"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

The Wildness of Vitality or Thought Conformity?

A blogger friend who goes by the public name "Chris Ryan" recently sent me an excerpt from a book he is reading entitled "The Miracle of Dialogue" by Reuel Howe. The excerpt, given in full below, expresses precisely the conflict I see between the desires of "Baptist Identity" Southern Baptists who seemingly demand everybody in the SBC think the same way, believe the same way and look the same way they do, versus other Southern Baptists who understand the importance of dialogue with, and acceptance of, Southern Baptists who see thinks differently in non-essential areas of the faith. Read Howe's words carefully:

"In training a horse, it is important not to break his spirit because it is his spirit, during and after the training period, which will determine his style and endurance. Does education, we may ask, allow for the expression of the wildness of vitality during the educational process, or does it repress vitality in the interest of form and conformity? There is evidence that all education, theological education included, stifles the creative spirit of many students and burdens them with unassimilated and uncorrelated content. The form of knowledge has been substituted for the vitality of living and thinking.

Similarly we must ask, does religion allow for the undomesticated and the unconventional responses of people to the surges of vitality and the movements of spirit? In the area of thought, for example, many graduates of seminaries are so afraid of being heretical that they are unable to think courageously and creatively. Orthodoxy is not an alternative to heresy; it is the result of honest thinking about truth in relation to new needs and data, in the course of which points of view have been arrived at, tested, and abandoned. The sin is not in thinking heretically while seeking the truth, but in settling for heresy as a substitute for truth. When fear of heresy prevails, the forms of system have stifled the vitality of thought.

It is hard to understand why religion and its institutions, which should be a source of renewal for life, become the servants of a sterile conservatism. Why are churches not more commonly places where, in the spirit of Christ, creative wrestling with the problems of the human situation can take place? Why are church people in both their individual and organized lives so often conformists, substituting middle class conventions and morality for the searching, disturbing truth of Christ? The Church was brought into being to be the expression of that spirit in each generation, and yet the need and vitality of each generation hasbeen frustrated and complicated by the status quo pull of reactionary and ultraconservative spirits.

In thinking about conservatism, we should distinguish between monological and dialogical conservatism. The former is dumb and blind to all other values but its own; the latter keeps itself in a relationship of polarity with the liberal spirit and point of view. Yet each needs the other. Without the liberal position one would not dare to be a conservative; and the liberal is more freely liberal precisely because the conservative helps hold in focus the traditional viewpoint. Monological conservatism acknowledges no dependence, and contradicts Christ's spirit and teaching. Obedience to its spirit may be our mostserious sin because it tempts us to think that we own our institutions,and to exercise proprietorship in matters of the faith. Possessiveattitudes toward truth lead to a life of conformity and sterileorthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not our goal! New life, new meaning, new creaturehood is! The purpose of obedience to truth is not to graze in the flat lands of orthodoxy, but to climb the sharp, high, narrow ridges of faith in order that we may understand more and more the relevance of the revelation of God to our own age."

118 comments:

Thy Peace said...

I do not have much knowledge of how they teach students in seminaries.

But I have to agree with the spirit of this post at least as far as education in general in concerned, and especially in science and engineering.

It's my experience that mostly they are cramming knowledge without any true understanding or questioning. There is sadly no time for reflection, experimentation and thought experiments.

There are some good science and engineering schools, but here I am talking about the majority of schools and not the good minority.

I am truly not satisfied with the state of education in the world today. It truly is stifling lot of creative minds.

Amazon: The Miracle of Dialogue (Paperback)
by Reuel L. Howe (Author)


Google: The Miracle of Dialogue By Reuel L. Howe

Steve said...

Gee, I dunno. I feel like I just took a geography quiz. Refinement of thought is part of all education, even if one just wants to grow beans or make good moonshine. Some things you toss, and some things you find worth holding onto.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
Years ago, a pastor told me, “The longer I’m out of the Seminary, the more I realize I was spoon fed.

BTW, the Goooood Girl reminds me:
Fool me once…shame on you
Fool me twice…shame on me.

knnuki said...

Brilliant stuff here Wade. Steve is right: education - as all things - needs to be seen for what it is. Everything has limits and no education is perfect. So you've got to take education like you eat fish: find the good meat, reject the bones and get all you can out of it. But that takes discernment and a critical mind. And some christians would not want us to exercise discernment or critical thinking...

WatchingHISstory said...

The goooood girl reminds me of Gomer, Hosea's wife and many SBC pastors. They will do anything to compromise the gospel for success.

I believe that I met a goooooood SBC preacher yesterday!

John Daly said...

"In the area of thought, for example, many graduates of seminaries are so afraid of being heretical that they are unable to think courageously and creatively."

That's a bunch of BUNK!

"Orthodoxy is not an alternative to heresy"--News to me!!

"Orthodoxy is not our goal! New life, new meaning, new creaturehood is!"

Are ya kiddn' me? In the interest of choosing each word carefully, the only positive word I can think of is __________.

John in St. Louis

Stephen said...

In both the secular and religious realm, the lack of education based on critical thinking has produced robotic disciples. I define spiritual critical thinking in terms of interpreting the New Testament as it relates to our times. i.e. "What would Jesus do?" rather than "Paul told Timothy that women cannot be pastors." God equipped humans with brains designed to apply Godly principles to the dynamics of culture, science, society, and politics. I put my trust in the God of the Bible rather than in the culturally fixed Bible of God.

Unfortunately, we see the same principles at work in secular education. Many of my students voted for the first time in 2008 and continue to wear Obama motif clothing. When asked for their views on issues of relevance, they profess mostly conservative ideas. I relate the secular education model only to show a parallel with Christians. As long as we follow any organization as a surrogate for our Christian walk, we fall prey to spiritual shallowness and idol orthodoxy.

Tim Marsh said...

What if Martin Luther refused to go public with his understanding of scripture out of fear of being branded a heretic? What if Luther refused to wrestle with the scriptures because the Catholic Church had already "answered" them for him? Where would we be?

If potential pastors cannot go to a seminary and be challenged in their faith without losing their faith, then their faith probably had little substance to begin with.

Seminaries must ask the tough questions, and students must have the guts to wrestle with them. If unwilling or if they lack the capacity, then they probably do not belong in the pulpit.

However, one thought that I have been wrestling with - when Paul characterizes the "weak" in Romans 14, who is he talking about? What are the characteristics of those who are weak? And how do we relate to them? Is indoctrination the education of the "weak"?

Too, In asking these questions, we must ask what education is best in the church in the 21st century, indoctrination or exploration (to some extent).

Finally, one of the scandals, I think, of SBC seminaries in general, is the refusal to dialogue with emergents such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, New Perspective on Paul scholars such as James Dunn and Tom Wright, theological giants such as Barth and Bonhoeffer. Seminary students need to read broadly.

I believe Chris Ryan said he was headed to Truett. SBC needs to wake up. You are losing your best theologians and pastors.

Tim

Christiane said...

I found this Reuel Howe quote on a site devoted to Jewish-Palestinian dialogue.

"Dialogue is to love, what blood is to the body.
When the flow of blood stops, the body dies.
When dialogue stops, love dies and resentment and hate are born.
But dialogue can restore a dead relationship.
Indeed, this is the miracle of dialogue:
it can bring relationship into being, and
it can bring into being once again a relationship that has died.
There is only one qualification to these claims for dialogue:
it must be mutual and proceed from both sides,
and the parties to it must persist relentlessly."

Reuel L. Howe
The Miracle of Dialogue, 1963

Dawei said...

I think I'm with John Daly on this one. Your flowery writing seems to distract people from your actual content. Seminarians shouldn't be striving to be creative but Biblical and at a good seminary, you'll find good, solid Biblical doctrine...the same doctrine that has been taught for centuries. I think creativity within orthodoxy is great (finding new avenues and new ways to present the good news). But may we never forfeit orthodoxy (the opposite of heresy) for the sake of creativity.

Dienekes said...

Wade, intriguing post. Thanks for it.

I believe there must be the room for critical thinking and questioning, not only in our seminaries but also among all believers. Whether we teach, preach, or in whatever we do to work in the Kingdom, it helps to approach it with the understanding that this is God's truth, not ours. It is His to defend, His to uphold. I don't ever want to underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to accomplish His work in this world. If He is indeed able, then we need not be afraid of the questions, afraid of the critical thinking, afraid of somebody every once in a while going off on a weird theological tangent. Some will get mixed up along the way, but the answer is intercessory prayer, exhortation, and letting the Word of God go forth and do its work in their lives. There is a difference between proclaiming what we understand as God's truth and defending it as if it is ours. Kingdom work is not our project. We are not called to be Christ's attorneys nor His public relations advisors; we are called to be witnesses of what we have seen and heard.

I have a hunch that God will cause His truth to stand.

I don't think indoctrination is the education of the weak, for indoctrination does not strengthen the weak, which is what Paul is calling us to in Romans 14. Paul is asserting that while there is a right interpretation and a wrong interpretation of these secondary issues (v. 14, v. 22), and we do well to be correct in our interpretation, yet we need to emphasize the larger imperative to pursue "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another" (v. 17-20).

Chris Ryan said...

Let me express a thought begun by Tim Marsh with his comments on Luther.

Without being ready to think like a heretic, you cannot be sure that you aren't one. There are places in the Bible where one could arrive at the conclusion that Jesus wasn't God (or at least that He wasn't aware of it). In places, the view of Marcion that the OT is outdated could be found. We now have a choice: we can ignore those texts or we can brave them. The monological conservative will say that you ignore them because they do not fit the mold of their orthodoxy. The dialogical conservative will say that I can look at those texts and I can see the point you are making BUT I can arrive at different conclusions. But without braving the text with an open mind and an open heart, you will not know whether or not it is your position which is extrabiblical (making you the heretic).

Dienekes said...

Chris Ryan:

You put it more succinctly than I did. "Braving the text" is exactly what I was getting at.

I think it gets even trickier, though, when we see that we also have to be willing to allow others, including our own students, to brave the text for themselves. This requires a lot of dependence upon the Lord.

Chris Ryan said...

Dienekes,

True. But I don't know that any of us would be hurt by learning to depend on the Lord even more.

Wade Burleson said...

John Daly,

Thanks for your thoughts. I would encourage you to read the comments of others in this stream. Nobody, including me, is advocating we abandon orthodox truth.

The point is that orthodoxy is strengthened through critical thinking, not diminished.

I have found that those weak in their ability to articulate the truth are the ones often afraid of anything that would smack as an attack against the truth.

C.S. Lewis had it right. Truth is not something that needs caged by man for protection. It is like a lion that simply needs to be loosed, able to defend herself against all challengers.

Joe Blackmon said...

Why is it that for someone to believe that women ought not be pastors for instance would be thought conformity but for someone to believe that Jesus Christ paid the debt for my sin on Calvary by His death is not thought conformity? The suggestion that Christians ought not break fellowship over severe doctrinal disagreements is pretty silly. If someone came in my church to go through the new members class and said they did not believe in the atonement for sin by Christ on the cross there is no way we would allow that person to become a member. However, some docrrinal stands are labled "thought conformity". Who gets to make that call?

Christiane said...

There is a place mid-way where people can meet and listen to each other and understand, or try to.

Most people never make it to that place. But the ones that do, find that 'that other guy' is not so far from them afterall.

Maybe the Good Lord made us all to see things differently so that we would NEED to meet each other half-way; to try to listen and try to understand what the other sees through the eyes that God gave him.


"Out beyond ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
Jelaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

Bart Barber said...

"the desires of 'Baptist Identity' Southern Baptists who seemingly demand everybody in the SBC think the same way, believe the same way and look the same way they do"

That's a deliberate lie.

Chris Ryan said...

Christiane,

You are making me remember my favorite Bible verses:

Ecclesiastes 7:16-18
Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise - why destroy yourself?

Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool - why die before your time?

It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.

greg.w.h said...

Dianekes wrote:

I have a hunch that God will cause His truth to stand.

In all honesty, we act as if we're somehow doing God a favor by "protecting" his truth. When, in reality, it's his Truth that delivers us.

I think part of the quote that Wade cites will fall on deaf ears because we have created a structural, institutional repulsion to anything labeled "liberal". As I've noted in the past, the "liberal arts" were the study of the free man before they became primarily associated with the concepts of lack of restraint and victimhood.

We are freed men and women in Christ Jesus, and we should study the Bible looking for the application of THAT liberty to all of our endeavors. We often act as if only through conservative thought and behavior can we experience Christ Jesus's intention for our lives. But nothing could be further from the truth.

We know this when a group of people gets together and goes on a mission trip. They spend money and time liberally in order to attempt to minister to another area and another people. Freed from their everyday routines, they can share all of the spiritual wealth that has been granted to them from the exceeding riches of Christ Jesus.

And what happens when their efforts are rewarded by a spiritual response from the people they are helping? There is a spiritual high that exceeds the imagination of anyone who sticks close to home and conservatively keeps their money and their time to themselves, all in the name of wisdom and carefulness with the resources that have been granted to them.

It's like the guy that stuck his talent in the ground so that the Master wouldn't be displeased with him. That talent--conserved as it was--was given to another careful steward who was willing to risk the talents he was given in order to gain more for the same Master.

I am a conservative, but I understand that God expects me to do something every single day with the talents that he has given me that stretches me past where I'm sure, where I'm confident, and where I'm comfortable.

That's the freedom of the Gospel and it also is the Kingdom plan for extending the Kingdom until it touches the life of every man, woman, and child on the planet. Liberal giving of ourselves results in liberation for others. And if we hold back, they have no hope.

Does that mean we should eschew orthodoxy? No. But it means our orthodoxy should result in a very visible orthopraxy that matches exactly God's expectations and Jesus's testimony of the Father. We aren't being conservative when we fail to dig deep and to sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom. We're being stingy with the exceeding riches that have been granted to us.

The idea that we somehow make the world better by constantly fighting over our superior understanding of our faith should cause our stomachs to churn. We make the world better by actively living the life that Jesus Christ taught us to live out loud in an open-handed way. The alive-ness of our theology is made most clear by our actions--as James might have put it--and not by our thoughts. And when we have done it unto one of the least of these HIS brothers/sisters, we have done it unto him.

If we were able to live our spiritual lives as wild mustangs roaming the plains, then we might understand how liberating it is to fully experience the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus. But when we fence ourselves in and others out through ever finer gradations of careful thinking with no action, we re-enslave ourselves to our own self-pride.

I think God has more in mind for us than that, or he would not have permitted his Son to be sacrificed on our behalf. And we, too, are the seeds of wheat that must die in order to produce fruit 20, 50, and 100-fold. We're not dead to ourselves when we're busy worrying more about whether others are serious enough about the Bible when we ignore passages like Matthew 25 and the book of James.

Of course, the main people who will read what I wrote and oppose it are preachers who are pretty self-assured that what they've chosen to do is exactly right and that God expects them to constrain the behavior of others. I'll argue that God is responsible for conviction and he wants us to teach others how to live freed from the influence of sin.

Live free, don't fence others in. Be faithful in proclaiming the Good News and teaching every tenet of our faith that has been handed down to us, then let God through his Holy Spirit worry about which others are out of line.

Yes you have to protect your own congregations from heresy and false teaching. But even that can be done through teaching action rather than simply teaching thought.

At the end of this life, it will be the freedom that we learned that sustains us in the new heaven and the new earth. God will succeed in teaching us to live without sinning ever again in part because we have experienced how sin infests every portion of this life and continually influences daily in spite of our great salvation. Won't it be great when we our freedom is complete and because of the faith that has been grown in us we will finally be able to stay free with no sinful influence! I'm looking forward to that Great Day!

Greg Harvey

Robert Hutchinson said...

A good example of healthy dialogue between Christian and atheist.

money line by both men, the "thought police" are never good.(not an exact quote but that's the idea.)

if these guys whose degree of separation is that of the east from the west can have a reasoned dialogue surely, Baptists, whose degree of separation is that of tomāto vs. tomato, can do the same.

btw: i think the greer-heard point-counterpoint forum that nobts has held for the last five years is to be commended. greer-heard.

Joe Blackmon said...

The Bible forbids women from being pastors (vs.) Women can serve as pastors is not exactly what I would call tomato/tomahto.

Jon L. Estes said...

Bart Barber said...
"the desires of 'Baptist Identity' Southern Baptists who seemingly demand everybody in the SBC think the same way, believe the same way and look the same way they do"

That's a deliberate lie.

Mon Feb 16, 12:05:00 PM 2009

OR

This is their honest take on the positions of those in the BI movement.

Satan is the father of lies and to lump a fellow believer into his family is simply, wrong. Why not try and find out why the person thinks the way they do. Debate the subject not the character.

Is this asking too much?

Wade Burleson said...

That should be "accurately."

Hard to type with thumbs on my blackberry.

Christiane said...

"A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty."

R.W. Emerson



Sometimes I read this quote from Emerson and I think of that
'gleam of light' as the prompting of the Holy Spirit:

That prompting that comes in times of conformity when all are walking away from someone who is rejected by the group; and I feel the need to stay and be with that one who is left alone.


That prompting that comes when anger towards someone is so great and I feel so justified; and then, I look at them, and something changes in me so that I am able to feel compassion for them and I can't hate them anymore.


"That prompting" is a gift. It flies against our human nature, as conventionally defined by the world, and connects with something in us that is better than we think we can be, or better than what we are told we 'must be' by others.


So I pray in the faith of my fathers: 'come, Holy Spirit, and enlighten the hearts of Thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Thy Divine Love.'

I love how the prayer ends:
'and Thou shalt renew the face of the Earth'. :) L's

Dienekes said...

Greg Harvey:

Amen!

Our doctrine is of vital importance, for right doctrine is fundamental to right living. But God is not satisfied with our doctrine; He wants our lives.

The Gospel should be the most obvious identifying characteristic of the believer's life. It's transformational power is in the fact that it is constantly being carried out, in countless people, in countless aspects (Col 1:6).

Ed Cole used to say that Jesus is the Savior of the totality of life. He's the Savior of our marriages, finances, depression, tendency to procrastinate, filthy mouths, feelings of inadequacy, and everything else that is not perfectly holy as He is holy.

I read a great article from Scott Thomas at Acts 29 entitled, "Seven Things I Would do Differently as a Planter" (sorry, don't know how to hyperlink but it's at http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/seven-things-i-would-do-differently-as-a-planter-part-one/).

The whole article is worth a read.

Bob Cleveland said...

Wade,

I think if someone has ever been on their face on the floor, worshiping, and been unable to get up off the floor .. literally under a weight they could neither see nor overcome .. they might get to thinking that none of us really knows it all, or gets all of it quite right.

Including a LOT of our opinions.

greg.w.h said...

Joe Blackmon wrote:

The Bible forbids women from being pastors (vs.) Women can serve as pastors is not exactly what I would call tomato/tomahto.

Since the only reference to pastors in the New Testament is Ephesians 4:11, and it just is a list of roles, how do we know that women aren't permitted to be pastors?

Recall that most Southern Baptists have traditionally NOT used the terms elder, overseer, or presbyter before you start launching into your answer. ;)

Now which is the tomato and which is the tomahto, exactly?

Greg Harvey

Wade Burleson said...

Gee whiz Bart.

To say I am deliberating lying as you have requires you to either have God-like abilities in order to accurately determine my unseen motives and unseen heart, or more likely, it reveals a level of contempt that is both surprising and a tad disapponting. If it is the latter, that old adage about somebody that's been hit yelps the loudest comes to mind.

Regardless, I can assure you that my assertion is deliberate but it is, from my viewpoint, a deliberate truth and not a lie.

And, I am quite confident I know not your motive in posting such a comment.

By the way, I left a voice mail on your cell phone a week ago. Hope you return the call soon!

:)

Blessings,

Wade

Chris Ryan said...

Joe,

You ask why such and such would be labled thought conformity or not.

The simple matter is that both can be thought conformity when they are demanded of the other party before dialogue can take place. Both can not be thought conformity if you are willing to dialogue, lead, and teach, and trust the Holy Spirit to inform both you and the person with whom you are speaking.

Conformity will demand that others be and think like you without letting them critically ask if being and thinking like you is a good thing (or in our case, a biblical thing).

Tim G said...

Wade,
Do you not know that there is much diversity among those you seem to group in the BI movement?

Your continual accusation that some are wanting people to think the same etc... is indeed false!

Bart has clearly put it! I would agree it is time for your wrong accussations to cease!

Recovered Baptist said...

I appreciate Wade’s spirit. It is refreshing to read a Baptist preacher who has more than one layer or suit of clothes. Sometimes it seems preachers know only about the armor of God described in Ephesians 6. But in Colossians 3 the Apostle Paul describes important undergarments.

“So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.”

My comments on some phrases from "The Miracle of Dialogue" by Reuel Howe….

“afraid of being heretical”
Even the “post reformers” of the “resurgence” who call for grace and truth are quite careful to couch their comments under the protective password (shibboleth) of the “inerrant, infallible, inspired sacred text.” I believe these courageous and creative brothers and sisters in Christ are always afraid “resurgents” will attack their fidelity to the “true” faith.

I attended a SBC church from the womb. Graduated from a Baptist university. Was employed by the largest Christian mission organization. Received a degree from SWBTS. Served SBC churches and was appointed by the IMB (actually FMB in those days).

Yet never in all of those dear days gone by did I have to defend my love for the Savior and commitment to the Bible by using “passwords” about the Bible to fend off wolves who wanted to attack my faith or impugn my devotion to God. Nor will I ever be intimidated to gain entrance into the “faithful and true” by having to use coded words.

“servants of a sterile conservatism”
I sense it is more politically correct now to be called “conservative evangelical” (disassociating from what is becoming a pejorative term of being labeled a “resurgent” given the direction of some the movement’s founders). And God forbid there be a “liberal evangelical”!

Whatever label you wear as a SBC leader or pastor, it seems most are blind to how the rest of the world, Christian and pagan, perceive the SBC. Southern Baptists are seen as the arrogant ones who think they have cornered the market on truth. They are seen as “strait-laced, sober (no, I am not talking about alcohol abstinence), sad and dead.”

Meanwhile, other Christians talk about believe and behave - doctrine and duty. To the Christian world beyond Baptists, grace is not only about salvation but sanctification. The scriptures encourage us to "continue in the grace of God" (Acts 13:43) and "grow in grace" (II Peter 3:18) and “be strong in grace” (2 Timothy 2:1). This faith is alive and growing and dynamic!

Tim G said...

Wade,
I will add this:
You are using percieved ideas and situations from people in the past to project upon today, Pastors and lay people who do not, have not, nor seemingly ever will, desire anyone or everyone to copy them.

Recovering Baptist,
Please provide examples. I am with Pastors that are not SBC all the time and their respect for us is incredibly high - unless they are Liberal! Would love to see the examples from people of other groups non SBC who believe the Bible!

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

Thanks for your comment.

I shall continue forward! I shall press on!! I shall never quit!!! I shall not return, because I ain't ever leavin!!!!!!

For some reason I get the itch for exclamation points when I respond to you.

:)

Christiane said...

I found this excerpt in an article about:
" Southern Baptist Convention:
Center Doesn't Hold"

"Finally, it appears that the real problem of the American denominational future involves the issue of identity.
The denominational mechanisms that shaped identity and enabled traditions to be passed on to succeeding generations are fast breaking apart or addressing only one of the multiple subgroups. Perhaps the most essential questions for Southern Baptists are: When all is said and done, what will remain that is discernibly, historically Baptist? And how will fundamentalists and moderates pass on an identifiably Baptist tradition to their children? "

Article Excerpt is by Bill Leonard
archived in

http://www.adherents.com/largecom; baptist_SBC_center_lost.html

COMMENT: So the BI people are one of 'multiple sub-groups' within the SBC, which includes, at this, Calvinists as another sub-group.
The BI people are pushing conformity and the exclusion of others. Sounds like a plan for a schism, unless the lock-step conformist BI people can have their power reversed and the other sub-groups take back the SBC so that it will include all of its sub-groups peacefully co-existing under the SBC umbrella.
If this is not correct, let me know. L's

Tim G said...

Wade,
So are you saying by your response that you will not admit that you are mistaken in this?

That is sad if that is the case. Maybe your readers are not aware that Calvanists are in the BI group? Maybe your readers are not aware that Pastors in the group do the Lords Supper different?

As someone who says they want to present the facts, I would think you would indeed want the facts?

!!!!!!!!!! :-) Thanks for the compliment concerning my use of exclamation marks! Don't you love those things? it is funny how I use them more on your site than anywhere else. I wonder why?!?

Joe Blackmon said...

greg w.h.

First Timothy 2 and 3.

Further, notice I said the difference between someone saying a woman could pastor a church and someone saying a woman could not pastor a church was NOT a simple matter of tomato/tomahto.

greg.w.h said...

Joe:

ToMAYto--pastors == women never teaching or being in authority over men, overseers being husband of one wife, and deacons being husband of one wife but ignore the jewelry/adornment issue because it's cultural

ToMAHto--the word translated authority occurs once in the NT, Paul's use of "I" is a suggestion not a command, jewelry/adornment AND women teaching men is cultural, and the use of "husband of one woman" is generic favoring the cultural expression of mostly men in those roles.

When I put them side-by-side like that, while I grew up taught one of the "pronunciations", I can appreciate why the other "pronunciation" has emerged. And as a child of as pastor/missionaries I also know pretty well the process by which preachers make proclamations about the Word and why those proclamations sometimes are given in such a way to convey more divine authority than they really have.

I think it's probably okay for a specific church to work out their salvation by considering both pronunciations and adopting one. Maybe God intends for us to repeatedly divide over interpretational differences like this. But maybe he's less concerned about this than he is how we treat "the least of these my brethren" and how we love one another.

That isn't an argument for ignoring out and out false teaching. But if the teachers are only women that we claim to be false, and the rest of their lives emulate our Savior, then perhaps his admonition that "those that aren't against us are for us" and that we have a new commandment to love one another, and his prayer that for our unity should be taken into account. All of those passages are in the Bible, too, after all. ;)

Greg Harvey

Jeff said...

I find it amusing that the author tell us orthodoxy is not our goal. How can we know if we are living the new life? Loving God! Loving others, if we do not have right thinking about doctrine.

Sounds like the same old talking. I don't care about doctrine, just Jesus.

Now with that said, there ought to be room at the table of theology to discuss aspects of theology that make us feel uncomfortable.

m l spencer said...

Why is it necessary for one brother in Christ to use such a word lie to another brother in Christ. Does it honor or give glory to God.

Are we not able to give opinions and discuss without such conduct? What are we laypersons to think when we read of such things by called men of God? Do pastors need to use such words and then preach to us on Sunday.

An apology is in order.

Sincerely,

mel s

Joe Blackmon said...

Greg

There is nothing in the Bible that is just some man's opinion. It was inspired. When Paul wrote "I" it wasn't just Paul writing "I" but since God inspired Him to write GOD was saying it through Paul, thanks.

Oh, but don't get your knickers in a twist my little snot. You'll get your women preachers soon enough. I have no doubt that the moderates are going to regain control in the Mainstream Resurrgence [(c) 2008 Joe Blackmon, All Rights Reserved] and when you folks take the convention back over for my part you can have it. I certainly won't hang around to try to fight for the convention or win it back. I'll be doing my best impression of Speedy Gonzales complete with a white smoke trail. Then, in 10 or so years, you'll have a convention that differes from the PCUSA only in eschatology. Enjoy.

Why does my word verification say "fundy"?

Tim G said...

Mel,
You might have a point if an opinion was given and if one were asking. However, what was and has been stated is NOT true. So what do you call that? I wish someone could explain how to address such! Every known attempt has been made and yet no correction is made. If you will notice, I have asked twice on this post for the same and yet - NOTHING but a statement of continued approach.

Greg Alford said...

ALERT!!!

The “BI” Talking point of the day is “Wade is a Liar”.

Bart and Tim have already chimed in; let’s see who else got the memo.

------------
Tim,

“Maybe your readers are not aware that Calvinists are in the BI group? Maybe your readers are not aware that Pastors in the group do the Lords Supper different?”

I think it was you that told me a few months ago that there was not BI mailing list (if not you one of you BI guys yelped when I suggested that there was a BI mailing list… So are you wow admitting that there is an organized “BI Group”?

Interesting that you are now admit this… can I get a copy of the BI Mailing list now?

By the way… who are those Calvinist that you are claiming to be a part of your BI Group? And are they 1,2,3,4,5, or Hyper Calvinist? Or do we need to create a new label for the “BI Calvinist”?

Grace Always,

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Wade - can you take a look at Jim Smyrl's blog post

(http://fbcjaxblog.com/jimsmyrl/)

entitled "Driving a Generation" and comment on it? I think I agree with some of what he is saying about reforms needed in the SBC, but wanted your take on what he is advocating (he writes a bit over my head) and how it fits into your view of reform needed at the SBC leadership level.

thanks...

Tim G said...

Greg,
If you will reread what I said I did not mention a formed group but rather a group as labeled. No there is no BI list and no there is no memo going out. You really are off the rocker at times with this kind of stuff that you read into things people are typing.

To answer your question, one of the guys labeled as BI is a 5 point Calvinist. Should this matter? Why do think another label needs to be created.

Greg, your harshness speaks for itself and your attack to get an attack is clear.

Praying for you!

Tim G said...

Greg,
P.S. I know of 4 others who have been called BI that are 4 and 5 point Calvinist. Is that a big deal with you for some reason. Is it strange to find that the labels are indeed wrong? Is is troubling that the stereotypes are now being exposed as false?

Just asking! Do you really want the truth? I hope so!

Lin said...

"There is nothing in the Bible that is just some man's opinion. "

Joe, then why are there so many different translations? Are you saying it was not the translator's 'opinion' of the right English word to use for the Greek in every verse?

If that is so, then tell me why the KJV used 'obey' in Hebrews 13:17 when peitho would be better translated as persuade or listen?

Or why some OT translations use 'young woman' instead of 'virgin' in Isaiah when referring to Mary?

Greg Alford said...

Tim,

My comments were meant as a very light hearted poke at you… well for the most part anyway.

You really need to take a chill pill dude!

You say to me: “you are off the rocker” and “your harshness speaks for itself” then you end with “Praying for you!”

Please spare us all your “false patronization and self righteousness”.

You come on here and call wade a “Liar” and then tell me that I am commenting with “harshness”? Really?

By the way you did not name who those “BI Calvinist” are? Do they really exist are were you lying?

Grace Always

Thy Peace said...

Off Topic:

Fbc Jax Watchdog blog is going critical.

Fbcjax leadership is pursuing the disciplinary process to extract their pound of flesh.

Fbc Jax Watchdog: Church Discipline - The Process Continues

Also:

Jim Smyrl: Driving A Generation
An initial plan for SBC Reformation will be posted Monday at NOON.

Tim G said...

Greg,
Let me see, I am guilty of _________ and you are ___________?

I love the blog world. I do not make self patronizing comments when referring to my actual prayer life. I am praying for you. I am sorry if this offends you and your ability to judge my heart is noted. Next time I need to see what God is seeing - I will call you.

I will give you one - Scott G. I do believe someone on here called him something last week? There you have it - I am not lying. Why would you thinkn such. You obviously do not know me nor do you know what I believe. But as I pointed out, that seems to not matter around here!

Tim G said...

Greg,
I do have a question for you. You stated that your comments where meant as a light hearted poke - for the most part. Which part and how am I suppose to know? I was responding with sincere desires to reach some resolution on an injustice. Is that wrong. I thought dialogue was the desire?

And for the record, I have not spoken with Bart, emailed him, or ???? concerning this post or any others. So where are you getting your ideas of a MEMO? Have you seen one? Do you have one?

Seriously, I am curious as to how you can accuse with no proof?

Tim G said...

Greg,
One more thing. You signed your comment with "Grace Always" - have you given grace to me? Or is this self patronizing and self rightousness?

Joe Blackmon said...

Lin

Please read the comment again. I was talking about the original autographs not translations. Greg asserted that Paul was just stating his opinion rather than speaking the word of God. If he was just shooting off his mouth we can ignore it. If God was speaking through him then we cannot say it was his opinion. I stand by my comment.

Lin said...

"Please read the comment again. I was talking about the original autographs not translations. "

You have seen them? :O)

"If he was just shooting off his mouth we can ignore it. If God was speaking through him then we cannot say it was his opinion. I stand by my comment."

Are you giving your male brethren Holy Kisses?

Joe Blackmon said...

Lin

Yes I have. Actually I have the autographed version.

(sarcasm) Wow, you sure showed me. I'm going to go right now and find me a church with a woman preacher so I can get right before I get left. (/sarcasm)

Greg Alford said...

Tim,

Wow, a triple response!

You say “ I am praying for you. I am sorry if this offends you and your ability to judge my heart is noted. Next time I need to see what God is seeing - I will call you.”

You say you are praying for someone and in the very same breath make such a malicious comment as that? I think this is the kind of BI attitude that turns most Southern Baptist off.

You say “I was responding with sincere desires to reach some resolution on an injustice.”

Now just what injustice would that be? The injustice of Bart Barber (and all the BI Bloggers) calling Wade a Lire every time Wade expresses his opinion, belief, or refuses to reveal his sources when doing so might cost them their job? Is that the injustice you were desiring to reach some resolution on?

You say “So where are you getting your ideas of a MEMO? Have you seen one? Do you have one?”

Yes I do it came from Mr. BI Himself. It reads “That's a deliberate lie.” And, seeing as you chimed right in and said Mr. BI is right I see you got it.

As far as Scott G. being a Calvinist… well the verdict is not in on that one by a long shot.

Now concerning my signoff “Grace Always”… Perhaps you have attained a much higher level of Christian obedience than I, and therefore are only in need of grace every now and then? But as one who is constantly aware that he is a wretched sinner, I am in need of His grace always, and therefore I signoff Grace Always. I hope you are not offended by this… I guess I could always change it to “Praying for you”.

Grace Always

Tim G said...

Greg,
I did not know you could determine whether one is or is not a Calvinist? I thought that was done by their agreement with the TULIP? Is there another test. You are indeed breaking news tonight. And as for my commenting after Bart justifying a memo - there you go again. Just what is it you know about me. I have never met you. You say I am BI? Based on my calling into question the label that Wade has falsely applied? Surely there is more.

Greg, your aggression is noted and your leaps are confirmed. Grace to you! I wish I could be as right as you.

Native Arkansan said...

You say I am BI?

Nah...I'd say yore BS. As in "full of."

Word verify thing: horseshif

Tim G said...

Native Arkansan,
Your comment is NOT appropriate at all.

greg.w.h said...

Joe Blackmon wrote:

Greg asserted that Paul was just stating his opinion rather than speaking the word of God. If he was just shooting off his mouth we can ignore it. If God was speaking through him then we cannot say it was his opinion. I stand by my comment.

The assertion you credit to me is more of a restatement of the position of others who read the Bible with best of intentions. If their works prove their faith--as James suggests faith is proved--then their view of the Bible is, in essence, a different faith dialect. That they choose to focus on different parts of the same passage with a different emphasis could very well be the direct leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Your claim that you know that if Paul wrote "I" that meant God wanted us to follow the passage exactly certainly is at odds with using the exact same approach to apply the book of Ecclesiastes. Otherwise we should all go eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Since you claim it would go against your conscience to drink alcohol--and the writer of Ecclesiastes almost certainly meant that HE would drink alcohol--then to take the same approach with that passage that you take with 1 Tim 2 would be to be disobedient to Scripture.

You know I jest as I write that, because the book of Ecclesiastes is more like a collection of the best philosophical reasoning "under the sun" and isn't intended to be a guidepost for living but rather a caution against human pride and against a rejection of the heavenly viewpoint. So even if I were to agree with you PRECISELY in how Paul intended that passage, I also know churches filled with well-intentioned saints that are doing their best to understand the Bible within the cultural context that it first came to them that simply at this point cannot read it the same way you and I would.

I believe you and I are called to love them and allow them to love us with the love of our Lord as full saints, sealed with the Holy Spirit. You believe that you are qualified to judge them and to separate from them because of this ONE failing...that it is a big enough issue to prevent fellowship. Again, that is a fine difference that has been turned--my opinion--from a molehill into a mountain for the purpose of what seems to me to be a difference that really is as slight as a different pronunciation as a word.

I really wouldn't mind ignoring the molehills-into-mountains nature of your viewpoint except for one thing: this is Wade's blog and his comments and you return here driven by some sense that your view is right and Wade's is wrong. The least you can expect if you do that is the attempt to discuss the issue with you every time you do that.

If for me to raise that issue repeatedly is due to my knickers being in a wad or me being a little snot, I guess I'll accept such persecution for the gain of the riches of the upward calling of Christ Jesus. My goal isn't to be right as much as to ask if there is a way for us as Christians to honor Jesus Christ's high priestly prayer by somehow reaching for unity with each other in spite of our penchant for division and disunity. I'd willingly be wrong if unity were to spring up and flourish because of my wrongness.

Will you choose unity and the possibility that God intentionally tolerates the current situation not because one group is right and the other is wrong but because he'll take a little unity over slinging lightning bolts at those of us who are truly arrogant, unrepentant, and stiff-necked in our beliefs? If so, I'll gladly apologize for being completely wrong in challenging your thinking.

Greg Harvey

Christiane said...

I remember teaching writing to sixth-graders
and, on the first day, we did this exercise:

On the front of the paper, the children had to write a formal paragraph of exactly 50 words using about eight different other rules and requirements. ( class groans were loud )

After five minutes, I had them turn the paper over. I put some music on (classical) and set the timer for another five minutes. I told them they were allowed to write about ANYTHING THEY WANTED and not to worry about all 'the rules'. Just to write.
When the timer went off, I had them take out a yellow highlighter and find and high-light their 'GOLDEN LINES' (they picked their own favorite line in their writing) and then, they ALL wanted to share their golden lines.

Guess which exercise yielded the most wonderful results?

At the end of that year, with their beautiful portfolios full of stories and poems and lovely little hand-bound books, I found and read in a child's journal these words:

"Mrs. _____ is helping me to see the world differently."

(This from a project child, whose writing was amazingly inspiring to all of us.)
And all I did was to give them permission to bring out the best that was within themselves.
And they did. :)

INSPIRATION ? or destruction of the human spirit ? :
we are, like it or not, individuals with our own God-given talents unique to us.
A person, who is alive to the possibilities of who they are in this world, is more apt to be totally captured by the magnificence of Christ in the Gospels. How could they not be?

Demanding 'conformity' innoculates a person against the freshness of that encounter: a personal, individual response to the Living Word. Harder for the Holy Spirit to burn brightly in someone whose own spirit is continually broken and discouraged.

Does God want us to think 'all alike'? Or does He want the gift of our idividual selves given freely to His service? The Giver of Gifts has blessed us all, each one, richly, individually.
Those wonderful gifts need to be developed and celebrated in thanksgiving.



"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." Thoreau

Thy Peace said...

Paul Burleson: Some Thoughts On Anonymous Sources
Since I know the character of the messenger and the depth of the issue being addressed, [even the source] I have settled my wondering about it all. For the sake of full disclosure I need to say I do have an on-going connection to the bearer of the original story in which an anon source was used. But I'm totally objective as any good CSI guy would be. :)

gmommy said...

I wonder how many of you pastors have been out of your bubbles long enough to know what is going on in the world besides your battle to control the SBC?
My college age son learned his close friend died today. The exact cause of death has not been determined, but they suspect a combination of prescription drugs and alcohol. They do not think he meant to kill himself. It grieves me to think of a generation of young people so desperate to escape the confusion and pain of the world that they turn to drugs and alcohol.
My son visited his friend in Washington just last month and is devastated by the loss of his friend. This young man didn't have a healthy family support system. My son tends to be a rescuer so when this friend had his things put on the street for whatever the mother's crimes were...my son took his truck and gathered all he could and told me he made him feel as cozy as possible in his own apt off campus. When I asked about the dad....my son said the dad probably felt bad but sent money instead of being there.
My own son has very few strong male role models in his life...in spite of the fact that he was in the same church his entire life.
I think he once respected some of the men but then he watched as bold lies were told from the pulpit, how sins were laughed at, how it became more important to protect their organization and their positions in the church rather than to care for and protect the most vulnerable and wounded.
Have you pastors thought about getting off the internet and actually getting to know some of the young people in your churches or neighborhoods? Not the "star children" but those who have no idea what it's like to be cared for by anyone other than maybe their moms? I know for a fact that even our best isn't enough sometimes.

Kids are dying for a man's affirmation, they want to believe God is powerful enough to make prideful men humble. They need to experience Christians REALLY being the hands and feet of Christ...and not just on church sponsored mission trips.

Will my son die next? Would it make a difference if you all could shut up long enough and come down off your prideful high horses and SEE all the fearful lonely boys who desperately need to see what a Christian man looks like in real life?????

How can you see the faces all around you when you focus on yourselves and your theological differences???If all you BI, BM, fundamental, conservative, liberal, Arminian, 1-point, 4-point, 5-point, hyper Calvinist, DOG, or whatever...men cared about the broken hearts right in your own churches as much as you care about the evils of women leaders, open vs. closed communion, whether someone has a PPL or calling people who disagree with you liars....and having to be the one who is RIGHT...
maybe more of the Chazes in the world would be alive and maybe confused kids like my son wouldn't be broken and feel so alone or feel certain the church men are no different from the worldly men.

I was determined to keep my son in his Christian school after my husband abandoned us. I am just now learning the extent of cruelty done to my son by self-righteous "Christian" teachers. It took guts for a shy kid to ask to participate with other musicians in the chapel services.
My son was told he could not. Certainly not because he lacked talent, not because he wasn't neat, clean, and pressed. He was told by the teacher that he wasn't "above reproach." His crime??
This teacher believed there was no provision in the Bible for divorce. Even if that was true...something is wrong when a Christian blames that on a 9th grade kid....who had not even thought about being rebellious yet. The only thing I knew back then was that the teacher had made an issue of divorce in class.
Was that teacher "above reproach"????? What's the difference between that teacher and all you ministers who want to come off sounding like you are more Christian than the next guy??
I find most of you pastors small minded and self righteous. What do our children see? What does the world see in you that is any different from Joe the Plumber???????
You sign many of your comments with "grace" or "blessings" after you rip each other apart.
Will you say righteous sounding things at the funerals of other boys when you could have humbled yourselves and shown them Christ?
Will you sleep well because you have fought the good fight? Do you even remember who the enemy is?

Tim G said...

gmommy,
I can hear the pain of what you and your son along with the other family are going through. May God bless you and give you strength. Your challenge to reach this younger generation is one of my strongest motivators having two sons of my own. Our house is constantly filled with teens and college students. You are correct, they are searching. May more answer the call and determine to reach them!

We are praying for you!

Jeff said...

Tim, Do you know what people in Possum Grape, Arkansas call their husbands or wives....Hello brother or sister.....The gene pool is very shallow their.

Stephen Pruett said...

In the quote from the book is an idea that I think we have not given enough attention. It is the role of the Holy Spirit. Clearly the Holy Spirit will not direct anyone to a course of action or thought that would be contrary to scripture. However, the Holy Spirit can reveal meaning and proper interpretation from scripture and impel us to develop new ways to reach people for Christ. Rigid adherence to a particular interpretation or particular practice does not leave room for the leadership of the Holy Spirit. I believe the overall tone and some of the specific changes in the B F & M 2000 have the same result.

Joe Blackmon,

Not everything Paul wrote in the New Testament is from God. In 1 Corinthians 7:12, we find "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her." So Paul did give advice in the Bible that was his and not directly inspired by God. The problem with insisting that the only possible way to interpret 1 Timothy 2 correctly is that it prohibits women pastors is inconsistent with SBC interpretation of many other passages, which we regard to be culturally influenced (long hair for women, short hair for men, no jewelry or fine clothing for women, silence of women in church, greeting with a holy kiss, etc.). The passage regarding hair length and head covering cites a very similar reason as given in 1 Timothy (it involves the order of creation of man and woman). Yet we treat these passages very differently, for no valid exegetical reason. In fact the only reason I can determine is that we know that in our culture dictating to women the length of their hair would drive millions away from the SBC.

Allowing freedom on this issue without withdrawing fellowship or cooperation is justified by the legitimate differences in interpretation that are possible for people who maintain that scripture is inerrant.

Wade's opinion on the BI tendencies seems to me to be simply a reflection of their actions. They favor disfellowshiping churches that disagree with their inerpretation on women pastors, they supported removing Dr. Klouda from her position because she is a woman, many of them supported the new IMB regulations, and the idea of not building a program involving Calvinists at SWBTS, All of these positions are indicate that at least many of the BI group favor removing Baptists who think and believe different from themselves. Therefore, I have trouble characterizing Wade's statement as a lie. There is abundant objective evidence for it.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Will my son die next? Would it make a difference if you all could shut up long enough and come down off your prideful high horses and SEE all the fearful lonely boys who desperately need to see what a Christian man looks like in real life?????"

gmommy, I will pray for your son and for his friend's family.

Then...while still in my "Bible bubble" I will study and learn and grow and debate the Word of God.

With all due respect ma'am, do not come on here and use your pain to silence good Christian debate over Scripture, Theology, and Doctrine. Even if we all had it right, sin would have still killed your son's friend. In fact, sin will kill me, and you, AND your son. It is appointed for each of to die once. Your pain and fears are real. I would not dare take that away from you. But shame on you for thinking WE had anything to do with it or could have prevented it. God is sovereign. People will be in hell ONLY for their unbelief.

You out to be happy that this blog exists. For it exists clearly for the edification and building up of the saints. There are something like 6 or so billion people on the planet. And this is not the only blog. Good practical Theology (the stuff that gets the goods to your son's friend) will only be strengthened through good Biblical Theology.

Let iron sharpen iron.

My rebuke comes with love and understanding and regret. But you are wrong.

What happens on this and other blogs is exactly what this comment stream has indicated is missing from seminaries: Healthy debate.

Give your son a hug.

Tell him we all care.

Tell him he can come to Steelville, MO this summer and help out at the Children's Camp I will be pastoring.

Better yet, let him come on here and debate theology with all us sinners. :)

RevKev

Jeff said...

Kevin Have you been to seminary?

Native Arkansan said...

Let iron sharpen iron.

Shovels and pitchforks...yep...a whole lotta edifyin' goin' on here tanight.

Tim, Do you know what people in Possum Grape, Arkansas call their husbands or wives....Hello brother or sister.....The gene pool is very shallow their.

Jeff,

Ya oughta know...seein' as Possum Grape's only a few miles up tha road from Searcy. 'Cept most of us know the diffrence between "their" and "there." I betcha that's how ya talk about tha members of yer flock too.

Give your son a hug.

Tell him we all care.


Y'all have a odd way of showin' it...buncha self-righteous so and so's. Do ya ever stop yappin' long enough ta listen ta anyone but yoreselves?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Jeff,

No. I begin this summer.

Native Arkansan said...

With all due respect ma'am, do not come on here and use your pain to silence good Christian debate over Scripture, Theology, and Doctrine.

I may talk funny but at least I can read. Tha granny lady didn't say any of ya killed tha boy. Did any of ya consider anythang but her pain? Did ya read what she told ya? She said nobody can tell yer behavior from tha world's an' that y'all are more concerned about how many of Calvin's points everone believes and bein' right all tha time than ya seem to be about the hurtin' people all around ya. If'n y'all don't grow some humbleness I'd tell her ta keep her son away from guys like y'all 'cause it sounds like the poor kid's got enough on his shoulders already. Heck...I'd rather see tha boy hang out with Joe the plummer. At least Joe's got some good sense in him. It's all yer "good Christian debatin'" that's driven many a youngun' away from tha church. 's startin' ta make it purty distasteful fer me too.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Heck...I'd rather see tha boy hang out with Joe the plummer. At least Joe's got some good sense in him. It's all yer "good Christian debatin'" that's driven many a youngun' away from tha church. 's startin' ta make it purty distasteful fer me too."

Then RUN hillbilly, RUN!



Seriously though, if you sit back and objectively read the comments of the last thread, you will indeed learn many things about soteriology. Have you actually opened to John and read along in chapter 3 and other places to see the points being made? Or are you content to believe that God is love, teach them Jesus, teach them love, then comes salvation from above?

We are called to KNOW our God. We are called to STUDY. Learn from these lessons of grace and truth. Learn to read and appreciate the Ancient Fathers of Faith.

Do you know what I learned from the last thread? That I need a deeper defense for Total Depravity than simply Ephesians 2:1.

I was accused of parroting Calvinism. In reality I parroted the faith of my father up until 2 years ago. I wrestled with that very issue and it was not until I became convinced that dead means dead did I fully submit to reformed theology. So, I did not parrot my current beliefs. I studied, and struggled and debated.

We must make our faith our own.

I did.

Go over to the baptistboard.com and try to find this kind of healthy debate. You won't. Why? Because they are communists. :)

Don't be a communist! Allow for free and spirited debate.


RevKev

Joe Blackmon said...

Stephen Pruit
"Not everything Paul wrote in the New Testament is from God. In 1 Corinthians 7:12, we find "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):...." Thank you for making my point, Stephen. Far from being Paul expressing his opinion as you asset, Paul is giving a new teaching--one that Christ had not taught. In doing so, he is placing his teaching on the same level and claiming the same authority to speak new revelation that Christ had when teaching.

EVRYTHING in the bible is from God. NONE of it is man's opinion.

Get yourself a commentary or something, man.

Joe Blackmon said...

greg w.h.

PLaying verbal ping pong with you is about as much fun as a root canal. Go to your churches that support women preachers. Knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to cooperate with them. Further, if a church in our state or association were to have a woman precher, expect me to be the loudest voice in the room calling for them to be disfellowshipped. Bank on it.

WHEN the Mainstream Resurrgence gains control of the SBC you'll get what you want. Again, I won't hang around and fight you over it. I will abandon the SBC so quick it won't be funny.

peace out

Rex Ray said...

Joe Blackmon,
Would you agree that it would be harder to prove every word of the thousands of words in the Bible true than to prove one of those words false?

You may say it’s easy to prove them all true because you accept them by faith.

Faith is great, but I think you would agree faith based on falsehood is false faith, and we see that in every religion that does not accept Jesus as the son of God.

How many ways can you see Christians today that have false faith in some way or another?

Example: “I don’t care what I eat as long as I ask God to bless my food; it will do me just as much good regardless of what I eat.” Have you ever met any one like that?

That is easy to see, but when it comes to the Bible it’s harder to see the same thing.

It has already been pointed out to you that Paul said this is not from God but my opinion.

But you said, “EVERYTHING in the bible is from God. NONE of it is man’s opinion.”

So you are calling Paul a liar. But if you call him a liar, how do you accept anything he says is true?

You may think I’m being a smart-elect, but I’m dead serious.

Do you think God forgot who Paul baptized when Paul wrote, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius. (1 Corinthians 1:14) Later, he remembers someone else.

Was God ‘holding his writing hand’ or was Paul writing with a bad memory?

I don’t expect you to reply, because ‘die-hards’ never die; they just fade away.

BTW, in heaven will you turn your back on women preachers?

‘May things on earth be as they are in heaven.’

Christiane said...

Dear GMOMMY,

Your son IS a Christian Man.

As young as he was, he reached out to his friend and tried to help him.
Now, he grieves for his friend.
To mourn for the dead is a holy thing.

My husband and I opened our home to all of my son's friends: my own son was and is a 'rescuer'.
(Now he does it in the Coast Guard.)
Our house was filled with young people, some from broken families, some from families where professional parents did not have much time for them, and some just wanting to warm themselves by our fireplace and be fed at our table, and, yes, have someone listen to them.
If anything had happened to anyone of these precious young people, we would have also grieved as you and your son grieve now.

I know the 'world' isn't much there for kids anymore. The young are trying so hard to find their way and some can't.
I just have this feeling that God's judgment isn't going to fall on THEIR HEADS, but on ours.

Be proud of your 'rescuer' son.
He IS an honorable Christian Man.
He already is living the most important teachings of the Kingdom.
We could all learn from him.

The Lord Be With You Both, L's

P.S. Tell your son that I will pray for his friend in the way of my faith, that his soul receives the peace that he could not find among us here. Love, L's

Thy Peace said...

Cindy's blog: A Summary of the Posts About Multigenerational Faithfulness
When I decided that to examine the loaded language term of “multigenerational faithfulness,” describing how Vision Forum and her affiliates refer to the term, I anticipated covering the concepts in just a few blog posts. Really... The ambiguous and nebulous term itself actually lacks substance in and of itself, so I did not anticipate that the term was indeed as loaded as it proved to be when I looked at exactly what they taught. I realized that the term was misleading, but I did not fully realize just how they used it to encapsulate so much of their core doctrine. Upon reviewing the downloadable sermons and written material available, I was quite surprised to realize just how much the term “multigenerational faithfulness” represents for Vision Forum and their affiliate teachers and supporters.

Even considering small sections of specific teachings became far more complicated that I anticipated, because of the subtlety of it all. That’s why the system works as well as it does. About 20 years ago, in a Minerth Meyer book that talked about manipulation in relationships, I recall how they pointed out the subtlety of the serpent. Snakes always avoid direct conflict unless making eye contact with prey or responding defensively to an immediate threat, and they do not knock on your door to announce their arrival when they want curl up on your living room couch. They find opportunistic ways to "sneak in" by concealing themselves in packages (Trojan horses) that you actually carry in yourself or they find breaks in the foundation of your home. I believe that concept of multigenerational faithfulness takes advantage of this same type of subtlety, offering easier answers to the uncertainty of life by playing on our best desires for our families. We tend not to see the subtle distinctions along the the periphery of the message, those subtleties that we would otherwise reject outright. We become distracted, enticed and engaged by the obvious message which offers an entire pleasant package, much like a salesman markets a product to us. Addressing the many subtleties I discovered throughout the course of the discussion amounted to quite a few blog posts.

Joe Blackmon said...

Rex Ray-
"So you are calling Paul a liar. But if you call him a liar, how do you accept anything he says is true?"

In the words of that immortal poet lauriat of the American Urban landscape, Ice-T:

Shut up til you know how dumb you sound.

WatchingHISstory said...

hey all

I ama a proud grandfather for the fifth timw. A 9 lb boy!!!

Charles

Jon L. Estes said...

Rex Ray

Would you agree that it would be harder to prove every word of the thousands of words in the Bible true than to prove one of those words false?

Which words in the bible are you able to prove false?

Also, which falsehood is Joe placing his faith is? One about women pastors?

I think you know Joe is not calling Paul a liar and you know He is standing on the belief that ALL of scripture is God-breathed - inspired, without error. This does not mean God had to take anyones writing hand and pen the words in such a way, but it does mean God, in spirit, breathed, TRUTH, into every word written, even if it looks like Paul is giving opinion. This does not take away the divine value of the word(s), it simply strengthens our ability to see God is a light bigger than, logic or reason.

i.e. It can't be from God if Paul is opining... Taking this position is WRONG.

Yet, some (not specifically thinking of you) need to park here so God's word is only as big as they can grasp it.

Jeff said...

I sorry I haven't responded sooner native arkie, but I was too busy thinking about how great I am!

Do you know what they call someone from Possum Grape? They don't we just leave them inbreeding fools alone up there!

How's the moonshine business?

Their is one for you! Or is that There is one for you.

Or is Their you be, or there you are.

Jeff said...

Kevin, If you never been to seminary how do you know what is taught or how it is taught. I was challenge at seminary to think!!!

Jeff said...

Native Arkie, Do you know what folks call the people in Searcy?

The answer: Boss..... :)

For those who don't know---I am having a little fun with arkie. If he really lives in Possum Grape---He is about 30 minutes from the perfect city of Searcy. :)

greg.w.h said...

Jon wrote:

Yet, some (not specifically thinking of you) need to park here so God's word is only as big as they can grasp it.

There you go, Jon. That's a perfectly reasonable way of handling Christians who you think are getting Scripture wrong. Even better would be to admit out loud that God's leadership on your life is at times ephemeral and you go as much by hunch as by direct leadership. And that your hunch on this issue is that God elevated Paul's personal ("I") recommendation to command when he led the book of 1 Timothy to be included in the (voted on) canon. But it still is a hunch and only a hunch. The text clearly leaves room to take his statement as his personal recommendation and not command. And I can be just as inerrantist as you are and hold to that position.

Greg Harvey

Jeff said...

Greg, How is it a hunch? The Bible declares all of it is inspired by God. Everything, not just bits and pieces as some people think.

Every word, every letter.....

Joe Blackmon said...

Jeff

It's a hunch because he wants to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to call inspired. If you can claim the text leaves open the interpretation that what Paul is saying is his opinion you do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant.

greg.w.h said...

The hunch is in interpreting that word "I". It's present in Scripture. Your interpretation is a pleasing one to God, I'm sure, but it isn't the only one the text supports. I even AGREE with your interpretation, but I disagree with your certitude.

Greg Harvey

John Fariss said...

I believe the point of the phrase "Orthodoxy is not an alternative to heresy" means something other than what Mr. Daly seem to understand. If I am reading his reply (and others who agree with him) correctly, he takes it to mean that the two (orthodoxy and heresy) are opposites, which may be true enough. But I understand the phrase to mean that orthodoxy is more than a simple alternative to heresy, in the same way that although God and Satan are opposites, God is much more than just an anti-Satan.

I have learned much, much more from books and authors with whom I disagreed than those with whom I agree. If I read something I agree with, I affirm it, but I am not particularly challenged. But when I read something with which I disagree--Bultmann or Tillech for instance--I am challenged to find weaknesses in their arguments and to find solid support for my own more orthodox views.

From where I sit in the bleachers, it looks to me as if fear enters into a great many of our current eduvcational endeavors. Some educators (so-called) and some educational institutions seem to be afraid that heresy is as easily caught as the common cold--so they refuse to acknowledge the foundations of these heresies, and simply attack them. Instead of presenting the facts and argugments, they teach "why that dog won't hunt." Where is trusting the Holy Spirit in this? For 2000 years, the Word of God has proclaimed the truth, and God's people have been sat free as a result. When there has been repression of the truth--attempts to enforce thought conformity in other words--under the mantle of church dogma, the vitality of faith has been stifffled, not to mention progress and freedom itself.

And as an alternative to the fear motivation, some other pastors and church/denominational leaders seem to be motivated by a drive for control. Sometimes they are easy to spot; I was recently in a meeting with one who constantly spoke of "my church" and "my people," and using those terms in very possessive ways. And in that meeting he exhibited a need to control every aspect of a change in program being presented to several congregations. Mind you: controling--personalities are not exclusive to conservatism; I once served with a very liberal music minister who was the same way--and although some people responded to it can called it "good leadership," it was stiffling to
the church/congregation as a whole, and kept them from reaching out with effectiveness. Whether accompanied by a liberal or conservative, an orthodox or heretical perspective, thought conformity is never a healthy thing.

John Fariss

Loren Hutchinson said...

Reading the comments brought to mind the last two verses of an old hymn.

"But we make His love too narrow with false limits of our own, and we magnify His strictness with a zeal He will not own.

For the love of God is broader than the measure of man's mind, and the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind."

Jonathon said...

I happened to stumble upon this blog a few hours ago. After having been sucked into the drama of the bitterly divided parties represented here, I felt compelled to point out one apparent truth I think many of you have failed to see. The devil (our one common enemy) is smiling to himself right now. He has accomplished through the hateful, spiteful behavior demonstrated here the very thing that Wade has said he is trying to avoid. He has brought about division. No matter what side of the argument you find yourself on, are you so comfortable with your relationship to God that you can post these comments to one another without the slightest twinge of conviction? Like I said, Satan is smiling at you today. In spite of his utter defeat at Calvary, men and women who call themselves "believers" or, heaven forbid, "defenders of Truth" have gathered here to give him another victory on his way to hell. I'm not worried, however. As Dienekes put it, "I have a hunch that God will cause His truth to stand." While you lot continue to muddy the waters with your doctrinal disagreements, I rest in the truth of His Words..."For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8.

Rex Ray said...

Jonathon,
You make a very good point, but as the old saying goes, “Twice he fought his battles, and twice he slew his slain.”


Joe Blackmon,
In the words of Dragnet…”Just the facts, Mam, just the facts.”

In the words of Bob Cleveland…Sounds like the bit dog just hollered.

You said, “If you claim the text leaves open the interpretation that what Paul is saying is his opinion you do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant.”

Let’s see, if I believe Paul saying his words are his opinion, then I don’t believe the Bible, or if I believe the Bible than I can’t believe what Paul said?

I believe what Paul said, but you don’t; so who’s the real inerrantists?

Speaking of inerrant, do you go with the Chicago Statement on page nine that says discrepancies will some day be seen as illusions?

With your ‘all knowing attitude’, maybe you could explain the difference with me seeing a discrepancy and you seeing an illusion.

I would appreciate a civil answer rather than your previous.



Jon Estes,
Thanks for asking a civil question of “Which words in the bible are you able to prove false?”

There’s a difference between a lie and a falsehood. A lie knows its false, but a falsehood may be said not knowing the truth.

Such was the case in (John 16:32) when Jesus told his disciples his Father would be with him on the cross, but Jesus realized the truth, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Which one of those statements will the Chicago Statement say SOMEDAY will be seen as an illusion?

If you don’t know, ask Joe.

But better yet, Lorne Hutchinson gives the answer: “We magnify His strictness with a zeal He will not own.”

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Kevin, If you never been to seminary how do you know what is taught or how it is taught. I was challenge at seminary to think!!!"


Then please think of getting yourself a book on English grammar.

;)

Dienekes said...

Watching HISstory:

Congratulations!! And may God help your daughter (or daughter-in-law) to heal after delivering a 9 lb. baby...Wowzers!!

John Fariss said...

I wrote my comment before I finished reading all the others. Having now finished, I hope (as the case appears to be) that gmommy's entry effectively shut it down--me included.

May God bless you, your son, and his friends. I have lifted you in prayer.

John

Dienekes said...

To piggyback a bit on comments from Native Arkansan, Jonathon, and others:

Christian brothers and sisters have no business discussing theology or anything else with the type of biting comments, or hurtful language, or petty semantic one-upmanship that is often the norm on this and other blogs.

Suppose, hypothetically, that a Muslim man came on this blog, or to your doorstep, and proclaimed to you that Jesus Christ is not God, that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet, and it's all laid out in the Qu'ran for you to read.

Now, I would hope that most of us on this blog would have some things to say about our visitor's assertions of truth. I'm confident we would desire to dialogue and be faithful witnesses of the truth. I also think that most of us would attempt to do so with "gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet 3:15-16).

Open question: why should our language with each other be any less gentle or reverent than it would be with an unbeliever (even a vehement one)? I hear a lot of people who seem real serious about proper interpretation of the Scripture, but I don't see near enough of us considering one another as MORE IMPORTANT than ourselves. I don't hear near as much about John 17, our Lord's prayer for us. What about the fact that the world will know we belong to Jesus because of our love for one another?

I'm not talking about unitarianism.
I'm not talking about speaking peace where there is no peace. I'm saying that many are speaking vileness and discord where there should be peace.

The harmony with each other in which our Lord called us to live does not exist in the midst of uniformity, but it does (and must) exist even in the midst of diversity.

With that, peace to all.

Christiane said...

Hi, REX RAY,

It's me, L's

Concerning Christ's possible 'confusion' while speaking on the cross, there is this to think about:

We find His Words on the cross echoing from the ancient Psalm 22:

"My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? Why art Thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?"

And we remember that the Psalm 22also follows reassuringly with this:

"All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to The Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before Him. For dominion belongs to The Lord, and He rules over the nations."

So maybe Christ's words were an echo of the ancient words of Psalm 22. In which case, the meaning of His Words on the cross also are reflective of the foretelling of His coming and His sacrifice.

The Psalms are the Prayer Book of the Old Testament.

Christ would have known them by heart.

I doubt anything He said on the cross was said 'in confusion' or in error.
I believe He must have said those words knowingly in fulfillment of the ancient messianic prophecies in Psalm 22. Love, L's

Jeff said...

Kevin, Thanks for the advise, I'll do what I can. When I write for schools or papers, I do proof read. I usually bang out a sentence or two in between stuff on the net.

I have done Dmin work at Covenant and I know you will be challenged at CTS.

My greatest challenge at seminary was done over coffee and doughnuts not in the classroom.

Christiane said...

Dear Charles,

Congratulations on the birth of your newest grandchild.

As a 'grandma-wannabe' myself, I can only imagine the happiness your family is experiencing.
A home with a full cradle is a blessed, happy home.

Love and Prayers, L's

Jon L. Estes said...

Rex,

To take the words "My God, My God..." Jesus spoke on the cross and try to make the case God was not there seems to miss the possibility that God was with Jesus and at that moment in time, the Son saw what we did not but know from reading, the Father turned His back on His Son. This is the action causing Jesus to speak those words.

I like the first statement He made from the cross. "Father, forgive them..." I can sense perfectly Jesus, the Son, was speaking to the Father who was by His side at that precise moment.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Jeff,

I prolly totally misread you. I think I thought you were being a jerk or something. Anyway, I have been sick and irritated lately. I need to not post when I am this way.

As to Covenant, I am indeed looking forward to that challenge.

k

Bob Cleveland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Cleveland said...

I don't suppose we'll know, entirely, the ramifications of the transaction on the cross, but I know what the realization and conviction of sin does to me, and in me.

If Jesus took upon Himself all the sins of the world, I can't begin to imagine what He felt. And that seems to me to have been the ultimate torture ... THAT experience for the only One on earth Who never sinned.

I believe God was there with Him. I don't know whether God turned His back on Him, but Jesus felt that ... under the weight of your sin and mine. And that was as bad as anything could be.

Just a to-one-degree-or-another errant opinion.

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

Sorry to hear that you are sick.
Well, it's that time of year for colds and flu.

Here's something to cheer you up.

I will come across with a response to your 'exercise', if I can.
I have had to do a little 'translating' into my own way of speaking, as some of the phrases you used are a little bit alien to me. Here goes:

QUESTION: Do we feed, clothe, shelter those in need because:

A. 'the Bible says to'
(it is written in the Holy Scriptures that . . . )

B. Jesus commmands us to do this
( we respond to His laws
of charity and mercy)

C. Peter told Paul to
(St. Peter and St. Paul
were on the same team:
same Lord, same commission)

D. because we care for the poor
(because as His servants,
we care for our brothers
and sisters: Christ's poor)

E. To see humanity elevated from
poverty and sickness
(to 'be with' His suffering
poor; and serve Him by
alleviating that suffering.

F. to give glory to Jesus
( to make known His Holy
Name )

G. as an opportunity to share
the Gospel:
(Christian compassion is
the Gospel in action:
a tangible
sharing of God's Love.
There are those for whom
our active caring is the
ONLY way to teach about
Christ's love, because
they are 'challenged' in
normal ways of communicating.)

H. to grow the Kingdom:
(to allow the Holy Spirit to
work through us for the
Kingdom of God)

I. As a ministry opportunity
(to be 'with' the poor
is to share Christ's love
for them)

J. because we care for their
soul (we are asked to
love one another as He has
loved us: unlimited love )

K. because of Love: caritas, agape
no translation needed :)

J. to be seen by men
( I'm crossing this one off.)

So, Kevin,

I can bundle all the ones A through K under the heading of K; but 'the motivation' of Christians is not an external force. We are responding to His call to use our talents to serve Him by helping them.
His calling to us is imprinted on our natures as Christians, so 'his burden is light'. Our response to Him is no trouble at all. :)

Feel better soon.

P.S. Kevin, if you get grouchy when you blog 'cause your sick, know that we still love you. You probably need much more sleep.
Be peaceful. Drink lots of water. And pray the psalms as a cure for irritability. It works every time. Love, L's

Lydia said...

"The devil (our one common enemy) is smiling to himself right now. He has accomplished through the hateful, spiteful behavior demonstrated here the very thing that Wade has said he is trying to avoid. He has brought about division. "

Jonathon, Division is not always bad. 1 Corin 11: 19-20

One of the things that allows bad behavior to continue is that it is considered negative or 'gossip' to talk about it.

Judgement begins where? Not the outside world but in the Body of Christ. See 1 Corin 5

WatchingHISstory said...

Christiane and Dienekes

I just got back from the hospital. Mother and son are resting well. A big guy 22" and 9 lbs. Good looking young man!!!

Grandparents proud. I wanted his name to be Calvin but he is Grace . . . I mean Chase!

Thy Peace said...

Based on the spirit of the post "The Wildness of Vitality or Thought Conformity?", these links address some of the causes and possible fixes of our current economic mess or the economic equivalent of 9/11, as briefly mentioned in a post of this blog here:

I understand Bill Moyers is liberal for SBC, but you might have to listen to him.

Pastor Wade, meet your counterpoint in the economic sector. He is Simon Johnson.
ECONOMIST SIMON JOHNSON
Former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), MIT Sloan School of Management professor and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Simon Johnson examines President Obama's plan for economic recovery.


Please watch this video here.
"There comes a time in every economic crisis, or more specifically, in every struggle to recover from a crisis, when someone steps up to the podium to promise the policies that — they say — will deliver you back to growth. The person has political support, a strong track record, and every incentive to enter the history books. But one nagging question remains. Can this person, your new economic strategist, really break with the vested elites that got you into this much trouble?"

It does not matter if you are conservative or a liberal, a republican or a democrat. This video is an eye opener.

My thanks to Dr. Bruce Prescott, for the links.

Thy Peace said...

Sorry, I used the word counterpoint incorrectly. The correct word might be similar or parallel ...

kehrsam said...

Thy Peace: Thank you for that last comment. Frankly, if the solution to the economic crisis requires a retrenchment to a much lower standard of living, so what? It will allow a larger penetration into lands hitherto banned from proclamation of the Good News. God can use crises as easily as bounty to spread His message.

Wade: Just wondering, do you fell as sanguine about the Conservative Resurgence as you have proclaimed in the past? You want to make distinctions between "third-level distinctions" and essential issues of the faith. What is the practical difference now? Frankly, it was about control of SB institutions and funding from the beginning.

This moderate is not laughing at the current situation. The handwriting on the wall was there from the beginning. God bless the SBC -- such as is left of it.

Lin said...

"Geithner v. The American Oligarchs"

Thy peace, I got a kick out of the link because Geithner IS one of the Oligarchs.

foxofbama said...

Wade:
Billy Graham's Daughter Anne Graham Lotz is PREACHing right before Johnny Hunt next Tuesday at the Alabama Pastor's Conference at Samford in Bham.
One official of the Alsbom.org has said BFM 2000 forbids women in the pastorate, not women to Preach.
Anne Lotz has said something different in her guest column last fall at Newsweek religion blog--google it up.
What do you make of it all???

Rex Ray said...

HI, L’s,
It’s me, Rex

I like the way you say “…hello, in a friendly kind of way”. (part of an old song)

Yes, Jesus knew Psalm 22, (My God, My God…) but I believe through kindness and maybe even necessity, God put a blindfold on his Son that this did not apply to him.

In a way, Jesus was Abraham’s son not knowing he was to be the sacrifice, and Jesus not knowing he would be alone on the cross. (“And He died alone for you and for me.” old song.)

Even without that knowledge, Jesus sweat drops of blood and would have died if angels had not administered to him in the Garden.

Was Jesus such a wimp he asked his Father for some other way? No! He had the strongest faith in the world and faith promotes bravery.

I believe Jesus knew he was to receive the punishment of all the sins of mankind from Adam to when He comes again.

We cannot scratch the surface to comprehend the pain Jesus would bear in hell from his Father. The devil doesn’t punish in hell; God does.

The idea that Jesus only suffered for those who accepted him is ridiculous. That would mean if there were no Christians, hell would have been paradise for Jesus.

God executed his Son for all, and because Jesus suffered the sins of those who reject him, God’s wrath will cast them into hell forever.

When did Jesus know his Father had left him? Just like he knew when a woman touched him and he felt power leave him.

Feeling the withdrawal of his Father caused such pain some of his blood turned to water and he died of a broken heart.

Jesus was forsaken because God cannot comfort sin. That's the way I see it.

Thy Peace said...

"Sorry, I used the word counterpoint incorrectly. The correct word might be similar or parallel ..."

Now I remember. The word I was trying to use is counterpart: a person or thing having the same function or characteristics as another

Stephen Pruett said...

Joe,

I have commentaries. They don't explain how Paul can be correct in his own assertion that the following advice is from him (Paul) and not God. The idea that this is a new law in Christ is problematical mostly because it is a total assumption and it seems very odd that Paul would make a point that this wasn't from God and leave unstated that it was from Christ. There is nothing in the context that suggests this view. I could accept that God is OK with this statement, or it wouldn't have made it into scripture, but taking Paul at his word means that this advice was from him and as far as he knew it wasn't from God. Reconciling this with all scripture is God breathed... is not as easy as it may seem. As I mentioned the only way I can imagine a reconciliation is that this was actually what God wanted Paul to say, but Paul did not have a clear feeling that it was from God so he pointed issued a disclaimer. However, I agree with Rex to some extent. Paul at least thought this was his own idea and was not assured that it was from God, or Paul is a liar.

This whole discussion began as a result of 1 Tim. 2 containing language such as "I do not allow...". I would agree with you that this is not contrary to that which God wanted included in scripture, but this does not establish it applies to all churches for all time. We assume that several similar instructions do not apply literally to all churches for all time (hair length rules, head coverings, silence of women, jewelry and fine clothes for women, greeting with a holy kiss, etc). I have not yet heard a good justification for treating 1 Tim. 2 differently.

Stephen Pruett said...

Joe,

I have commentaries. They don't explain how Paul can be correct in his own assertion that the following advice is from him (Paul) and not God. The idea that this is a new law in Christ is problematical mostly because it is a total assumption and it seems very odd that Paul would make a point that this wasn't from God and leave unstated that it was from Christ. There is nothing in the context that suggests this view. I could accept that God is OK with this statement, or it wouldn't have made it into scripture, but taking Paul at his word means that this advice was from him and as far as he knew it wasn't from God. Reconciling this with all scripture is God breathed... is not as easy as it may seem. As I mentioned the only way I can imagine a reconciliation is that this was actually what God wanted Paul to say, but Paul did not have a clear feeling that it was from God so he pointed issued a disclaimer. However, I agree with Rex to some extent. Paul at least thought this was his own idea and was not assured that it was from God, or Paul is a liar.

This whole discussion began as a result of 1 Tim. 2 containing language such as "I do not allow...". I would agree with you that this is not contrary to that which God wanted included in scripture, but this does not establish it applies to all churches for all time. We assume that several similar instructions do not apply literally to all churches for all time (hair length rules, head coverings, silence of women, jewelry and fine clothes for women, greeting with a holy kiss, etc). I have not yet heard a good justification for treating 1 Tim. 2 differently.

Bob Cleveland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Cleveland said...

Paul seems to have worked so he could pay his own way, and not be a burden on anyone. I presume, then, that those who view his comment to Timothy (that he didn't allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man) as a command for today, don't take any pay for their preaching, or don't believe in paying their preachers.

Hey .. it WAS inspired, wasn't it?

:)

Oh .. Word Verification: "credish" ... hmmm .. I think they left out an "e".

Rex Ray said...

Hey Bob,
Now you’ve done it!

To imply ‘lay-preachers’ are the only ‘true biblical’ preachers is known as ‘meddling’.
It’s also known as ‘hitting below the belt

But maybe that’s what’s needed to remove the blindfolds of some that search the Scriptures and end up with commands of men being spouted as the laws of God.

Lydia said...

"Billy Graham's Daughter Anne Graham Lotz is PREACHing right before Johnny Hunt next Tuesday at the Alabama Pastor's Conference at Samford in Bham."

Very interesting! Will some stand up and turn their backs on her again?

"One official of the Alsbom.org has said BFM 2000 forbids women in the pastorate, not women to Preach."

Here we go with the tweaking of interpretations to fit a presupposition. Remember that Mrs. Criswell taught men, too. And the excuse was that she was under the authority of her husband (whatever that means and besides he was not in the room)