I have shared quite a bit about the fantastic, life-sustaining fellowship I experienced with pastors from other churches and other denominations in Cedar Rapids. Because of the grace God gave in our fellowship, we ended up engaging in several citywide ministries, most of which were also blessed. But one such attempt led me to a Brick Wall moment. I was asked to serve on a “marriage task force” that was working to develop a unified approach to promote marriage in the community. We believed that if we developed common standards to prepare couples for marriage, we might make a dent in the divorce rate.
I went to the first meeting and ended up seated next to the pastor of a large and very liberal church; not a normal participant in the prayer group. Some months before, he had distributed a letter to Cedar Rapids pastors responding to a Cedar Rapids Gazette article about the evangelistic efforts of one of the churches. In his letter, he scoffed at the idea that people with religious backgrounds needed “saving” and specifically derided the idea of being “born again.” He said the people of his church were okay because they were good people, had been baptized and were part of the church. He publicly and forcefully denied the faith. During the meeting, there was a lot of talk about trying to widen the boundaries of the group to include people from non-evangelical Christian groups, groups like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s witnesses, and people from other faiths (Cedar Rapids has a strong Muslim and Jewish communities).
I did not raise a fuss, but I did inform the leader of the group afterwards that I would no longer be participating. I would not partner with people who denied “The Way, the Truth and the Life” or become unequally yoked in a ministry that might give the perception that I considered these folks brothers and sisters in faith. I was willing to fellowship with Pentecostals, charismatics, independents and people of any denomination that uphold the gospel of Jesus Christ. But when you deny the gospel, you are not part of the Christian world. You are an enemy of my Savior.
Harsh words, I know, and not the kind of words we like to hear in this “we’re all the same”, “don’t worry about doctrine” world in which we live today. I am amazed at Christian people who prefer to group-hug those who deny the faith instead of standing against them. We need some level of theological discernment. Jesus promised us that there would be false christs who claimed to represent God, false apostles who would try to usurp authority to lead people astray, false prophets who would claim new revelation in contradiction to the perfect Word, false teachers who would twist God’s Word for their own purposes and false brethren who would listen to them, even honor them.
It seems to me that Paul’s warning to Timothy has been more than fulfilled today.
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
According to 2 Timothy 3:5, this false religion would demonstrate a “form of godliness” while simultaneously “denying the power” that comes through true faith. In other words, they would in every way look like Christians, but would actually deny Christ and miss the power of the gospel to save.
Again, I am amazed at how many Christians stick their head in the sand and act as if these prophecies is really not significant. Folly! Might as well swim in shark-infested waters with a bloody nose!’
Dangers of Discernment
All of us know someone who has taken this principle way too far. Some who engage in discernment ministries, who try to hold the church doctrinally accountable, become rigid, petty, and condemnatory. There are some who seem to derive pleasure from condemning others to the flaming pits or who identify those who disagree with their theological perspective in any way heretics.
A family started attending our church in Cedar Rapids because of the doctrinal compromise they saw at their church. These people became close friends, but I was always a little wary of them. If you did not fall in line with R.C Sproul’s theology in every point, they would drop that h-bomb immediately. They stopped attending Sunday School because they were being taught “heresy.”
To reject theological discernment is folly – a form of ecclesiological suicide. But the judgmentalism, the glee for division, the majoring on minors that is exhibited in some theological discernment ministries is just about as dangerous as the tolerance of false doctrine.
I attended a pastors’ conference at a well-know west coast church in 1993. I heard some great preaching and learned a lot. But I grew increasingly uncomfortable during the week as one Christian leader after another was excoriated publicly and condemned as false. I agree with most of what was said. There are heretics within the visible church, as Jesus, Paul and others promised. But if this well-known pastor was to be believed, there were barely a handful of American pastors who were not heretics!
But, make no mistake about it. We swim in shark-infested spiritual waters. There are enemies of the gospel outside the church, but the most dangerous enemies are those who are inside the church, who seem to be genuine, but are false, who work inside the walls to destroy the faith of the faithful. They must be identified. They must be opposed. Jesus promised there would be wolves among the sheep and he does not lie.
Level 1 Doctrines
So, what are the Level 1 doctrines that require a Brick Wall response? The body of truth at this level is relatively small. Only that doctrine which is necessary to the maintenance of the biblical gospel requires a Brick Wall. There are solid, Christian people who believe in paedo-Baptism. I disagree with them, strongly. But I know that they love Jesus and honor the Word (even if I think their interpretations are wrong!) I need not separate from these fellow-saints. A friendly Picket Fence will do.
There is a basic question that needs to be asked when identifying Brick Wall doctrine. “Does this doctrine affect the gospel of Jesus Christ?” It goes beyond just the two facts of the gospel (Jesus died for our sins and rose again as Lord of all). There are doctrines that are not part of the gospel itself, but form a foundation for that gospel. So, we must identify which doctrine, when compromised, undermines the foundation of our faith. Since we believe that the gospel is “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes,” we must fiercely contend for that faith.
There is a time when we cannot play nice, we cannot “go along to get along.” There is a time to stand strong and firm on the fundamental truths of the faith.
Two Important Notes
Please understand that I am not saying that someone who disagrees on any of these doctrines is unsaved. God’s grace is truly amazing. I’m not the final judge, of course, but I have known people who were truly saved who came from churches and denominations that would not know the true gospel if it bit them. The question is not about the individual salvation of people who hold such doctrines.
This is a church issue. What happens to the church (or to a denomination) that compromises this issue? Will it continue to proclaim the gospel with a clear voice even if it does not hold the line on this doctrine? It is my belief that the following truths are essential to fidelity to the gospel of Christ. We cannot tolerate compromise on these doctrines and we cannot partner in ministry with those who do compromise them. They live on the other side of the Brick wall.
Secondly, I am not advocating aggressive or offensive behavior. When I decided not to participate in the marriage initiative in Cedar Rapids, I did not write a letter and tell everyone they were going to hell. I did not make a scene. I just informed my friend that I would not be a part of it and I told him why. I had the opportunity to be involved in televised debates on a Cedar Rapids TV station with the Rabbi, the local Imam, and a representative of the “Jesus Project.” I did not back down a bit on the gospel or the exclusivity of our faith. But I tried to be unfailingly courteous even as I delivered a message they hated.
We believe that which our world hates and live by standards that it has rejected. But fidelity to the gospel does not require offensive interpersonal behavior.
Six Brick Wall Doctrines
I have set forth six Level 1 doctrines – truths around which we must build the Great Wall of Truth. Some of them are compilations of other doctrines into one more general category. We could separate all this into smaller bites and have It would be easy to separate them into many more specific truths. I have boiled it down to these six.
Brick Wall 1: God’s Word is True and Authoritative
“All scripture is God-breathed and is useful…that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Our God speaks truth and he spoke the scriptures. We affirm that the scriptures are true in all the affirm and in every way. Church history has demonstrated that those churches and denominations that compromise the concept of the trustworthiness of scripture soon lose spiritual power and evangelistic commitment.
When Satan tempted Adam and Eve, he began by questioning the truthfulness of what God said. God said, “If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die.” Satan countered, “You will not surely die.” He tempted them to believe that what God said was true was not actually true. When Adam and Eve began to doubt the goodness of God and the truth of His Word, sin followed quickly.
The first step on the path of ecclesiological apostasy is compromise of the trustworthiness and authority of God’s Word over our lives. Those who begin to question the Word will soon begin to compromise other key doctrines. Is Jesus the only way to God? Do human beings really stand guilty before God? Did God actually require the death of his Son to pay for our sins? Waffling on these bedrock doctrines usually begins with waffling on inerrancy
The doctrine of inerrancy is a domino doctrine. There are people who have been saved by God’s grace, but have compromised the doctrine of the absolute trustworthiness of God’s Word. They believe that the Bible has scientific, historical, and even perhaps some theological error, yet they still hold to faith in Christ. They still believe in Jesus, but not in the perfection of His Word.
But when this first doctrine is tipped, the rest of the doctrines are soon bound to fall. The gospel is revealed in God’s Word. When we cast doubt on the veracity of that revelation, the hard truths of the gospel also begin to fade away. Soon, every major doctrine falls as well. No church and no denomination will remain faithful to the gospel if it sacrifices the doctrine of inerrancy. Either we have an inerrant Bible or we have no real standard of truth.
My College Experience
I attended a small Baptist college in Florida. The religion professors there were liberal (by SBC standards, at least), teaching that the scriptures had errors. It was a book written by men and contained errors of history and science. I saw the effect this teaching had on the young men and women who came to that school. I saw young men come in to that school with a desire to preach God’s Word and leave cynical and skeptical. Young women came in with a heart for Jesus and left with a heart for radical social causes. This was not the exception; it was the rule.
I realized pretty soon that I stuck out pretty badly in that environment. I made my voice heard in class and in private conversations. Gradually, I became one of the token “fundamentalists” at that college. We debated in class and lobbied outside it. The dean of admissions told me point-blank that I was a trouble maker and should leave the school. I did not leave, but continued to speak what I believed to be the truth and confront what I believed to be error.
Two Life Lessons
Living in a liberal environment was a valuable learning experience for me. First, I learned that there are tragic consequences to undermining faith in the Word of God. When the doctrine of inerrancy is sacrificed, the results are horrifying. I saw firsthand the devastation that skepticism and unbelief wreak. I could name names, but there would be little point in that. You do not know them. But I did. And I watched them slowly march from believing what I believed to adopting a whole new set of values. I saw them buy into skepticism and unbelief in God’s Word. No one can tell me that theological liberalism is spiritually harmless. I saw the damage that it did.
Second, I learned the value of taking a stand against heresy. I know I was obnoxious and aggravating at times. But in my first year, I was just about the only voice being raised against the diabolical doctrine that was being taught. By the second year, I had a small group of friends who stood with me against the tide of disbelief. By my third and final year, there was a strong and active group of students defending orthodoxy at this little Baptist school.
We called ourselves “the Gang Green.” Why? I don’t remember. I think one of the guys watched the Muppets and went around singing “It’s not easy being green” and it just stuck. Through the wonders of Facebook, I have made contact with these guys again after losing touch for many years. One of them is charismatic now. One of them is Episcopalian. But every one of them is still a faithful and committed servant of God. One has been a church planter, another is highly placed at NAMB. But everyone of them is serving Jesus. A gang green reunion would have to include a worship service!
I’m not trying to claim all the credit for this. But I do believe that each of us helped each other to stand strong when all around us were ridiculing us and acting as if we were insane.
Standing against the tide of skepticism is not easy. I remember sitting at my desk and staring up into the eyes of a professor who had both hands planted on may desk and was screaming in my face, “You mean you actually believe that?” But as hard as it was, it was important. Most of the students who came to that school were convinced to reject everything their home churches had taught them. There are several of us who did not. Building a brick wall made a big difference.
We Must Build a Brick Wall around God’s Word
We must erect a brick wall of separation between us and anyone who undermines trust in God’s Word. Does the Bible say God created the world? Then we believe that God created the world. If the Bible says the Red Sea parted, we believe that the Red Sea parted. If it claims that Jesus walked on water, He walked on water. We believe the sun stood still because the Bible says the sun stood still. We do not consign the story of Jonah and the big fish to the realms of fiction. We believe what the Bible says. And when Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to Father but by me,” we believe it. And if we believe these truths, we must also stand against those who undermine them.
We must also reject any desire to give equal authority to any other person or code of truth but the Holy Bible. Some groups claim to hold to the Bible as God’s Word, but add other documents to the canon of Scripture – the Book of Mormon, church traditions, or the authority of a particular man or group. Revelation 22:19 tells us that it is just as bad to add to the Word of God as it is to take away from it.
I would make one more observation. Among Southern Baptists, the word inerrancy has become imbued with some political stains, so much so that some reject the word itself. I am not saying that one has to be a supporter of the Southern Baptist conservative resurgence movement to be a true Christian. I am saying we must believe that the Bible is truth without any mixture of error. Use whatever term you want. But believe every word of the Word and submit every thought of your mind, every piece of your reason to its teachings!
Inside the Community of Faith, we believe God’s Word – and only God’s Word – is perfectly true and accept it as our final authority on all matters of faith, practice, or belief. We may disagree on some interpretations of the Word, but we cannot doubt its authority.
Either God has spoken or we are on our own.
In the next post, I will continue to spell out the individual doctrines I consider to be “Brick Wall” doctrines. Obviously, this one will be pretty offensive to a few of you.
Ok Dave,
Which translation of the Bible is correct? Is it the Holman or KJV or NKJV or which? Each and everyone on these translations at some word or phrase will contradict the other. Or are you using the word “inerrant” when you mean “infallible”?
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy – dealt with this “angels on the head of a pin” issue 30 years ago.
Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Later, in the exposition section:
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).
And, the answer is ESV
Look at them Christians, that’s the way you do it,
Learn your Scriptures with an ESV.
That ain’t workin’, that’s the way you do it,
Get your doctrine for nothing and your truth for free.
I want my, I want my, I want my ESV
(OK, so the “nothing” and “free” apply to the eSword plugin… but still) 🙂
Dave,
Thanks for the link to the Chicago Statement. I was unaware of that statement. Through all the verbiage it would seem to say that in spite of errors it is “infailable”. I can largely agree with its conclusions although I am convinced of an “old earth” rather than a young earth.
It does not say there are errors in the Bible.
I’m not sure how you are distinguishing infallible an inerrant?
Dave,
I agree with article 12 in its entirety however it leaves open that errors may be made in translation of words without falsehood, fraud or deceit….in other words honest mistakes in translation or that a particular word meaning may change with time NOT affecting the final outcome of God’s plan or our being able to rely on His word.
Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
Do you still plan to publish this in book form? Or are you posting these instead of going through the trouble of all that?
I want a copy of this book (even buy it!) if you’re publishing…otherwise, I “make my own copy” from the posts and of course credit you!
I’m always willing if a publisher is!
In my book, not only would I not affirm as a brother or sister in Christ someone who rejects inerrancy (even if it’s just “Oh, I don’t like that word–it’s too hard to define so it’s not useful to describe scripture as inerrant”) and refuse to fellowship or cooperate with them I woulld likewise refuse to fellowship or cooperate with someone who says they affirm inerrancy but is willing to cooperate with someone who doesn’t affirm inerrancy. If you can work with someone who rejects inerrancy then inerrancy must not mean that much to you.
Joe B:
You say–“In my book, not only would I not affirm as a brother or sister in Christ someone who rejects inerrancy (even if it’s just “Oh, I don’t like that word–it’s too hard to define so it’s not useful to describe scripture as inerrant”) and refuse to fellowship or cooperate with them I woulld likewise refuse to fellowship or cooperate with someone who says they affirm inerrancy but is willing to cooperate with someone who doesn’t affirm inerrancy. If you can work with someone who rejects inerrancy then inerrancy must not mean that much to you.”
Two comments:
You say–“in my book”
You must have a very limited group of people you affirm.
Quite the opposite–while there are probably a good number who claim to be Christians but reject inerrancy, most of the Christians I know affirm it. So there is a pretty substantial list of people who, due to their profession of faith in the gospel and affirmation of inerrancy, that I call my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Joe–
Who are you trying to con with this answer?????? We know you!!!
Joe B:
All I am trying to say is you appear to be unwilling to affirm someone who may view the word inerrancy different than you do and may not choose to use that exact word but mean the same thing.
I do remember the SBC doing a really big conference on this one word.
IMO there are lots of politics behind this one word.
I have yet to meet one person who whines about the term inerrancy and prefers the term infallible who does not mean “The Bible is infallible with regards to faith and practice”. In other words, there are errors in the Bible that do not matter.
So, I have not met the person that you describe–someone who uses another term for inerrant and means the same thing I mean.
Dave: Just to clarify, in your system, does a brick wall separate Christians from non-Christians?
Basically, that’s the point, Bill.
Or at least from those who advocate doctrines that undermine the gospel.
There may be some genuinely saved people who have some bad doctrines, but the doctrines themselves are the focus here.
Dave–
I think you made yourself perfectly clear in several respects. You would not be surprised with me disagreeing at points:
(1) Your over-all attitude here is like a young man returning to Thanksgiving after his first months at College with new things learned. A good friend of mine did such and was pontificating and monopolizing the family conversation. Finally, his father stopped him and said, “Son, all that you have been talking about in the last 30 minutes is perfectly right————-in the MOST OBNOXIOUS KIND OF WAY!!!!!!!
(2) What is the problem with giving folks not using your exact terms for the Bible the chance to say, “It is INSPIRED AND TRUSTWORTHY and should be interpreted through the measure of Christ?” Does anyone ever grow in his understanding of the Bible–and the Faith to which it attests–without being able to discuss differences of opinion with an ultimate decision to “agree to disagree, yet work together to share the Good News?”
(3) How many opportunities have you missed in interdenominational church work by declaring yourself to be a separatist? I have never grown in my understanding of other faiths without giving that believer the opportunity to follow his beliefs as long as it brings JOY AND PEACE to his spiritual life. What we say “they” believe is often our own version of “what they believe.”
(4) For me, an education is about becoming aware of all the theological options—and then making up my mind as to what makes sense to me. Creation in 6 24-hour days makes no sense, but knowing “yam” translates “indefinite period of time” resolves a major brick wall over which many students beat their heads for the rest of their life. Their face is so bloody then cannot see—and people who behold them are totally turned off because they offer no options that make more sense.
(5) I was just like you upon entering Emory University and taking the required Religion course. I was raised conservative, but by a thinking preacher father who asked questions at Mercer of the super-conservatives arguing over pre- / a- / post-mellineal matters without ceasing. They insisted it had to be their way. My father’s Socratic method was asking questions until a real answer that made real sense emerged. Otherwise, the questions could make the “defender of ‘his’ faith cut a weak limb of reasoning out from under himself without my father or me simply stating, “You are stupid and you are wrong while I, alone, am right!” Altizer’s “God Is Dead” stuff came from an Emory professor, but hearing it didn’t begin to “destroy my faith.” However, hearing it gave me the challenge to analyze is for what it was = naive and badly worded junk.
(6) You talk about your small Florida college “corrupting the faith of students.” Is it possible they didn’t have much faith to begin with? A FAITH which cannot stand questions is not much faith, in my opinion. At times there are no slick answers and a true believer just has to “faith it!”
My father had a couple of wise things to say about being a good Preacher:
(a) “All of us have our doubts, but they are not for presentation from the pulpit. What people need from the pulpit is enough faith to help them through the real problems they will face in the coming week.”
(b) “Many preachers I have known never preach the same consistent message from month to month. What they are preaching is what they read from the latest book. People are looking for consistency in your personal faith and lifestyle. They quickly detect the falacy of too much certainty or too little consistency. They have a right to ask good questions and it is your right to sometimes say, “I don’t know the answer right now, but will get back to you after I have thought about it during the coming week.”
(c) “The difference between bombast and being a dictator is your willingness to let others work out their own faith with fear and trembling–and your respectful friendship without commanding them to say the same words and think the same thoughts as you.”
I close by assuring you that I respect you even though we sometimes disagree on things religious.
The small Baptist college I went to had religion professors who intentionally and systematically set about to undermine sound doctrine. They denied and even ridiculed the basic doctrines of the faith.
And that is a shame and disgrace!!!
I have found that many people with an intellectual approach to religion enjoy destroying over instructing. The fact you, and others intimidated them is a sign they were just as focused on indoctrination as are ultra-conservatives now teaching a all our seminaries.
Let me quickly go on to say that the professors I encountered at SEBTS 1967-70 NEVER ridiculed any student’s faith, BUT they did require students to show a knowledge of the material whether they believed it or not.
My only wish was that at the end of the semester one might loosen his tie / sit on the desk / put down any notes / and say something along these lines: “We have studied and considered many things which may be new to you. Some of which might tend to destroy the faith you brought here. My purpose was to widen your perspective and some of this I don’t believe myself. Now let me share with you why I am a committed Christian and why it makes sense to me to be such.”
In private conversations I did hear such. It could have saved a lot of troubles all the way around if they had taken the more public step above.
It would also have helped if students came admitting they didn’t “know it all” and they they had not already made up their minds to the point they would consider nothing new. That is just as much a failure in a real education as for current students to know that if they utter any real questions, they will be impuned.
I have sat in a few classes as an observer of the new kind of professor now teaching. Frankly, I wasn’t impressed at some of the defensive things they were saying—when their real job is to present the material and let the student come to his own conclusions.
At a graduate level we are supposed to be discussing new ideas are we not????
You know, I thought this was #3 or #1, but I read it again and I’m certain that it’s just #2.
Being “funny” isn’t one of your gifts, Joe. It’s just another distraction so how about getting off it!!!
“I had the opportunity to be involved in televised debates on a Cedar Rapids TV station with the Rabbi, the local Imam, and a representative of the “Jesus Project.” I did not back down a bit on the gospel or the exclusivity of our faith. But I tried to be unfailingly courteous even as I delivered a message they hated.”
Hi DAVID,
Why would someone ‘hate’ your ‘message’, if you were being respectfully open about sharing your beliefs with them?
MOST REASONABLE PEOPLE are able to listen to someone’s religious beliefs with the understanding that those beliefs are very dear to the person who cares to share with them. That would not be called ‘hatred’, David.
That would be called ‘respect’. The person listening might agree or disagree, but they would honor the speaker’s right to his own beliefs.
‘Respectful disagreement’ is not hatred. Nor should it perceived as such, in my opinion.
Because I spoke the truth – that there is only one way to heaven – Jesus. That every person, Jew, Arab, or anyone else must personally put their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord or face eternal judgment.
Its not about being reasonable, its about being righteous through the blood of Jesus.
The biblical gospel tells people that they are lost with no hope of saving themselves and that the only hope of salvation is faith in Christ.
They would not have cared if I said, “this is what I believe.”
What offends is when we say “this is what all people must believe.”
The Imam tried the same tactic you used. “We all have our own beliefs. I respect yours and you respect mine.” But Christians can never play that game.
Muslim beliefs condemn people to eternal hell, as do any beliefs that do not uphold Jesus as the only Savior.
Christians cannot do what you suggest and just bill our beliefs as “one more thought among many.” Jesus is Lord of all and we are commissioned to call all people to submit to the Lordship of jesus Christ.
We cannot condemn people to hell by being tolerant of their false beliefs.
Is it ever possible to leave the ultimate judgement of heart and soul to God rather than us Baptists????
Gene, I’d wager my spleen you never even read the article I wrote before you started with this nonsense. There is no place in this essay that I said that Baptists were the only true faith.
I said the GOSPEL is the only hope of salvation. There’s little point in this discussion if you refuse to even read what I wrote.
Dave—
I certainly did read the article. I was impressed with this:
Brick Wall 1: God’s Word is True and Authoritative
“All scripture is God-breathed and is useful…that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Our God speaks truth and he spoke the scriptures. We affirm that the scriptures are true in all the affirm and in every way. Church history has demonstrated that those churches and denominations that compromise the concept of the trustworthiness of scripture soon lose spiritual power and evangelistic commitment.
I would have no problems with all of this—until you start pounding “Inerrant” into the conversation. Saying “God spoke” is different from “God breathed (inspired).” I don’t buy the dictational view of scripture. Man had a hand in the process. God did not “do it all” in my view as I read and study our Bible.
You said above: They would not have cared if I said, “this is what I believe.”
What offends is when we say “this is what all people must believe.”
I did not indicate anything about “Baptists are the only ones going to heaven.” However, it would seem to be the natural conclusion of anyone viewing your TV discussion that Since Pastor Dave is Baptist, that’s what they believe.”
I am particularly sensitive to this matter of how we are right now perceived. As I grew up I was exposed to this exclusivism and had serious questions as to just how “superiorly saved” we really were.
In those days of the 50-60’s we were consciously getting away from that haughty attitude with all the judgementalism attached. Now it is back and I am not happy when I admit to being Baptist and a film goes over the eyes of the person I’m addressing = they are thinking, “Oh my, he thinks he is the only one going to heaven.”
I know you to be a little more open, but look at some of the characters who surround you = cb / Joe / SSBN, for example. The second I venture into indicating I am not part of a group “exclusively going to heaven,” their dynomite goes off!!!!
I have a classmate from SEBTS days who shares your view. As I stated above, not one professor at SEBTS insulted any student’s presupposition in my experience. I cringe when I hear your description of the college experience you had of being insulted.
The best word I could use is “IMMATURE” when people so quickly stop listening and go to judging and half hearing. I think you just did such. I hope this clarifies my position.
In my experience, I have seen professing Christians become the most angry over the “Exclusive Jesus” than unbelievers. There is a sort of Ophraized Jesus they make up to suit their feelings.
Strange that unbelievers (Muslims, Jews, etc) expect us to believe in the exclusivity of Christ (narrow gate) but many professing Christians have a real hard time with it. They want to create a Jesus that does not exist. A Jesus who will save people without knowing Him.
Just saying that Jesus Christ is exclusive angers them. But that is what Christ said about Himself.
I think it is very important to take unbelievers views seriously and treat them with respect when we share the Good News. What really bothers me though are long time professing believers who teach another or incomplete Jesus. They must be told truth. They could be deceived out of ignorance or they might be deceiving on purpose (1 Tim). But the bottomline is they are responsible for the truth when they have been told they are in error. We cannot get Jesus wrong. Brick Wall.
Are you perceiving ‘disagreement’ as ‘anger’?
Most adults don’t do that.
L’s
You can coat your “disagreement” with all the sugary sweetness you want. Everyone who has read your blathering diatribes over the past two years knows you are seething with anger over anything conservative–political or theological. CB asked a good question one time–he had you read like a book, ya know–what is it that makes you so angry at conservative theology?
That’s not nice, Joe!!!
You appear to be redefining L’s when those who participate for any length of time don’t perceive her in your fashion.
No Christiane, I think you perceive disagreement with YOUR views as automatic anger and hatred. It is easier to say someone is “angry” than to have real engagement. It is a red herring meant to paint the other person in a bad light when they disagree with you. You enjoy jumping to conclusions when one disagrees with your views…they are automatically “murdering” people with Uzi’s or part of the Westboro contingent. Hyperbole.
But of course her use of that kind of language isn’t meant to incite anyone. It’s only when hate-mongerin’ fear-mongers like us do it that it’s bad.
The comment you refer to originates on a post that asks if it is right to use the harsh words of Christ to abuse others.
I wasn’t the only one to notice the venom of the venom of a commentator who had blasted people on Selah V’s post about honoring minister’s wives. The term ‘Uzi’ is a quote from one of the people who was also a commentator, Lydia. That commentator used the phrase ‘verbal uzi’. I think that term was an honest description of what happened, and it was pretty shocking display, even by the strident standards of those who celebrate contention and close the door on dialogue in matters of communication with others.
Having the element of “anger” as a core of sharing Jesus has nothing to do with showing others a spirit of love which Christ called us to have.
You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar. Our purpose should be to demonstrate our joy / love / peace in such a way others want some of it in their life.
Brick walls result in a bloody wreck or wounded head unless they are bricks padded with some openess and a listening respectful ear.
“The comment you refer to originates on a post that asks if it is right to use the harsh words of Christ to abuse others.
I wasn’t the only one to notice the venom of the venom of a commentator who had blasted people on Selah V’s post about honoring minister’s wives. The term ‘Uzi’ is a quote from one of the people who was also a commentator, Lydia. That commentator used the phrase ‘verbal uzi’. I think that term was an honest description of what happened, and it was pretty shocking display, even by the strident standards of those who celebrate contention and close the door on dialogue in matters of communication with others.”
I had no idea we were dredging up past threads and I have no idea who you are talking about….. again. Why all the mystery? Why not just name names and specifics and be done with it? So, we can check and see if we all think it is a verbal uzi?
Christiane,
You have mentioned many times that we should be reading the Gospels, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, it seems to me that you should be doing the same, becuase in the gospels, numerous times and in numerous contexts, Jesus tells us that the world will hate Him, hate us, and hate our messge. Jesus does not ever say that the world will “respectfully disagree” with us. Either you haven’t seen those passages (which I doubt) or you don’t believe them.
And the proclamation that we, along with the message we preach, will be hated is not limited to the Gospels. It is a consistent story throughout the bible. “Respectful disagreement” does not end up with someone dead.
The following promise from Jesus in the gospel of Matthew paints an entirely different picture than your “respectful disagreement.” We can be as respectful as we want, we can be as winsome as we can, but the world will still hate us and our message becuase they hate the truth.
[16 ] “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. [17 ] Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, [18 ] and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. [19 ] When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. [20 ] For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. [21 ] Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, [22 ] and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. [23 ] When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
(Matthew 10:16-23 ESV)
In fact, in one passage from John’s gospel that always chokes me up no matter how often I read it, right after Jesus restores Peter:
[15 ] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” [16 ] He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” [17 ] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
(John 21:15-17 ESV)
We read this promise from Jesus:
[18 ] Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” [19 ] (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”
(John 21:18-19 ESV)
No matter how winsome, attractive, or respectful Peter preached, he would be killed for Jesus. And Peter’s death would be to glorify God.
I don’t think you really grasp what it means that the world will hate those who love Jesus -it is far more than “respectful disagreement.”
That does not mean that non-Christians will always seek to kill Christians, but it does mean that the gospel is offensive to them. And when we preach something that is offensive, no matter how well we dress it up, it will offend.
[7 ] You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? [8 ] This persuasion is not from him who calls you. [9 ] A little leaven leavens the whole lump. [10 ] I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. [11 ] But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. [12 ] I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
(Galatians 5:7-12 ESV)
Unless we remove the offense. But when we remove the offense, we remove Jesus.
[30 ] What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; [31 ] but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. [32 ] Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, [33 ] as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
(Romans 9:30-33 ESV)
And then what are we?
Sometimes we give the world reasons to hate us. As for the “feed my sheep”, who are the sheep? In scripture sheep are not the lost but those with Christ or those Christ is going to save. Sheep is never used for those who are lost. Yes, to many in the world Jesus being the only way is offensive. But that does not apply to every single lost person. When we give the Gospel, it shouldn’t be done with the intention of they are going to hate us. Christiane is correct in a lot of what she says. This is where God does the work and not us. We give the Gospel, God does the rest.
Dave,
Good stuff. The discussion here proves your point of determining “brick wall doctrines.” As soon as you say there are some definite, unchanging, doctrines that cannot be compromised some will be offended. A couple of years ago there was a panel of religious leaders on a late night show discussing the way to God. Rick Warren represented evangelicals, and very well. He was charged with being narrow and exclusive – that if he was right the others were wrong. Warren responded by saying that was true of all of the participants. If the Muslim was correct, the rest were wrong. If the Jew was right, the rest were wrong. He further clarified “We cannot all be right – we all think we are correct and others wrong. I base my belief on the Bible.”
I am lookin forward to your posts. By the way, I did not detect that you stated only those who use the language of “inerrancy” were believers (though I use the word with no problem).
Steve in Montana
No, its a fine line with inerrancy. I think the doctrine, the concept is important- essential.
On the other hand: 1) I know believers who do not hold to the doctrine. While they may be believers, the next generation they minister to usually ends up rejecting the gospel and the fundamental truths of Christianity.
2) I know people who believe in inerrancy but won’t say it. There are a lot of people who for one reason or the other have a deep angst about the SBC CR and therefore despise the word itself. But at their heart they hold to the doctrine.
It is not the word I’m concerned wth, its the concept of the Scripture’s divine nature (and thus, perfection).
Dave Miller:
You said:”No, its a fine line with inerrancy. I think the doctrine, the concept is important- essential.
2) I know people who believe in inerrancy but won’t say it. There are a lot of people who for one reason or the other have a deep angst about the SBC CR and therefore despise the word itself. But at their heart they hold to the doctrine.
It is not the word I’m concerned wth, its the concept of the Scripture’s divine nature (and thus, perfection).”
Amen!!
I just wish others like yourself could understand how those that fit into your number 2 Believe the Bible from cover to cover!!
I agree with you, Tom. But I would also make this response.
There are two kinds (well, probably more) of opponents to the SBC CR.
1) Those who are opposed because they believe that the Bible has historical, scientific or cultural errors.
2) Those who are theological inerrantists in reality but disliked the prosecution of the CR.
(I’m actually not far from position 2. My only quarrel there is that I think the CR was generally helpful even with the mistakes. Others say the mistakes nullify the value of the CR – its a matter of degree.)
So, here’s my point. People in category 2 should not be treated as if they are “liberal.” But they bear some responsibility to make sure people know that their opposition is not so much to inerrancy as it is to the behavior of some inerrantists.
Dave Miller:
I agree with what you said–“So, here’s my point. People in category 2 should not be treated as if they are “liberal.” But they bear some responsibility to make sure people know that their opposition is not so much to inerrancy as it is to the behavior of some inerrantists.”
The Living and Written Word are married.
What God hath joined together, let no progressive separate.
Dave: I did not raise a fuss, but I did inform the leader of the group afterwards that I would no longer be participating. I would not partner with people who denied “The Way, the Truth and the Life” or become unequally yoked in a ministry that might give the perception that I considered these folks brothers and sisters in faith. Harsh words, I know, and not the kind of words we like to hear in this “we’re all the same”, “don’t worry about doctrine” world in which we live today. I am amazed at Christian people who prefer to group-hug those who deny the faith instead of standing against them.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): I am disappointed in your behavior and the attenuation of the Christian witness in your community. Like the Muslim you also believe and have an orientation towards life; that is, you and the Muslim have faith, even if the content and realistic levels of development of such differ. You and the Muslim are not the same nor are all faith groups of equal integrity, within and without Christianity or any other faith group, but it is a small-minded faith group that is unable to find common ground with other faith groups in which to promote and ensure the well-being of humanity and other creaturely beings.
People have faith; they can’t not have it. It is fundamental to life, ultimate concern nothwithstanding. That we cannot meet the other on the ground of our particular faith group is no reason for why we cannot meet the other on the ground of shared humanity and expereiences, and thus work to ensure that all will have as meaningful a life as possible.
How do some unchurched people view behavior of separation and non-participation? In the presence of competing perspectives, Christians wither; they retreat into sectarianism, not wishing to assimilate (good for them), but not willing to seek a mature integration of religion in culture (bad for them), either.
My concern was to honor Christ and obey the Word.
Dave: My concern was to honor Christ and obey the Word.
Norm: It’s a good and noble concern, Dave, but do Christians exclusively working with like-minded Christians to alleviate suffering and promote well-being attenuate such? Is your community the stronger for Christians refusing to work with non-Christians on issues that improve the quality of life?
Should we stand with Muslims who believe that abortion is murder and promote a pro-life “agenda”? Absolutely.
But that is confusing the Gospel with its effects. Those same Muslims will have no part of me sharing the Gospel. There is absolutely no common ground between he and me in answering the question “What must I do to be saved?”
Shared humanity is important – we all live on this planet together. But, what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?
I imagine God being rather perturbed at me for many things. One of which will be the fact that by my actions, I encouraged people to remain comfortable in their sin by trying to find common ground with them instead of proclaiming the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ.
And what does “meaningful life” mean without Jesus?
Mother Teresa wrote:
“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”
She subscribed fully to the idea that “a meaningful life” is better than Jesus. She was absolutely wrong, in fact, may have been more of a Universalist than a Roman Catholic. She let her experiences with the poor and needy define how she was supposed to believe. In other words, her theology was influenced by her anthropology.
It should be the other way around – what we believe about men MUST be defined by what we believe about God. If God says that the only way we can have life at all is through Jesus who is the only way, then everything Mother Teresa sees, experiences, or believes about “better men” being the goal is 100% wrong.
And you are right – everybody has faith. It’s just that all who have faith in any other besides Jesus will die in their sins.
And we MUST make that known.
“She was absolutely wrong, in fact, may have been more of a Universalist than a Roman Catholic.”
Catholics get accused of being ‘universalists’ all the time by fundamentalist Christians. It happens to me. The term ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’, but that is not WHY we are ‘accused’.
After two thousand years of difficulties, and learned a thing or two, by the grace of God, I think it has to do with the way we relate to people without contempt for them. Pentecost finally ‘kicked in’. 🙂
!. We appreciate, love, work with, and respect the Mormon people: At the 100th anniversary of the dedication of the Catholic Cathedral of the Madeleine, in Salt Lake City, an honored speaker was LDS President Monson, who greeted the crowd in Spanish, lauding the Catholic cathedral as “a vital and integral part of Salt Lake City” that has played host to him many times as a speaker for funerals or community events.
President Monson noted the longstanding tradition of the cathedral bells that toll for deceased presidents of the LDS Church on the day of their funeral services as an example of “the friendship and respect” that has grown between leaders of the two faiths over the years.”
http://www.mormontimes.com/article/4965/Pres-Monson-speaks-at-Cathedral-of-the-Madeline-celebration
2. And the MUSLIMS ?
” In a gesture of respect to Muslims in Turkey and around the world, Pope Benedict XVI prayed in Istanbul’s famed Blue Mosque, his first papal visit to an Islamic place of worship.
As the pope walked with Mustafa Cagrici, the grand mufti of Istanbul, to the “mihrab” niche that points the way toward Mecca, the mufti said he was going to pray.
The pope stood alongside him, bowed his head and moved his lips in silence for about a minute.”
Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, once wrote this in a letter:
“I close my greeting to you with the words of one of my predecessors, Pope Gregory VII who in 1076 wrote to Al-Nasir, the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya, present day Algeria:
‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’
“These words, written almost a thousand years ago, express my feelings to you today as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, the Feast of the Breaking of the Fast. May the Most High God fill us with all His merciful love and peace.”
3. And the JEWS?
“Rome’s former chief rabbi prays before pope’s body
By Eleni E. Dimmler
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Rabbi Elio Toaff, who welcomed Pope John Paul II when he made the first visit in history by a pontiff to a Jewish temple, came to pay his last respects to the pope in the Apostolic Palace.
The retired chief rabbi of Rome stood for more than a minute in silence before Pope John Paul’s body, then raised his hand solemnly in blessing before walking in the long, slow line of visitors.”
4. And the SBC ?
April 2001: “Apparently bowing to pressure from a small group of Southern Baptists who stridently oppose ecumenical dialogue, the Southern Baptist Convention has announced it will end dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church.
___The ongoing dialogue between Baptist and Catholic theologians has not been aimed toward changing the theology of either group but toward gaining mutual understanding.”
To this, “_Frank Ruff, the Catholic bishops’ liaison with the SBC, expressed sadness at the news.”
no anger, just sadness . . . “
“I think it has to do with the way we relate to people without contempt for them.”
I don’t think so. It has to do with comments like these (which, by the way, Mother Teresa also wrote):
“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”
“I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.”
“All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
I can’t think of any world in which those would be proper Christian responses. Except the last one, and only if it removed “All is God” and appended “if they rid themselves of their false religion and embrace Jesus Christ alone.”
Are you accused of being a universalist becuase you are one? Do you say that everyone will eventually be saved? If you believe that there is (or will be) even one person in hell, by definition, you are not a universalist.
And speaking of brick walls, I’d like to ask you a serious question. I am an ex-Catholic by willful choice. My wife and I were once Catholic, were baptized Catholic, were confirmed Catholic, had First Communion Catholic, and were married in a full mass Catholic ceremony.
However, since then, I have weighed Roman Catholicism against Scripture and found it seriously wanting. I have rejected the teaching of the RCC (including all of the various teachings about Mary being immaculately concieved and being “co” anything) and knowingly and willingly reject the authority of the Pope and Magisterium. I left the Catholic Church willingly, and my family willfully went with me – my wife also.
According to the official teaching of your church, I am not a “separated brother” (which applies to those Christians who were never Christian), but rather, an “apostate” and I have been summarily anathematized, which is funny because Muslims are not considered “apostate” nor “anathema” by the RCC.
So, here’s teh question: If I remain in my current state of willful apostasy from Rome until death, will I be saved in the end, not “can” I be saved, but “will” I be saved? According to your church, no. According to you, what?
Hi JEFF,
It sounds like you have found a Christian community that is more meaningful for you. I’m sorry that Mother Theresa was such a disappointment to you.
As far as ‘Salvation’, Mother left us with some good advice:
“Keep close to Jesus. He loves you.”
“So, here’s teh question: If I remain in my current state of willful apostasy from Rome until death, will I be saved in the end, not “can” I be saved, but “will” I be saved? According to your church, no. According to you, what?”
Good luck on getting the actual question answered…directly. :o)
Christiane, its not about “finding what is meaningful to me.” We are sinners in need of a Savior. We don’t get to just follow whatever we find meaningful. That is an anthropocentric false gospel.
Its not about “dialogue” between religions or finding understanding or unity or anything like that. Its about coming to God in Christ – and in Christ alone.
We are separated from God by our sins, and no religion is going to change that. Jesus died on the Cross for those sins and when I trust in him as my Savior and Lord, I am forgiven, justified and included in Christ.
We don’t get to just look for what we like or what we enjoy. We come to Christ as sinners deserving hell and only find our eternal hope in him.
Note that Paul did not say that “tolerance is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” Tolerance of false doctrine is itself an evil. It is the gospel that brings the power of salvation, not ecumenical progress.
LYDIA:
God will save whom He will save.
He ALONE knows the hearts of all men.
Those who believe in the name of Lord Jesus Christ will be saved!
LYDIA:
God will save whom He will save.
He ALONE knows the hearts of all men.
And He has already anounced who He will save–and it will only be those who personally, consciously trust Christ to save them and repent of their sins. He has already anounced that He will not show even an ounce of mercy to anyone who doesn’t do that–that includes muslims, mormons, hindus, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
I think it has to do with the way we relate to people without contempt for them.
No, actually it has more to do with the fact that you tell people “You can get to God your way. It is not necessary for you to trust Christ for your salvation. You can worship Allah, Buddah, or god as revealed by Joseph Smith. Heck, you can worship a tree stump and it doesn’t matter. As long as you’re nice and sincere, God HAS to accept you.” Since that is a lie and people are looking for a lie to justify their rejection of the truth, it stands to reason that the ones spreading that lie (folks like you) are going to find acceptance. After all, you’re not asking them to reject the false religion they’ve been taught and turn to the truth.
The theme in these 3 vinyettes is that Jesus Christ is not mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jblX88cA81A&feature=related
“God will save whom He will save.
He ALONE knows the hearts of all men.
”
How is this about knowing hearts when the Word is clear about the path to salvation? We do not know who will be saved in the end but we DO know it is by Jesus Christ alone. No other way. Anything else mocks the Cross, His Sacrifice and denies the Resurrection. Anyone who is saved will KNOW it is by Jesus Christ, alone. And will say so.
32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 10
I forgot to mention HINDUS:
“Cardinal Sends Message For Hindu Holiday”
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3884512382
In October, the Vatican’s top inter-faith dialogue official, Cardinal Jean Louis Touran sent a message to Hindus for the feast which is celebrated during the month of October:
“Christians and Hindus: Committed to Integral Human Development,”
was the title of the message which alluded to freedom of religion in India.
“In the process of integral development, protection of human life and respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of the person, are a responsibility of everyone, both individually and collectively”, says the text, which also bears the signature of Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata.
Touranis the president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, while Celata is secretary.
“Respect for others therefore implies the recognition of their freedom: freedom of conscience, thought and religion,” the statement said.
“Integral human development also requires the political will to work towards ensuring greater protection of human rights and peaceful co-existence.
“Development, freedom and peace are inextricably linked together, and they complete one another,” the message concluded.
Diwali, known as the festival of light, is a major festival in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism and is celebrated by billions of people worldwide.”
I am perfectly at peace with knowing that Our Lord can and will judge all mankind, through a much higher wisdom than we possess.
In my Church we pray for God’s Mercy on ALL of us together, and also for God’s Mercy ‘on the whole world’.
I know you don’t believe in that, and I accept that. But that is OUR way. From what I can tell, it is very different from what you believe, and I can respect your right to follow your own consciences before the Lord.
In my Church, we let God be God. That allows us to RESPECT others, and see them as people, not as ‘labels’, and certainly, not inferiors in dignity, undeserving of respect.
No ‘lepers’, no ‘Samaritans’, none of that.
I’m glad about that. We can love them unconditionally, without fear of ‘contamination’, in the Name of the Lord, Who commands that we love them, as He has loved us.
Really?
My goal is not to find “common ground” with Muslims, but to help them see that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that they are trusting in a false hope through Islam – which will condemn them.
Do you believe that Muslims who do not trust Jesus as Savior and Lord will spend eternity in hell?
I am glad that when Peter and James stood before the Sanhedrin or when Paul stood before the Roman courts, they stood strong with the gospel and did not compromise the faith as you advocate me doing.
Dave: My goal is not to find “common ground” with Muslims, but to help them see that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that they are trusting in a false hope through Islam – which will condemn them.
Norm: Thus, in your community, there is absolutely nothing that the Christian has in common with the Muslim that could improve the environment and conditions in which he lives? Nothing that would compel interaction that demonstrates respect for the other?Vice versa?
Dave: Do you believe that Muslims who do not trust Jesus as Savior and Lord will spend eternity in hell?
Norm: I will not answer your question directly for it is not central to the question that I am addressing and I do not want to take the time to nuance it for clarity, but I will say this: I believe scripture that asserts God will be all in all.
Dave: I am glad that when Peter and James stood before the Sanhedrin or when Paul stood before the Roman courts, they stood strong with the gospel and did not compromise the faith as you advocate me doing.
Norm: Tell me how it compromises your faith to work with people of other faiths to alleviate suffering and promote well-being?
Norm, unless you answer the question, the discussion will not go forward. You have questioned and criticized me. I’m asking you a direct question.
When a faithful (and even non-extreme) Muslim dies, do they join Christians in heaven? Is Islam a saving faith for the sincere?
Do you believe that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?
I do. How about you?
Norm: Dave, you wrote a column on a blog that is designed for comment on said column. I assume you realize that some are not going to agree with all you say.
If you choose not to continue conversing with me on this thread, that is your option. As I recall, I have raised some points/questions to which you have not responded. That is your prerogative and I am not going to press you on such. Both of us are free to respond to or ignore any or all comments addressed to such. And others are free to suppose what they will of such.
What you think of my position on the issue is probably the case, and it serves no point in me going there, especially given without direct evidence, Joe is already pronouncing. His right. The comment stream is not about me; it is about your non-involvement in community ministry with others holding a faith that you find questionable.
Norm, you do not get to set the agenda for this blog. If you would like to, you can certainly start your own blog, in which you can determine what will be discussed.
You said, “It is about your non-involvement in community ministry with others holding a faith that you find questionable.”
No, its not. It is about the reasons that we need to build a Brick Wall of doctrine to separate the true faith from the false teachers who would deceive people.
I made the point that rejection of inerrancy leads to the compromise of the gospel. You have given us Exhibit A to prove that what I said is true.
Dave: Norm, you do not get to set the agenda for this blog. If you would like to, you can certainly start your own blog, in which you can determine what will be discussed.
Norm: One, am I wrong that this site is about commenting on blog columns? Otherwise, why allow comments? Two, I am not determining what will be discussed, only what I will discuss. Others are free to engage or ignore me. Nonetheless, I will be respectful in what I write whether people engage or ignore me.
Dave: You said, “It is about your non-involvement in community ministry with others holding a faith that you find questionable.” No, its not. It is about the reasons that we need to build a Brick Wall of doctrine to separate the true faith from the false teachers who would deceive people.
Norm: And your reasons lead you not to participate with others that are not theologically like-minded. And as such, the Christian witness in your community is attenuated instead of otherwise participating with other faiths that are compelled to alleviate suffering and promote well-being. “Look, folks, there is much in which we differ, but we all agree that reducing the suffering of people is important and that as a group working together we have greater strength for doing such.” Faith groups that refuse to cooperate on issues related to human need do not assert this. Some people, then, question the integrity of said faith group.
Dave: I made the point that rejection of inerrancy leads to the compromise of the gospel. You have given us Exhibit A to prove that what I said is true.
Norm: Has anyone that embraces inerrancy ever compromised the gospel? But my question, as does your assertion, suffers from the generalizability of the n of 1. Nonetheless, I think you will find that compromising the gospel is pretty normally distributed across all theological perspectives.
I will not answer your question directly for it is not central to the question that I am addressing and I do not want to take the time to nuance it for clarity, but I will say this: I believe scripture that asserts God will be all in all.
Thank you for providing proof once again that you are not a Christian. No Christian would answer that question with anything but a “No”. Every person, muslim or otherwise, who does not consciously personally place their faith in Jesus Christ alone and repent of their sins will burn in hell for all eternity.
I will not answer your question directly for it is not central to the question that I am addressing and I do not want to take the time to nuance it for clarity, but I will say this: I believe scripture that asserts God will be all in all.
Also, you lack the conviction and bravery needed to admit what you really believe. Of course, this is part and parcel of liberals/modeerates who play word games to avoid admitting what they really believe so they can act like their beliefs are as orthodox. For instance, a certain well known moderate blogger has said several times on this site “Of course salvation is exclusive through Christ” all the while holding to the same position that you do–that those of other faiths will be saved by Christ without being conscious of the fact that Christ saved them until they get to heaven. He’s just not man enough to say it–like you.
Anyone who holds to that belief (Christ saves people without them realizing He has saved them) is not a Christian and real Christians should avoid them like the plague.
Joe: Also, you lack the conviction and bravery needed to admit what you really believe.
Norm: What I lack, Joe, is the desire is to wade through expected and forthcoming comments similar in tone to those evident in your post. God bless you, Joe; I just don’t have the desire to go there.
No, nawm, what you lack is the guts to spell out what you believe because when you do that you know (a) you will identify yourself as being a non-Christian since you deny essentials of the Christian faith and (b) you will be shown that you are not a Christian from scripture and will not be able to refute that fact with scripture.
Are you “out of the closet” as to your theological beliefs with the school where you teach? Do they receive Cooperative Program dollars? If so, be very, very glad that I don’t know who you are and where you teach because I would make it my point to make sure that you were exposed. Once the real Chrisitans saw you for what you were, well, I think the unemployement line would get very cold this time of year. However, you may teach in a school like Baylor or Samford–a school that claims to be Christian and has the doctrinal convictions of a newt so it may not matter..
QUESTION:
Has anyone ever been won to Christ who was told from the first word: “You are going to Hell and I am not!”
I look at the Acts account of Phillip’s (I think) chariot ride with the man whom he asked if he understood the sacred document he was reading. They had a common ground in the Jewish text the Eunich was reading. From that point Phillip shared his faith that the expected Messiah had come in Christ. The man believed and asked to be baptized!
SUCCESS in witnessing comes from, first, understanding the needs of the man in the chariot—-no matter what his current faith might be!!!!
“SUCCESS in witnessing comes from, first, understanding the needs of the man in the chariot—-no matter what his current faith might be!!!!”
That is called appealing to “felt needs” and what the seeker movement is based upon. When “felt needs” are met, new “felt needs” appear. It never stops.
Rick Warren is the father of “felt needs” and taught at Synagogue 2000 his PDL and promising not to offend them by mentioning Christ.
The Eunich was seeking truth which is a bit different.
I think you missed it, Lydia!
Pascal said we all have a God-shaped vacuum desiring to be filled with God.
If we approach our witness with the desire to share what gives us Joy and Peace, that is a valid witness. There is no single / conservative / perfect dogma which ever fills a God-shaed vacuum. It is a spiritual need far beyond any human and finite concept mankind can create by reason.
Are you sure you are not changing the subject slightly from your original comment? What you said earlier is about appealing to “felt needs” to share the Gospel. Which is why seekers end up looking to what God can do for them because that was the original appeal to them.
I totally agree about sharing what gives us joy and peace. But the joy and peace comes from FIRST realizing what a sinner I am and my need for a Savior and that it is a free gift. And it is a joy and peace that will be there even if we are thrown into a dank prison and starved. Seekers don’t understand this because they expect their “felt needs” to be met.
In effect, appealing to “felt needs” to share the Gospel is cruel. It is not the real thing at all. Can you imagine appealing to Job’s “felt needs”?
Elaboration:
We may distinguish between the Persons of the Trinity, but we may not separate them.
We may distinguish between the Living and written word, but we may not separate them.
I. Abiding (according to John)
2 John 9. Whosoever transgresseth [i.e. “progresses” beyond], and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
John 15:7. If ye abide in me…
–To abide in the doctrine is to abide in Christ. To abide in Christ is to abide in the doctrine.
II. Receiving (according to John)
John 1:12. But as many as received him…
John 3:33. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God
–To receive Christ is to receive His words. To receive His words is to receive Christ.
III. Faithful and True (according to John)
Revelation 19:11. …he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True
Revelation 22:6. These sayings are faithful and true
Conclusion:
John sees the Living Word and written word as a unity.
To introduce disunity in the Trinity is to contradict Scripture.
To introduce disunity in the Word is to contradict John.
Excellent.
“In my Church, we let God be God. That allows us to RESPECT others, and see them as people, not as ‘labels’, and certainly, not inferiors in dignity, undeserving of respect.
”
You always do this Christiane. You make huge leaps that are not there. Why can’t I believe truth of the Word that Jesus Christ is exclusive, the only way to salvation and one will KNOW that they are saved through Christ alone YET STILL am able to respect and love all people regardless of their beliefs?
You do not seem to understand that one can believe both of those things.
Why do those 2 things have to be diametrically opposed in your view? Perhaps it is because you really do not understand Jesus Christ. That is not an insult. It is a concern.
Thank you LYDIA for that concern.
I was thinking about your phrase ‘exclusive’, and I came across another blog that wrote about ‘exclusivity’, but with a different point of view:
Michael Spencer, wrote “Paul reminded the Philippians that, as they lived beside and with those who did not share their faith, there was always the opportunity to show that those who live in darkness have seen a great light.”
“Darkness is, in the Gospel, nothing if not self-justifying and exclusive. But darkness, no matter how many books it writes or speeches it makes, cannot dispel light, no matter how small the source or how meager the effect. Light illumines and reveals irresistibly and with continual wonder.”
So there it is. Another way to see ‘exclusivity’.
Michael sees DARKNESS presented in the Gospel as ‘nothing if not self-justifying and exclusive’.
Strange how the term ‘exclusive’ can be used so differently, one side from the perspective of the ‘exclusive’ Christ of the ‘biblical Gospel’;
and another side from the perspective the ‘exclusion’ of ‘the Gospel of Light’.by some who live in darkness.
No wonder people like us have difficulty communicating with each other, Lydia, when even a single term can be used in so many varying ways.
Christiane, I have met some clever people in my time but you take the cake. you always find a way to twist something to make yourself look like a rose but others as hateful.
I do not disagree with Spencer’s comment. But it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being exclusive as the only way to salvation and eternal life and I think he would agree with that. I thank you for taking all that time to find that comment just for me.
You seem to equate me saying Jesus Christ is exclusive (the only way to eternal life) with hating people and excluding them from the Gospel. Clever twist but not true. But what would be the point to try to explain further to you? I have tried for a long time. You seem to have another agenda.
I have come to the conclusion for a while now that it won’t be the heathens who persecute believers but those who want many roads to heaven. They hate it that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and eternal life. They want a Jesus they have manufactured.
But in the end I answer to Christ, not you. And I will confess Him before people as the ONLY way to salvation and eternal life because it is truth He gave us.
I stand by what I wrote.
But I disagree with your ‘interpretation’ of what I wrote.
(talk about a ‘twist’)
Communicating what you actually mean might help.
The difficulty doing that was the topic of my original comment, Lydia. It was to do with the different uses for terms. I have never heard of the term ‘exclusive’ before you used it in reference to Christ. So I had no point of reference on how to understand your meaning. You know, Lydia, I do try to understand people, if I’m able to, which is not all the time. But I do try. Nobody’s perfect. I’m not even close.
Dave, I have entirely enjoyed these articles and heartily agree on almost every point.
There was a minute there, when I held my breath because I thought for sure we were going to go down the road of KJV Onlyism. I’m much relieved that didn’t happen. LOL!
We do have to live in a world with people who reject Christ. There is no way around that fact. Our job is to present the gospel. However, we don’t have to be disagreeable when we do it. I will walk across a denominational wall as long as the central doctrine hasn’t been compromised. My church actually shares responsibility with a Catholic church for our church pantry. We all understand that we have differences. I think the Catholics have gone way too far, and the Catholics think we have fallen short, way too short. But we can show Christian love to hungry people. However, we’d not consider partnering with Muslims, Hindus, etc. You could bet the farm that we’d not share it with the Westboro Baptist Vipers under any circumstance. No matter what popular culture tries to saturate the world with, all roads do lead to God.
Now I will commence to probably make some folks angry. So be it. If you look out over what appears to be the Christian landscape, wherever you see a compromise of the authority of scripture, there is, right in the middle of it a dying church. I give you the Episcopals. I love their new logo. There is a picture of their woman Bishop who states “Don’t believe that crap, we don’t either. The Episcopal church welcomes you.” Then add Bishop Spong who has decided that the only thing we have to do is show the love of Jesus. Of course he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth, let alone the resurrection, so I can’t imagine what “Jesus” he refers to. Nipping at the heels of the Episcopals come the Presbyterian USA churches, the Methodists, Lutherans etc. I’m not making a blanket statement that all of these denominations are apostate, but many, many of them are trying to grow their churches by ripping out whatever pages of the Bible, they think will hurt their cause. We all know what those are, so there is no need to belabor the points here. We absolutely have to guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
In the 7th Chapter of Matthew, we hear Jesus warning us to be careful about how we judge others. He does not forbid it, but we are reminded that we need to examine ourselves first. And then all of a sudden, Jesus says this: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces”. I think that’s pretty clear. In Matthew 5:44, we are told “love our enemies”. Jesus knows that some people just will not accept our offer of the gospel, but we are not to hate them, but to show them love. That does not mean that we should ever compromise the ‘HOLY’ things. If the world doesn’t like the truth of scripture, that shouldn’t surprise us.
But whatever we do, we should avoid this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u6QDbFqGeY
Calvinist or Arminian, this IS funny.
Merry Christmas
Oops Humongous error. Please accept my apology. Why can’t we edit these posts when we do these silly things?
Correction: All roads DO NOT lead to God.
Chief Katie—
It sounds like you are limiting the power of God to use anything and anyone to get His truth across to mankind.
The Jews had “messed up” so God sent Jesus!
We have managed to “mess up” Jesus by turning his way into a gigantic mega church putting on a good show appealing to man’s desire for entertainment over service / putting ultra-conservative “certainty” in the place of more open-minded FAITH.
We have assumed the SBC CR movement was essential, but even
Dave divides it into 2 parts–one he applaudes and the other gives him reservations. In the case of the hateful and judgemental attitudes, God is still at work trying to use it for good! God is so powerful, he can use the diversions of Satan, himself, to bring about ultimate good!
I would hesitate to classify the renewal attempts of established denominations and churches as replacing the “real stuff” with “advertising stuff” just to appeal to people.
I happen to worship and fellowship on Wednesdays with a group of Methodists here in Bath, NC, who are strongly involved in their renewal movement. I find what they are doing and saying to be a re-focusing on what Christ and the Bible direct us to do.
I know you mean well, but your blanket might be spread too wide on this one! Never forget the power of God to bring His ultimate will into human reality.
Gene, please forgive me. Where did I say a thing about mega-churches? I don’t even believe the thought of mega churches ever entered my mind.
My remarks were about Dave’s thoughts about not compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ. No more, no less.
I have friends from many denominations to include Methodists, Lutherans, and even 1 Presbyterian on his way out to a reformed Baptist fellowship. But when I see denominations of any kind indulging or minimizing the impact of sin on our lives, I’m going to speak out about it. This is not a new phenomena.
I would never underestimate the power of God to do anything He wished to accomplish. But I’m quite sure the Episcopal church is in their last death rattle because they are insisting on defying scripture while embracing, even encouraging a pan-sexual church. Do not assume that I am a homophobe because nothing could be further from the truth. That is the essence of the conversation. Sin creeps in slowly, first a minor tweaking of doctrine, then assigning a so-called scholar to change the meaning of scripture and soon, you’ve lost the virgin birth and the resurrection, while they tell the rest of the world that you can still be a Christian and rational (don’t you just love their use of words here?). Since they have decided that a virgin birth and a resurrection isn’t rational, they are left with nothing short of full blown rebellion against God. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.
I’ve had much exposure to mega-churches. I attended Shadow Mountain in El Cajon for many years. We did it all. We sang with Gaithers, hosted Sandi Patty, Babbie Mason, Russ Taff, etc. We did the drama and all the rest. I didn’t find anything offensive about it and I loved being able to meet the Gaithers and crew. Pastor Jeremiah put us on a path to dicipleship and rarely turned a sermon into the comedy club. However, I do think that many of the mega churches have turned into houses of entertainment and that bothers me a great deal. But it doesn’t hold a candle to teaching that sin is acceptable, and that you must be a raving lunatic to believe in a virgin birth.
If you have something specific about my statement that perhaps I didn’t understand your objection to, I’m more than happy to listen and consider your point of view.
Katie, there is seldom any connection between Gene’s comments and that which he addresses. I appreciate your reasoned comments and would suggest you simply ignore him.
Dave,
I’m a traitor to the SBC. My husband and I left our SBC church mostly because we were very disturbed by what some of the leadership is doing. But we have never lost our love for our Baptist family and we fellowship with them at every opportunity. We pray that things will improve and I’m heartened when I see good people such as yourself demonstrating solid doctrine and not bowing to the pressure of people who have not (or will not) put God first in their lives. It is indeed a narrow road, and there are many, many days when I’m sure I’m falling off the track and down the cliff.
I usually just come by to read, but I found your comments to be completely true, carefully thought through and extremely well framed.
I agree that we have to have some lines that we will not cross. If I’m not mistaken the Apostle Paul thought so as well, when he admonished us to separate from brethren who remain unrepentent in their sin. I’m thinking it’s 1 Corinthians 5:9 and following.
I very much appreciate you pointing out to me that I hadn’t lost my mind. I went back and read and re-read my comments and couldn’t find anything that providing Gene with a jumping off spot, so to speak.
We live, we learn, yes?
God Bless.
I totally agree that you did not say anything specific about the mega church, but I see it as an example of religion gone off target for the most part.
Your agreement on “entertainment church” says we are on the same beam in that aspect of current religiosity. I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush either because it is possible a mega could not have deserted ministry and service to embrace entertainment.
Where I do have a problem is with the broad brush with which you define a “proper church.” The point I am making is that God can even use an “improper” church to steer some people toward him.
Let’s just leave some things to God, shall we??
Gene said “We have managed to ‘mess up’ Jesus by turning his way into a gigantic mega church…putting ultra-conservative ‘certainty’ in the place of more open-minded FAITH.”
This statement in and of itself is a statement of certainty. It also is a statement which reveals a “closed mind” towards the opposite of what it states being true.
In other words, Gene is closed to the idea that we have not managed to mess up Jesus by turning his way into a gigantic…
Faith in things we believe are certain is inescapable. The difference is that different folks have different “certainties” that they have faith in.
Faith in Scripture is faith in the only Being who has infinite understanding.
Faith in man [whether that be one’s own mind or the mind of others] is faith in a being which is finite.
For the finite to critique the infinite is foolishness.
Also, to be open-minded is to be gullible (check out the meaning of the word “simple” in Proverbs 1:4).
Benji—
Your statement is rambling and confusing. Let me clarify mine:
Most mega churches I witness remind me of the Temple at Jerusalem with the Pharisees at the helm. They made sure people always had more laws than they could obey. They were so confusing and so much beyond the 10 Commandments as to put burdens on people rather than basic guidance. To get any clarification of right living required you to always consult a Pharisee.
If you have any misgiving about Jesus vs. Pharisees, consult Matthew 23. It is quite clear on how religion can be royally messed up by people getting rich turning it into more a business rather than faith.
Please, Gene, just stop with the Matthew 23 thing.
Your statement is rambling and confusing.
Your statement is a statment of certainty and is closed towards the opposite of it being true.
“You are having difficulty with your simple formula of faith. It’s not about a gospel tract / the Roman Road or Evangelism Explosion. It is about people needing joy and peace in their life without knowing where to find it”
Gene, talking to you is impossible. You talk in circles. Your first comment concerning this was about appealing to felt needs when witnessing. Yes, people need joy and peace in their lives but that does not come from Jesus as a assessory but by taking up a cross and following Him. How do they define joy and peace? No serious problems?
The seeker Jesus is a bait and switch game because we do not tell them the bad news, too. They do not know WHY they need a Savior. In fact, most people want the seeker Jesus because they are told Jesus has a wonderful plan for their lives and they say, “I have a wonderful plan for my life, too! and Jesus can help me get it!”
I do not even know what the Roman Road or EE is about. I was too busy in the seeker world selling the bait and switch to the “unchurched”.
“Your statement is rambling and confusing. Let me clarify mine:”
The irony.
Gene Scarborough, Don’t let the statement I made about you’re being a good person with honest methods go to your head. Remember you’re now just a “tree cutter” and only so much authority goes with that ! But you told us of your predicament without any hesitation.
People who work with their hands and with wood do honorable work in this world. 🙂
I think the SBC’s thinking was that people that didn’t like what was going on and left the Baptist churchs would be the people that are out-spoken with inquiring minds and they would be happy to see them leave. But now it’s gotten to the point where they have had some many leave they are experiencing trouble in two ways. One – they’ve lost an intelligent base ( leadership) in the churchs; two – their money went with them and it is hurting. Good news is the pendulum feels like it is going the other way.
Christiane, Anybody that can work with their hands will never be out of work. My statement wasn’t that kind of slam. He allows more room for others thoughts than some others do here.
I know. I kind of enjoy the people who march to their own drummer myself. Always did. 🙂
In reading the comments, it’s pretty evident that there are two kinds of people with regards to building brick walls in general and inerrancy in particular.
There are Christians who recognize not only the value of building brick walls of separation to keep professing Christans who teach false doctrine (i.e. that the Bible has errors) out of the fellowship of real Christians. Christions recognize these brick walls do not separate Christians from the lost or prevent Christians from evangelizing them.
There are moderates/liberals who decry the idea of such doctrinal parameters and call them hateful. They believe that anyone who claims faith in God should be assumed to possess saving faith wthout any question whatsoever and that their doctrine should NEVER be questioned. Of course, since they are liberal/moderate in their theology, their opinions should not matter to real Christians.
“The difficulty doing that was the topic of my original comment, Lydia. It was to do with the different uses for terms. I have never heard of the term ‘exclusive’ before you used it in reference to Christ. So I had no point of reference on how to understand your meaning. You know, Lydia, I do try to understand people, if I’m able to, which is not all the time. But I do try. Nobody’s perfect. I’m not even close”
I thought I had communicated quite often that “exclusive” means that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation and eternal life. Do you believe that? Yes or no?
I went back and deleted about 50 comments – I’m sick of the nonsense here. So, I’m being inconsistent with my own commenting policies, but I’m in a bad mood and once I try to start deleting, it gets to be an endless process.
So, I probably missed a few that should be taken down and took some down by mistake.
One thing you can all unite on – that I am unfair. You are welcome to contact me by email to express your dissatisfaction.
Merry Christmas everyone. We have a chance to start over tomorrow when we post a new a couple of new items for discussion.
Testing, 1,2,3.
We love you anyway, DAVID. Cheer up.
Light some candles, read the Nativity chapter in St. Luke, and you will not be in a bad mood anymore. Promise.
This season is rough on people. For a lot of reasons.
We need to remember that.
My own husband, normally an outgoing joyful person, will sometimes become silent and withdrawn for a while on Christmas Eve. His best friend’s father died on Christmas Eve, long ago. That man had been a ‘father’ to my husband when he was growing up, as his own father was in a veteran’s hospital for many years.
We all understand and allow him his time ‘to remember’.
Then he’s himself again. I’m glad he takes those moments to remember someone who cared for him, and who has gone on ahead. I wouldn’t have it any other way. 🙂
The ‘God’ of those who worship in the Abrahamic faiths IS the God of Abraham, Joe:
God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
three Persons in One.
I get ‘confused’ a lot of times by how people sometimes speak of ‘the Son’ as thought He is not ‘God’. Our Lord is ‘uncreated’. He was ‘begotten’, not made. He IS the uncreated Light.
Someone once said to me that making the ‘sign of the Cross’ was a superstition, but the truth is, it is done as an affirmation of belief in the unity of the Holy Trinity: Father, and THE SONE, and the Holy Spirit. It helps to understand the UNITY of the three Persons in the One God.
I don’t have a problem with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Or knowing that the Christ of the Trinity IS, together with the Father, and the Spirit, forming the God of Abraham.
The Muslims don’t recognize the Trinity. But they worship the God of Abraham.
And our relationship to the Muslims?
We are called to point ALL men towards Christ.
The Holy Spirit is able to reveal ‘who Christ is’ to those who turn towards Our Lord..
No, he isn’t. The God who is three in one, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the God who came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. Muslims deny the incarnation and the divinity of Christ–that He was God in human flesh. Their god has no son and did not send his son to die on the cross as payment for sin. Therefore, they do not worship the same God as Christians.
Well said Joe.
Another approach: this honors ‘honesty about differences’ but does not keep people from getting along with one another. This approach might be something acceptable to the SBC. Take a look:
http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/newsletters/standing-with-israel/26126-when-jews-and-muslims-worship-together
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100125/muslims-jews-christians-worship-in-evangelical-church/
L’s,
Sorry, but no cigar. 🙂
I love you, but you are wrong again. The site you reference is not a strong biblical site. It promotes dwarf theology. Any site that promotes the purchase of a book written by Perry Stone is a poor site to use in any reference to biblical faith.
BTW, the article is full of weak and anemic theology. It will just not stand up to biblical scrutiny.
L’s,
You can link to all the left wing websites and YouTube videos of monks chanting Gregorian hymns that you want. It’s not going to change two simple facts:
1) The God Christians worship is a trinity–Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The 2nd person of the trinity came to earth and lived among men and was called Jesus. He was both fully God and fully man. He died on the cross to pay the price for sins.
2) The god (notice the lower case “g”) that muslims worship is not a trinity and did not come to earth in any kind of incarnation.
Those two statements are contradictory. There is no way anyone with an ounce of intelligence can say BOTH of them are true. Therefore, muslims do not worship God. If saying that means I am not tolerant and that I will not get along with people, then please, by all means, call me intolerant and say I’m not getting along with people.
Christiane, are you familiar with the OT at all? God has not changed at all…yes, things have changed in the New Covenant but God has not changed.
To suggest He, the Holy of Holies, can be worshipped alongside a false god is blasphemous and I quake in my boots for you.
In your quest to be “tolerant’, you are intolerant of the One True Trinitarian God. In effect, you are saying HE is mean. It can be no other way, because you discount His very Words about Himself.
Well, LYDIA, if rabbis pray with Muslims, I suppose rabbis also recognize the God of Abraham. 🙂
Well, Rabbis praying with muslims wouldn’t tell us anything about them believing in the God of Abraham since, no matter how much you claim it, muslims do not worship the God of Abraham.
True worship must be acceptable to the One being worshipped. If any, including Muslims, do not come to the Father through Christ, they are not worshipping the same God as Christians. Now maybe they’re right and we’re wrong, or maybe we’re both wrong, but Christians and Muslims cannot both be right.
You must have been writing that at about the same time I did, Bill.
Great minds think alike.
I don’t really disagree with you, Joe, but I would approach it in a little different way.
It is not just about WHOM we worship, but HOW we worship. In the OT, God set strict limits on how his people worshiped him. They could not simply waltz into his presence any old way they pleased. They came to God in the way God prescribed or they often died in the attempt.
There is only one God in all the universe. The issue is how we approach him. Jesus made that clear when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No ones comes to the Father except by me.”
The key question is how we come into relationship with the only God that exists. That God is only accessed through faith in the Crucified and Risen Lord Jesus Christ.
When people say, “We are worshiping the same God” they are missing the whole point. You don’t get to approach God in any old way that pleases you. You come through Jesus Christ whose death paid the price for us.
Dave,
First of all, Joe knows all of which you have stated in your comment to him to be true. He has said the same many times. His comment was well stated within the context of L’s comment.
Dave and Bill Mac,
Bill Mac, you stated that maybe the Muslims were “right and we’re wrong, or maybe we’re both wrong, but Christians and Muslims cannot both be right.”
Dave, You seem to be in approval of the whole comment. If so, you are both wrong.
Islam is wrong in all things, period. Christianity is right in all things, period.
There is no “maybe they are right and we are wrong.” If a person follows the Christ according to the biblical gospel, that person is right. If a person does not follow the Christ according to the biblical gospel that person is wrong and in danger of hell unless he or she repents and embraces the biblical gospel. There are no “maybes” whatsoever involved or possible.
CB,
I think, although I may be wrong, he was not saying “we’re right and they’re wrong or they’re right and we’re wrong” as if to say it’s possible that Christians are wrong. I think he was trying to take even more wind out of the sails of L’s silly, pedantic argument that “Muslims and Christians worship the same God”. I think his point was that L’s cannot say both Christians and Muslims are right–their claims are mutually exclusive so she has to choose. Either she can say muslims are right or she can say Christians are right but she can’t say both are right.
Of course, I may have totally missed his point. C’est la vie.
Of course, you are completely correct in what you say. There is no doubt that Christians are right and muslims are wrong and there is no “maybe” about that.
Joe is correct, I was simply trying to point out the logical fallacy of thinking both religions could be right. It is logically possible that both religions could be wrong (although I do not believe that) but it is not logically possible that both religions are correct.
This is where people who think they are tolerant are really just muddle-headed. Tolerance implies disagreement. I am tolerant of Dave when it comes to eschatology and baseball, because he’s so very wrong on both. I am tolerant with regard to Islam, precisely because I disagree with it. Tolerance means giving people basic respect even though you disagree with them Tolerance means not harming people even though you disagree with them.
Tolerance does not mean considering two contradictory things to both be true. That isn’t tolerance, it is idiocy.
I think Christians can often be too shrill and vitriolic, but how many times is our Savior lampooned or mocked on air or in print? And how often have Christians turned to violence to defend His honor? We don’t like it. We may complain about it. But I’ve never heard of an artist, film-maker or cartoonist being put on a Christian hit list because they defiled the image or message of Jesus. Can Islam say the same?
Bill Mac,
I stand corrected and issue to you the appropriate apology for giving doubt to your position. I like L’s as a person, but I know she is theologically astray of biblical Christianity. Frankly, she stands far to the left on many things from the Pope himself. She is a very liberal Catholic at best and has been given a theological pass by too many left leaning, liberal Christians in Blogtown.
Nonetheless, I stand corrected in my wrongful assumption of what you were saying.
I guess that means I was wrong about Huggy Bear Dave also, but I will wait to apologize to him until he confirms my false assumption of his going soft on left-wing, dwarfed theology. Or maybe due to the season and his recent post, I should say “Elf” theology. 🙂
She is a very liberal Catholic at best and has been given a theological pass by too many left leaning, liberal Christians in Blogtown.
$5 says I can name which of those that give her a pass you’re talking about. 🙂
As to the point I made, just to clarify for those who do not understand, the argument Christiane made comes from a historical perspective. Both the Hebrews and the Arab/Muslims descend from Abraham. Both purport to be the true worshipers of the God of Abraham.
My point was that it is not enough to say, “I worship (the True) God.” One must also say, “I worship (the True) God the way he demands.” The method of worship matters as much as the object of worship.
My point was that however one defines the god of Islam, they do not approach him through Jesus Christ who is the only hope of righteousness for anyone.
CB, I’m not always sure you actually read what I (and others) write before you start telling us that we are wrong!
Huggy Bear,
I always read what you write because I love your sweet little heart so very much.
Rarely do I need to tell a person here that I misread them. You know that to be true. You also know that if I do misread someone I apologize quickly. Now you may say I read you wrong if you please and I will deliver to you a “from the heart” apology, but if you want to fight about who can read and comprehend what someone says and who cannot, I am game.
Of course, you are probably still mad at me because I said you remind me of Jim Carrey.
In this case, CB, I think you jumped to a conclusion and reacted based on whatever conclusion you had jumped to, not what I had said.
Dave,
OK Dave. I apologize. Now, are you still going to send me a Christmas gift like you promised?
You are getting the same thing from Santa you get every year – coal and a switch!
Thanks Huggy Bear. You remind me of my dear Ole Departed Granny. She always gave the same thing every year also. But she did say she loved me. I guess that means you do too.
“The Muslims don’t recognize the Trinity. But they worship the God of Abraham. ”
Food for thought from a Christian Islamic scholar concerning why you are wrong
http://www.youtube.com/pfanderfilms#p/c/900CC8F51B717979/3/gy_YrhJRYjA
Video geared toward Muslims not Christians.
Dave, So as long as a person prays ” In Jesus’ name , God will hear the prayer”. Is that correct ?
Jack, it is not enough to use the words “in Jesus’ Name.” Scripture makes it clear that we do not get our prayers heard by repeating certain words.
But we come to God in Jesus Christ, and our prayers must also come through him. Our only access to the Father is through the grace of the Son – and the Son alone.
On the other hand, there is much more to it than simply bringing a prayer in the name of Christ. The Bible lists several other requirements for prayer, or reasons that prayers will not be answered.
The key is in James – “the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective.” It is not the words we pray but the relationship with have with God through Christ (our righteousness in him) that enables our prayers.
What do you mean by “hear the prayer” Jack?
“She is a very liberal Catholic at best and has been given a theological pass by too many left leaning, liberal Christians in Blogtown.”
I know quite a few Catholics who would affirm that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and eternal life.
There are liberal protestants who won’t affirm that, either. They have simply made up their own Jesus they like better than the one Who is the Word and Who is IN the Word. Problem is, it is not what Jesus said about Himself.
Lydia,
I know Catholic folks who would affirm Christ as the only way to salvation also. You get no argument from me there.
As I said, L’s is left of the Pope on many issues.
My statements are not actually about Catholicism specifically. My statements are specific to the reality that L’s does not embrace biblical Christianity although she is a likable person and does show a degree of compassion for some people other than conservative Christians. Blog history reveals she is no fan of biblically conservative Christians. A casual review of her comments on various blogs and posts on this blog will reveal she likens us to some kind of wild-eyed, blood thirsty, contemporary witch hunters or worse. The mention of Westboro Baptist church is often brought up by L’s when talking about conservative Christians. And as you know, the folks of Westboro are not Christian or Baptist.
In fact, I don’t know if I have ever seen someone who was as adept as L’s at coating hatred with sugar. If you didn’t know, like if you were a first time commenter on these blogs, you would thinks she’s just this sweet little angel with gobs of compassion and understanding. Of course, as you, I, and Lydia know that’s all a very well constructed facade which conceals a hatred that is at least as venomous as the filth spewed by Westboro.
The God of Abraham is NOT “Allah” of the Koran:
http://www.youtube.com/pfanderfilms#p/c/900CC8F51B717979/3/gy_YrhJRYjA
c b , What the avarage guy means when he asks, ” IF a prayer is made in Jesus’ name does God hear it?” Dave and others had a discussion about 2 a.m. so that’s why I asked him. But you go ahead and split the differences.
Jack,
I will be glad to do that for you. I have a little time to kill here.
People often ask if God “hears” prayers from various individuals or groups. Some folks say God does not “hear” prayers from various individuals or groups.
The truth is that God “hears,” knows and is aware of all people, thoughts, motivations and events because He is sovereign.
That does not mean He honors all prayers prayed in Jesus name. For someone to say they “prayed in Jesus’ name” does not constitute a guarantee that God will honor their prayer in a positive manner. The Scripture plainly teaches such to be true in both the OT and the NT.
Just FYI – “2 AM” according to the time stamps on the SBC Voices website is 12 midnight here in Iowa. I’m a night owl, but generally, blogging at 2 AM local time is non-productive!
Joe Blackmon:
You said the following about L’s:”Of course, as you, I, and Lydia know that’s all a very well constructed facade which conceals a hatred that is at least as venomous as the filth spewed by Westboro.”
That is an outrageous comment and you know it.
You know, your righteous indignation would be a lot more authentic if the only time you got upset wasn’t when one of the theological left wingers got called out.
Merry Christmas Tom Parker. I have not seen you around here in a while. Of course, I have not been around here much myself lately. I was here last night long enough for Dave to delete most all of my comments. So nothing is really new for me here. 🙂
What is going on with you of late? Are you pulling for the AUBURN NATION to win a National Championship?
Actually Tom, I don’t think it is outrageous at all. Christiane just covers it with whipped creme. But what is loving about accusing some of us here of being a varying degree of Westboro Baptist and “murdering” people? Why is it ok when she says such things?
I am not condoning the way Joe communicates. But I do think it is more honest even though it is vitriolic. At least he will answer a direct question. But then, I prefer honest over vague and platitudes. And you ought to know I disagree with Joe…a lot. But not when it comes to Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation and eternal life.
I just do not get why it is ok for Christiane to call us names but not ok for Joe? Is it because many cannot see past the whipped creme? It probably for the same reason so many fell for “hope and change” without asking for details. :o)
Lydia,
“Whipped creme” is a good illustration.
Recently, I ordered a Sunday at a place from which would probably be familiar. I told the guy that I did not want whipped creme on it.
He responded by saying, “I have to put whipped creme on it.” I asked, “Why do you have to put whipped creme on it?” He said, “My boss told me to always put only one scoop of ice cream in a dish, add chocolate and load the rest with whipped creme, a little more chocolate and a cherry on top and people would think we are giving them far more than we are.”
I looked at him for a moment and said, “Forget the Sunday. Give me a Hotdog and put everything you have on it that is possible to get on a bun.”
“He responded by saying, “I have to put whipped creme on it.” I asked, “Why do you have to put whipped creme on it?” He said, “My boss told me to always put only one scoop of ice cream in a dish, add chocolate and load the rest with whipped creme, a little more chocolate and a cherry on top and people would think we are giving them far more than we are.”
Don’t you just love honest employees! :o)
Can I steal this? I am going to use it in one of my training examples about substance/content.
This is one reason I never order Latte’s at a certain famous coffee place. More foam than substance for 4 bucks. Instead, we have a local place that does the real thing as au lait under 3 bucks.
Use it as you like as long as you do not ask for or use the name of the chain if you figure it out. It could cause me a queen sized problem if you did. 🙂
MERRY CHRISTMAS (almost) TO EVERYONE.
Sorry haven’t engaged in conversations today, as am getting ready to collect my son from airport . . . he’s flying in from Cali and we are SO HAPPY.
I will try later to communicate later, properly. (unless Dave loses it again and deletes the lot of you ) 🙂
Love, love, so much love, to all,
L’s
Best wishes to you as you get to visit with your son for the holidays.
Joe, You’re pretty darn nasty yourself – most of the time.
c.b. , “honor” sounds like not what I asked. “honor” implies to me that he awards the asker for what he prayed for. You have to hear before you act whether in thought or prayer. So my question is still does he get the request whether in thought or prayer if it is prayed in Jesus’ name.
OK Jack,
Let’s do it again. To ask something in Jesus’ name does not guarantee that the prayer will be answered as the person praying desires.
Joe Blackmon:
I stand by my comment whether you reject it or not.
As I do mine.
c.b You don’t understand my question at all. First, I understand not every prayer is answered or the prayer request given. Do you understand that I know that ? The question is does God HEAR, ONLY HEAR – NOT RESPOND if the prayer is prayed in Jesus’ name. Why is this important . Because if every smuck in trouble at home or in jail or wherever believes he has dotted the ” i ‘s ” by praying in Jesus’ name and can’t get a simple answer then maybe you can understand why millions have left the Baptist church – young people included. I know how to pray. I want to see how you answer the question
God hears every prayer prayed just like He hears every word said, sees every deed done, and knows every thought that is thought because He is omniscient and omnipresent.
“Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. ” Rev 5
One of my favorite parts of the Word….
Jack,
In my first comment I said God “hears” every prayer because He is sovereign.
Now, I must admit, I do not always understand what you are saying, but I got this one. I answered you according to your question.
Dave # 139 today. I appreciate the answer here. Instead of 1:21 a.m. the comment that brought this to my mind was at 1:21 P.M. I’ve got glasses. I don’t use them.
“Use it as you like as long as you do not ask for or use the name of the chain if you figure it out. It could cause me a queen sized problem if you did. ”
Never would do that anyway. Would not even ask the name of the chain.
Dave,
This was a good article. I really enjoyed reading it.
On the issue of not submitting to work with an organization based on multiple faiths, I’m torn. On one hand, I know that it’s imperative to not bind ourselves to others who do not share our faith and be unequally yoked. However, I cannot help but think that by working through something like this would be a good opportunity to share our faith and why it is that we do what we do. For me, I obviously wouldn’t partake in a worship service with someone from a different faith but would I not participate in feeding the hungry or some other form of service ministry? I guess you could split hairs and begin to argue “at what point” in these ministry opportunities and that is where you have to make your decisions. I also would err on the side of caution and pulled out of this ministry opportunity.
Thanks again.
Part of me, at that time, felt that I needed to take a stand with the community pastors’ group. Someone had to point out that there was a limit to ecumenism. Participating in evangelistic and social/community ministry with evangelicals is one thing. It is something else to enter into ministry partnership with those who deny the gospel.
There have been times when I have participated in citywide events that were a little more ecumenical. We used to have some anti-abortion events that included Catholics and things like that.
Here’s my thing – I have no right to act in such a way as to give the world the idea that those who deny the gospel are our “brothers and sisters in Christ.”
It is a tricky thing – no doubt.
This might be related to working in “un-even yoke” St. Vincent’s Hospital in N.Y. which is Catholic is in the throws of banckruptcy and the Saudi family is negotiating to buy it in order that a mosque might ALSO be built there taking the pressure away from the 9/11 sight. Different faiths will undoubtably work in the hospital there. Side note people are carrying out the sheets and pillow cases in addition to “boxes of money” in anticipation of sale or foreclosure so it has been said. Anybody seen wheelbarrows down south?
Only a portion of the previous 169 is a yoke.
“”why millions have left the Baptist church – young people included.””
I wonder if someone counted these “millions” for this person or he counted them himself? Or, is this just a hyperbolic exaggeration from a whinny kid?
People who want or need a “simple answer” to why our prayers are not answered everytime just like we ask, even when we ask earnestly and sincerely can expect to be disappointed often.
If prayer was a simple parlor trick, a simple answer to why and how it works might be easy to come by — but it isn’t.
Does it matter how many? The fact is that many are leaving the church and the main reasons are they have either been hurt by the church or they can’t live up to the legalistic standards or they find many are just hypocrites. That should matter. It’s not being whiney, it’s separating from what is unhealthy. And we had better start caring and listening. Your statement not only shows no compassion or heart, but another reason people are leaving the church vowing never to darken another church door again. And these are born again Christians.
“”Does it matter how many? The fact””
Yes, it does matter how many if facts matter. You project your own disgust for the local church and those who “hurt” you onto everything you post. Facts matter–or at least they should.
And, you have no facts to support your claims. I’ve pastored for 32 years and I’ve had many people leave. Not one time did anyone leave the church (of those I know) because “the church hurt them.” That’s the facts from my experience. As you can see they are completely different from your experience.
So, what we can conclude is: you have no facts and if facts matter then perhaps you should consider how you project your experience onto large canvasses with broad brushes.
Here’s another fact: our church has people “coming” not “leaving” as a rule, so again, your hyperbole doesn’t meet muster.
“”Your statement not only shows no compassion or heart””
It is amazing to me that you can take your limited experience, parade it as fact with the intent to disparage the local church, and then make the leap that I have “no compassion or heart.” That seems like a very broad leap to me, which is understandable since facts don’t seem to figure into your religious experience.
I’ve read your blog and the posts you used to make on your leader’s blog. I must say, you are consistent — consistently tearing down conservative baptist views.
But, your consistent misrepresentation of the SBC I believe deserves to be protected by a wall.
I hope I’ve added a couple bricks.
I’m sorry, but those two statements were just too logical, too coherent, and too dag blasted true to be on this comment thread only once. 🙂
I wonder if someone counted these “millions” for this person or he counted them himself? Or, is this just a hyperbolic exaggeration from a whinny kid?
It is very much a hyperbolic statement from a whiny kid I think. Just like there are people who act like anybody leaving the church proves that there is something wrong with that church. Now, that could be true. But it is just as possible, and in the case of the SBC much more likely, that the people leaving are just fed up with correct doctrine and want to reject clear biblical teaching or they are willing to fellowship with folks who want that. This is particularly true of those that left the SBC in the late 80’s/early 90’s. In short, no one with sense would claim that any number of people leaving is proof that there is something wrong.
Joe,
My husband and I left our SBC church for many of the reasons Debbie has so eloquently spoken of. I personally think people have two reasons for leaving. I’ll start with mine. I will not name the church, that’s not productive. Simply put it was rapidly becoming a pit of legalism, self-righteouness, hypocritical and just plain mean, all in the name of Jesus. It became harder and harder to find anyone who had a heart for loving each other. Seriously stupid things like “how much make-up should a Christian woman wear”, or “Christian women shouldn’t be wearing pants”, or “do we really need those drama skits”, “why can’t we just sing the hymns”. If there was a reason to belittle someone as ungodly, they found it. But the real death blow to our membership came when we watched astonished at so many SBC leaders running to the rescue of Ergun Caner. It’s pretty hard to watch people so concerned about superficial things, bow to utter hypocrisy. That was it for us. We still miss many in our Baptist family and we are Baptists at heart, but we know a lie when we see one, and condoning liars isn’t a secondary doctrine. So here your idea that the SBC has some market on correct doctrine just doesn’t pass the common sense test. They missed a huge opportunity to do the right thing and it went down in flames of cover-up, ignorance, and stick-head-in-sand syndrome.
The other group are probably those who don’t want to embrace sound doctrine and condone serious sin by either remaining quiet about it, or giving it some tacit approval using the excuse that we really can’t know everything God meant, so if people want to live in homosexuality, who are we to judge it? Again, the SBC has no market share on that either.
Not to be confrontational, but seriously Joe, many, many people are leaving, and Debbie is right. We better figure it out and soon. Debbie and I do not agree on some things. But I’ve never known her lie or even exaggerate a problem.
God Bless
Many people are leaving many churches. Brick walls about make up or the lenght of a dress are ridiculous. Brick walls about the trinity? Two totally different subjects.
Bess, I wholeheartedly agree. And those who leave because they don’t want to hear the sound doctrine of the Trinity are in the latter group, at least in my mind.
God Bless and Merry Christimas.
People leaving churches are not always bad things – either a church needs to die/and or change or people who are recjecting sound doctrine need to move on. I’ve been SBC my whole life – churches split, die and rebuild all the time. It’s constant pruning. God is patient, but He will not suffer long the hypocrisy seen in many churches – it’s just takes a lot longer than we would like at times for His corrections.
Merry Christmas to you and yours Chief and thank you for your service!
The ordeal that Debbie endured on her blog in support of Christians being honest shows me that honesty is very, very important to her. She went through a lot of abuse from commentators because she took a stand for what was right.
And the abuse was vicious and horrible.
But she didn’t back down.
She’s one person whose honesty I would never doubt.
“”astonished at so many SBC leaders running to the rescue of Ergun Caner.””
Out of the “thousands” of SBC leaders, how many exactly by your count ran to the rescue of Ergun Caner to support a lie?
“”but we know a lie when we see one””
But do you know a lie when you tell one? Exaggeration is as much a lie as giving completely false facts.
“”We better figure it out and soon””
“We?” I thought you said you left the SBC? Or, were you fibbing?
“”many, many people are leaving,””
What many do not point out that spread the above exaggeration in regard to the SBC (even assuming it is true, which I do not assume), people are running from all kinds of religion. The fact people are leaving church can be seen as positive just as much as it can be seen as negative.
The only poll I’ve seen in recent years dispells the myth that people are anti-denominational. That just is not what the facts state. In that same study, the SBC ranked very high in the number who had a positive view of denominations.
My point is: simply making a statement does not make it true and exaggerating that same statement makes it even less true.
Where in the world did you ever read that I left the SBC. You are the one who needs to get your facts straight. My church will always be in the SBC.
Debbie, please don’t get your blood pressure racing. Where did I say you “left the SBC?” I think I said you are often (and that may be an understatement) critical of the SBC.
Sometimes when we get too emotionally attached to a topic, we can read things into posts that are not there. You may have misapplied another post to yourself mistakenly.
As far as I know you have made it clear you are in the SBC, just against most everything the SBC leadership says or does.
I’ll end this rather unfruitful exchange with this: precisely because there are such strong feelings about personal doctrinal viewpoints are why there must be walls built. Certain ideas are just incompatible as this exchange makes abundantly clear.
Feel free to have the last word. I will not respond.
TWO NAMES – Your asking that to cute aren’t you. I’m a somebody not just a someperson. No one has put their pinkys on every dollar of the millions we’re losing either. I know how to pray and don’t need your permission either.
Oh ! TWO NAMES – As far as a “whinny kid” your expression I went through the Brandenberg Gate probably before you were born. Your entertainment.
“”I went through the Brandenberg Gate””
Then that makes you a whinny senior.
And, I don’t recall saying you needed my permission to pray. But, I hope your retort has given you some much needed cathartic relief 🙂
“somebody, some person?” Don’t understand the parsing.
The reason I found SBC VOICES is I had witnessed what my son had come up against as a Pastor and he enforced his own Brick Wall – no shacking up and teaching in church, that it is good to encourage black people to attend, the correct Theology and the “Club mentality” that allowed some to stand up in church and scream different ideas that suggested some medical problems out of control. Under these conditions he about doubled the attendance to where this minority lost their plurality. Much other stuff but I wanted to know in the midst of white supremecist groups (plural ) in this largely black community how others within the SBC were handling these problems. Never mind where the info comes from but we’re, WE, the SBC is NOT Handling Nothings 100% so yes there are some good churchs up to and including Mega churchs but some of them even latch on to “whatever is cool this year” – small thing but “Traveling Mercies” is an example of church jargon which is better known than what their denomination stands for by its members. Many churches don’t have Baptist on the marquee. If someone has a “well” church, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger because relatively speaking the real ball is just starting to roll. If it’s going to be fixed the SBC will have to convince God and the Members of Baptist churchs that they can make the correct decisions and that will include informing the Layity of what the conditions are now and what the options are to fixing the problems. None of these problems I’ve described need a rocket scientist to understand. They further don’t need people calling each other simpleton names. Do you want to re-build something or keep tareing it down. The SBC is not the only game in town for pastors, ministers or Layity and new people are not going to go to the trouble of knocking your doors down or visit SBC VOICES when they don’t plan to attendan SBC. There is a huge absence of Leadership and if they can’t come up with some the choices are narrowed – find some and survive or slowly die. Personally I like a good fight and I want everyones helping hand that’s interested no matter what color or what kind of work they do. We’ve run good people away in large numbers from groups that have hurt us. Public schools is only one example . I can leave also and won’t need to look back. My son has his own mind and his values are still in place – both Biblically and morally. People will respond to the right purpose but to just send more money and continue to hold on to outdated, un-Biblical beliefs is not going to cut it. Now is the hour. Not a year from now. It’s fine to delete this. I’m going to watch what happens.
Joe Blackmon:
You said:”It is very much a hyperbolic statement from a whiny kid I think. Just like there are people who act like anybody leaving the church proves that there is something wrong with that church. Now, that could be true. But it is just as possible, and in the case of the SBC much more likely, that the people leaving are just fed up with correct doctrine and want to reject clear biblical teaching or they are willing to fellowship with folks who want that. This is particularly true of those that left the SBC in the late 80?s/early 90?s. In short, no one with sense would claim that any number of people leaving is proof that there is something wrong.”
Joe that is a lot of words above to show just how ignorant you are of the facts of why people have left the SBC.
It is just your opinion–no more no less.
For the Pete of sake, I mean, for the sake of Pete….oh whatever…Tom, I want you to try two things for me.
1) Try clicking “Reply” under the comment you’re replying to. Makes it much easier to follow.
2) See if you can pick out the most offensive part of my comments and just copy that so that everyone doesn’t have to read my comment twice. I mean, seriously….
Joe:
Just answer the question please and thanks for advice #1. I actually did not know to do that.
I may have to ignore #2 because I would think people would love to see your comments twice.
So, if you are grading I just made a 50 on your test.
It would be my pleasure to answer the question…….as soon as you show me it is the topic of the post. Thanks in advance.
“”just how ignorant you are of the facts of why people have left the SBC.””
And yet, you give absolutely no proof that “Millions have left the SBC,” let alone “why” each of them left.
That’s just your opinion — no more much less.
Joe B:
When you say such things as :”The abuse was nothing compared to what she deserved.”, others need to see again what is truly in your heart.
Dave Miller:
When Joe B. or others attack Debbie the way they are I am not going to remain silent.
It is plain wrong what they are saying about Debbie.
Tom, while the comment below is under your comment, it is not directed at you.
Okay, folks, please exercise a little self-control. Guard your words and your hearts.