There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding of what it means to build a “Brick Wall.” I have tried to define it in these posts, but I am aware that it is not likely that people are reading every word in this lengthy series. The purpose of a Brick Wall is not to separate Christians from the lost! Jesus never separated himself from the lost and we cannot either. We are must engage the sinful world if we hope to show the love of Jesus Christ to them. The Brick Wall of separation is not meant to divide us from those who need Christ.
But we must separate ourselves from the false apostles, false prophets and false teachers whom Jesus promised would be among us. The Brick Wall is not meant to keep the world out, but to keep the wolves out! There will always be those who twist the Word of God to lead God’s people astray. We must always beware of these people, identify them and protect the sheep we serve from them. That is why I am indentifying “Brick Wall” doctrines. These are the fundamental truths on which we cannot compromise.
When someone denies one of these doctrines, we know that they are not true to the gospel of Jesus Christ, that they are advocating teachings that will be poison to the sheep of God. So, we refuse fellowship with those people, we identify and rebuke them and their teachings publicly and we refuse to partner with them in “unequally yoked” ministries.
In the last post, I identified the first of these “Brick Wall” doctrines. We must build a Brick Wall around the trustworthiness and authority of God’s Word. In this post, I will continue to identify the doctrines I believe are essential to the faith, around which we must build the Brick Wall of separation.
Brick Wall 2: Our Triune God is Sovereign
“In the beginning, God…” The Bible starts with God and it finishes with his glory being displayed over all the world. No doctrine is more crucial than “Theology Proper” – the doctrine of God. People today have created fictional gods who fit their own ideas. Frankly, the God presented in the Bible is shocking to our modern sensibilities.
But we do not have the option of creating a god to fit our own ideas. The Second Commandment tells us that we must not make our own gods to worship. We have to deal with the One Who Is – the Great I Am – Yahweh, the Creator and Sustainer of this universe. It is not our job to make God who we want him to be, but to figure out who he is as he is revealed in scripture. We must understand the revealed God and deal with him as he is.
Creator’s Rights
The Bible presents God as the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Those two concepts are inextricably linked. It is because God made this world that he is the rightful ruler over it. If he is not the creator, then he is simply a usurper, one who demands what he does not deserve.
As a longtime fan of Tolkien and Lewis, I have tried my hand at fantasy. I let my mother read the book and, of course, she thought it was wonderful. (My mom thinks I can outpreach Chuck Swindoll, too.) But she said, “I don’t like the ending of the book.” At the end, one of the main characters dies and mom wanted a happier ending. My reaction? “If you don’t like the ending of my book, write your own!” No, I wasn’t mean to her (rest your hearts) but that’s the way it is. When I “create” a book, I’m in control of the characters. I write the story as it pleases me and I write the ending I think the book should have.
Ultimately, that is the problem with many today. We want to tell the Creator how to write the story of the world he made. What hubris! Paul addressed this in Romans 9:20-21. “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” Of course, there are some heavyweight theological issues here, but put those aside for a moment to see the big picture. The Potter has the rights, not the clay. The Creator is in charge, not the creation.
Ever heard someone say, “The god I worship wouldn’t do that!” Of course he wouldn’t. He is a figment of your imagination and you created him to fit your own whims and desires. When you create your own god, you make him what you want him to be. We do not get to do that. The God of the Bible is big and awesome. He is glorious beyond our knowledge.
The God of the Bible has an intellect and knowledge we simply cannot access.
In Romans 11:33-34, Paul says this, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” He has it all under control. His intelligence is beyond our comprehension. Isaiah 55:9 says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
We must trust his intelligence and sovereign knowledge, not trying to impose ours upon him.
There are few things clearer in scripture than the sovereign control over the world he made. He holds the creator’s right to rule and does so. Human beings often think we are in control, that we are the “captain of our fate” and that our decisions rule the world. But, as the Psalmist (Psalms 2) says that God looks down on those who think they can oppose his governance and “laughs”. Others acts as if Satan is in charge of the earth, but the Bible makes it clear that this is not so. Satan does not run the world, God does. He is the Author; the one who is telling the story!
A Triune God
The Bible also presents God as Triune; one God who exists eternally in three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Many have treated this doctrine as insignificant, but it is fundamental to a biblical view of God. The foundation for this doctrine was laid in the Old Testament, and it is fully revealed in the New Testament. It is in the relationships within the Godhead that the plan of salvation was devised. When the doctrine of the Trinity is compromised, other doctrines are sure to follow.
God of Holiness, God of Love
Finally, the Bible presents God with two primary characteristics displayed in his dealings with man. If we ignore either of these, we err. God is holy; perfect and sinless. He cannot excuse or ignore sin. When Adam and Eve chose sin, they separated themselves from God. God does not punish sin because he is mean, but because his holy and righteous character demands it. This is the most commonly ignored characteristic of God. We do not so much have a Father in heaven anymore, but a Grandfather who winks at sin and thinks it is cute. Many nominal Christians cringe in horror at even the suggestion that the God we serve might actually punish sin and evildoers.
But there is another side of God, one that in some ways seems to be in conflict with his holiness. He is love; merciful and gracious in his dealings with mankind. God loves sinners and demonstrated that in a real and tangible way.
Jesus was the solution to this seeming conflict in the character of God. God’s holiness demanded the punishment of sin but God’s love motivated the redemption of sinners. That is the theological root of the work of Jesus on the Cross. He fulfilled the righteousness and holiness of God by living a sinless life. Then, he died on the cross, bearing our sins. He satisfied the holiness of God and his wrath against sin by bearing the full weight of judgment. In doing this, God was able to show his love and to redeem and forgive sinners.
This is no namby-pamby God of Love. His love is not demonstrated by ignoring sin (which he could not do). His love is displayed in the sacrifice of his only Son to pay the wages our sins earned. It cost God the blood of his Son to extend his love to us.
This is the God of scripture, the God who IS! We do not get to make a god whom we like. We have to serve the God who is, who is revealed in the perfect Word. And we must never compromise these truths.
Within modern evangelicalism we are beginning to see the effects of the refusal of many to erect a Brick Wall. Doctrines that undermine the sovereignty of God, the Trinity, and the holiness of God are widespread. We cannot allow the weakened god of modern perception to replace the awesome and powerful God of the Bible in our hearts!
Brick Wall 3: Mankind is Sinful
“I believe people are basically good.” That sounds nice, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it is not only contrary to all evidence, but it is contrary to the clear revelation of Scripture. Few doctrines are as unpopular as utter sinfulness of human beings. Few doctrines are denied or compromised as often either.
The biblical evidence could hardly be more clear. Romans 3:23 says that “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The description of the human condition earlier in Romans 3 can hardly be called complimentary. It sounds a lot like the judgment of God on the ancient world in Genesis 6:5. “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” It is a condition with major effects. Romans 6:23 tells us that “The wages of sin is death.” We have sinned against God and because of that we are separated from him and facing death and judgment.
What Depravity Means
The doctrine is called depravity. It does not mean that everything a human being does is evil, but that the general inclination of our hearts is toward evil, that evil rules our hearts and thoughts. Children may be cute and cuddly, but their instincts are sinful. They do not need to be taught to lie or steal or throw tantrums. That comes naturally to sinful human beings. We have to teach our children to do what is right.
Depravity also means that we are helpless to change our sinful condition or do anything to earn the favor of God. A sinner may work hard to become a better person, to break a bad habit or addiction, to change his behavior. But what he cannot do is become good enough to earn the favor of God. He cannot break the hold of sin on his mind or heart. Being sinful, he is helpless to change himself.
Paul warned Timothy about what would happen in the days ahead. In 2 Timothy 2:3-4, after exhorting Timothy to preach the Word faithfully, he told him,
“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.”
People do not want to hear the truth about their sinful condition. Many would rather have a preacher tickle theirs ears with positive lies than to tell them the ugly truth about our sinful condition before God.
A pastor in Texas has built an enormous church by avoiding the topics of sin and repentance. He does not so much preach as he does therapy from the pulpit, helping people feel good about themselves. And it is working. The church purchased the stadium that the local NBA franchise used to use. People are eating up his “I’m okay, you’re okay” theology. But the fact that he is drawing a crowd does not mean that he is receiving the “amen” of heaven. I saw him on a national talk show. He waffled on almost every question he was asked. He was reluctant to say that Jesus was the only way or that those who refuse Christ face judgment. People do not want to hear that they are sinners under the wrath of God, and he only wants to say what people want to hear.
But if we would be faithful to God’s Word, we must teach what people do not want to hear. Beware of any church or pastor who grows a big church by downplaying the basic truth of man’s sinfulness. “All have sinned,” and “The wages of sin is death.” These truths we cannot deny or ignore.
And yet, that is what we are doing today. We may believe the doctrine of depravity, but we ignore it. We treat it like a shameful family secret. We work to encourage people instead of calling them to repentance.
It is an interesting paradox. No one wants to hear about sin, but it is only when we acknowledge our sin that we receive the salvation offered in Christ. The positive preachers who ignore sin condemn sinners to the judgment of God. If you do not preach sin, you cannot preach salvation. I heard the pastor of a large church remark, “My people have a hard enough time in their lives without me beating them over the head with the fact that they are sinners.” He had bought into the false positive message. But the problem with that message is that it does not work. It may make someone feel better, but it cannot save the soul. Only when we repent of our sin and turn from it do we receive forgiveness and experience eternal life.
It is the sick who need a doctor. It is those who recognize that they are gravely ill who seek a doctor. It is only when the church preaches sin that sinners will realize their dire condition and seek the healing power of the Great Physician of the soul.
Two more key doctrines – Theology proper and theological anthropology.
More grist for the mill.
Dave,
Instead of called all of these brick walls, why not call them cornerstones, foundations, anchors, something that invokes strength and stability rather than walls, prisons, boundaries. The concept of building walls to build a house isn’t lost on me, however, in this day and age, invoking the imagery of walls tends to inspire closing in rather than building on.
Then again, this is the media person in me speaking…
I can’t tell you how often that I love hearing “sermon spices” which probably were effective twenty, thirty years ago yet go over my generation’s head like a lead balloon. I call them “sermon spices” because I’m now beginning to hear modified anecdotes and such that are clearly “borrowed” from the older generation of pastors. I’m going to get up and choke the next pastor who talks about how he held unforgiveness against his aunt for years while giving a sermon on forgiveness. It’s be at least the eighth or ninth pastor to have issues with an aunt.
Anyways, I would use different words and imagery for these posts. You may save yourself a large headache in the comments.
Thanks,
bill, the PR guy
Its a mental picture thing – the contrast between the Brick Wall that some doctrines require and the Picket Fence that is sufficient in other instances.
Glad my issues were with my uncle.
The whole borrowed illustration thing, and the bland, smoothed out attempts to show our humanity are, well, annoying. Don’t give me a “I had issues too” speech and patronize me like that in a sermon. Give me the Word. I know you’ve got issues, because you’re not Jesus. So, don’t act holy, but this manufactured humanity is it’s own form of foolish pride. Cut it out.
I like the imagery of building walls and it communicates very effectively the attitude Christians should have toward people who profess to be Christians but hold to unbiblical, heretical positions on biblical truth. If someone rejects inerrancy of scripture but claims to be a Christian that person should be denied Christian fellowship. If someone denies that God is a trinity or claims that those who don’t believe God is a trinity worship the same God as Christians, that person should be denied Christian fellowship. If they reject the utter sinfulness of man both by nature and by choice, same thing. There should be a brick wall errected thereby saying “You’re free to believe that. As long as you believe that, you are not welcome in the church. You may begone now.”
Of course, this brick wall does not extend to non-Christians and does not prevent evangelism.
Oh so you lure them in and just persecute them after they become Christians Joe? That seems to be a big problem.
Let’s not do this, folks. Debbie, any reaction to my post?
Dave: My response would essentially be the same as I wrote in my last comment. The reason I said what I did is that while I do not think someone with the theology you wrote about should teach or preach in the church, where does evangelism end? Does brick walls encourage or discourage the evangelism of those who hold false doctrine which would be the above points? We’ve built so many walls in the past that we are alienating the lost. Wouldn’t you consider those who hold to such doctrines lost? I do. The people in the church who label themselves Christians need to the Gospel. Christians need the Gospel which is more than salvation and that is where we get it wrong. We seem to think the Gospel is just pertaining to salvation. That’s just the beginning. We are to disciple, to teach are we not?
I agree with Bob on this. I have a hard time equating brick walls and church. And is it effective? Does it keep the wolves out. You now have the internet and television where wolves are everywhere. Also, is someone who preaches the Gospel but is abusive to everyone or tells stories about their life that aren’t true considered wolves? I consider them to be wolves. Do we brick wall them out as well? How does that help the person find the truth of scripture?
It seems to me that evangelism for the most part among Independent Fundamental Baptists consists of yelling at each other, waving our Bibles around, beating each other up with verses. A brick wall doesn’t keep some from doing this continually. It happens on comments all the time. We produce more wars than we do evangelism as the Bible speaks of it. Paul, Christ, addressed wolves through the power of the Holy Spirit. I’m not so sure churches today and especially those in the SBC(since I am a part of the SBC, that matters to me more than other sects) are doing that.
Debbie, would your church allow someone who denied the Trinity to teach a Sunday School class?
Would you allow someone who denies the gospel to speak in your pulpit?
I realize you are not the pastor, but I hope you see where I am headed. I’m not advocating cruelty or shunning. But a church needs to put limits on false teachers in their midst. And there also needs to be some limits on what we will do in partnership with other churches.
There are people whose teaching puts them outside the kingdom. They are wolves among the sheep whose desire is to destroy the church, not to build it. Giving them a place in the church is not evangelism, it is ecclesiological suicide.
Dave Miller, would you allow the author of the Shack (ie all roads are valid author) to teach from the pulpit of your church?
Bess,
Preach on, sister!!!!!
Well, not “preach” but, well, ya know…. 🙂
And I think you miss the point of the Shack Bess. It is a book that has brought many to Christ. It is a book for those who have felt a deep loss and Paul has never said all roads lead to Christ even in the book. Have you even read it? I doubt it. Listen to the talk he gave when he was in our church clarifying this most heinous of gossip. And that is what you are spreading gossip.
This book came at a time when my son n’law died at the age of 24. It was a gift to me and my girls from someone we do business with and have for a long time. It saved my life as I was grieving so intensely I couldn’t get over it. That is who the book is primarily written to and it’s a wonderful book.
Yes Debbie I did read it. Dave Miller also read it and agrees it teaches universalism. But of course in Debbie’s world anybody who ever disagrees with her is lying, mean…..fill in the blank.
Debbie, I’m sorry for your loss but heresy is heresy. Right doctrine is never determined by feelings.
I also lost my dear father n’law 2 months later in the same year. This book allowed me to cry and pray, two things I could not do as I tried to allow my daughter to grieve. This is the first year we have felt like celebrating Christmas or being around people. We are healed by the miracle of God. The Shack gave me permission to feel all the anger I felt toward the driver that killed my son’law. You never know the stories behind people, so this subject is now closed. It’s too painful even now to talk about which is why I only wrote on it one time in first blog. You can disagree with the Shack, but I would be hardpressed to call it heresy.
Again Debbie I’m sorry for your loss. I’m even more sorry to hear that someone who claims Christ found solace in a book of heresy and not the Bible. At crisis in my life it is ONLY Jesus who can comfort me not the work of heresy by a man.
And Debbie before you decide to go off on me – let’s see you go after Dave Miller who on this thread has called the Shack author a false prophet.
I repeat Paul did not write nor did he ever say all roads lead to…., that is simply not true. Many people saw that but if you can’t I can’t convince you. As I said for me the subject is closed. I said all I am going to say on this book, which takes up to much space to discuss. I’m not changing my mind, neither are you. Unlike you I talked personally with the author and listened to him for 3 days and nights. I have a little more insight into this than you I think.
Of course Debbie, you always know more than everybody else. Superior much? Yes Debbie, all the people who saw the universalism of the Shack are wrong and as usual Debbie is all knowing.
I never determine doctrine by feelings. I am an avid lover and student of the whole Bible. I get my doctrine from scripture. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the depth of my grief nor do I care Bess. When doctrine and feelings are separated you have nothing. Absolutely nothing. I am so tired of that argument being brought up. It shuts off communication as far as I’m concerned. It will shut it off with me.
OK Debs you have a nice Holiday of your choice. I’m going to carry on a conversation with Dave Miller now about the heresy of the Shack and whether there should be a brick wall around such heresy.
Bess: I do know what grief so deep is that you can’t function. The Bible is something that can’t be read, the grief is so deep, or prayers cannot be prayed, the grief is so deep. This book was just what I and my family needed. I read it as it was intended to be read. It dug me out of a deep hole. Now end of discussion. It is really hard for me to think about that time even today. I will no longer answer anything to do with this book. Now, you can continue to beat me at my vulnerable spot or you can suck it up and stop. I’ll not address this again no matter how terrible the comments concerning my view on this.
Debbie, believe it not the world doesn’t actually revolve around you. I know in Debbie’s world that only Debbie knows what truth is, only Debbie has ever known grief and everyone who ever disagrees with Debbie is mean mean mean. I’m sorry for your losses but I’m even more sorry that you are woman who would try to use your losses to score points on a blog. I’ve told you before that you are one messed up woman and you need help. Sorry but I’m not going to declare heresy the truth no matter how you try to manipulate the conversation with a sob story. Now why don’t you go yell at Dave Miller for calling the Shack a false gospel by a false prophey – you won’t cuz you are a fake and you want to attack people you don’t like. Sorry Debster I’m not gonna play your game of “everybody is a bully and I’m the only real Christian.”
“The Shack” was fiction. I read it and came away very moved, as I thought that, through the story, the plot, and the characters, Paul had shown an immense understanding of the Compassion and the Mercy of God. For people who are suffering nearly unbearable pain, Paul’s book would be a reminder to them of the healing goodness God brings to us all, in times of trouble.
I’m not surprised at some of the reactions to the novel from people who are not comfortable with allegory as a ‘literary device’ in fiction.
In teaching fiction, as a literary genre, we say that fiction is ‘a willing suspension of disbelief’, in that we enter into the story KNOWING it is fiction, but, for a while, allowing ourselves to be entertained as though it were true.
In my opinion, a PROBLEM may have come for some readers who are not able to understand how the fiction genre ‘works’ as entertainment, and that IS a bit sad, because they would not be able to read fiction ‘AS FICTION’.
I’m not surprised at some of the reactions to the novel from people who are not comfortable with allegory as a ‘literary device’ in fiction.
Oh, give me a hairy stiinkin’ break. Having the character who is supposed to be God say “I don’t punish sin. It’s not my purpose to punish it. It’s my joy to cure it” is not using a “literary devices”. It is blasphemy. Having the character Jesus say he is the “best way” for people to reach heaven, not the ONLY way, is not a literary device. It is heresy. When the character who is supposed to be God says (s)he was on the cross with Christ, that isn’t a literary device–that’s blasphemy.
No Chrisitian would promote that book.
Christiane, it is disingenuous to say that “The Shack” is fiction. It is clearly designed to be didactic and to communicate truth.
Either the Shack is truth or it is error. But the “it is just fiction” thing is slothful argument. I discussed this here, at sbcIMPACT.
Now, DAVID, you and your family have just watched a movie that portrays a lion in a very special way.
We all love Aslan, but the he is a fictional character in a BOOK, and now, in a movie.
Can we enjoy Aslan as a character? Yes.
Can we know he is ‘not real’. We can.
And can the portrayal of Aslan in the land of Narnia help us to understand the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ in our own world better? Absolutely.
Fiction can help people, David.
But fiction is also a ‘personal’ thing. Different people will see or read the same thing, and come away with different reactions. Why? Because we bring ourselves to a fiction work. And we are all of us different people.
I read a fiction book. My catechism is on the Vatican website.
I know the difference. And ‘The Shack’ FOR ME, was a fiction book that showed the author’s understanding of hurting people and of a loving, merciful God.
If you see the book differently, that is fine. It is ‘as it should be’, in that you came away with your own personal reaction to it. I have no problem with PERSONAL point of view. You are absolute entitled to it, David. And Joe is entitled to his, and Debbie to hers, and me to mine.
‘
No L’s the problem is that we are not all entitled to our opinion in Debbie’s world: Here’s her first statement to me on this stream:
” Have you even read it? I doubt it. Listen to the talk he gave when he was in our church clarifying this most heinous of gossip. And that is what you are spreading gossip.”
See in Debbie’s world it is always ok to attack those she dislikes when nobody has even mentioned her name and those she likes like Dave who call the Shack a false gospel by a false prophet are aok. Notice Dave isn’t accused of spreading gossip and not reading the book. Double standards reveal the heart of more than just Debbie on this blog. Then when Debster gets called out she goes all victimy and claims everybody is attacking her for no reason.
And for the record even as a piece of fiction the Shack was a poorly written piece of tripe not even worthy of being in the same bookstore as Lewis or Tolkien. Compelling story but very poorly written.
Well let’s check ‘theology’ here in fiction.
I don’t know Paul’s religious background.
But J.R.R. Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, and yet his fiction works have a broad appeal ‘across the board’ to many of different faiths, cultures, and age groups.
C.S. Lewis was an Anglican. The Roman Catholic Tolkien helped Lewis to become a Christian, and Lewis ended up as an Anglican. Once again, you have a writer, who is a ‘high’ Anglican (formal, traditional, etc., etc.) who is creating works of fiction with an appeal that ‘transcends’ many divisions of faith, culture, age groups, even time spans, now that we are into another century.
I was fascinated that, in reading the blogs and comments, so many had refused to even read ‘The Shack’ and went on other people’s ‘word’ concerning it. Can’t do that honestly with a fiction work. Not and then be able to have a opinion about it. (We used to do that in college: it’s called ‘Cliff’s Notes, and is very bad form)
Christians are honest people.
With consciences. And opinions. And dignity.
Christians are able to take a look at something written and make up their OWN MINDS concerning it, for themselves. To DEMAND that everyone else see it the exact same way denies the dignity of Christian people.
L’s the “theology” of the Shack is heresy. CS Lewis and Tolkien = not heresy. Stating that Muslims believe in the same god as the God of the Gospel is heresy. The topic of this post is where to build a brick wall. I think that Dave seems to agree that he would not allow a person who promotes heresy to teach from the pulpit of his church.
” To DEMAND that everyone else see it the exact same way denies the dignity of Christian people.”
And to deny that there is TRUTH is to deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God DEMANDS that we accept his truth not whatever truth we like the best.
To DEMAND that everyone else see it the exact same way denies the dignity of Christian people.
Again, give me a big, hairy, stinkin’ break. God DEMANDS that people “see it the exact same way” He does in that the only way anyone will ever approach Him is by personal, conscious faith in Jesus Christ. “I am the way, the truth, and the life….”? John 14:6?? Yeah.
2nd of all, the Shack was obviously written to give this man’s unbiblcal, pedantic, moronic opinions about theology. Primarily, he wrote it to teach his kids what he believed. There is not justification for the heresies he taught, which have been thoroughly explained by at least a half dozen bible teachers.
In short, if you promote this book, you promote heresy. Christians do not promote heresy.
And yes, I mean, exactly what it sounds like I mean. I would build a firm, solid brick wall between myself and any pretend christian who has the gall to promote and support that book.
Christiane, you are not entitled to make up any view of God that you please – that was what this whole article (which I’m quite sure that few in the discussion thread actually took the time to read) is all about.
Hi DAVID,
I have stated that I see the Lord Jesus Christ as the best revelation to mankind of ‘Who God Is’.
Christ did say, ‘he who sees Me, sees the Father’.
If you disagree, and have a different point of view, I would be happy to try to understand it.
As for ‘making stuff up’ about ‘Who God Is’, my own beliefs are in sync with the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed, which I take it, you might not not buy into for your definition of ‘Who God Is’, since they are Catholic creeds. (?)
Christiane, you have stated here that you believe Muslims believing in the “god of Abraham” is = to believing God the Father of Jesus Christ. You believe it doesn’t matter if the Muslims deny the trinity because they believe in the same god. You cannot believe that Muslims believe in the same god and can deny the Trinity and still have any clue who Jesus Christ of the Gospel actually is. It doesn’t matter what creed you know or what video you can link to. Jesus is the only truth, Jesus is the only way and the jesus you speak of is not the Jesus of the Gospel but something you have made up in you head.
As for discussing ‘The Shack’ as theology, I am in on that at all.
For me, it is a work of fiction.
Correction: AM NOT IN ON THAT AT ALL.
No I wouldn’t nor would our church as a whole to both questions Dave as I think I made clear in my comment.
That’s my point, Debbie. Any evangelical church is going to have some Brick Walls. I’m just trying to define where those should be.
And I apologize for making it more than it should have been Dave. I just have a problem with walls. I don’t want anyone to not know the truth of Jesus Christ or the Bible as whole. I want those who teach false doctrine to have the opportunity to know the truth. Rejection at the forefront doesn’t mean forever rejection.
My focus is on those who promote false teaching, not those who have been seduced by it.
Joe B:
You said:”I like the imagery of building walls and it communicates very effectively the attitude Christians should have toward people who profess to be Christians but hold to unbiblical, heretical positions on biblical truth. If someone rejects inerrancy of scripture but claims to be a Christian that person should be denied Christian fellowship. If someone denies that God is a trinity or claims that those who don’t believe God is a trinity worship the same God as Christians, that person should be denied Christian fellowship. If they reject the utter sinfulness of man both by nature and by choice, same thing. There should be a brick wall errected thereby saying “You’re free to believe that. As long as you believe that, you are not welcome in the church. You may begone now.””
In the church you attend what is the practical application of what you have stated above?
Well, Tom, I’m not sure how my, or any, church handles that is the topic of the post. However, I may have misread it.
Joe B:
You said–“You said:”I like the imagery of building walls and it communicates very effectively the attitude Christians should have toward people who profess to be Christians but hold to unbiblical, heretical positions on biblical truth. If someone rejects inerrancy of scripture but claims to be a Christian that person should be denied Christian fellowship. If someone denies that God is a trinity or claims that those who don’t believe God is a trinity worship the same God as Christians, that person should be denied Christian fellowship. If they reject the utter sinfulness of man both by nature and by choice, same thing. There should be a brick wall errected thereby saying “You’re free to believe that. As long as you believe that, you are not welcome in the church. You may begone now.””
I then asked you–“In the church you attend what is the practical application of what you have stated above?”
You then said:”Well, Tom, I’m not sure how my, or any, church handles that is the topic of the post. However, I may have misread it.”
I believe I asked you a very legitimate question and you are dodging the answer.
I really want to know what your non-SBC does in practical application of telling people they are not welcome at “your” church.
First of all, was it REALLY necessary to copy my ENTIRE comment TWICE? As LOLCat says “Srsly”.
Second of all, and please correct me if I’m wrong, Dave did not write this article about my church or about how to apply a “brick wall doctrine”. I think the subject of the article is defining what those ‘brick wall” doctrines are.
Thirdly, try clicking “reply” once in a while–just to shake things up. 🙂
Joe B:
You said to me–“Second of all, and please correct me if I’m wrong, Dave did not write this article about my church or about how to apply a “brick wall doctrine”. I think the subject of the article is defining what those ‘brick wall” doctrines are.”
Joe you said:”As long as you believe that, you are not welcome in the church. You may begone now.””
I simply want to know how you or your church would practice this.
Really, Joe it is a very fair question.
I was actually at a church where a family were asked to leave because they insisted that “baptism of holy spirit” ie the ability to speak with “tongues” was necessary to prove your salvation. This family was asked to leave as they were creating division and discord. Why would a person who disagrees with the doctrine of the church want to stay there? Why does anyone who has so many problems with the SBC stay with the SBC? If the SBC is really that messed up isn’t it time to “shake the dust off?”
I’m not disagreeing with you Bess, but I would make this clarification. Charismatic issues are not, as far as I am concerned, “Brick Wall” doctrines. One can be a Christian and believe in the “second blessing.”
In my first pastorate, I had a deacon who was “Full-gospel” and believed in “the gifts.” He did not sow discord in the church about it.
However, sowing discord is the issue here. Those who sow discord in the church should be disciplined.
I understand what you’re saying Dave, one of my husband’s best friends and mentors is a charismatic. I was only pointing out how churches do have to draw lines at time, sometimes with other Christians and sometimes with nonChristians who want to stir up trouble in the church. It can and should be done.
Oh and let me point out that this family did hit up against the brick wall by insisting that baptism of the Spirit was necesssary for salvation – that’s a brick wall I think when you’re being told you’re not saved because you don’t have the gift of tongues.
I don’t think we are in disagreement here, Bess. I was just clarifying.
Really, Joe it is a very fair question.
I’ll be happy to answer your question, Tom. Perfectly happy.
Just as soon as you show me how the topic of this post is “How the Church Joe Blackmon attends would handle (x)” where (x) is your question. As soon as you do that, I’ll be happy to answer it.
Thanks.
Joe you said to me–“Really, Joe it is a very fair question.
I’ll be happy to answer your question, Tom. Perfectly happy.
Just as soon as you show me how the topic of this post is “How the Church Joe Blackmon attends would handle (x)” where (x) is your question. As soon as you do that, I’ll be happy to answer it.
Thanks.”
I give. I’ll just take that as you do not have an answer.
Joe, you talk really big until someone asks you something practical.
Oh, I’m sorry, I missed the part where you showed that the question your asking is the topic of the post. I’ll go back and look for your proof in the comment stream here. Surely you must have posted that or you wouldn’t be nagging at me like a petulent child when I’d told you I would answer your quetion when you showed it was the topic of the post.
Let’s address the topic guys.
Dave:
I will stop. I really do try to avoid this type of behavior on my part.
You are a good man, Tom Parker.
I believe we can find the most perfect ANSWER to ‘Who is God’ in Jesus Christ. He is the perfect revelation ‘of God’. He IS the Eternal Word, the Logos.
He is ‘God With Us’: ‘the God with the human face’.
The Bible tells us that, through Christ, all things were made.
He is the ‘Force’ that holds all things in existence.
Christiane, if you truly believe that Muslims believe in the same God as believers in Christ Jesus than you are absolutely clueless. It doesn’t matter what pretty words you write or how many videos you link to, anyone who believes that because Muslims believe in the God of Abraham = same God as God the Father of Jesus has absolutely no clue who God the Father or God the Son actually is. Time and again you continue to reject the true Christ of the Gospel. And if that’s me bashing you over the head so be it. You are well and truly lost and in need of salvation.
Christiane, if you truly believe that Muslims believe in the same God as believers in Christ Jesus than you are absolutely clueless.
Understatement of the decade–heck maybe the century. Haa
Is it an oversight that you forgot to mention that he is also the one who will come to judge the world, the living and the dead? That he will “tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God”?
It is a mistake to emphasize only God’s love and ignore God’s holiness, righteousness and righteous wrath against sin. You get a distorted view of God and of the gospel when you do that.
I stand on my statement that JESUS CHRIST is the perfect revelation of ‘Who God Is’.
And Christiane if you think Jesus Christ reveals that God is the same God of the Muslims who deny the Trinity than you are believing in a Jesus Christ that is NOT the Jesus Christ of the Gospel.
And as the perfect revelation of Who God is, He reveals that God is not the fake, pretend, made up god of the muslims.
There you go again being all mean stating TRUTH and all that.
Bess, you hate mongerin’ fear monger!!!! Next thing, you’ll be saying that mormons don’t worship the same god or jesus as Christians and that their faith won’t get them to heaven. That can’t be true–they’re such nice people. (snicker, larf)
Did Dave Miller ever answer my question? Does a person who believes all roads lead to God like the Shack guy actually believe in the same Christ of the Gospel? My Bible must be missing those verses “if you sincerely believe in the god of your choice….” and “you are so mean to insist in the exclusivity of Christ.”
HEY DAVE MILLER? Would you allow the author of the Shack to teach from the pulpit of your church?
Bess, I never saw your question.
I have addressed “The Shack” here and here.
No, he would not speak at my church. I consider him a false prophet who teaches a false gospel about a false god. I know that others disagree with that assessment.
Thank you. Soooo now do you get a hint of understanding of why some people are accused of being Universalist when they believe that the Shack is no big deal and that it is possible for people to actually come to salvation through the teachings of the Shack? Can someone stomp and rage “I’m not a universalist and at the same time not call the Shack heresy?” Brick Wall?
No, Bess. I have had a lot of interactions with the people to whom I believe you refer. I disagree with the decision to invite the Mr. Young to speak and would not do it. And I have not been shy about disagreeing with either Wade or Debbie.
Neither of them is a Universalist. Of that I am convinced.
But promoting heresy by giving it a platform is not a brick wall? So you believe someone can promote the heresy of universalism and not be a universalist themselves? Or is it that there has to be a certain amount of heresy before you build your wall?
Dave
I knew you would uneqivocally say that you wouldn’t have someone who teaches false doctrine like Wm Paul into your church to preach. Here’s my only disagreement, I think, with you. I think what you associate, you support. For example, there were folks who were conservative inerrantists who left/were ran out of the SBC. Now, they would say they were not liberals because they were conservative and believed in inerrancy. However, they were willing to cooperate and fellowship with people who rejected inerrancy. In my mind, if they are willing to compromise with a rejecter of inerrancy, they don’t really believe that doctrine.
Same thing with that pile of tripe that is The Shack. If I have that man in my church to preach, I either agree with his doctrine or do not consider it false enough to stand against. Either one of thsoe is a problem as far as I’m concerned.
So do I count people as “guilty by association”? Yes. And I’m ok with that. However, I must not be that bad. I’m still friends with you and you’re a Yankees fan. LOL
And the question Dave Miller is where is the wall. If the Shack is heresy, or as you say a false Gospel by a false prophet then can you fellowship with those who promote it and deny that it is a false Gospel just cuz you want to be nice and “oh they really claim not to be universalist” Is it their words or their actions that matter?
The placement of the Brick Wall is tricky. Here’s my thing, I don’t believe in secondary separation.
I would not allow William Paul Young to speak in my church. But I would not break fellowship with a church just because they did.
Let’s argue, for a second, that I am completely right about “The Shack.” Its heresy – gospel-denying heresy! I put up that Brick Wall. I did. I took the book out of the church library. I have addressed from the pulpit why I think the Shack is wrong and should not be considered Christian.
But (and let’s not beat around the bush – We’re talking about Wade and Emmanuel, Enid) Wade feels differently and invited Young to speak. I think he was wrong. He shouldn’t have done it.
But, Wade holds, as best I know, to every one of the doctrines I will spell out as fundamental doctrine. So, while I disagree with his choice about William Young, I am not going to practice secondary separation. I am not going to advocate disfellowshipping the Enid church because they made a decision I don’t like.
Want my opinion about Young? I’ve posted it.
Do I disagree with Wade’s decision to invite him to speak? Absolutely. Strongly.
Does the fact that Wade sees Young differently than I do necessarily make him a heretic or mean I should move to have messengers from his church not seated at the SBC next year? I don’t think so.
To the best of my knowledge, Wade affirms inerrancy, the proper Theology Proper, and the other views I will share. So, I’m going to disagree with him but not disfellowship from him.
Ok, but what if someone promoted the Shack AND they were a Red Sox fan? 🙂
Well, Joe, of course that would make them a heretic!
And Dave for the record and to stop this round of topics, if more people would disagree as you have on this, I could live with it easily. It’s why I have a problem with walls. It sometimes divides and separates where it shouldn’t. You are correct on my view of the Cross as well as Wades. Christ alone is the way, but I think we add on too many stipulations as some have on this thread. I hope by exposing myself where it was deeply painful to do so, some may at least come to a better understanding of my love for this book, even if they disagree. At the risk of more stoning, this book saved my life(literally) and the lives of my family who were going through a tremendous amount of grief, questioning God and why this all happened. Something I’ve never experienced before and hope to never experience again.
Debbie, you come in and attack with “you didn’t even read the book” and then it’s “oh if people were only nice” oh puleeeeze.
Debbie, that is the conundrum of “The Shack.” I am convinced its theology is poison, but it seems that many hurting people have drawn strength from it.
But I cannot get past what I believe is grossly false theology about God and about the gospel. So, I do not recommend the book and I have told people why.
On the other hand, I’m glad it helped you.
Dave,
I wanted to again thank you for this series of thoughts on defining where we ought to be, and where we should not be. I find it Biblical, and written with devotion to serving people who want to follow Jesus.
I guess some people have a problem with the imagery of a wall, but I don’t. Jesus often used analogy to get the message across.
Out in the debauchery of television, there is a family show that never fails to share the gospel and I’ve no doubt they have built walls around themselves and those they love, because right living is something they cherish. They are an unusual bunch. I think they maybe too legalistic in some of their standards, but you never, ever hear them out there being ugly about people who choose a different path. They are clear in what they believe and proclaim, but they won’t tell you aren’t a Christian if you have slightly different view. They love to encourage each other, take part in government, are law abiding, but most of all THEY LOVE JESUS! (not shouting) What is their reward for Godly living? The vilest comments possible that range from they are polluting the earth, to they are abusing their children by not encouraging their kids to dress provacatively, swear and use the Lord’s name in vain. I don’t get it myself. But I’ll admit to be a little off myself at times. The point is, there is a place for walls to protect the brethren, but not for assaulting others verbally with righteous indignation. There is a difference and I think you identified it very well.
Merry Christmas.
Thanks, Katie. thoughtful comments are appreciated on some streams more than others!!
To all, I do not think it is too much to ask that we have a discussion of the post – the question of brick walls and the discussion of the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man.
When these comment threads descend to personal insults, people do not want to have serious discussions of biblical doctrines. Please, address the topic, not the personality and character qualities (or lack thereof) of other people.
I know, its the other person’s fault. But you be the bigger person. Let it go. Address the issues!
Well it’s your fault for naming names. I was speaking in generalities.
And to continue this discussion I’ve copied something from upstream I’d like you to address – notice no names.
And the question Dave Miller is where is the wall. If the Shack is heresy, or as you say a false Gospel by a false prophet then can you fellowship with those who promote it and deny that it is a false Gospel just cuz you want to be nice and “oh they really claim not to be universalist” Is it their words or their actions that matter?
I just want us to focus on the subject, Bess, not on our personal animosities with others in blogdom. Its a fine line.
I answered your question above. And really, Bess, do you think there was anyone who DIDN’T know whom you addressed? Wade has been pretty open about his decision to invite Young, so there’s no point in beating around the bush.
No Dave, you didn’t answer the question – if someone promotes universalism is that a place for a brick wall – can you really promote universalism and still declare yourself not a universalist? I think that’s pretty germane to the subject of brick walls.
So Dave, we’re not allowed to talk about the Shack and whether we should build walls against those who promote a false gospel because everyone thinks of ol Wade?
Bess, here’s my answer.
If someone promotes universalism, that’s when the Brick Wall is required. Thus, I would not invite Wm Young to speak.
I would disagree with the decision to invite YOung to speak. But I do not practice secondary separation.
That’s my answer.
Bess, I’m asking you to address the issues and not to focus on a couple of people. That’s the request I made.
Dave, believe it or not I could care less what the people in Enid think. I’m asking you because the Shack is a real life example of “where do you build the wall” Now I can’t control what anyone thinks. I didn’t bring up anybody’s name and I was still attacked for “spreading gossip” about a book I “didn’t read” while you are the good guy here who can call the Shack a false gospel by a false prophet. I was very specifically addressing you Dave Miller not anyone else.
So let’s forget about personalities here and let me see if I get this straight. You say “if someone promotes universalism” that’s a brick wall, but if you give the pulpit over to the man who teaches universalism how can you then declare that you are not promoting universalism?
I would point out, for the record, Bess, that you are not the prosecuting attorney and I am not on the witness stand. I answered the questions and if you are not satisfied, I really can’t help that.
Dave, I didn’t see where you answered the question up stream. Sorry if you feel like it’s a prosecution to try to get you to clarify your comments using a real life example with the Shack.
Grief and God’s ways of providing relief from it are a deep mystery. A minister once said, “God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.” Such being the case, one might want to use more gentleness concerning those who suffer from terrible losses. Noting shortcomings of various works is a part of discernment. Saying the right thing at the wrong time or in the wrong manner can be just as devestating as saying something totally wrong. Words fitly spoken are like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
I want to state for the record that I haven’t disagreed with any of Dave Miller’s points, but rather how he is setting up of illustration. I disagreed with the analogy of brick walls while suggesting using foundational imagery. I think he’s very much spot on in his points.
Now, for The Shack, it’s a good book. I read it with the mindset of reading a piece of fiction, like a Frank Peretti or JRR Tolkien book. I never once viewed The Shack as a source of divine inspiration or theological teachings. That is where the problem lies, people read books like this or the feel good ramblings of self help books authored by pastors such as Ed Young, Jr. and Joel Osteen, and they look to these books for their spiritual nourishment. It’s candy and too much is unhealthy.
It reminds me of the book, “I kissed dating goodbye” which was a good book to model your personal dating habits after. However, at my college, the students took it way too far and too many people were left hurt, angry, and cynical of the BSU (and the church) which had allowed this book to supplant good, solid biblical principles. It actually resulted in the BSU losing a significant portion of its active students. If the book had been viewed as someone suggestions on what had worked for them, rather than almost canonical scripture, I am certain that almost none of what happened would have transpired.
With all this said, I’m not against The Shack being sold in LifeWay bookstores. I am against it being the basis of a scriptural study unless that study was designed to highlight Universalism and the dangers that are inherent and unbiblical.
One of my favorite pastors to listen to is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I like him because he thinks outside the box, tries new ways to convey his sermons, and causes me to be Berean about his teachings, which some of them I disagree with very strongly. I have to say that my knowledge of doctrines and scripture are much stronger having listened to his teachings. I also have to say that I doubt I would encourage my pastor to invite Rob Bell to speak at my home church. There are just too many deviations in foundational (or brick wall if you like) doctrines that would confuse believers that haven’t been as educated about what we believe and why we believe it.
Dave, like I’ve said earlier, I love this stuff you’re putting out right now. Thanks again.
Thanks, bill. Interesting perspective.
“…. doctrines that would confuse believers that haven’t been as educated about what we believe and why we believe it.”
And that was a huge part of the problem with everyone saying “it’s just fiction” Too many people can’t discern the errors and many miss the universalism entirely.
Um…
My statement was in regards to Rob Bell and some of his Emerging Church doctrines, not your discussions about The Shack.
I don’t mind you quoting me, please quote me in context.
Good luck on that one, Bill!
Dr. Willingham and bill talk about language etc. I’ve never seen a pool table in a Baptist church. No one has any idea who new people are that show up or their purpose. I had a good friend that was a good pilot that just died and he had been in Joliet. He was a rough talking guy and could back himself up. Just to give someone an idea about who they might be “slamming” was the guy who tahght me how to fly. Bud Shoup whose father was a Baptist Pastor in Germantown, Md., a gifted pilot awarded The Distingquished Flying Cross in WWII flying bombers, owned a lot of farms, raced Harley-Davidsons, made moonshine for his own purposes in a farm basement and this guy would go out of his way to make sure you knew you had insulted him. I expected SBC VOICES to be courteous, God fearing and while up-holding the spirit of debate to slam the door shut on ideas that didn’t match up. I used my best language to try and quiet some down but they didn’t understand. Maybe a form email to new Bloggers explaining what SBC VOICES is composed of, what its purpose is and the guidelines it “tries” to enforce and how. That way some young girl, wife or rough neck doesn’t get his socks knocked off unexspectably *>#. Only an idea but that has been the worst part of coming here in that I couldn’t answer back in my own vocabulary the way I’m comfortable to insult someone that didn’t know me that “dissed” me. On the street it has a name.
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
Christianne,
While speaking to some Muslim youth, Pope John Paul II said: ‘We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection’ .
Now it is my understanding that as long as the Pope says these things while is actually a Pope, it is considered the official stance of the church.
Houston… we have a problem!
Sorry to get off topic, but that’s not technically correct thinking.
Technically, the pope must be speaking “ex cathedra” (“from the chair [of Peter]”) in his role as teacher of the church in matters of faith and morals in order to be pronouncing official church dogma. And the big bonus is that popes almost never speak “ex cathedra” (at least according to Catholics). In fact, in the entire history of the Catholic church, her thologians only unanimously recognize TWO times – the declaration of the Assumption of Mary, and the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. And the fact that ther eis not unanimous consent among the thousands of other proclamations should tell you something.
In reality, this happens to be the “out” that all Catholics I have confronted with this take at one time or another. They can always claim, even when the Pope uses words that would indicate he is speaking “ex cathedra”, that he in fact, was not speaking “ex cathedra” at that moment.
So, if Christianne is a good Catholic, she’d say “But he was not speaking as a teacher of the whole church at that time, and he was simply speaking what he believes as a private theologian.” And depending on which Roman Catholic theologian you talked to, she could either be right or wrong.
Not that I buy any of that for one instant, but there are actually times when the pope speaks and he is not speaking for the entire Catholic church. However, popes have contradicted councils, other popes, and church teachings for the entire history of the Roman Catholic church, and no Catholic is concerned that what they believe today may be declared heretical tomorrow.
Jeff,
I’m not at all sure this is off-topic, but trust that Dave will set me right if he thinks so, and I’ll go with what he says because he seems to completely fair. This part of the ‘walls’ seems to deal with the nature of God and specifically the Triune God.
Yes, I’m aware of the non reasoning of reason of the Catholic Church. But I do have a copy of the catechism and have questioned many Catholics on their definition of “ex cathedra”. They seem to be all over the place on this. I have spent enough times at Catholic Answers to know that these folks simply can’t deal with anything that seems contradictory. In fact, one of James White’s bloggers identified 7 (perhaps 8) Popes who clearly did not accept the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. Augustine was first. And he had the exact references to prove it. It seems that Rome has an escape hatch everywhere. In some ways I think they do have a little precedent on their side. I think most people have views at 30 that can change significantly at 50. That is unless, you are Martin Luther. Then, nothing you say after the 95 thesis could have possibly been different. I’m sometimes amused at this whole system that claims to be the one “true” church because only they can understand the difficulties of scripture for 2000 years. They’ve really only defined two doctrines and those seem to be shaky ground. I don’t know how they have gotten away with this type of schizophrenic thinking for so long, but instilling fear in people goes a long way. I’ve seen some of their materials that they teach to adults. Oh my, if you miss Mass on Sunday, and don’t get into to make your confession, before a bus runs over you, you are toast. I guess the GRACE that God extended to you, is simply eradicated. Very sad.
On the other hand, I do think that some Catholics are saved. We can have all kinds of extraneous beliefs but if truly we accept the Grace, bestowed upon us and love the Lord will all our might, I don’t see anything that necessary disqualifies them from salvation. While Catholics think they must do good works, protestants believe that if our faith is sincere, we will seek to do good works by obedience and our lives will show the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Catholics are every bit as divided as protestants but getting them to admit that would require yet another escape hatch. I hear Gerry Matatics has found a new one. In his view, no one has spoken authority in the church since Vatican II. Father Stravinskas has also found a new one. If he doesn’t like you quoting him exactly and in context, he’ll let his lawyers set you straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXeb-x63wGI
Seriously, I don’t have any problem with Christianne, I’m just a little incredulous that a Pope could say in public that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. It’s simply not true. Even a Muslim wouldn’t agree.
Great comments Jeff.
Good Morning Chief Katie:
The reply I gave was deleted. It did contain three site references.
My advice for anyone who wants to understand ‘ex cathedra’ or the work of the ‘magisterium’ is to go to the Vatican web site. The formal catechism of the Church is there.
For info concerning the Jewish, the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican positions on the Abrahamic faiths, you can google up sites that can help. If I list them here, as I did before, this comment will likely be deleted as my previous one was deleted.
Well, you could always link to a YouTube video of monks chanting or something.
Be peaceful, L’s (snicker)
Christianne, Seriously, it’s not personal. I think that Dave deletes what he thinks he needs to. I moderate a huge commercial board, and in my estimation, Dave is very tolerant. I’d not put up with some of the mean stuff posted here at all. It’s okay to have a different opinion and state why, even it’s based on emotion. But to deliberately belittle someone doesn’t add anything to the conversation and shows us in a terrible light to any non-believers who might read these forums.
I have the most recent catechism and I’ve been to the Vatican website countless times. The words that describe “ex cathedra” are really pretty meaningless in my mind. If the Pope says something while he is a Pope, then he is either giving his opinion or revelation from God as he sees it, or he is not. So either Pope John Paul II was telling the truth or he wasn’t. I don’t think it’s that complicated. In the end, all we have is our word and THE WORD. In this case, the Pope was wrong, dead wrong. Christians (that means followers of the Triune God of which Christ is one of three parts) do not follow any God that does not have this makeup. Allah does not, so really, it’s a no brainer. “Ex cathedra is really meaningless, it just conveniently covers up when fallible people make fallible pronouncements since your church says they cannot make a fallible pronouncement.
I really do respect your right to hold to your own deeply held beliefs. I don’t understand it, but I can respect it.
I’m not angry at you, nor do I want to treat your faith as something akin to the Branch Davidians. As I said earlier, I do believe that some Catholics are saved. But what really makes me sad, is that I read that on Pope John Paul’s deathbed, he still wasn’t sure he would go to heaven. I find such thinking utterly depressing. How alone he must have been because he could not count on his Savior to keep His word. What’s the point? Perhaps he really did think the Muslims worshipped the same God, because in Islam, the scales determine your eternal destination.
God Bless
Christianne, I usually just read here and only post from time to time, so I don’t have your experience. I can only respond from what I’ve observed. I admit, I could be wrong.
As far as the Abrahamic faiths, I think it sounds very tolerant. But the Bible is clear. No man comes to the Father except through Jesus. Things that are different are not the same. It doesn’t really matter what the Pope says. Jesus set the standard.
First of all, and I’m going to type this really slowly so it’s easier for you to read, nothing has changed. The quote that you reference from two years ago does not reflect any sort of difference. I never suggested or impllied in any way, shape, form, or fashion that people who held to heretical views (or cooperated with people who do) deserved to be heard or respected. Not once did I say that and just because Big Mama Weave says that’s what I meant when he linked that comment on Debbie’s blog does not prove that is what I meant. NOTHING has changed. That statement was talking about people who hold to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith that have differences of opinion on matters which we can agree to disagree on–picket fence type doctrines–not on the fundementals of the faith.
Further, no one has influenced me. As far as my being harsh with people–hmm, let’s see, who is it I am harsh with? Let’s think here–well, it would be those of the moderate/liberal persuasion. In other words, people that deserve it. But let’s take that one step further–would it be ok for me to be hateful if I linked to YouTube videos and told them to “Be Peaceful”? You’re as hateful as I am–you’re just not upfront about it.
Joe, someone told you it was ‘okay’ to be hateful.
They were wrong.
Again, you;’re just as hateful as I am. You just sugar coat your venom.
Joseph, no gold star for you!
Again, may I point out that I am behaving and not responding to snarky comments that are really meant as an attack.
Joseph??? The only time I got called Joseph was when my mom was really ticked off at me when I was a kid. LOL
Well see there ….I bet you missed out on a lot of chances for gold stars! Davey bear’s going start awarding them to those of us who behave. I’m thinking of becoming a tattletale too cuz I think that less of an evil then being a whiner.
Just to keep it interesting Jesus did say, “You must hate your mother and father, etc.”
Just when you think your interpretation is rock solid and your case is airtight . . . 🙂
You’ll get a kick out of this one. Someone emailed me and asked me to delete this comment because you were advocating hating your parents.
Odd place to be in when I’m being asked to delete Jesus’ words on a Christian/Baptist blog.
This is supposed to be under Frank and Larry’s comment 176, but will not appear there – not sure why.
Not sure why? Because blog comment streams are neither inerrant nor infallible.
Oh, wait, wrong post for that comment.
Happy Holidays.
And that was supposed to go under Dave’s comment about wondering why his comment didn’t go where it should. I’m going to quit paying the monthly fees to be here.
I didn’t write the email, but I could have easily. He is promoting hate and that is not at all what Christ meant. Scripture interprets scripture Frank and Larry. The correct context is in comparison for their love for Christ, it looks like hate. Not to actually hate their mother or father. That is what one gets for not taking the whole Bible to translate properly. Good grief.
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Must have been someone with no sense at all. No one with sense would make such a statement or say that they could have made such a statement. Pretty clear what SSBN was saying. Duh!!!!
I find it hard to believe that someone would do that. But I did email you to show me where in the Bible Jesus spoke about hateing your parents so I could better understand the context of what he said , and have not heard a reply online or off. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 14:26
I didn’t ask that those comments be deleted either. Not nice to ” add to or take away” from scriptures. I can tellyou where to find that written.
F&L, So we might better educate ourselves, what scriptures contain those thoughts. The games people play.
For the record, Christiane, any time you put more than one link, it goes into moderation. Then I have the choice of whether to put it up or not.
I chose not to post your links.
As I said, DAVID, I understand, and I have no problem with that.
It’s not knowing what is ‘appropriate’ that is confusing, when someone asks me about a particular topic.
Reading through this convuluted string I saw something that really shocked me. A person who professes to be a Christian actually said that she was so grief-stricken she could not read the Bible so she sought out “The Shack” for solace.
This person often boasts about a great love and devotion for the Bible (an errant Bible howbeit), but finds solace in a “bad work of fiction.”
I think this type of post proves pretty radically that we definitely need to build “brick walls of solid doctrine.” This person’s faith seems to be like a feather in a tornado.
Address the post, please.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. If you have never been there, then thank God you haven’t. It is a horrible place to be. And yes, God understood perfectly.
As a result my faith is stronger than ever and I love Him and reading the Bible even more. God was always in control even of my grief. It was no surprise to him.
Frank and Larry,
I’m not sure if I like you, but I love ya man!!! 🙂
Dave,
I’d love to comment on this post, but how many ways can I say, “I agree with you” and not become repetitive?
So I’m just gonna comment on all the comments that don’t comment on the post that you want us all to focus our comments on while we comment on everyone else’s comments.
Hey Dave,
How about building a brick wall at the corner of Boyson Road and Council Street to keep those heretics in Hiawatha out of Cedar Rapids? 🙂
In fact, it could be built right next to that church!
I’d be a little more concerned about the Robins raiders.
Or the Marion marauders.
Nice alliteration! You prepping a sermon? 🙂
If you don’t alliterate, the Baptist Police will arrest you.
So alliteration isn’t even Brick Wall, it’s an Iron Bar doctrine?
Good to know.
Drifting back towards the topic:
I’ll go ahead and use the names and example mentioned. I wouldn’t want The Shack used as a Sunday School book either, although I also wouldn’t go for the “Andy Griffith Show Bible Study” either. I would, if I were in Enid, gladly work with EBC and Wade Burleson in community ministry such as food pantry and needs ministry, and if we were doing a community Thanksgiving or Easter service, I would welcome him preaching it. Would I invite him for a week-long series? I don’t know. On the one hand, I would trust him if he said he’d stay on definite Biblical texts, but I don’t know that I would want to invite someone that I thought I needed to ask for that statement. Since I only really know him from media and blog, I don’t think I can adequately evaluate that. He’s stood for some good stuff and stood with some bad stuff, so I’ll stay on the fence unless I meet him personally and have a clearer opinion. Part of our problem, I think, is that we don’t make these decisions based on personal relationships but on public persona. That’s probably another discussion entirely.
As to working with non-Christian faith groups, I’m very leery of that. It’s not a major issue in this tiny town, but here’s the question that bugs me: Is the Islamic Center using the interfaith group’s assistance to further their own religion? If so, I cannot allow the resources of the church to go into that group, whether financial, material, or simply the time the church compensates their pastor for. The church rightfully should expect me to spend my time further the cause of Christ, not supporting, even silently by presence, a religion that is opposed to Christ. Same is true of any other religion or cult.
Now, to show how wide I will accept, I hosted the community service when the local Catholic priest preached. It cost me a lot of effort to calm down angry deacons(beforehand, and then they skipped the service), but he did a great job, and preached a Biblical sermon. Pointed folks to Christ, salvation by grace, and the need to live by the Word of God. Had it not been for the collar, you’d have though he was a Baptist. Does that mean I would merge the two churches? No way, because once you get further in the sermon series, trouble will erupt. But the first one was fine.
I enjoy listening to Dr. Johnny Hunt. Would you feel the same way about him? He is scheduled to go on a “Cruise Without A Cause” May 30-June 4 2011. The guest speakers are:
John Hagee
Jentezen Franklin
Bishop Paul S and Pastor Debra Morton
http://www.inspirationcruises.com/christian-cruises/cruise-with-a-cause
to name a few. HT: Wartburg Watch
I’ve only heard Dr. Hunt a couple of times, and when he preached, he preached the Word. I wouldn’t take that cruise, for a couple of reasons, but the relevant one hear is that, as I recall from reading books of some mentioned, their theology goes beyond what I find Biblical, and it’s not worth investing my time and money to learn more of what I’d consider unbiblical.
Would I invite him to preach where I pastor? I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it, because I’m far smaller than where any of the famous people would go. Doesn’t seem like it would matter.
Just clicked that link. Interesting concept—but too far off-topic to discuss much here if there’s any way it’s a good idea.
It is easy to see how GBA (guilt by association) can get out of hand. I like Dave’s response about secondary separation.
People need to get over The Shack. Good grief, are we the fiction police now? If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I suspect at least part of its popularity is due to the rabid response to it in some corners. Anyone remember The Last Temptation of Christ? A dull and insipid movie that would have died a quick and quiet death but for the hue and cry from evangelicals.
My brick wall is proponents of the prosperity gospel who are making inroads and leading people astray not only in the US but all over the world. This prosperity gospel is akin to the Gnostics that Paul had to deal with.
They more than any other group pervert everything that Christ said, including moderates ( for Joe ) yet are out there as evangelicals spewing their false gospel over the airwaves.
I really don’t care about a book like the shack, his book may be heretical, but it is fiction and it’s reach is very narrow. I personally couldn’t get past a couple chapters. A few years ago we were all worked up over the davinci code, who even remembers that now and it was a much better read with a broader audience
This is what happens when we put our differences aside. This is what I’ve always been talking about. From Ed Stetzer:
http://www.edstetzer.com/2010/12/bartow-god-at-work-in-the-esta.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Edstetzercom+%28EdStetzer.com%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
No seeming brick walls here.
This is good stuff. It might be interesting to know that in addition to the Ryman Auditorium being started by a river boat captain so was the King Ranch in south Texas by a lone man Captain King on horseback who built railroads down to get his Santa Gertrudis cattle and who first built churchs along that line that became towns. The YMCA partnered with the Federal Government and King to build Librarys and passed legislation which permitted librarians to issue ANY book to our soldiers stationed there on the border. YMCA has grown and maintains their Christian values today by making sure none are left out. Energy in the right direction. “No seeming brick walls here” Good post.
Any chance you guys could address the topic, so that I won’t have to continue to take the time to delete comments?
Here’s where I come down: Christiane, you promote a false gospel on this site – a gospel that is contrary to the Bible and would send people to eternal hell if they believed it. I hope you will continue to hear the truth so that some day, you might come to Christ in faith and be saved.
Everyone else: Do you really think that badgering and insulting Christiane is going to cause her to consider the claims of Christ? Can you insult someone into the kingdom? Christiane needs to hear the true gospel and believe. Insulting her is not going to help the Spirit in the process of drawing her to Christ, is it?
So, in the words of the great comic, Bob Newhart: Stop it!
Christiane, you have to understand that this is a site where we believe the Bible and we believe the gospel – that Jesus died for our sins and rose again to be Lord of all. We believe Jesus is the only hope of salvation for all mankind.
If you want to understand who we are, you are welcome. If you are here to undermine the gospel and to attempt to get us to change our minds, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Others, stop it! If you want to answer Christiane’s false teachings, fine. But the personal insults need to stop. She is right when she says that many in the comment streams here exhibit little of the fruit of the Spirit in our discussions with one another or with her. She is wrong about the gospel and about a lot of doctrine, but she is right about that. How can you expect the Holy Spirit to use you if your words are designed to belittle?
So, everyone. Merry Christmas – and STOP IT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1g3ENYxg9k
DAVID: what is false about the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
DAVID, you are right about telling people that the gifts of the Spirit are a sign that one is ‘in Christ’. There are other signs, too.
But unkindness is not one of them, and I am as guilty as the next one. You are right to call all of us to account.
P.S. You need to enjoy Christmas more. Don’t forget how much you loved this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU
And for JOE, this:
the early Christians greeted one another with a phrase:
‘The Lord be with you’.
The reply was ‘And with your spirit.’
So that is my hope for you: that the Lord be with your spirit, Joe.
Christiane, I am afraid that you only read part of what I said.
Psst Dave Miller! Do I get a gold star for behaving and not responding in kind?
Bess and Joe, I do appreciate that both of your answers were directed at principles and truths – truths that are worth defending even if they offend.
It is interesting that in Galatians 5:11, Paul warned against those who would remove the “offense of the gospel.” The gospel message of sin, depravity and salvation ONLY through Christ is found offensive by those who do not believe it. But to those who believe it, it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes!
L’s there is nothing false about the Gospels. Your interpretation is false. A proper understanding of the Gospel will not lead anyone to the conclusion that it is possible for Muslims to worship the same God as the God of the Gospels.
Well, BESS
I don’t see how people can get around the facts that The Cave of the Patriarchs (buriel place of Abraham, etc) is BOTH a place of worship for the Jews and a mosque for Muslims.
Sadly, there was massacre there, where an extremist-fundamentalist Israeli killed many Muslims at prayer. When the perpetrator of the massacre was tried for his crimes, this was announced:
“In the United Kingdom, Chief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks stated,
Such an act is an obscenity and a travesty of Jewish values. That it should have been perpetrated against worshipers in a house of prayer at a holy time makes it a blasphemy as well… Violence is evil. Violence committed in the name of God is doubly evil. Violence against those engaged in worshiping God is unspeakably evil.”
The point is: the people of Israel worship the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham. The people who are Muslim and descend from Abraham’s son Ishmael, worship the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham and Ishmael. Both pray at this sacred site together (when they are not killing each other there). The Jews understand that the Muslims have a right to pray there also.
This place is mentioned in the Bible, it is called ‘The cave of Mechpelah (Genesis 23). Abraham purchased the cave and the field of Mechpelah from the Hittites, and insisted on paying for it:
“The importance of Abraham’s purchase of the field in Machpelah, which is worded in technical legal terms, lies in the fact that it gave his descendants their first, though small, land rights in the country that God had promised the patriarch they would one day inherit as their own. ”
I’m sorry, Bess, the history of the Bible and of the people of Israel and the Arabic people of that region is bitter, but it is intertwined, and they share holy sites.
Neither the Jewish people, nor the Muslims accept Christ as the Messiah, but they both worship together at the Cave of Mechpelah, mentioned in Holy Scripture.
I feel sorry for those who have no understanding of what this means, because you can’t take that away from them. They are there now praying, and have been doing that for a very long time.
Rather than belittling those who disagree with you, Christiane, could you answer the questions I asked above?
Let me try it this way, Christiane.
No one here doubts that the Jews and most Arabs (though not all Muslims) descend from a common ancestor – Abraham. We do not disagree that there is a grave (though probably not the real one) that both groups venerate.
But that does not make the way of the Jews or the way of Islam true or saving faiths.
You take about 50 leaps of logic between “they have common ancestors” to “their religions are equally valid.” That is not just a logical leap – its a logical quantum leap.
Actually, neither Judaism or Islam are saving faiths – both fail to approach God in Jesus Christ and therefore are false religions. Do they have some truth in them? Of course – especially Judaism, which shares the OT with us. But they rejected Jesus and therefore walked a path of spiritual impotence.
Christiane, I am sorry for people who can have all the knowledge in the world and still miss the ONE TRUE GOD who is the FATHER of JESUS CHRIST THE LORD. There is only one way to the ONE TRUE GOD and that is through JESUS HIS ONE AND ONLY SON. You can write and write, post video after video. Condescendingly feel sorry for those who don’t share your “knowledge” but the FACT, the TRUTH is that there is only ONE GOD. You can worship HIM in a cave but you CANNOT deny HIS SON and truly KNOW HIM. There is ONLY ONE GOD and HE is not the little g god of anyone who DENYS HIS SON. And to DENY THE SON is to DENY THE ONE TRUE GOD and to DENY TRUTH.
DAVID,
The question asked of me was why would my Church or I think that the Abrahamic faiths worship the SAME God.
I offer the Genesis verse and the geographic, political, and historical background concerning the Mechpelah cave for your information.
I don’t argue with anyone here about their decision’s concerning their own beliefs, but no one can remove Genesis 23, or the Mechpelah Cave, or the intertwined history of that region from those people. My Church and the Orthodox Church also share holy sites with the Jews. Of course, we don’t say they have a ‘different God’. We can’t. We pray in the same holy places. For us, that’s the way it is.
No offense intended, DAVID, but I commented because I wanted to respond to those who confronted me concerning how it can be that we understand the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths the way we see them.
And it has been explained to you over and over L’s that you are promoting a false gospel that leads straight to hell. Anyone who denies JESUS is denying the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.
And Christiane you need to understand that it is a Christian’s obligation to defend the ONE TRUE FAITH which is only found in CHRIST JESUS. It’s not hateful or mean to try to point out that your way is a way straight to HELL. It’s not politically correct to simply say your way is leading straight to HELL, but TRUE BELIEVER’s in CHRIST cannot simply say “oh well whatever you believe as long as your sincere.” You are believing and promoting a LIE.
David, you have written that I ‘said’ or held certain beliefs. I don’t know how to say this, but either I am not making myself clear (a possibility) or you have difficulty understanding what I do write (another possibility).
My comment about the Mechpelah Caves was an important one written for Bess, so that she would, if interacting with Orthodox, or Catholic, or Jewish, or Anglican, etc., and hear spoken or written about ‘the Abrahamic faiths’ and the caves of the Patriarchs;
she would have some background info that she did not have before. Then, she might be able to enter into a dialogue in a way where I would not need to feel sorry for her.
I guess I was wrong to make an effort, but I thought it was the right thing to do, to give that background. MOST of mainline Christianity already knows about it. I wanted to share it with Bess. She can ignore it, reject it, call it false, research it, read Genesis 23, or do nothing about it. But I have tried to help her. And it is important that I tried.
I already know about the Abrahamic faiths Christiane so no need to feel sorry for me. It’s important that we are trying to share with you the SAVING FAITH that can only be found in CHRIST JESUS. The person that Christians reading this thread are feeling sorry for is you Christiane because you are blatently refusing the ONLY SAVING FAITH and REJECTING the ONE TRUE GOD. But please keep up the insults because I think some are suddenly having their eyes opened to your true heart behind all your pretty false words.
It seems, Christiane, like when someone questions you, you resort to non-sequitors. I’d like an answer to my question.
BESS, I am NOT a fundamentalist.
No offense to anyone who is, but there are people out there, who love and serve the Lord Christ, who are NOT fundamentalists.
I don’t believe in fundamentalism, not in Christianity, nor in Judaism, nor in Islam, nor in the Hindu faith, nor in any of the world’s religions where it shows up.
Christiane, it is not any in way ORTHODOX to claim that Muslims and JEWS are worshipping the same GOD the FATHER of JESUS CHRIST. There is nothing ORTHODOX about your belief. Throw out the insulting terms all you want but you have wandered far off the reservation here.
So L’s are you freely admitting that you are a Universalist? That’s a Yes or NO question L’s
Christiane, you are a master of deflection. Please answer my questions – they should be simple.
Where did I imply that any part of the gospels are untrue?
This is not about Catholicism or fundamentalism. It is about the Bible and about faith in Jesus Christ. It would thrill me if you would stick to the topic.
Do you believe what Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” Do you believe that?
there are people out there, who love and serve the Lord Christ, who are NOT fundamentalists.
No one who loves and serves the Lord Christ says that muslims and mormons worship the God who is the Father of Jesus Christ. Anyone who says that is not a Christian and preaches a false gospel.
I think she’s out searching for a video or some vatican link to try to prove she’s somehow Orthodox.
See, here’s the thing, Bess. I think it is perfectly acceptable to question Christiane and to hold her accountable for the doctrines she advances here – those doctrines which I believe are contrary to the gospel.
But I want to stay away from ridicule. There’s a fine line between confrontation and belittling.
The answer for false doctrine is truth.
Kay Dave! But do I get a gold star for ignoring all the insults she’s hurled against me tonight?
This work?
Oooh that’s pretty! See now I have incentive to work for more gold stars. You know it’s a sucessful childrearing tip to reward your misbehaving children when you catch them behaving well. But between me and you Dave, I’m not sure Joe’s behavior is up to gold star status yet! But maybe my example will encourage young JoeBwon.
Good night David and others. Merry Christmas if I don’t “see” you before the holiday.
I talked to the jolly old guy in the red suit. Joe is getting nothing but coal and switches.
I love JOE. I’m making him a fire-proof dragon suit, so he won’t set himself on fire when he goes into his act. He’s a ‘work in progress’. Be patient with him. God works in mysterious ways. Joe is the proof. These things take time.
Nothing. However, none of your points (that mormons and muslims worship God, the Father of Jesus Christ, that God will save people through Jesus without them realizing that Christ was the one saving them until the get to heaven, that only fundies talk about a false gospel vs a true gospel, a false christ vs a true Christ) are found in or supported by the gospels–or any other scripture.
Joe, I think that’s what some would call, salvation by association. LOL. For goodness sakes, the Mormons are polytheists and believe Jesus is the brother of Satan. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves, Jesus is the only way. That’s why I’m not big on guilt by association. God will hold us all responsible for our own salvation and He told us the only way to be redeemed. The rest is nonsense.
……..or Salvation by sincerety. If you sincerely believe in god he will show you Jesus even though you won’t necessarily recognize that it’s Jesus He’s actually showing you. As long as you’re sincere Jesus might be ….fill in the prophet of your choice…. because all it takes is a belief in god. Now of course those of us who know the REAL capital G God know that He will lead to ONLY Jesus and when we are convicted of how much of a sinner we truly are and how great of Savior Jesus truly is we understand that there is only ONE WAY, ONE TRUTH, ONE LIFE. GOD capital G and Jesus capital J. Not a made up politically correct all inclusive little g god.
Obviously, nothing is false about the four Gospels. Inerrantists believe that there is nothing false in ALL the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation.
Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father, except through me.”
I believe that is true. Do you?
In addition, I believe Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
I believe Galatians 1:8,-9 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you; let him be accursed…If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
I believe Ephesians 2:8-9 “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves. It is a gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.”
I would be interested in knowing which part of the Gospels you believe that I believe are false?
I’m responding to your comment: “She is wrong about the gospel.”
We have the Holy Gospels in my Church. They are read from at every mass. We STAND UP when they are read. That is not the action of a people who disrespect ‘the Gospel of the Lord’.
I don’t follow certain people’s interpretations of ‘the gospel’ that I think are not ‘in Christ’. For me, the ‘word and spirit’ will go together, when expressed by those who are ‘in Christ.
That is not a fundamentalist teaching, I realize that.
But it is what I believe.
And yes, Christ is ‘The Way’, and ‘The Way’ is the manner in which Christian people are to follow. Christ is the ‘Truth’. Christ IS truth. No distinction there. And Christ IS the Life. All living were made ‘through Him’, and He sustains all life, at every moment, every breath, every heart-beat, He IS the life of all living men and women.
As there are concerns, I will ask some competent individuals to take a look at some of the correspondence here, primarily to see if I have done any thing ‘unethical’ on this blog, in the way I have communicated. I will take that responsibility as a positive step.
Christiane, the “gospel” is not the same as “The Gospels.” The gospel is the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is best defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3 where it tells us that Jesus died for our sins and rose to be Lord of all.
Believing the gospel means committing yourself to two truths:
Jesus died for sinners who deserved hell and were under God’s righteous wrath against sin. He bore our sins in his body – the just for the unjust – and he paid the price and suffered hell for our sins.
Jesus rose again as the one and only Victor over death, sin and hell. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords – the only way to the Father.
All who repent of their sins and place their trust in Christ for salvation are forgiven and given the righteousness of Christ.
None of this takes place because of human works, human merit, religious rituals, the intercession of “Saints” or anything else, but the grace of God.
That is the “Gospel.”
Christiane, the term “Fundalmentalist” is used as a perjorative. You’ve used it perjoratively and then you’ve tried to walk it back by claiming “it’s ok if you’re a Fundalmentalist” And you are still using the term. Why would it be “ok” to be a Fundalmentalist if it weren’t considered a perjorative? So forgive me for being skeptical about your sudden “I want to be ethical” act. You throw your veiled insults and try to hid them among pretty words and pictures, too often to not know exactly what you’re doing. Your use of the word “fundalmentalist” is one example. But me personally I don’t care – be as snarky as you like. But at least don’t be a hypocrite and play all innocent now that you’re getting caught.
There is nothing perjorative, wacky outside the mainstream, unusual, kooky, crazy, fill-in adjective of your choice about the statement “TO DENY THE SON IS THE SAME AS DENYING THE FATHER” this is as mainstream as you get. So anyone who ever claims they are not a Universalist would have to agree with the statement “THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS ONLY FOUND THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. NO ONE WHO DENIES JESUS CHRIST IS WORSHIPPING THE ONE TRUE GOD.”
Salvation is never about WORKS. It doesn’t matter what any one person thinks about another’s behavior. It has nothing to do with a person’s behavior. This doesn’t mean that we can go off and act any ol’ way we like. It is by their “fruit” you will know them. But it is GOD who determines “fruit” not man. GOD looks on the HEART. You cannot determine from a few interactions on the internet what someone’s whole sum of their life “fruit” actually is. I know this will come as a shock to some. I understand that there are people who want to live their life with a “they are mean to me so they must not be saved God’s gonna git ’em for me mentality.” This reveals their heart. No Christian should ever sit back and comfort themselves with the thought that their “enemies” are going to HELL. If ever a person deserved HELL it’s Hitler, but personally I have a difficult time watching old footage of him and thinking “that man is spending an eternity in HELL right this moment.” This wish, this glee that those who “abuse” us are not Christians and on their way to hell is as far away from Christian fruit, and I would say much, much farther away then even someone being “mean” on the internet, as you can possibley get. WE all deserve HELL. None of us is BETTER than another. HELL is eternal.
BUT if you get nothing else Christiane, get this. There is nothing outside the mainstream – it is absolutely MAINSTREAM Christianity to believe that the ONLY WAY to know the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD is by JESUS CHRIST THE SON. Anyone who denys the SON is DENYING the FATHER. It doesn’t matter that they say they believe in the GOD of Abraham and the OT or whatever. It doesn’t matter how sincere or how nice they are. TO DENY the SON is to DENY the FATHER, It doesn’t matter how much you pray or if you pray at a “holy” site. TO DENY the SON is to DENY the FATHER. Nobody who DENIES th SON can possibly KNOW the FATHER.
So forgive me for being skeptical about your sudden “I want to be ethical” act.
I’m sorry, that was so good and so accurate I couldn’t let it be in the comment stream only once.
Be peaceful, L’s. (snort, larf, haa)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5UBeQcgjs
Dave, I am a little late to the thread but your post is dead on and I couldn’t agree more, except to say that there is a time for all things: pointing out the depravity of us all and also for building up those who are blood bought and beat up. Balance, i guess is the key word. Great post.
Christiane, please understand that I don’t care what “your church” says. I am asking you what you think and we are talking about what the Bible says.
Above, you accused me of acting as if some of the gospels were not true. I asked you to clarify your insult/accusation. What part, specifically, of the gospels are you accusing me of not believing?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We gathered here today to mourn the loss of yet another innocent, this thread. We barely had a chance to get to know this innocent child of a thread and now it is gone forever.
Please, join me in mourning the loss of one so young and so full of promise…
I didn’t write the email, but I could have easily. He is promoting hate and that is not at all what Christ meant. Scripture interprets scripture Frank and Larry. The correct context is in comparison for their love for Christ, it looks like hate. Not to actually hate their mother or father. That is what one gets for not taking the whole Bible to translate properly. Good grief.
Wow! Thank God after 32 years of studying the Bible someone pointed this out. What would we do without such wise scholars.
Of course, I’m being “snarky.” I’m afraid my sarcasm was a bit too subtle for your mind. What is interesting is that you actually believe that you have corrected me from years of error.
Had you read a bit more carefully you would have realized that I was actually taking aim at how “some people” throw around the word “hate” making judgments of people they do not even know.
They say “subtlety” is a gift — I guess in your case it did not match up with the gift of interpreting subtlty.
Frank-n-Larry
You MUST stop!!! I almost broke a rib laughing over here. STOP IT!!! LOL
Dave Miller, can I just point out here how extra special good I’m being? Cuz, I know, that you know, that there is so much material here for so much snark that it is really, really hard to resist. Buuuuut in the Spirit of the Season, I am behaving very nicely thank you very much! (well ok it’s a little easy to resist cuz I know that others are probably going to come in and make up for my lack of snark) but they are not going to receive a gold star like me!
Careful, you’ll hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back!!
Well, as Marie Von Trapp would sing:
“I have confidence in confidence you see because most of all I have confidence in ME!”
I’m finding this not responding with snark amusing as I watch the baiting going on. Who’s trying to stir up trouble now I ask you that?
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
BESS, Thank you very much for informing me of Luke 14 : 26. My wife lost her mother about 2 months ago so she requires some additional attention here at Christmas or I would have tried to look it up. Whether or not I would have found this might be in question so thanks for doing the work. I’ve written it down on paper while I believe I understand it , I will look further. MERRY CHRISTMAS
Jack, sorry for the loss in your family. It doesn’t matter how old you are when you lose a parent – you still feel like an orphan. I know the holidays can be difficult after such a loss. You’re a good man for looking after your wife.
The standard interpretaion of the verse in question is that to be a disciple of Jesus we are required to make all our other relationships surbordinate to our relationship to Him so that He is our life and we willingly lay down our life for Him.
I hope you and your wife can find solace and comfort in the season, Jack. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Jack, here, I found Gill’s exposition for you – you can usually type a verse in your search engine and find interesting articles – but be very discerning when doing this becasue there are some crazy things out there.
“……and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37 yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. “
Bess , Again I appreciate your efforts and would like to stop to think more about what you have provided, although I believe I understand, but tomorrow nigt will be my first opportunity. You mentioned the Von Trapps and I got to tell you I was treated as a child by a Dr. Von Trapp in a little town in Rhode Island when I wasn’t even sick. My Grandmother set it up and he figured it out fast. He made out an Rx slip and signed it and said don’t let your Grandmother have this. This dates me further. The family has a ski lodge at Smuggler’s Notch in Stowe, Vermont. About an hours drive from the Burlington airport. Like the German alps. I’ll look harder tomorrow night. Thanks again.
Dave, I’m a little late to this party, but would you deny me membership in your church because I do not affirm the trinity because I do not understand it. It seems that the two hundred or so years prior to any doctrine of a trinity being articulated denies those believers as legitimate members of the body of Christ. BTW, good job.
Tremendously complicated question, Jay. If you did not understand the Trinity, I would try to explain it to you. We all start in different places as we move toward truth and Christlikeness. If someone is “in process” I try to be very patient. The Spirit is an amazing teacher.
If, on the other hand, you are adamant in your belief and you are teaching and advocating a false doctrine – that is something totally different.
The Brick Wall is primarily meant to refer to false teachers, not those with incorrect ideas who need to be taught.
St. Matthew 28:18-20
“18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
19 Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
This is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of Trinitarian belief, and WAS passed down by the Apostles as the words to be said at holy baptism.
“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ has also been said as a prayer from the beginning of Christianity,
and its use continues as a prayer among many Christian people today. It is the first prayer taught to many young Christian children, when they are in their mother’s arms at Church.
The first time the word ‘trinity’ was referred to was in 180 A.D.
But the concept is Apostolic and is biblical.
I about died laughing at Dave’s being requested to delete the very words of Jesus re: hating one’s parents. However, there is one aspect that is not funny about the whole thing, namely, there are people who want to get rid of the Bible due to its supposedly off the wall teachings. What is remarkably sad about the whole affair is that modern man seems to be losing his talent for the discernment of subtlety, a complaint I detected somewhere recently. Dawkins and Hitchen and other atheists are among the people who think there is nothing to the whole Christian Faith, that Christians have nothing while evolutionists have the truth. Having been an Atheist before my conversion, I can appreciate their views, knowing full well that they never lived in Hell on earth and saw it transformed when Heaven moved in. It is Hell on earth, when a child of 5 or 6 sees the adults responsible for his care threatening to murder one another, and the threat is so valid that the dog comes off the floor going for the man’s throat as he will protect the woman. From that picture go to one of the man’s change and praying and weeping after an encounter with the Lord in a hospital. Then see the woman saying, “Well, I can forgive, but I can’t forget!” See also another person seeing that couple as happy people, like a couple of kids, ready to go to town and do things. Once more see the woman, saying with tears in her eyes, “He asked me to forgive him.” That was after his funeral. Heaven came into that Hell and changed it. I know. I was that child who witnessed all the events except where the person saw them as a happy couple. That person was my brother in law.