the KKK.

28 Dwight McKissic October 24, 2012 at 12:30 am

Bart,

Joel Gregory once preached a sermon with the thesis being: seek common ground, rather than battle ground. I appreciate you explaining your use of the word “Christian.” I assume you are arguing that Dr. Land used the word “Christian” in the second definition you gave for the term: “a member of a religious group that is historically connected with Christianity.”

With that being said, we’ve found common ground. You, Chris, Dr. Land and I, are all willing to use the word “Christian” as it relates to President Obama. Wow!!!! I will sleep better tonight than I have in a while.

While we are all on the same page, I am going to cut out the lights. Thanks for speaking to me in confusing language. It forced further dialogue and some level of unity and agreement. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethern to dwell together in unity.”

The second definition of a “Christian” you gave, can not even be said about Mitt Romney. He does not belong to a religious group that is historically connected with Christianity. You are a wise man. You remind me of Solomon. You split the baby. Now, if we can just convert CB -:). Thanks again for the dialogue. Good Night.

Dwight

29 Chris Roberts October 24, 2012 at 1:39 am

Can’t speak for Bart, but I wouldn’t try to say how Land was using the word. I don’t know. But I know how I use it.

I pretty much agree with Bart’s distinction between a true believer and a member of a particular sect. I think Obama’s religious identity is Christianity, but I do not believe Obama’s heart belongs to God. I believe he considers himself a Christian, but I do not believe he is currently headed for Heaven. He needs to be saved, just like many, many other people who call themselves Christian.

30 Joel October 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm

Referring to Mormonism as a “fourth Abrahamic faith” is ridiculous, and insulting to Christians, Jews and Muslims, all of whom are monotheists, which is “first base” in the game of being classified as a faith affiliated with Abraham. Get behind the veil and you discover that Mormonism confesses the reality and existence of so many “gods,” that Hindus would actually be closer to being called “Abrahamic” than our friends who affiliate with the LDS.

I so wish we could get past feeling that we have to minimize these eternally-consequential distinctions just to win an election. Its perfectly OK to say “I believe this guy is lost, and follows a false faith, but I also believe he is the best candidate for the job and thus will get my vote.” It is NOT OK to try and posit Mormonism as “not so bad,” and the “Abrahamic” comment was, intentionally or not, a confusion of Kingdoms.

31 Chris Roberts October 24, 2012 at 1:41 am

Joel,

As far as that goes, I don’t think Islam is any more an Abrahamic religion than Mormonism. Both were invented by individual men who had no connection to Abraham.

32 John Wylie October 24, 2012 at 6:29 am

Chris,

Thank you so much for pointing out the fact that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion. It was Muhammad not Ishmael who founded Islam.

33 Jess Alford October 23, 2012 at 1:34 pm

Dave, I don’t plan to ever soften my stance on Mormonism. It will never be palatable to me, it’s too much like taking castor oil, It makes me sick.

I think for the SBC to look at Mormonism any other way than a cult would be devastating to the SBC.

34 Bruce H. October 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm

I just voted. The location I voted at during early voting usually does not have a line. Today there were over 100 people in line and it took over an hour. There was excitement in the air. The religion of a person didn’t seem to be the issue as we talking in line. The main topic was our present condition and it hasn’t changed. It didn’t seem like it was going to be a tight race at all.

The young man in front of me turned out to be an associate pastor of a cult-like denomination (United Pentecostal). He didn’t ask me about my flavor and I didn’t tell him. We just talked about Jesus and we both walked away with an uplifted spirit. BTW, we both voted for the same guy.

35 BDW October 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm

What state are you in?

36 Bruce H. October 23, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Texas, just north of Houston.

37 Job October 23, 2012 at 4:02 pm

Are black liberation theology churches cults? Because I certainly think that they are.

38 Frank L. October 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm

“””“Not a Christian faith. . .””” then, “””it appears that Land is trying to dignify and legitimize Mormonism to make it more palatable to the SBC and the masses.””””

This misrepresentation of Dr. Land betrays Dwight’s bias against Land, and the reason I think Dwight as a blogger should always be read with great skepticism.

Dr. Land is doing precisely the same thing that Stetzer is doing. Trying to define Mormonism as something more than a cult. The idea of Mormonism being a “world religion” predates Dr. Land as a leader in the SBC. It is a missiological concept that does not “soften Mormonism to make it more palatable,” since as I pointed out, that idea predates Dr. Land.

Bias is dangerous, but even more dangerous when it is attached to a charismatic personality like Dwight. It is no secret I don’t share most of Dwight’s point of view on most things, and this entry outlines why.

Now, this is not a defense of Dr. Land and I’d rather have a hangnail than defend Stetzer. This is about fairness and clarity. I think it is about integrity.

Now, if Dr. Land comes out and says precisely that he is trying to make “Mormonism more palatable,” I’ll be happy to jump on him along with anyone else.

But, Mormonism as a competing world religion as opposed to mere “cult” (whether one agrees with that position or not) predates Dr. Land.

What Dwight conflates is his bias for Land with what Dwight “feels” Land’s motives are. That should not go unchallenged.

39 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Frank L.,

Do you believe Mormonism is a the “fourth great Abrahamic religion”? If so, what is the historical theological basis for your belief? If not, why not? And why do you believe Land would use such language?

Dwight

40 Dwight McKissic October 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Frank,

Are you going to answer my questions?

41 Frank L. October 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Dwight,

Why should I answer your question when you sidestep the issue of my post.

You have a personal agenda to discredit Dr. Land. You use whatever presentation will make your case, fair or unfair. You lead with your bias.

You ignore the fact that Mormonism being discussed as a world religion is not unique with Dr. Land and predates his service to the SBC.

Whether I agree with Dr. Land or not, I do not agree with you attaching racist motives to him unfairly. You do it with Romney. Heck, you probably think I’m racist, too.

As I’ve said, your watershed issue is “racism,” economic and social justice for Black people. By your own words (“I’d vote for Obama”) you demonstrate that economic and social justice, in your view, does not extend equally to unborn Americans.

That inconsistency carries over to your discussion of Dr. Land, both here and in the past.

If you were bringing this argument into a court room, the judge would throw you out because of the doctrine of “unclean hands.”

So, if you do not address the substance of my post, I’m not climbing into the the ring to wrestle in the mud.

42 Tom Parker October 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm

Frank L:

You said to Dwight:”Whether I agree with Dr. Land or not, I do not agree with you attaching racist motives to him unfairly. You do it with Romney. Heck, you probably think I’m racist, too.”

Wouldn’t this only be your opinion.

43 Joe Blackmon October 24, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Well, that’s pretty obvious since he said “probably”. You see, by saying “probably” what he means is he isn’t sure whether or not he’s right but he thinks he’s probably right.

If you’re unclear about the meaning of words you can always use Dictionary.com.

44 Frank L. October 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Tom,

I’m not sure what your point is. Dwight did not speak ambiguously in regard to his post. He clearly outlined his trust in Stetzer and continued his attack on Dr. Land.

He attributed motives to Dr. Land based upon his bias toward Dr. Land. He used the same words in a charitable way toward Stetzer and a negative way in regard to Dr. Land.

He clearly used equivocal language to bolster his biased opinion against Dr. Land, as I pointed out in my post.

How’s that an “opinion” on my part? I said I do not know Dr. Land’s motives. I do know he did not originate the idea of Mormonism as a world religion. So, I “know” Dwight’s facts are wrong. I “know” that Dwight has a bias against Dr. Land. I “know” that Dwight’s ideas and opinions are heavily weighted (biased) in the direction of “economic and social justice for Black people.”

Again, where’s the opinion?

The issue is using equivocation to bolster one’s argument that leads to a number of informal fallacies.

Also, one of my observations was a seeming disconnect between advocating “economic and social justice for Blacks” but not for “unborn Americans.”

This conversation does not exist outside of previous conversations on the same subject by the same poster.

So, I don’t see where my “opinion” much matters and I don’t really have an opinion on Dr. Land, and I expressed my lack of confidence in Stetzer.

The issue is “equivocation.”

45 Frank L. October 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Tom,

In regard to my comment about racism, may I say that Dwight has as much evidence that I am a racist as he does that Romney may or may not be a racist.

After all, I have NEVER publicly reputed my connection to the racism seemingly associated with Southern Baptists.

I see it is quite logical and possibly true that Romney has not publicly reputed his connection with Mormonism for the same reason I have not mine with Southern Baptist–that being, I am not nor have I ever been a racist.

In light of any “evidence” that Dr. Land is “making Mormonism more palable,” or “Romney is a racist,” I choose not to make a pronouncement in that regard. I give them both the benefit of the doubt.

46 Debbie Kaufman October 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Tom: There is no talking reason to unreasonable men.

47 Dave Miller October 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Debbie, lobbing insults is not reasonable discussion. Please join the discussion without them.

48 Joe Blackmon October 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm

I’m not Frank.

Momonism is not the 4th great Abrahamic religion. There is only one Abrahamic religion. That is Christianity.

I suspect Dr. Land did it to indicate that there are 4 religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism) that claim Abraham as their “father”. That doesn’t suggest or imply that any of them other than Christianity involve any sort of saving faith or that they lead anywhere other than hell.

Now, do you think Black Liberation Theology is orthodox? In other words, if someone believes in the gospel as preached by Jerimiah Wright, can they be saved?

49 Frank L. October 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Joe,

That’s close enough for you and Frank to be twins.

My point is that Dwight defends Stetzer, whom he apparently likes, and castigates Dr. Land who he definitely does not like, eventhough Stetzer and Land (and Joe) are saying the same thing.

It is not a new argument. The problem is equivocation. We just talked about this with my logic students yesterday. The term “Abrahamic Faith” is equivocal. There is not universal acceptance of a definition as with say the word, “wrench.”

Dwight’s bias (as seen previously) against Dr. Land (justified or not it does not matter) colors his proposition.

My concern is that it seems inconsistent to speak of “economic and social justice for Blacks” but ignore the same for unborn Americans.

If one says, “I would vote for Obama if I voted,” and then decry an imaginary racist belief that one candidate supposedly has, and then extend that same kind of argument to Dr. Land seems patently unfair.

It makes me skeptical. That was my point.

50 Jess Alford October 23, 2012 at 5:40 pm

Some people will do anything to push their canidate. I will not take orders from Missouri.

51 Tom Parker October 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Frank L:

All you offered was your opinion no more and no less. I could be wrong but it appears to me you are “attacking” Dwight for his views. Is he not allowed to have his views just as you and I are?

52 Dave Miller October 24, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Tom, isn’t this comment your opinion? Blogs are kind of about sharing opinions. Just because you don’t agree with Frank’s does not make it invalid.

Let’s stop the nit-picking and either move on to a new topic or discuss the point of this post.

53 Frank L. October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Tom,

Restating someone’s position is not an “opinion.” I clearly used language to indicate where I was making conjecture. I never attacked Dwight FOR his views, I attacked (if you want to use that term) Dwight’s views.

I’ve never said I don’t think Dwight has a right to his views, but am only suggesting that the right to a view is not the same as the view being right.

Challenge my views, Tom. That’s acceptable to me. Dwight has certainly not been shy in “attacking” my views. Don’t you be shy.

I did make a mistake, once; so I could be wrong again.

54 Jess Alford October 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm

If Stetzer and Land are making their decisions just for the sake of politics “which they are”, its sickening. It’s bad enough one can’t trust a politician, but now it’s hard for one to trust a Christian when it comes to politics.

It would be less than a common sense act to cast a vote for Romney.
Every day he changes his mind about the issues. I have no reason to vote for someone like that. I have prayed about the matter for me he is the wrong man. I have even tried to convince myself to vote for him, but it didn’t work.

55 Frank L. October 25, 2012 at 4:29 am

“””If”””

That seems to be the point.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: