“You never met a fence you didn’t straddle.”
Those were the words of a “frenemy” – someone I enjoy interacting with in the real world, but usually cross swords with online. We were discussing the Gospel Project breakfast in Houston and the interesting discussion between Ed Stetzer, Eric Hankins, Trevin Wax and Jonathan Akin. Akin articulated a hardcore “Christ-centered” hermeneutic. Eric Hankins advocated a hermeneutic that was more grammatical-historical and emphasized authorial intent more strongly. Trevin seemed, to me at least, to fall in between the two in his approach. I told this other man that I was probably somewhere between Eric Hankins and Trevin Wax on this one. To him, this was a sign of weakness – that I was too wishy-washy to make up my mind. Of course, I countered that he was only able to see black and white and was unable to see any gray scale in between. He viewed my position as a lack of conviction and I viewed his as a lack of appreciation for theological subtlety.
I’m not here to fight that battle – it was playful and no one left with their feelings hurt. But his comment got me thinking, because it is safe to say that my blogging would represent me generally as one in the middle on a lot of issues. Blogging is the only place I’ve ever been accused of being moderate. In real life, words like dogmatic, rigid, and opinionated are more common. I received a t-shirt one time, which I have worn almost completely out.
I’m not opinionated. I’m just always right.
But, in blogging I have advocated for respect, grace and understanding, for unity in spite of our theological convictions. So, that comment got me thinking. Have I lost my passion for truth? Am I wishy-washy? Do I truly lack theological and spiritual conviction? I do not think that is the case. But, as the years have gone on, I have developed a new conviction, one that has moved me toward the middle on a lot of issues.
Most of the issues we argue about are not black and white, but shaded in a palate of grays.
No human-contrived theological system is ever going to corner the market on biblical truth or account for all the biblical facts. These systems have varying degrees of truth, but each is also fraught with imperfection and inadequacy.
- Calvinism has truth, but the Reformed system does not hold all truth. Traditionalists have some truth, but not all truth. They are not, I believe, equally true. I think the Calvinist formulation is much closer to truth than the Traditionalist – that is my understanding. But neither side holds all truth, nor is either side so fundamentally flawed as to fall outside the range of biblical truth.
- Cessationists have some truth (granted – not much), but they have a little. Charismatics have some truth, which they often take to scary extremes. To me, the continuationist position is closest to biblical truth, but it does not hold the monopoly.
Parenthetical story: at the convention, Bart Barber offered to share his WiFi connection with me. I gave him my computer to enter the password. He did so, then opened my Facebook and posted a note in my name that I had rejected continuationism and embraced cessationism. One friend, whom I won’t name, because I don’t want to embarrass Joel Rainey, made this statement. “There is more supporting evidence in the Bible for keeping a concubine than there is for cessationism.” What insight! Don’t you cessationists agree? I kid. I kid!
- There is much truth and insight to be gleaned from the Christ-centered hermeneutic. But Eric Hankins made a lot of sense to me as well – emphasizing grammatical-historical interpretation and authorial intent. (NOTE: for both sides, it was a matter of emphasis. Both sides acknowledged the value of the others’ point.)
- Being culturally relevant has a lot of positives and a lot of downsides. It’s not black and white, it’s gray, gray, and gray. (I’m trying hard to avoid saying “shades of gray” so our smark-aleck brigade can’t bring in pop-culture references.)
So, yes, I think most of the time, in our internecine battles, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The extremes often accept some truth to the exclusion of other truth. In fact, I believe this basic truth.
Most biblical truth is held in tension (even conflict) with another biblical truth.
God is one, but also three. Christ was fully God and fully man. We are completely accepted by God in Christ; we must strive to please God through holy living. We are kept in Christ for eternal life, but we must also persevere. Most biblical truth is held in tension with other biblical truth and it is beyond the ability of the human mind to resolve those conflicts (called antinomies).
And, because this is true, on most issues in theology and Christian living, the extremes tend to have a point, but the truth is often found in the gray areas between the deep black and the bright white. I a afraid that those who hold absolute certainly on their theological systems often do so less on the basis of sound, comprehensive exegesis, and more by reliance on human theological systems.
And NOW, to My Point!
I have now devoted almost 900 words to setting up the point of this post. I know that is a mistake, because many folks just read the first paragraph or two and jump to the comments. But, as an advocate of calm, of unity, of peaceful discussions, of a moderated tone in our blogging discussions, I want to make one thing absolutely clear.
There is a time when faithfulness to God demands harsh, intolerant and unyielding words. Sometimes, harsh words are God’s will and anything less is compromise!
Jesus’ Harsh Words in Matthew 23
I wish I had a buck for every time someone has invoked the harsh words of Jesus in Matthew 23 as justification for their harsh words to their fellow Baptists. In fact, there was a short trend a few years ago to rewrite Matthew 23 to specifically direct it toward those with whom the blogger disagreed. We are on shaky ground when we rewrite God’s word as a method of attack. I saw one where conservatives were the Pharisees, another which applied to the Baptist Identity crowd. Both were wrong. It is never justified to direct the harsh words of Jesus against our brothers and sisters in Christ.
But, the fact remains that Jesus spoke harsh words in Matthew 23. He called the Pharisees some pretty strong names.
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:13-15
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! Matthew 23:16-17
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:27-28
And, the coup de grace…
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:33–36
Honestly, is it any wonder they wanted to kill him? Those are harsh words. So, the perfect Son of God insulted the Pharisees personally. He had a conviction about the Pharisees that was so strong that this sinless Lamb was justified in calling them these awful names. He was harsh, and it was God’s will.
Does that not justify us when we use harsh words? Doesn’t that mean that if we have a strong conviction, we can battle those with different opinions forcefully, as Jesus did? NO! NO! NO!
We must remember who the Pharisees were. They were not errant brothers. They were not Christians with a different perspective on end times events. They were false teachers proclaiming a false gospel that led those who followed them to hell. Look back at verse 15. The Pharisees were leading their followers not to God, but to hell. I wrote on this some time ago, and identified the work of the Pharisees. They attempted to articulate a path whereby human beings, on their own strength, could fulfill the law of God. They were providing a false path to God.
Jesus’ harsh words were reserved for those who proclaimed a false gospel of legalistic righteousness that would condemn its followers to eternal hell.
Paul’s Harsh Words in Galatians
Paul also had some harsh words for people in Galatians – words that we could not probably accurately translate and describe in our pulpits.
In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul sets the theme for the book.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 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. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Paul brought the gospel to Galatia – that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins and rose again as Lord, offering eternal life to those who believe – and now people were abandoning that gospel for “another gospel.” Paul was flabbergasted that they would turn from the saving truth of the true, biblical gospel to false gospels that can only condemn. There is only one true gospel, one saving faith, Paul maintains, and that gospel was being perverted by people who were “troubling” the Galatian believers. And Paul had no uncertain words for those who proclaim a false gospel.
“Let him be accursed.”
It is a strong word, anathema, and means to be given over to God’s condemnation and judgment. Paul was not playing around. “May those who proclaim a false gospel be eternally condemned to a fiery hell where they cannot lead anyone else astray.”
Later, in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul confronts Peter about his hypocrisy. That is very different. It is redemptive and comparatively gentle. “You are wrong, my brother.” That is very different from his words to those who proclaim the false gospel.
But in Galatians 5:11-12, Paul says something that would make many of our members cringe. He says,
But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
There is a wordplay here that is only evident in the Greek. The word for circumcision is peritome – to cut around. I’ll let you google that if you need a diagram or more information. But in verse 12, he uses the word apokopto – to cut off. Basically, Paul is wishing that these guys that are so interested in cutting around it would just go ahead and cut it off. Them’s fighting words, of course – a violent and harsh word.
Did Paul not know about love and tolerance? Did he not know that he must always be “positive and encouraging?” Paul realized something we must not forget.
When someone is advocating a false gospel, it is no time for words of kindness and unity. Strong words are the only godly response to false gospels.
I am convinced that most of our disagreements are family discussions. Exegesis and rational discussion are the order of the day. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians (or the points between) are enemies of the gospel. Neither the culturally relevant and the cultural traditionalists are enemies of the gospel. Even cessationists are not enemies of the gospel. We must treat our disagreement on such issues properly – honoring one another, guarding our words and yes, seeing all the grays in between the extremes.
But as to the gospel, there can be no compromise. We can still be tactful, perhaps. There is no need to adopt the methods of the Westboro cult. But when someone is advocating a false gospel among us, we must not tolerate it or sugarcoat our response.
It is important to note that I said “advocating.” Most people have believed a false gospel of religious ritual and good works. They are relying on their baptism, on the Lord’s Supper, on their efforts to be a good person to win God’s favor. They are deceived; victims of false teachers. Adherents of false religions are not our enemy, they are those for whom we fight! They must be loved and the gospel must be patiently and carefully proclaimed to them. But those who advocate false gospels that damn to hell for all eternity must not be mollycoddled (yes, I’m old), tolerated or received as fellow-Christians. They must be answered forcefully and clearly – especially those who work within the church to lead God’s people astray.
The harsh words of Jesus and Paul were reserved for those who preached a false gospel. We cannot tolerate what God condemns.
When you are in Hermeneutical Alliance with Joel Rainey you are in really deep doo doo! 🙂
One of those cessationists, I assume?
Thanks for keeping this between us & the hundreds who come to this page daily Dave. 😉
…and good post!
In other words, we need, to the best of our ability, to make a clear distinction between tier-one and tier-two/three issues, or as another blogger once said, between brick walls and picket fences.
Great word, Dave. I totally agree.
Yes! Or, perhaps, gospel issues vs. family disagreements.
Cessationism is much like concubinism. I’m for both.
Wow.
Double wow!
I thought one of the most notabe moments of TGP breakfast was Dr. Hankins’ admission that after teaching through a quarterly of TGP SS literature at his church his “fears were allayed.”.
Perhaps he is not as much in disagreement with the Christocentric hermeneutic (it is actually “Christotelic”) as he initially perceived.
Which really raises a lot of questions, at least for me….
I think the full context of his statement was that his fears that TGP promoted a reformed agenda were allayed, and he liked the materials. But I think he still had some qualms about the Christocentric hermeneutic.
But, yes, I found that moment to be startling and encouraging.
Dave,
I went back and tried to listen to the audio posted of the TGP breakfast to determine context, but the audio is so poor I couldn’t nail it down.
However, the reason Dr. Hankins’ admission was so remarkable to me is the fact that he made quite an issue of his “fears” about TGP’s Christocentric hermeneutic in a post at SBCToday on 18 October 2012, even tagging this hermeneutic as being “all the rage” among Reformed folk.
I guess I just found it a little shocking that he was so public about his “fears,” but had to be prompted by a direct question from Stetzer to admit his “fears had been allayed.”
While I’m certainly glad he discovered his fears to be unfounded, this seems problematic to me.
Get outta my head, Randall! Lol
I’m thinking the exact same thing.
I actually thought that it spoke well of Eric Hankins’ character that when a lot of folks were launching bombs at TGP, he actually gave it a test run. He tried it out and he admitted publicly that he found it to be a good curriculum.
Think maybe the guys at TGP reaching out to him might have had something to do with that?
😉
…and Dr. Hankins did “launch a bomb” at TGP…
But I’ll digress…
TGP is the best cirriculum to come out of lifeway (preschool – adults) in my lifetime.
Agreed, Tarheel…
Eric Hankins mentioned what I thought the most salient point of the discussion. He said that the meaning we get from reading a particular Old Testament passage, Christologically, does not negate the meaning Old Testament readers might have gotten from that passage, at that time.
The conversation was leading in a different direction, until that point.
I told him that, too. Right after I introduced myself and said I was a stark raving Calvinist.
“He said that the meaning we get from reading a particular Old Testament passage, Christologically, does not negate the meaning Old Testament readers might have gotten from that passage, at that time. ”
He’s right. We shouldn’t promote one at the expense of the other. It doesn’t have to be either/or.
Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.
Finding the truth to be in the middle—at least for Baptist centrists—is not a matter of compromise, but of an unwillingness to compromise, since that’s where the truth happens to be. But it is not the centrality of the position that is its value, but its superior fit with the whole of Scripture. Either extreme can point to verses that can be competently exegeted within their immediate context in a way that supports their side better than the other side (who must resort to a more nuanced exegesis). However, the centrist position is able to drop the extremes of both sides and reconcile all the verses with the whole of Scripture in way that is more consistent than either side.
Ken Hamrick,
The last post by cb scott we had a conversation, I had written an apology to you for how I came across and the comments I made. Unfortunately, the stream was ended and you never received it and it was not made public. Please forgive me.
Bruce,
You are forgiven. You and I seriously disagree about some things for which we feel very strongly, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But thanks for the apology. I, too, apologize if I have offended you. My whole intent was to get people to call the authorities immediately, and not to attack anyone personally; but in the effort, I did overstep my bounds somewhat. I think, though, overall, it was a very good and informative discussion—and it proved that people can strongly disagree over something other than Calvinism.
Ken,
I agree. Because of the post, I have adjusted my thinking, too. My offense has changed and there is no need for you to think I need to forgive you. Thanks for staying with me. I am not totally there yet, but I have to agree that we need to proceed with the legal process, however, it is very important that we stick with the brother, who sinned, through the process.
Bruce,
Not only do I now agree with your unusual desire to minister to the perp, I thank you for bringing out that emphasis. You have added something of value to the discussion that ought to be given more consideration.
Told ya fellas….
Both/And
Not
Either/Or
🙂
EXCELLENT!! ^^^^^
Okay, John, I don’t disagree. But my point would be that if I disagree with a brother in Christ, I cannot appeal to Jesus or Paul’s harsh words as justification. We gently instruct errant brethren.
It is only when someone is advocating a false gospel and leading others astray that we must be unbending.
I think on that matter, we forget, especially with Paul, that we primarily have his writings.
Not his teaching. Not his preaching.
His writings. His letters back to churches and people saying “We have been over this, and now I have to be double-extra-clear, because it’s just not getting through.” To jump straight to a Pauline “You foolish Galatians!” (which is insulting, clear through, to his audience) without having tried to be truthful but more calm is to assume an authority we do not have.
Doug, I have a question for you on that note. It seems that Paul’s harsh rebukes/corrections/personal addresses were all to churches that he had established and pastored. Therefore, his rebukes should be seen in that light, which is what I’m gathering from your comment.
However, in other epistles; i.e., Romans and Hebrews (yes, I think Paul was the author) he does not address personal situations nor does he give personal rebukes. What I’m gathering from this is that he gave personal rebukes to those he knew enough about to give personal rebukes too. By this I’m not in anyway attempting to insinuate that Paul wouldn’t rebuke someone that he didn’t know personally, but that his primary targets where those he knew well.
Translate that to our current time where pastors are calling out pastors, leaders are calling out groups of pastors, etc, etc. In these situations there is very little foundation upon which these individuals have built to endure such a calling out, thus leading to a rancor that is unhelpful for everyone involved.
Do you think this is so?
Spent all day in the state convention nominating committee. While most of the discussions centered on issues like deer hunting and football, one definite gem of wisdom was this about disagreements:
“We do not have to like everything you say, but it would be good if we liked how you said it.”
Nothing wrong with disagreeing about those things which are not definite–but good to be pleasant. As Elwood P. Dowd once said, “You can be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant…I was smart for many years. I recommend pleasant.”
Well done, David. There are times when harsh words must be spoke. Not to do so is the deny the Lord. The big problem is to know when and where the harsh words fit and when and where they do not. I know of an example of one who often used such terms. The Sovereign Grace Evangelist, Rolfe Barnard, named sometime ago on the Bob Jones Univ. Library site as one of the founders of the 20th century Sovereign Grace movement. I heard him preach once, and have many friends who knew him personally. Rolfe got his Sovereign Grace views from W.T. Conner though sometimes I wondered how. In any case, there were times, when he used the harsh approach to good effect, bringing about the conversions of self righteous people. There were also times, when he used the harsh approach inappropriately, causing harm among the brethren. The apparent issue is this: When is it appropriate, and when is it inappropriate? It is something I mull over. By the way there is a web site in Charlotte, NC, where one can listen to some sermons of Rolfe’s, about 400 I think. I have listened to a few…and have about 8 LP albums of his sermons.
I have always hated compromise, so therefore I don’t do it. Compromise
means I can only keep part of what I believe the Bible teaches.
To be partly wrong or partly right means we are wrong on both counts.
Would we base our preaching on a gray area and say this is the Gospel?
It is not compromise to walk in unity with a brother with whom you disagree. It is godly.
By saying you refuse to compromise, are you advocating that I withhold fellowship from someone who has a different eschatology than I do? Or should I shun those who are not Calvinists?
We have to accept others in spite of our differences, while refusing to compromise the gospel.
Are you advocating that I withhold fellowship from someone who has different eschatology than I do?
A man had gotten lost in the mountains, in a panic he tried to get his bearings, he finally came to a little clearing, and saw a lad there. He yelled
son! Where am I? The lad said “there you are”.
How can two walk together except they be in agreement?
What you are suggesting with your position is that you are right on every single point and others necessarily are wrong on points they disagree with you on. I appreciate the commitment to Truth, but I wonder if you’ve thought through the possibility that you’re not always right? Or how you can resolve with God that he’s God and you’re not if you insist only your interpretation is HIS?
And, no, I’m neither trying to insult nor to belittle. It’s just the logical consequence of your position.
Greg,
I would like to give you an example here. I am totally against alcohol use as any type of beverage. There are those who claim to be Baptists
use alcohol as a beverage. I believe such unchristian conduct is a terrible shame. I could not and will not walk with such people in the name of the Gospel. Do you think I would want someone to teach my children or anyone’s children that it’s ok to use alcohol? I would confront that teacher.
Someone once said, the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist
is that a Catholic drinks on the front porch and a Baptist drinks on the back porch. I disagree, a true Baptist will not use alcohol at all.
Am I right? Of course I am. If you differ, we cannot walk together.
I was talking with a Catholic about a week ago. He pushed his point on drinking, he said he stops as soon as he starts to get a buzz. He noted that it would be wrong to buzz drink. He said two cases of beer does him about a month. I shared with him that God will not allow me to touch the stuff. I know what alcohol does to people.
Jess:
Well…I have to admit: you certainly make my points better than I did.
Jess,
You said, “I am totally against alcohol use as any type of beverage.”
And brother, that is your prerogative. For yourself. You do realize, don’t you, that godly Christians can and do partake of alcohol and Jesus still loves them?
“There are those who claim to be Baptists use alcohol as a beverage.”
Actually, there are those who ARE Baptists who use alcohol as a beverage.
“I could not and will not walk with such people in the name of the Gospel.”
You have just excluded gospel cooperation with a whole lot of Christians.
“Do you think I would want someone to teach my children or anyone’s children that it’s ok to use alcohol? I would confront that teacher.”
Not wanting your children taught that alcohol use is ok, is again your prerogative.
Jerry Bridges in one of his excellent books warns against Christians erecting fences around other Christians. He rightly says that you and I are certainly right to erect whatever fences around ourselves we deem appropriate. But when we start demanding that others have the same fences around them, we have gone over to legalism.
i.e., It’s fine for you to put an alcohol fence around yourself. But is Pharisaical to put your fence around everyone else.
Les,
Is there a church covenant hanging on the wall of your church?
If so have you read it?
Around here we call it the Baptist Church Covenant, and we Baptist should abide by it.
Why mess with something that has destroyed so many lives, and responsible for taking so many lives. I know what alcohol does to people, I will not walk with anyone who uses it. Is cocaine harmful? What if someone only uses a little and stops before taking too much. Would it make it ok to use it?
If alcohol and cocaine were developed at the same time both would be illegal. Scripture teaches we are not to even look upon wine when it is fermented. (grape juice).
I may be at odds with what you call Christians. I’m glad of it.
Jess,
I’ll respect Dave’s wishes to stay away from the alcohol topic.
But still, Dave wrote in the piece, “We must remember who the Pharisees were. They were not errant brothers.”
We all need to remember to reserve our harshest criticisms for the Pharisee types, not brothers who differ on disputable matters (the adiaphora).
The Church Covenant can be found at:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-covenant.html
It is still available through LifeWay.
More churches should use it.
David R. Brumbelow
“Why mess with something that has destroyed so many lives, and responsible for taking so many lives.”
Good point. I trust you will support my resolution against donuts, potato chips, and guns at next year’s convention?
Chris,
That’s a stupid statement, and I hope you know how dumb it is.
Alcohol and drugs are getting a hold on people, and they’re destroying marriages, and families….they’re destroying young people’s lives…taking them down. A Memphis Cop told me, one time, that 95% of all crime was either drug, or alcohol related…other cops from other cities have told me the same, or similar. A woman can give her baby FAS from just one drink…before she even knows that she’s pregnant.
And, every drunk and drug addict I know and know of, all thought they could just do a little bit…they could handle it. And, it handled them….it took them down. It so gripped their lives that they beat their wife, or quit paying bills, or started stealing to get money to buy more drugs, or caused them to get into fights at a bar, or at home, which led to jail, etc. etc. etc.
So, as Proverbs teaches…it’s foolish to play around with something as powerful and biting as alcohol….and, it’s a sin to be drunk, or high, on it.
David
I’ve asked nicely for this unproductive discussion to stop. Now, I insist.
Sorry Dave….but, when a barb is thrown at me, it’s hard to resist answering….I wont discuss it, here, anymore.
David
When Baptist bloggers talk about alcohol, barbs are pretty much thrown from all sides at all sides. And little productive is accomplished.
This actually comes back in a way to the topic of the article:
In studying Moses a few years ago, one thing I noticed is that Moses defended God, but he never defended himself. God defended Moses.
Certainly, while some harsh words are warranted many are not. We don’t like verbal barbs. We think that if we don’t defend ourselves, we lose. We don’t like to lose. We like to win. But not all battles need to be fought to win the war. Sometimes we think the barb isn’t warranted when it is. If we trust that God has placed us in a place of leadership, then God will defend our place there and he will ultimately be glorified for doing so.
If Dave’s point is that harsh words are sometimes necessary, then whether or not the harsh words are directed at us, humility dictates that we most often don’t need to answer the barbs against us. We must defend God diligently, but usually it’s best to leave verbal attacks against ourselves alone.
Jim, I’ve been learning this lesson of late, especially on Voices. I know there are two or three, maybe more, who do not like me. I’ve come to realize they don’t even know me or know anything about me.
Why would I let a strange ruin my day with a drive-by tongue lashing on Voices. I’ve tried to take a lighter look at things in life in general.
I’ve learned that I can often benefit from even harsh words. There always seems to be at least a kernel of truth even if those speaking the harsh words do not realize it.
We are born with only so many bullets in our gun. We need to pick our targets carefully.
Frank wrote;
” I know there are two or three, maybe more, who do not like me.”
Man you have been around here longer than me, and I think I have passed that threshold already! LOL
Frank L.
Brother, that’s great advice, and thoughts. You astonish me sometimes.
“We are born with only so many bullets in our gun.”
James 1:5 states, “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”
NRA interpretation: Ask for high capacity clips so you won’t run out in time of need.
🙂
David
cb:
May your capacity be extended and your delivery devices never jam in a time of need.
The point is really to limit strong words to those issues at which the gospel is at stake!
If a barb is thrown at me, I’ll try to catch her gently, and put her down safely.
Best way to handle such, Ben, and Volfan you heed it. We all have our temptation to want to respond in kind with crushing force. O how juicy it feels to be able to win, but usually such victories are hollow and pyrric (sp haven’t found my dictionary yet in some 1000 boxes, give or take so many). I remember the next to the last fight I had as a kid. I had to slug a friend who thought I had deliberately run over him (I was on the end of a whip and had no control). He had a jaw breaker in his mouth. It got half way down in his throat, and he turned blue. If the principal had not punched it on down somehow I would have lost a dear friend, a fellow I really liked. The next fight I had was forced on me by a fellow who was always looking for one and who pushed it until he got it. I just fought him until a teacher stopped us. From then on he treated me with respect. I did not seek to crush or destroy him though I realized later that, regardless of his toughness, I had both the training, skill, and power to do it (my grandfather’s brother had been a boxing manager in Chicago for 10 years in the days of Al Capone (he was also an undercover policeman who got wounded in a shoot out with Capone’s Mob). Interesting character, to say the least. He taught me how to box. From what he had said, I recognized Cassius Clay as having the makings of a great boxer before he ever became Mohammad Ali. Uncle Bill also taught me some things about war that I rather wish I did not know, things from close quarters combat (he had been in four wars). We win, we lose. Better to resolve our problems some other way. I think the reason the Calvinists of the Baptists began to allow for differences was with the hopes that they would win with persuasion and truth….and not force and manipulation, commendable to say the least.
BTW, after eating a couple of Krispy Kreme’s, I’ve never swerved all over the road, and hit another car, and killed an innocent family. After eating a bag of Fritos, I’ve never been influenced by the chips to punch it out with some fella. After cleaning my shotgun, I’ve never been influenced to break into my neighbors house, and steal his money, so that I could go and buy another gun.
Also, I’ve never heard of a woman causing her baby to be deformed, and/or mentally handicapped, after eating at Dunkin’ Donuts.
A fool plays around with something like alcohol and drugs. I try to not be a fool.
David
Non abusive use of alcohol something that you are seriously saying would cause you to break fellowship with a fellow believer?
You are saying that one “who calls himself baptist” and dares to drink a single glass of wine with a meal, or enjoys a cold beer every once in a while (not to the point of intoxication mind you – the bible clearly prohibits and cautions against that) – is worthy of the harsh words and instructions to disassociate of Paul in Galatians, and Peter in 2 Peter?
What about cough meds that use it? Sinful?
What about cooking with it? Sinful?
What do you do with Paul’s admonition (more like encouragement) for Timothy to drink some wine? What about Jesus himself and his apostles clearly consuming wine at meals? What about the miracle at Cana?
It is amazing to me that you have spoken so often here about disassociating with brothers and sisters over issues that are not essentials of the faith…issues where god fearing and biblically faithful believers are granted liberty.
Romans 14 clearly cautions against using your liberty as an opportunity to sin and or offend others….but it also just as strongly cautions those whose conscience does not grant liberty to not pass judgment toward those have the liberty.
I just led a young man to the Lord a few days ago, who was captured by alcohol and drugs….this all started with a little drinking….as it always does…and then, fermented wine bites like a poisonous snake….
People are very, very foolish to play around with alcohol, as if it’s something for recreation. Just ask the alcohol drinking parents, who child was born with FAS.
David
BTW, the young man got gloriously saved….with tears running down his cheeks….he surrendered his heart to Jesus, and he is about to enter rehab…to get off the drugs and alcohol. May the Lord give him the grace to defeat these evil demons, which destroy so many lives.
David
Tarheel,
Sir, I am a Christian and a strong Baptist. I think it’s sick when someone uses alcohol. I also think it’s the tip of the iceburg,
and many other sins have not yet been revealed.
Making an argument stating the foolishness of consuming alcohol is a totally different argument than that of saying it is always and unequivocally a sin.
There could be a good biblical case for the former, but the later is just not found in scripture so unequivocally.
I noticed that you sir, the “strong baptist”among us has chosen not to address the queries from scripture that I posted. 😉
Volfan007,
Regarding the young man who embraced the gospel…Praise the Lord!
My first paragraph of post #45 should read;
Making an argument stating the foolishness of the regular consumption of alcohol is a totally different argument than that of saying it is always and unequivocally a sin.
Guys, I’m pretty sure the post here has nothing to do with alcohol consumption. We’ve argued that one ad infinitum and Christians will continue to disagree.
So, let’s discuss the topic of the post, okay?
If someone has to agree with you on everything to have fellowship, Jess, you must have a small circle of friends and fellowship.
It seems absurd to demand that everyone agree with everything I think before we can be friends.
Dave, a lot of people say they are my friend, but very few I let in.
So yes, I have a small circle of true friends.
Well there you go. Less than 24 hours and the conversation is all about beer. Gotta love that.
Blogging conversations about alcohol tempt me to take up drinking!
Dave, lots and lots of Nyquil! Its the Baptist liquor. 🙂
I have legally prescribed muscle relaxers for my back that probably have a stronger effect, but since they are in pill form, not liquid, are Baptist-approved!
If another silly alcohol exchange breaks out, I may get some back pain.
DAVID, before you start taking back pain drugs for tension caused by wicked bloggers, go and get a back massage from a qualified masseur (ask your doctor for a reference). Stay away from those drugs if you can handle that kind of pain another healthier way.
This is some good advice, DAVID, please take it to heart.
Under these guidelines I will have to disfellowship my wife.
I was thinking that too.
Jess,
You refuse to Always refuse to compromise? To deal gracefully and relate lovingly with those whom you disagree?
Are you married? In you bi-vo jobs how’d you deal with coworkers?
How about church members? Was there room for disagreement in th churches you led or was there complete uniformity in all matters – presumably uniformity around your beliefs and opinions?
Its called tolerance…
“tolerance or compromise?” All tolerance requires some degree of compromise.
Jess, I think you are painting yourself in a corner.
No one is suggesting “compromise” in the narrow way you define it. That’s a problem with words: they have no definite meaning except that two parties agree upon.
I think you are using compromise in a different way than the rest of us. You are using it, it seems to me, in the sense of capitulation to error. Nobody is suggesting this that I see.
Frank L.
You stated that tolerance requires some degree of compromise. I think it could be said that tolerance is more like “restraint” than compromise. God has to tolerate many of us and I don’t think He can compromise.
Bruce,
Semantically I think I can buy your argument. Restraint, compromise, tolerance–all seem to be in the same league if not on the same team.
Tarheel,
Sir, I think we should respect Dave’s wishes and stick to the subject of this blog post. He already said he takes muscle
relaxers in pill form not the liquid. Although, we still don’t really know the cause of his automobile accident.
Dave, you’d have to disfellowship Frank’s wife?
Doug
You’ve been hanging around Jess too much!
Just wondering why Dave has a dislike for your wife. I would assume any woman patient enough to tolerate *any* regular commenter, poster, or editor of SBCVoices must be wonderful.
🙂
Dave,
You have gotten away from the point you are trying to make.
You said, and I quote “we are not to compromise the word of God”.
I am simply following your advice, I cannot walk with someone in the Church of Christ, or a Mormon, or a JW.
I cannot walk with some Baptists because of their sinful practices.
My wife and I don’t agree on everything earthly, but we’re pretty close on scripture.
Our understanding of scripture is the cause of divisions. Paul didn’t compromise. Jesus certainly didn’t.
Dave, you all are telling me I should compromise when you are quick to correct those that differ from you. Would you explain this?
Sir, I want to thank you for proving my point.
Dave, I couldn’t walk with you, you’re much to opinionated.
I could tolerate you a little while but that would be the extent of it.
Every one is an open book if you know how to read them. I don’t like a lot of the things I read about you. Yet, I would defend you to the fullest when you are attacked by other denominations.
“Dave, you are to [sic] opinionated.”
Quite a strong opinion 🙂
Frank L.
That white horse doesn’t belong to you. I think you should return it. You don’t look good on it anyway.
Jess,
Thanks for the encouraging word.
I saw this just this morning. On the phrase “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity,” Mark Ross said in Tabletalk:
“Often attributed to great theologians such as Augustine, it comes from an otherwise undistinguished German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century, Rupertus Meldenius. The phrase occurs in a tract on Christian unity written (circa 1627) during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), a bloody time in European history in which religious tensions played a significant role. The saying has found great favor among subsequent writers such as Richard Baxter, and has since been adopted as a motto by the Moravian Church of North America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Might it serve us well as a motto for every church and for every denomination today? …
The saying of Rupertus Meldenius strikes the right balance. It calls for unity on the essential things, the core of truth in our union with Christ. In non-essentials (not the unimportant, but those things that if lacking do not prevent our union with Christ), it calls for liberty so that all might follow their consciences under the Word and Spirit. In all things, however, there must be love (“charity” from the Latin caritas, or “love”), “which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14).”
Amen?
AMEN
Please understand, Jess. Your divisive attitude toward those who disagree with you on anything is MORE contrary to scripture than any of the things you disagree with them about.
The unity of the Body is a biblical value and should not be broken over non-essential issues.
You do not honor God by disobeying scripture. We are to bear with one another in love and do everything we can to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
None of those scriptures come with the caveat, “as long as they agree with Jess Alford on every single thing!”
Dave,
With all respect, the things I have brought up is not nonessential.
I sharply disagree with you as to what the scripture teaches.
Ephesians 4 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 MAKE EVERY EFFORT to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
You’d better make sure all your personal opinions are biblical mandates. If you are going to separate from anyone who disagrees with you about anything, you must make sure.
If your opinions are just opinions and not biblical necessities, then you sin against God by dividing over such things.
My standard of fellowship is follower of Christ. Yours seems to be, “agrees with Jess Alford about everything.”
You’d just better make sure God agrees with all your opinions or you become an Agent of division in the one body Christ died to redeem.
“Akin articulated a hardcore “Christ-centered” hermeneutic. Eric Hankins advocated a hermeneutic that was more grammatical-historical and emphasized authorial intent more strongly.”
Hermeneutics is where Godly men disagree. Perhaps we should spend more time discussing Hermeneutics and less on theological conclusions.
Donald,
I think you are right.
I have a 6,000 word paper on this issue titled “The Apostolic Hermeneutic Delineated and Defended.”
Would like to get it published here to see some critique, but it’s just too long and I can’t figure out how to tighten it up any more.
Any suggestions, Dave?….
One thought, if Dave is agreeable, is to write a blurb/excerpt from it, then upload the file of the whole paper to a public storage place.
Dave can publish the excerpt with the link to the whole piece and then anyone who is interested can download the whole thing, read it, and comment.
Doug,
Sounds like a workable idea.
Dave?
Yeah, that’s possible. Why don’t you send it to me to read?
Dave,
Just emailed it to you.
Thanks for considering it.
It’s way too long and academically-written for blog consumption. But it is certainly worth reading. If it is posted somewhere, we could do a link.
“””It’s way too long and academically-written”””
Are you sure it did not come from Dr. J?
Dave,
Just emailed you an introductory blurb with a link. Would it be possible to post that as an article where we could have an exchange on these issues?
“Perhaps we should spend more time discussing Hermeneutics and less on theological conclusions.”
Agreed and agreed.
I would though find myself siding with Hankins on this point.
You again prove that you are a reasonably erudite guy.
TGP was a good case study for this. Some were illogically and unreasonably predisposed against it. While the concerns of this group immediately got my attention, I looked the stuff over and couldn’t find demons in it anywhere. Looked good to me.
The people in the SBC who are the rigid and unreasonable reactionaries have a voice but they don’t have to be given any power. They can have their say in a number of venues. They should be isolated, then ignored, unless they are right, which happens occasionally. Even a broken clock is right…
William, I think your choice of “illogically and unreasonably predisposed against it” is a poor choice of words. I am predisposed against it but such a predisposition is not illogical or unreasonable. The method of hermeneutics I was trained in and use the most is Duvall and Hays, “Grasping God’s Word.” This was done at one of our seminaries. Duvall and Hays pound home author’s intent. (They are no alone by any means in this view) We are warned in their textbook never to attempt to be creative or clever to find a hidden meaning that no one has seen before. They encourage one to look to the New Testament to see where it identifies Old Testament foreshadowing of Christ. I appreciate Randall’s passion for the apostolic hermeneutic pattern. I share that passage and comb the New Testament looking for where they did it.
I find no demons in the GP. My church has used it in our children’s department but will not be doing so after the summer quarter. I do not want to debate GP. I think you are wrong to say that a person using training from one of our seminaries and from well respected sources to predetermine based on what GP was advertised as is illogical and unreasonable.
William said, “Some were illogically and unreasonably predisposed against it.”
He did not say, “Everyone who had qualms was illogical and unreasonable.”
Those are two different things. His statement is true – there were people whose opposition to the curriculum was ignorant and knee-jerk.
This is something I see commonly on blogs – and leads to a lot of needless conflict.
Someone says, “I’ve known some angry Calvinists.”
Someone responds, “You are saying that all Calvinists are angry? That is an unfair personal attack!”
Dean, you inferred what William did not imply.
David, you are 100% correct. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways so graciously. I did read it as William was saying it was illogical to be predisposed against GP. I see the difference.
I do ask the Plodder to forgive my mistake and receive my apology.
Dean, I don’t recall reading any of your reaction to TGP and take your point that while you were predisposed to it, you arrived at that logically and reasonably. You tried it, found it lacking, and decided not to use it any more. Fine.
Would you maintain that TGP should not be available for any church’s use because of your own predisposition?
William, while I believe the concept of GP is not the best method of interpretation of the Old Testament it certainly is a valid method. I would never say a church should not have GP as an option. I was pretty vocal about GP but always consistent – discovering the author’s intent should be the goal of any study. What I see in GP is a weakness not necessarily an evil plot. I remember one time speaking with a professor of preaching in a casual conversation. We are both expository preachers. Trying to impress him I said that expository preaching is the only valid method of preaching. He corrected me telling me how foolish such a statement was. He said it is the best but not the only valid method. After leaving that day with tears in my eyes because one of my heroes had handed me my hat I am careful about such statements. Any church that wants to use GP more than has my blessings. I will be here plugging away looking for the author’s intent.
…and we can easily work together and join in any number of cooperative efforts.
I think the truth is often in the middle, but not as a matter of principle. Sometimes the truth is one extreme or another. Unfortunately, a spectrum of views are defined by a set of unhelpful categories. If you want the middle to move in your direction all you have to do is move further out. People who just want to take the middle road because it seems the more peaceful position rather than the more truthful position will move in the direction you want them to move. That’s how political strategies have been changing popular philosophy, for example.
But if you want the truth, wherever it lies on any of our artificial ideological spectra, it becomes a matter of epistemology. You may end up with a possible range within which the truth is because something simply hasn’t been revealed to us. However, just because something is unpopular or garners vitriol with accusations of hatred or meanness for believing such a thing, that doesn’t make it less true. In the examples from Jesus in this article I have to say that Jesus was being plenty gracious. He could have said far worse. For us, it’s not gracious in the Biblical sense of the word to treat someone we disagree with respectfully if the truth is not clear. It is gracious to treat someone who is clearly wrong with the respect that they don’t deserve. Likewise, we can’t ask for grace if we don’t deserve to be punished and if we are punished for being right, we have Jesus as our model.
William,
I’m not sure who you and Dave are calling ignorant and extreme, and whatever, who were predisposed, to not like the GP; but I disagree that it was extreme or ignorant, or a knee jerk reaction, whenever all the editors were Calvinists.
I’ll bet that if Lifeway ever has another leader, who is not Calvinistic…say, it’s Dr. Brad Reynolds, or Dr. Adam Harwood. And, they get together a SS curriculum that has mostly Arminian editors, and a few Traditional SB’s editors, and even a few Assembly of God fellas as editors…..I’ll betcha a couple of dozen, krispy Kreme donuts that we’d see some Calvinists fellas howling to high heaven about how concerned they were…before ever seeing the material.
Sometimes, we have a tendency to call others ignorant, or extreme, or having knee jerk reactions, whenever things are like we like it, and some others have legitimate concerns….reasonable concerns….
David
By ignorant, I meant – without knowledge. People who had never even examined the curriculum made pronouncements about its content – that is ignorant, and knee-jerk.
There is little question that some made ignorant, knee-jerk responses to TGP – pronouncing its problems before examining its content.
Dave,
I think the concerns were legitimate and reasonable. As I said before, if the shoe was on the other foot, I believe we would’ve seen some “legitimate, reasonable” concerns from the Calvinist crowd.
David
That does not make a knee-jerk, uninformed reaction acceptable, does it?
“”””That does not make a knee-jerk, uninformed reaction acceptable, does it? “””
Well, then there goes half of my posts!
David, would I ever call a UT fan ignorant? Well, sure.
I think the initial reaction to TGP was manifestly knee-jerk although I’m not calling any individual out for it. In the future the more reasonable Trads will likely not react as they did. And, I suspect that if LifeWay came out with an editorial board dominated by Trads for yet another new curriculum, the Cals would just ignore and not buy it.
I also feel sure that LifeWay will watch their selection of editors more closely.
You would admit that there are some among us who will always be rigidly predisposed against anything that has even a whiff of Calvinism? I don’t think that will get us anywhere.
Isn’t saying UT and ignorant in the same sentence redundant?
Volfan: I don’t think that is fair. After all, if you will check the records, it was the Calvinists who were the leaders in the founding of the SBC. And, when the Arminians were leaders, vide Hershel H. Hobbs, I don’t remember any of them howling about the SS materials which he authored.
If you want to know what the large majority of Southern Baptists believe about drinking alcohol, check out the 2006 Resolution on Alcohol Use in America.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/2006-sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-use-in.html
Southern Baptists have passed numerous Resolutions about alcohol over the last 120 years or so. All of them have been against it.
Alcohol is a curse and America’s number one drug problem.
Jess, and David W.,
you are exactly right on opposing beverage alcohol.
To others, show me where the Bible says Jesus and His disciples drank alcoholic wine? Show where it even says they drank wine?
Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach’s sake and his often infirmities.
It doesn’t say what kind of wine; it could have been either fermented or unfermented.
Unfermented wine (grape juice) is very healthy, has many benefits with no harmful side effects.
The Bible refers to both kinds of wine by the same words.
Even if Paul was recommending alcoholic wine, he said to only take a little for strictly medicinal reasons.
That’s why Baptists have condemned beverage alcohol, not necessarily its medicinal use.
David R. Brumbelow
Please, PLEASE, PPLLEEAASSEE! Let’s not get back on that merry-go-round. Pretty please?
We differ on our views of alcohol and I’ve not seen many attitudes change by continually hammering on the issue.
I’ve asked nicely, so I’ll have to start deleting comments that continue the alcohol topic.
I’ll drink to that.
Dave,
I did not start the discussion on alcohol.
I merely responed to what others said.
But when it comes to beverage alcohol, sometime harsh words need said.
David R. Brumbelow
David B, I want to take this opportunity to thank you again for your book. It is a blessing to me and I recommend it to sincere young Christians who want to know the truth of God’s Word on this issue.
Dean,
Thanks.
Your encouragement means more than you know.
David R. Brumbelow
One more comment on the subject, perhaps?
A couple of years ago I did the funeral for one of our elder saints. The lady had been in many ways a foundational part of the church for a number of years: highly active in many ministries and programs and known for a godly walk. She was also an absolute teetotaler.
When I met with her family to talk over the service, they shared a story from several years before. A relative was getting married and this lady had gone with her daughter to attend the wedding. The lady noticed a punch fountain at the wedding and got a drink from it. She rather enjoyed it, so she had another, then another, etc. Finally her daughter, absolutely astonished, stepped in and said, “Mother, you’ve had enough, you are quite tipsy!” The lady had no idea what she was talking about, convinced she had been drinking punch the whole time. Her response was simply, “I’m not tipsy, I’m just happy!”
lol.
I know someone that has happened to.
David
Chris,
Did you share that story at the funeral service?????
LOL
The family did ask that I leave that one out of the funeral service, though they sure enjoyed telling me the story. 🙂
BEER!
Just testing to see if you will make good on your threat. 🙂
Why delete you on that? Beer is in the bible:
“And from thence they went to Beer: that is the well whereof the LORD spake unto Moses, Gather the people together, and I will give them water.”
Les Prouty states: “Why delete you on that? Beer is in the Bible.”
cb states: Yep, so is sodomy. What’s your point?
CB,
Sorry my attempt at humor failed. Guess I should have put a smiley face or something. It was a joke, since the “beer” I quoted was a place…a quote from Numbers in the KJV. I could have used the ESV as well. It’s kind of like the somewhat lame joke, “Which car is mentioned in the bible?” Answer, the Honda Accord, in Acts 1:14.
🙂
Liberals
“If you want to know what the large majority of Southern Baptists believe about drinking alcohol, check out the 2006 Resolution on Alcohol Use in America.”
I was there. There was much debate and it passed but not “overwhelmingly”.
In fact a funny story…at least I think it is. I was standing in line to speak to the issue during debate. However the guy before just before me called the question. I was gonna seriously make a motion to “call for the question so that those who have been driven to drinking after the long debate can go and be appeased”. LOL
(it was a dare from an “evil” friend. I was stupid enough to do it…LOL) With the benefit of hindsight….thankfully, I did not get to speak on the mic. LOL
Sorry Mr. Miller,
I just saw your post after I submitted….I will not comment on the topic again. 🙂
Cheers!
I’m inconsistent. I was about to ask again, and I read your comment and it made me laugh.
Mr. Miller,
Glad I could brighten your day a little.
Bottoms up!
😉
OK, I’ll stop now. For real.
Dave, you said you would delete us, and then you didn’t. My children would run all over you man. 😉
I remember someone “tested” Jesus once . . .” 🙂
I go to prayer meeting, then on a 3 mile walk with my wife, and infidels shoe up at SBC Voices!
Shoe up?
Been watching Lawrence Welk again?
Apparently the key to not incurring wrath as a result of disobeying is to make him laugh….. 😉
“Harsh words”–Honest, truthful and corrective words are often needed. Hateful, arrogant and vindictive words seldom get the job done. The former arise from a heart set on love and the work of the Holy Spirit. The latter spring from the mind set on being right and proving a point at all costs. Harsh words are many times precipitated by anger. “The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). One of the best examples of how true this is can be found regularly in our comment streams and interactions here.
I’ve also noticed that when I limit my “harsh words” that somehow there seems to be less in return.
I’ve at times wondered if Jesus harsh words to the scribes and Pharisees wasn’t partially mercy. The Pharisees weren’t just self-righteous, they were generally regarded as among the top of the upstanding people in the community – they had a self-righteousness that was daily confirmed by the way they were treated by the community. Being called blind guides, serpents, hypocrites, and fools might be just what they needed to see something in themselves other than their own self-righteousness, and see themselves as sinners, just like everyone else, and in need of salvation.
Now, I’m not saying that we should try to do the same – trying to put self-righteous people ‘in their place’ by insulting them. I don’t think very many of us have the discernment to know who actually needs it and who doesn’t. But Jesus wasn’t just blowing off steam. Even in this, I think He had a redemptive purpose in mind. And if we come to a place where harsh words are necessary, if we speak them as mere expressions of our own emotions, if we’re ‘blowing off steam’ with no redemptive purpose in mind, we may be falling short of the example Jesus gave us.
Ben: There is justification for what you say in the Book of Jonah, where the prophet brings a message of condemnation and judgment, “Forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” Not a word is said in that message about, “If you repent, God will spare you.” It is unconditional statement of prophecy, and the real point is not the statement but the purpose of the statement which Jonah said something about in chapter 4, telling how he thought God was going to spare the Ninevites, something he definitely did not want. It was that statement by Jonah and one by a Pentecost about the problem of statements like that plus a question by wise friend, “Have you every thought of the fact that at any one time every last soul on earth could be the elect of God?” that led to a sermon on Romans 9:13 on the subject, “The Hardest Text in the Bible,” with three points to the text and theme, The hardest text is an invitation to be saved. We are invited to receive God who does not think like we do. He lets it all hang out. We are invited to receive God who does not love like we do, the big issue, How could he love a rascal like Jacob. and then We are invited to receive God who does not act like we do. He hated Esau, but look at how he treated him. Esau could well have said, “With an enemy like that, who needs any friends?”