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

A Case Study in How Fundamentalists Can Kill a Convention (Part 2)

During the aftermath of Peter Lumpkin's ridiculous post about Southeastern Theological Seminary and Peter's baseless accusation of a problem with rampant "drunkenness" on the campus of SEBTS, Dr. Danny Akin, the President of SEBTS, signed in to "comment" (comment #113) on Peter's baseless post. Dr. Akin was gracious but firm in his denial of Peter's charges. Peter Lumpkins responded to Dr. Akin by writing:

"Dr. Akin did not really address the main point of the two posts I’ve written."

I find that statement ironic since Peter invited me to debate him on the subject, but subsequently deleted every single one of my comments. Peter did not have the ability to delete Dr. Akin's comment, so he simply dismissed Dr. Akin as someone who "did not really address the main point of the two posts I've written." So,I will dialogue for a moment on Peter's assumptions in a place where he cannot delete what I write.

Question: What is the "main point" of Peter Lumpkins' posts? Here it is in Peter's own words:

Main Point:  "When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?"

Peter is perturbed that some faculty members and administrators at SEBTS have either taught moderation of alcohol from the Bible and/or have invited speakers to the seminary who hold to personal "moderation." Peter believes they are not only wrong, but they pose a danger to the SBC. To Peter and Southern Baptists of his ilk, total abstinence is a first-tier, gospel-centered, foundational moral issue. You either agree with his position of total abstinence, which is the ONLY "official" Southern Baptist position, or you are "immoral." If one dares teach "moderation" as the biblical position, as some professors at SEBTS do, then one can expect the sin of drunkenness to be rampant on the campus among the students.

Wade's response  to Peter's main point - Hogwash.

Let me be clear. What is hogwash is not Peter's personal conviction for total abstinence. I respect that and affirm him in it. What is hogwash is Peter's demand that every Southern Baptist conform to his interpretation of Scripture and accuse those who don't, as in the case of some at Southeastern, as immoral Christians or at best on the verge of rampant immorality. That kind of condemning spirit is legalism; or it could be called Fundamentalism with a capital "F."

Dr. Gresham Mechan, the great conservative Biblical scholar was once asked if he considered himself a "Fundamentalist" or liked being called a "Fundamentalist." Listen to his response:

"I regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a "Fundamentalist?" Most certainly I do. (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 337).

John Piper gives seven reasons why Machen never spoke of himself as a Fundamentalist. To Dr. Machen, Fundamentalism meant. . .

(1). The absence of historical perspective;
(2). The lack of appreciation of scholarship;
(3). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
(4). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
(5). The pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang-ups with smoking, drinking alchohol, etc . . );
(6). One-sided otherworldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform the culture), and,
(7). A penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: premillennialism).

The SBC should avoid Fundamentalism. It will kill us. We should never take third-tier issues of fellowship and place them in the first-tier category. I have written before on the freedom Christians should give one another on the issue of alcohol consumption. The Biblical command is to "abstain from drunkenness." Whether someone in the Southern Baptist Convention drinks wine, or beer, or alcohol--unless it is a violation of the law (such as "underage drinking" or "drunkenness")--should be none of our business.

The "main point" of Peter Lumpkins should be vociferously resisted by all Southern Baptists, vocally and in writing, because if the spirit of Peter Lumpkins is allowed to become the predominant and prevalent spirit of the SBC, our great Convention will die a slow death as it is strangled by Fundamentalism. Remember, the issue is NOT whether or not someone should be free to follow a personal conviction to abstain from alcohol, but the issue is whether or not one's personal conviction should be forced onto the entire Convention. Fundamentalism says it should.

God says it shouldn't (Col. 2:16; I Cor. 10:31; I Timothy 5:23 ).

In His Grace,

Wade

227 comments:

1 – 200 of 227   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

While I may agree with you that fundamentalism might kill us, I think it is a well accepted fact that liberalism definitely will kill us. I would rather end up in the camp of total abstinence of alcohol than having professors and students and pastors telling us there is no harm in alcohol.

BTW, I would venture to say there is plenty of alcohol being consumed at SEBTS since I know about the usage at SWBTS and they are first cousins.

Bob Cleveland said...

It's long been my position that the Bible is inerrant, and that it is authoritative, but one thing has been added to that list in the last 4-1/2 years. It says enough.

Too many professors (and bloggers) seem to think God left some stuff out of the Bible. Well, He didn't.

Period.

My preference is that seminaries teach what the Bible does say, and trust that the Word of God is stronger than any moral conviction of a particular teacher. Or preacher, for that matter.

LivingDust said...

Most here know that many a Southern Baptist family has been adversely affected or destroyed by the effects of drug and/or alcohol abuse. Therefore, many have adhered to a policy of total abstinence. If that works for your family then so be it. However, scripture does not require this of a Christian. Case in point - Paul tells Timothy that Deacons "are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine and not pursing dishonest gain". Before I became a Christian and a Deacon I learned that consuming alcohol was a poor, poor choice for me. It brought me nothing but misery and trouble. However, if my brother in Christ decides that wine is appropriate for himself and his spouse, then so be it. I believe we can almost universally agree that drunkenness and addiction to any substance is certainly detrimental to any Christian witness and brings dishonor to the Lord.

Bryan Riley said...

Anonymous writes:

I would rather end up in the camp of total abstinence of alcohol than having professors and students and pastors telling us there is no harm in alcohol.

I don't read anywhere that anyone is saying there is no harm in alcohol. That isn't the point of the post at all. Moreover, the fact that alcohol can harm doesn't mean that total abstinence is God's design for humanity. At the same time, an individual may personally be convicted to abstain from alcohol, and for them, to drink alcohol would be wrong. Let's not get caught up in an either/or mentality that isn't reflected in Scripture or by Jesus' life.

Bryan Riley said...

What really harms us as the Church - the Body of Christ - is a gospel that isn't a gospel at all, a gospel that goes back to the Law rather than proclaiming the freedom in Christ that we all now have. For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son so that we might live! As we are awakened to that reality, and truly fall in love with the One who loves us because He is Love, we will live for Him. Let's proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom, where Love reigns and our hearts are transformed and we desire to reflect his character in all we do!

Gene S said...

Wade---

In a way it's funny to see how SEBTS now has it's chance to feel the pain of a vivid imagination pointed at them. I saw far too much of that as my 1967-70 SEBTS experience was called "liberal" and "godless."

What troubles me is that when I commented on the SBC Today blog with some far more serious questions of Dr. Akin, it was moderated out.

Here is what I asked:

Four practical matters I would Dr Akin to address which are far more important than drinking on campus:

1) Do you have a sense of how many are there now from non-SBC backgrounds?

2) Is it true that students are sent out to “bring their student pastor churches” into a new Constitution for the church which makes the Pastor in charge of everything and violates our old concept of a Servant Pastor?

3) Do any students accompany a student pastor to become members of his church and try to overcome the voting of the regular members of that church in trying to change it?

4) Do we still have the Professor who was telling naive students that using birth control = abortion?

I think I found out quickly how protective of real "dirty deeds" the SBC blog is. It was interesting that after DR Akin appeared, magic happened and this issue faded fast---now, is anyone willing to check out the dumpsters at SEBTS to see what is really there!!!

It could well be truth that those who talk too loud and long on pedophelia could be doing strange things at the campout for little boys.

Gene S said...

BTW, I would venture to say there is plenty of alcohol being consumed at SEBTS since I know about the usage at SWBTS and they are first cousins.

Now, is this first comment telling the truth or not. If so---"Houston, we have a problem!" (Apollo XIII)

Lydia said...

"4) Do we still have the Professor who was telling naive students that using birth control = abortion?"

Many in the SBC teach this. It is Dorothy Patterson's position.

BTW: A few years back, it came out that the SBC's health care plan did not cover birth control pills but DID cover Viagra.

Makes total sense in light of what is taught about gender in the SBC, doesn't it!

ml said...

Wade, I am coming to agree with you more and more in the light of Gal 2:11 about hypocritical legalism. It is blasphemy of the highest order because it emphasizes our effort over Christ. And in a church it should never be tolerated as it is divisive and contrary to the truth [read gospel]. Spurgeon and John Calvin would be out as potential pastors for Peter Lumpkin. Jesus could never be president of the SBC if imbibing wine were a matter of fellowship. Why are we still preaching behavior and not gospel?

John H said...

The question still comes back to: How much disagreement can we have and still work together? I think it's pretty obvious that there are many who answer that question with "none." This will destroy us, because only fruitcake cults have 100% agreement on all things. We're headed down a dangerous road, with hidden, secret meetings, unpublished agendas, and quick trigger "heretic" labels. (Some heretic labels are deserved, but we open that can of worms here.)

And I'm probably 95% in agreement with most of the current driving forces and I see it, and don't want any part of it. It's not just the theology you believe, it's how you choose to live the theology, which shows itself in your attitudes towards others.


Gene S---

It's been interesting reading your comments here (and I think elsewhere).

Dad graduated from SEBTS back in the early 70s, named me after one of his professors. He's certainly the finest man I know, and definitely trusts the Word of God and the Lord enough to know God can deal with a lot of the issues we people try to deal with.

The only reason he stayed in the SBC was because of missions support in the CP. Otherwise, he'd have left long ago. Never cared for how the whole thing happened, and in fact warned me about it as I started towards ministry. He left the full-time ministry and spent a full career in the military. Some days I think I should follow those steps.

Perhaps this shows that we really ought to look back at being unified more over pragmatic issues than long theological ones: do you believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven? Ok, go for it...maybe that's too simplistic.


Anyway, I pastor a small church, in a small town, in fact the only Baptist church in town, and I've got families that are divided over some of this. It only hurts, because if we still had 75, we'd be more effective to evangelize. And we wouldn't have the community stigma of dividing families over nitpicking.

John H

Wade Burleson said...

Gene,

I believe your four questions are good ones. Though I feel I know the answers, it would be interesting for someone at SEBTS to answer them.

Wade Burleson said...

First Anonymous,

See Bryan Riley's response. Couldn't have said it better.

Eating too much red meat is "dangerous." Driving too fast is "harmful." Consuming donuts for breakfast, fried chicken for lunch, and Baptist casseroles for dinner is "full of harm" when it is repeated time after time. Working too much, working out too much, playing golf too much, and talking too much are also "harmful."

Good night, anything to its excess is harmful.

You are missing the point.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

In writing about Peter Lumpkins, you have presented a caricature; a strawman erected in an effort to protray Fundamentalists as mean spirited and legalistic.

Actually, you may not understand the difference between a Capital "F" Fundamentalist and a little "f" fundamentalist.

Personally, I don't think Dr. Lumpkins is a Capital "F" Fundamentalist but a "f"undamentalist.

I've never read where Peter is concerned about women wearing slacks[pants] or men wearing their hair over their ears or being "KJV" only.

Blessings! RFHale

Ron said...

Anon said, “BTW, I would venture to say there is plenty of alcohol being consumed at SEBTS since I know about the usage at SWBTS and they are first cousins.” Could you please be more clear? Do Drs. Patterson and Akin serve cocktails in their office? Do the seminaries serve beer in their dining halls? Do the professors keep alcohol in their offices to drink between classes? If alcohol is being consumed at SEBTS and SWBTS explain what that means.

It is amusing to me that back in the 80s I heard these same charges being made against SEBTS by the political organization that Patteson and Akin used to get their jobs. It looks like what goes around comes around.

Ron West

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

I am using Fundamentalist the way it is historically used, as illustrated by Gresham Machen. Mr. Lumpkin qualifies.

Wade Burleson said...

Ron,

One of these days the standard of cooperation among Baptists will be the good news of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Nothing more, nothing less.

Chris Riley said...

By demanding abstinence from alcohol, doesn't the arguement sound very similar to the discussion Eve had with the serpent about the tree? She "added' to the decree God had set and the fall happened. I agree with Bob Cleveland that we should teach what the Bible teaches, and not what a faith statement or one group's interpretation.

Wade Burleson said...

Chris,

Absolutely. The scary thing is that too many Southern Baptists are afraid to call the legalism in the demand for conformity over this issue what it is.

And the Fundamentalists express "shock" that anyone argues with them over their demand everyone be like them.

That shows me they no more believe the Bible than the proverbial man on the moon.

faithalight said...

My preference is that seminaries teach what the Bible does say, and trust that the Word of God is stronger than any moral conviction of a particular teacher. Or preacher, for that matter.

Mr. Cleveland, If there was a trust that the Word of God is stronger than any moral conviction of a particular teacher, there would be no need for seminaries. The Word of God tells us that preaching is to come from the power of the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Fundamentalism is the reason people would rather be atheist than Christian. I think the church should focus more on loving and helping people rather than prohibiting them from doing this or that. Obedience comes from knowing the grace and goodness of the Lord.

Anonymous said...

There were a lot of issues that drove me from the church the first go-round - some were legit - some were issues I let my mind exaggerate into something important.

One of the good things about going through a loss of faith: the real issues are brought into laser-focus.

Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Jesus Christ and Him resurrected.

Grace for me. Grace! I love that word. I know you all do too.

I used to be very circumspect in admitting how I like a good single-malt Scotch or a nice Irish whiskey. Or how I can appreciate a decent wine or a well-crafted beer. But not anymore. It's part of that laser-focus thing I mentioned previously. These things are gifts from God to me - meant for me to enjoy - not abuse.

And don't take that wrong - I do care if we happen to be in each other's presence and you're offended. That would bother me, but I will never again live in minor fear of being seen living my life as I understand Scripture says I may live it.

For sure, some things and some discussions are probably better left to the privacy of one's home, or within the company of close friends. I don't bring this issue up anymore, and I only tell my tale here because it is the current subject.

The last church I attended with any regularity, was, and still is pastored by a good man. He once took a stand on this issue and it cost him a family or two. He was asked to sign a declaration (or something similar) stating how the consumption of alcohol was sinful or wrong (or something close to that). He refused. When I questioned him about this incident at a later date, he told me how he could not make the Scriptures say something they do not say.

My post here seems disjointed to me. I'm not sure I'm communicating what I want to say - with any accuracy or clarity. I'm sorry.

I'm glad I'm not a Southern Baptist - but I don't say that with the intent to hurt anyone. I just can't see getting involved in a church and having to defend personal choices. And I would have to defend them - eventually. Or, not be myself, and I won't do that anymore. It's not worth it, for it always choked the joy out of my life.

Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Jesus Christ and Him resurrected.

Johnny D.

P M Prescott said...

The "main point" of Peter Lumpkins should be vociferously resisted by all Southern Baptists, vocally and in writing, because if the spirit of Peter Lumpkins is allowed to become the predominant and prevalent spirit of the SBC, our great Convention will die a slow death as it is strangled by Fundamentalism. Remember, the issue is NOT whether or not someone should be free to follow a personal conviction to abstain from alcohol, but the issue is whether or not one's personal conviction should be forced onto the entire Convention. Fundamentalism says it should.

God says it shouldn't (Col. 2:16; I Cor. 10:31; I Timothy 5:23 ).

A very apt way of describing the "My way or the highway" form of abuse all seminaries and churches have been subjected to since 1978. That year SWBTS had an enrollment of over 5,000 students, now it's down to 1,000. It seems conformity of theology has people voting with their feet.

I was a student at SWBTS in 1976-7. I've never been at a place where there was so much serenity. You had the feeling that everyone you encountered would move heaven and earth to help you and you'd do the same. No one went around questioning if you should or shouldn't be there. Unlike the Baptist college I attended there were very few repressive rules. You were told upfront that those who needed external rules had no business being there.
I was unable to finish my degreee, which had nothing to do with the instiution. Maybe my memory is idealized, but how sad it is to see that serenity, that life giving spirit shattered by a theological police state.

Chris Riley said...

I don't think Lumpkins "high view" has been allowed in the SBC...IT IS AT THE CORE of the takeover movement of the SBC since 1979. "If you view does not match ours...your out or we will villify you until you go." It is the heart of power fundamentalism. I think Wade Burleson had a blog entry on this earlier this summer.

Christiane said...

Hi WADE:

You wrote:
"One of these days the standard of cooperation among Baptists will be the good news of the person and work of Jesus Christ."

I hope so, too.
Returning home to 'the one needful thing' is always a journey to sit quietly again at the Feet of Christ.



"There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds."
St. Caesaria (circa 500 A.D.)

"But above all it's the Gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there, hidden and enthralling meanings." St. Therese of Lisieux

'All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ"
(Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe)

Dr Who said...

That is not all that is destroying the S B C. These you speak of are not fundamentalist they are what I call extremist or what a friend of mine calls them; (and me too)

"The Baptist Mafia"

Don't agree with them.....and you're on their hitlist, blacklist, ignorelist, thislist thatlist you can fill in the blanks...

They will come after you.

"The Baptist Mafia" is alive an well throughout this denomination.

And fake DR's too....

Thy Peace said...

I am a wine enthusiast. I have always treated wine as food.

Though I understand why "Fundamentalists" preach constantly about the bad effects of drinking and so on, there is an underlying problem with their emphasis.

The problem is the change that takes place in a believer is the effect of The Holy Spirit and by the proclamation of The Gospel and not due to constant showcasing of bad effects of drinking, though the concerns are valid. The change making in a believer is The Holy Spirit.

I also think some of the preachers are truly concerned (because they can not control) about the true freedom that is present in The Gospel and how The Spirit moves in the Body.

Anonymous said...

We're having far more difficulties with people dying from diabetes, heart disease, and related illnesses than from people dying from alcohol related incidents.


We're also seeing the social implications of obesity ripping our marriages apart far more than alcohol.

Yes, alcohol does have dangerous consequences when consumed in excess. My church has lost more people to the effects of gluttony than alcohol at a rate this year of 50-1. Literally, fifty people in the congregation dead from heart attacks, diabetes, or some complication directly related to weight issues. We lost a teenager to a drunk driver a few months back.

Guess which of these deaths became a sermon topic...

Louis said...

I find it interesting that some folks who might, in other contexts, affirm the authority of Scripture over personal experience prefer to do the opposite on the topic of drinking alcohol--to take their own negative experiences (or those of someone whom they know) with beverage alcohol as possessing more weight than the teachings of the Bible.

If you wish to make an argument against drinking wine or beer from the Scripture, well and good. There certainly are some texts that could be cited in (at least partial) support of your position. But if we are genuinely committed to shaping our lives around the truth revealed in the Bible, ought we not make that our court of first appeal, rather than personal experience?

In blog discussions of this topic, I have seen a number of Scripture references cited by those who see no problem with moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages. From those who insist on total abstinence, not so much.

I realize that the main point of the original post is about the dangers of Fundamentalism, and that the "drinking vs. abstinence" debate is presented as just one example of how Fundamentalist legalism can be poisonous to the well of Christian liberty (to say nothing of Christian civility). But it appears to me that by elevating experience over Scriptural authority, some Fundamentalists are abandoning one of the fundamentals.

Anonymous said...

The Battle of the Booze.

AGAIN.

Wade Burleson said...

Louis,

Well said.

natamllc said...

I would relate a story, as a warning for some Christians who don't care how they are perceived when drinking in public; and also as a lesson and a way of helping others escape from the sin of drunkenness in this life. Sometimes one has to do extreme and strange things as a selfless sacrifice for others when it comes to what they do in public. It may be that others are struggling with drunkenness both public and private and are stumbled from abstinence because of another who is free to drink in public. You might be one who is self-controlled and moderate in your public drinking. What should you do if it happens that you stumble another, especially when you are called upon to care for others in their weakness?

You do recall the wisdom of Paul, don't you?

1Co 8:8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
1Co 8:9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
1Co 8:10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?
1Co 8:11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.
1Co 8:12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

1Co 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
1Co 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
1Co 10:33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved




Consider this true story.

A Pastor one morning drove his car to the local small town gas station to be repaired. Across the street in a restaurant sat two members of his Church fellowship. One member was a long time Deacon and the other had recently joined, attending about three months.

This new member had a drinking problem. He was being delivered from drunkenness and the Deacon was helping him. That morning as they were having a Bible study over breakfast they saw the Pastor across the street. They watched him talk with the gas station attendant. They watched him walk down the street and go into a local store. A short while later he came out drinking what they thought was a bottle of beer. The one man became agitated at the sight of this Pastor drinking knowing he was weak. They watched the Pastor walk back to the gas station drinking in public. The man was tempted to go drink a beer by what he saw the Pastor doing. He was found that same night drunk outside the local bar.

The next day the Deacon was called to come and visit him. He asked him what happened and he told him he just lost it because he saw the Pastor drink in public.

The Deacon went to the Pastor and told him what happened. The Pastor was so overwhelmed with sadness about what the Deacon told him, realizing that what they thought he was drinking was bottle of beer, was in fact, it was a bottle of sparkling apple cider instead!

He vowed then and there never to publicly drink anything that in anyway could be thought of as a bottle of beer out of love and concern for the weak!

natamllc said...

Wade, blog filter has caught my post. Can you release it so it will post in here?

thanks

Rex Ray said...

Chris Riley,
You said, “I don’t think Lumpkins “high view” has been allowed in the SBC.”

Seems like I remember the SBC addressing that issue in some way, but I know the IMB stopped all board members from any social or otherwise drinking. Wade was upset with their decision but went by their rule as long as he was a board member. Maybe he had a toast the day he resigned?

If I’m wrong about any of that would someone please correct me?



Dr Who,
You said, “Don’t agree with them…and you’re on their hit list, blacklist, ignore list,…They will come after you.”

Hey! That sounds like Jim Richards (SBTC Executive Director, Vice-president SBC) saying, “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.”

I’m glad the law protects us from being identified like Henry II did by branding Paulicians (Baptists) on their foreheads and no one was allowed to help them. They perished from cold and hunger. (Trail of Blood)

I know I’ve said that many times on Wade’s blog, but it still applies.



Gene S,
Good for you on asking hard questions. Being deleted gives them validity.

I’m interested in your two questions about students sent out to join churches with the goal of changing them. I had asked John Wylie:

“Do you think it’s impossible for a ‘spy’ to join a CBF and become a messenger?”

(I was referring to the minority of the CBF voting for gay missionaries which has been used to embarrass the CBF.)

John’s response on Wade’s September 27 post on Thu Oct 07, 06:32 PM was: “It would take more than a single "spy" to pull that off…”

Gene, with all the ‘friction’ the SBC gives the CBF, do you think it’s possible the fundamentalists infiltrated as messengers to the CBF to cause the minority vote to be 40% for gay missionaries?

Thy Peace said...

In my view this sermon below is very apt and powerful for it addresses the underlying concerns of the past several blog posts well:

Emmanuel - Enid > Series on "The Seven Last Sayings of Christ on the Cross" > The Word of Victory (John 19:30- 35).

Anonymous said...

After 1.5 years of not checking your blog, I randomly pop on. And here's what I find--the same reason why I stopped reading in the first place. You judge people's motives and are harsh and bitter in your views toward those you disagree with. You have never understood that what you say sometimes is in clear violation of I Cor 4:5. Thank you for the confirmation that I should continue to stay away from this blog. It was good being away for all those months. I was hoping for a change.

John H said...

Rex Ray--

not sure about IMB, but am aware of their total abstinence policy. Actually have a family member that was advised by a doctor that a half-glass of red wine a day would be the best thing for his cholesterol. Except he's career IMB, and to take that advice would have resulted in his forced termination after 30 years on the field. Instead, he was taking prescription meds whose side effects harmed his health and nearly forced him from the field.

But the powers that is ruled that even "taking a little wine for the stomach" wasn't acceptable. That's the fundamentalism that's killing us: failing to balance our own opinions and preferences with even the Word of God itself

Paula said...

What's the difference between "You must not touch alcohol!" and "You must call Mormons Christians!"?

Only that one is labeled "fundy".

Joe Blackmon said...

I’m glad the law protects us from being identified like Henry II did by branding Paulicians (Baptists) on their foreheads and no one was allowed to help them. They perished from cold and hunger. (Trail of Blood)


imagining...huge smile.

Joe Blackmon said...

What's the difference between "You must not touch alcohol!" and "You must call Mormons Christians!"?

Only that one is labeled "fundy".


Oh, SNAP!!!

Bob Cleveland said...

Two things keep nagging at me on this "unity" thing.

One of them is that Jesus said we're to be united .. to be one with Him .. we're to grow up into the unity of the faith.

That doesn't sound like an option on the order blank for faith, that we can choose or not.

The other thing is that Jesus said that, if we don't come to him like little children, we don't even SEE the Kingdom.

Put those two thoughts together and I get the idea that our unity must be built around things a little child can understand.

I'm a sinner, and I must repent of that and turn, in faith, to Jesus for salvation. Turn to Him as Lord.

It's fine to have different ideas about the other issues of Christianity .. open/closed communion, how our wisdom manifests itself in different areas of our life, eschatology .. things of that sort. But those things must not interfere with the unity toward which we're commanded, nor the love we're supposed to show toward one another (as the mark of being one of those who love Him).

My, my. We're seeing just how self-centered religion really can become.

Anonymous said...

Gene,

Do we still have the Professor who was telling naive students that using birth control = abortion?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do not know about any of the seminaries, but plenty of churches are teaching this. This very idea is why the QFers refuse BC- even if a pregnancy could kill or seriously harm the mother (so much for being pro life)

I got an ear-full when I mistakenly mentioned that I have an IUD. I just blinked and said "if you are so worried about a possible abortive effect, you can use back up measures....DUH!"

Not that most BC is abortive, anyway. Most pills prevent ovulation. No ovulation means no egg sitting waiting to be fertilized. IUDs inhibit the movement of sperm and make the uterus inhospitable to them- thus not reaching the egg. If none of this convinces you then use a barrier and call it good. SEESH!

I am amazed by all the people who listen to 'religious leaders' concerning health and science issues. I'll listen to those who went to med school or have a science degree over those who have a clear agenda of keeping women 'in her proper Biblical' place. TYVM

~KAYE

Wade Burleson said...

Paula and Joe,

Any person, Mormon or Baptist, who is trusting their own righteousness and their own moral behavior for God's favor--instead of the righteousness of Jesus Christ given to sinners by the grace of God--is condemned to hell.

Agreed?

Joe Blackmon said...

Any person, Mormon or Baptist, who is trusting their own righteousness and their own moral behavior for God's favor--instead of the righteousness of Jesus Christ given to sinners by the grace of God--is condemned to hell.

Agreed?


I'll answer that question if you'll answer this one with a "Yes" or a "No".

Are Mormons Christians?

Paula said...

Wade, two points:

1-- There is no difference between bashing fundies and bashing liberals/moderates; bashing is bashing no matter who it's aimed at or whether they deserve it. It is no more righteous to criticize Lumpkins than it is for him to criticize others. Where is the love and tolerance now? It's a two-way street and neither side has the moral high ground.

2-- Are you saying that if a Mormon trusts Jesus that they are saved-- while also keeping their belief that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and every man (not women!) can become a god just like the Father?? This is tampering with the gospel and makes Lumpkins' obsession with alcohol pale in comparison.

You can't MIX Jesus and Satan,

Anonymous said...

"I'll answer that question if you'll answer this one with a "Yes" or a "No".

Are Mormons Christians? "

Qestion is if you call a person a pile of filth are you a Christian

Anonymous said...

Qestion is if you call a person a pile of filth are you a Christian

Classic example of a red herring. The point being discussed is whether Mormons are Christians; we can get to other groups later.

Darrell said...

Joe, let me jump in here.

1. I know baptist that are christians and baptists that are not

2.I know catholics that are christians and catholics that are not.

3. I know mormons that are christians and mormons that are not.

That is, "all who call on the name of the lord shall me saved"

when we add man made things (BFM) and others as conditions, we fail.

If i use the "klouda" stardard, then all who did that to her and all that supported those that did that to her are not christians.

Now, if they repent of that terrible sin and and repent of the belief that what they did was ok and reach out to Mrs Klouda and do all they can to restore the damange, then, they will have a chance of TRUE CHRISTIANITY.

On the other hand, the best christian man i ever knew was a catholic and his life proved his incredible love for Jesus.

I worked many years for a man who's dad was mormon and mom was Christian. He knew a little about persecution. He loved jesus and his life proved it and was an elder in his MORMON church. he did not agree with all the mormon traditional stuff or all the christian traditional stuff.

By the "klouda stardard" those i speak of all pass the test.. They loved jesus and would never do a deed like the Klouda incident.

So, here is the real question "can the people who wrong mrs klouda (and claim jesus) really be chrisitans? Jesus said, "by your fruits you will be known" and "not everyone who calls me lord will enter heaven" and "you love me with your mouth but your heart is far from me".

There is so much howling by demons who spout poison on this blog, it is eally easy to apply Gods litmus test and see if the Love of Jesus is in them.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Anonymous said...

is a man who calls a woman a pile of filth a Christian?

we can get to the mormans latter
deal with it, Joe

Paula said...

3. I know mormons that are christians and mormons that are not.

So a Christian can believe Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and that a man, if he's good enough, can become a god equal to the Father?

is a man who calls a woman a pile of filth a Christian?

we can get to the mormans latter
deal with it, Joe


I'm the one who commented on the red herring (hit return by accident). It's still a red herring, and Mormons got on the table here first, so Joe-bashing will have to wait its turn.

Deal with it.

Joe Blackmon said...

Joe, let me jump in here.

You know, the funniest thing happens when someone asks Wade a question that will pin down what he believes--people come out of the wood work to answer the questio for him or attack the questioner.

Any person, Mormon or Baptist, who is trusting their own righteousness and their own moral behavior for God's favor--instead of the righteousness of Jesus Christ given to sinners by the grace of God--is condemned to hell.

Agreed?


I'll answer that question if you'll answer this one with a "Yes" or a "No".

Are Mormons Christians?

Anonymous said...

Darrell - if you "know mormons that are christians" then they are not really mormon...

Anonymous said...

http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/an-email-from-joe-blackmon-and-my-response/

starts out 'I’m sorry that your are such a pile of filth and have no integrity. '
Joe is this Christian ?

Paula said...

starts out 'I’m sorry that your are such a pile of filth and have no integrity. '
Joe is this Christian ?


Red herring.

And besides, the link is to someone who has (privately) said things that are at least as bad. Joe just isn't sneaky about it.

And good point above about the fact that any Mormon who stops believing that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and that he can become a god like the Father, is no longer a Mormon. Ergo, no Mormon can be a Christian.

What say you, Wade? And please don't be evasive this time.

Anonymous said...

'You can't MIX Jesus and Satan'
James 3:6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

Bob Cleveland said...

"Are mormons Christians?"

Which mormons?

Joe Blackmon said...

Which mormons?

You know, the funniest thing happens when someone asks Wade a question that will pin down what he believes--people come out of the wood work to answer the questio for him or attack the questioner.

Wade asked me, well and Paula too

Any person, Mormon or Baptist, who is trusting their own righteousness and their own moral behavior for God's favor--instead of the righteousness of Jesus Christ given to sinners by the grace of God--is condemned to hell.

Agreed?


I'll answer that question if you'll (that would be Wade--Guess I didn't realize I needed to spell that out. C'est la vie) answer this one with a "Yes" or a "No".

Are Mormons Christians?

Anonymous said...

What say you Paula
Fundy say stuff like 'your a pile a filth'
Christian or Satan?

Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

No Mormon and no Baptist, including you, is a Christian IF there is a trust in one's own self-righteousness to obtain the favor of God?

Are you a Christian Joe?

Wade Burleson said...

Send me a Mormon to this blog, Joe, not a "phantom" Mormon, and I will ask him the same question I asked you.

Are you a Christian?

If he is trusting the righteousness of Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul, he is.

I've met very few Mormons who do that, just like I've met very few Fundamentalist Baptists who trust the righteousness of Christ either.

Anonymous said...

Red herring outs goat
woo-hoo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r92_abfPzQ

Paula said...

Joe,

No Mormon and no Baptist, including you, is a Christian IF there is a trust in one's own self-righteousness to obtain the favor of God?

Are you a Christian Joe?


Wade: RED HERRING.

You are being asked to say whether anyone can still call himself a Mormon if he rejects that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and that he can someday become a god like the Father. You are being evasive again and refusing to answer, and using Joe as a convenient diversion.

I am left to conclude from this that you say Yes, a person can simultaneously be Christian and Mormon, in spite of the fact that to be Mormon is to believe in innumerable false gods and to slander our Lord and Savior by making Satan His equal.

So the real question is how anyone who melds and maligns Jesus in this manner can be saved. At least Joe doesn't go that far.

Wade, until and unless you renounce this great slap in Jesus' face, I have to consider you unsaved. After all, even atheists can be nice.

Joe Blackmon said...

Yeah, I kinda figgered you wouldn't answer the question. Pretty telling.

However, I'll answer yours.

No person has any righteousness sufficient for them to escape hell. Based on their own righteousness, each and every person would be tormented in hell forever. The only people who will go to heaven are those that personally repent of their sins and personally, consciously trust Christ to save them based on His death, burial, and resurrection. On account of that faith, Christ's righteousness is imputed to that person and only by the imputed righteousness of Christ will they enter into heaven.

Anonymous said...

'At least Joe doesn't go that far.'

yes he does

Rex Ray said...

Lewis,
You said in brief, “Some…take…negative experiences…with beverage alcohol as possessing more weight than the teachings of the Bible…There are some texts that could be cited in support of your position. But if we are…committed to shaping our lives around the truth revealed in the Bible, ought we not make that our…first appeal, rather than personal experiences?”

It’s been said it’s not a sin to drink, but getting drunk is a sin.

If it takes eight beers to get drunk, then one beer makes you 1/8 drunk and four makes you half drunk.

If it’s OK to be half drunk, is it OK to commit half adultery/murder/robbery?

If a drunk’s car zigzags, then do two half drunks make the same zigzag if they meet each other?

Drunk camel drivers never killed anyone, but alcohol related car wrecks kill more people than die in wars.


Oh horrors, I’m dealing with ‘experiences’, so how about “Woe to him that gives his neighbors drink…” (Habakkuk 2:15)

In Bible times they did not have whisky, but they had several kinds of wine.

Wine in the New Testament very often means grape juice. There was not in Bible times a different word for wine and for grape juice. When the juice was first squeezed out of grapes, it was called wine:

“So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.” (Proverbs 3:10)

Grape juice is wine, and when grape juice ferments, it is still wine.

The background of (Proverbs 3:10) is the reward of obeying and trusting God, and “new wine” or grape juice would be superior to fermented wine that (Proverbs 20: 1) describes:

“Wine is a mocker, beer is a brawler, and whoever staggers because of them is not wise.”

So the question arises: did Jesus make a wine that could make men stagger, or did he make the wine described in Proverbs 3:10?

If Gandhi read this blog and comments would he change his mind in saying?

“Give me your Christ but not your Christianity.”

I believe the last autonomous thinks Gandhi would not change his mind.

Some make you happy when they come, and some make you happy when they go.

Bob Cleveland said...

Jesus seems to have made a wine that the wine stewards said was better than what they served at first, which was itself acknowledged to have gotten people drunk (you know .. the whole "trot out the cheap stuff after they've all "drunk too much"" thing...).

Paula said...

And if our righteousness doesn't matter, Wade, then what's your problem with Joe? He's obviously not trusting in his own works... but it sure looks like you are.

(Joe, sometime we need to talk. But not here.)

Anonymous said...

"Wade, until and unless you renounce this great slap in Jesus' face, I have to consider you unsaved. After all, even atheists can be nice."

it wasn't Wade called a sick woman 'a pile of filth'

Paula said...

it wasn't Wade called a sick woman 'a pile of filth'

If only you knew what "that sick woman" dishes out in secret...

But if we're saved by trusting only Jesus, then behavior doesn't matter, does it. You can't have it both ways: either we are saved by faith in Jesus and "forsaking all others", or we are saved by nice. Behavior is a secondary matter; salvation is by faith in the RIGHT Jesus and the ONLY Jesus.

Anonymous said...

you done got the wrong jesus lady

Paula said...

2 Cor. 1:1-4
"Oh, if only you would put up with just a little crazy talk from me! On second thought— you do have to put up with it! I care deeply for you, and it comes from God. For I had promised you to one Man, as a pure marriagable woman to present to the Anointed. Yet I fear that somehow, just as the serpent thoroughly deluded Eve with his treachery, your minds have been corrupted and turned from the pure simplicity of the Anointed. In fact, if anyone comes proclaiming some other Jesus than the One we proclaimed to you, or you receive a different spirit than the One you had, or you hear a different good news than the one you received before, you just take it in stride."

Marrying Jesus as well as Moroni or Mohammad or anyone else is nothing less than spiritual adultery. Scripture uses marriage as an analogy for the relationship between Jesus and the church for a very good reason.

If it's disgusting to think a Christian man can share his wife with other men and call her "pure" as long as she still stays with him, then imagine how disgusting it is to Jesus when His Bride wants to share her love with another--- and another, and another.

Anonymous said...

woo-hoo!
fundy-ette outs self as goat
another one hits the dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r92_abfPzQ

Paula said...

That's 2 Cor. 11:1-4

Anonymous said...

this is 'pure'?
emailing "your a pile of filth'
this is 'pure'?

Hogwash

Anonymous said...

Hey look, it's Paula and Joe again.

Joe, for the last time, your trick of trying to nail down a "Yes or No" question just to smear someone isn't going to work.

Are all Christians going to heaven?

Yes or No?

The answer is no because not every professing Christian truly believes that Christ is the source of Salvation. They think that just saying the right words and showing up on Sundays with a check is enough.

There are some professing Mormons that are seeking answers and despite the fact that they profess to be Mormons, their theology on the whole lines up more with a conservative Southern Baptist. If we had more people reaching out to these groups rather than people being like you and ATTACKING them at every turn, you would begin to see a good work in them.

However, you're more concerned about going after Wade rather than following YOUR OWN WORDS from 2008 where dialogue with a Christlike attitude would be far better.

So what happened Joe? Did you find yourself painted into the corner and now have decided that everyone not in that corner is an enemy? You profess to be a Christian yet you openly state that you wish more harm, pain, and suffering onto fellow believers IN CHRIST and justify that as saying anyone in disagreement with you isn't a Christian to begin with so that's alright.

Is that what Jesus would do? Seriously?

You aren't doing the Lord's work with your rants, your loaded questions, and with your desire to see others suffer.

You can continue to simply dismiss people who call you out but I'm not the only one seeing this. You talk about all that is great with the CR and such, but the hate and animosity of the CR is going to live on far after the CR has been undone by this generation and the next generation of SBC leadership. Then, as fences are mended and unity in Christ is restored, people like you are going to be alone because of your hate and the fact that many tried to join you in Christian fellowship yet you rejected it because you had to be right, even while being completely wrong.

It's a shame that you have to be this way. You make good points from time to time and you sound like someone that has things to teach others. However, because your rants and your attitude or so UN-Christlike, no believer really wants what you have to offer.

Christ wants to use you in a great and mighty way, but your own heart is keeping you from that. It's sad, but thankfully Christ will welcome you with open arms. Too bad many that you could have reached won't be there to welcome you as well.

believer333 said...

"If he is trusting the righteousness of Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul, he is.
I've met very few Mormons who do that, just like I've met very few Fundamentalist Baptists who trust the righteousness of Christ either."


The amazing thing is to find even one. Having been in a Mormon church before I accepted Christ, I saw that not all Mormons were as aware as others of the foundations of their beliefs. Some were there because of the tight community support they give each other. Eventually, they do get the "become a god" news and so forth. But church where there is no Spirit of God is different than Christian fellowships. It is possible to be in Mormon fellowships and truly believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior. But I only know of one such person that MIGHT be true of. The question mark becomes whether they think Jesus is God or simply a human that achieved divinity. ???

Anonymous said...

Hey Paula,

I thought you said you were done here.

Or have you not attacked enough people today?

I see you miss Debbie Kaufman blogging because you can't go after her again.

Why don't you just email her with some insults if that will make you feel better? It seems to work for Joe Blackmon, the epitome of Christlike behavior and self-appointed mouthpiece of God.

Just leave here and go to your blogsites where you opinion is valued...oh wait...those don't exist.

So do you care to continue your practicing the use of Peter Lumpkins' Wounded Martyr technique or are you going to try something original?

-bill

I'll sign it too just in case your reading comprehension was as bad as yesterday's...

Jack Maddox said...

This stream is just about the saddest thing I have read in a long time in the blogosphere. I don't agree with Peter L on his approach to the position of alcohol abstinence by calling out SEBTS and Dr. Akin the way he did (I hold to the "wisdom" position personally)...but it is nothing compared to the diatribe I am reading from almost EVERYONE on this thread...Wow!...simply wow!

Paula said...

Hey look, it's anon again.

Can you keep the name Muslim or Mormon or Hindu, but claim ignorance or rejection of their beliefs? Just as not all who claim Christ actually have Him, they call themselves Christians nonetheless.

So according to your argument, you can be a FAKE Mormon and a Christian, which is the same as a wife saying she only keeps her lover's last name but doesn't really have anything to do with him.

These silly games of semantics and excuses and distractions won't work. Either Jesus ALONE is Lord and there is salvation in no other NAME, or there is no salvation.

Anonymous said...

"If only you knew what "that sick woman" dishes out in secret..."

so is SHE slandering Debbie now?

Anonymous said...

yep
without any proof too

its called being 'pure'

Jack Maddox said...

wade said

"I've met very few Fundamentalist Baptists who trust the righteousness of Christ either."

How would you know? If a Fundamentalist (self proclaimed) said to you "I am trusting in something other than Christ to secure my salvation" well then there you go! However, if they said this they would clearly not be a christian and certainly not a baptist. You have also said that you can without reservation lock arms with baptist fundamentalist for the cause of missions and fellowship, however could you do that knowing that "very few" of them are even christians, since you seem to know these things?

perhaps you might want to take this one back Wade and draw a clear line of distinction between fundamentalist baptist in which you have a clear and honest disagreement with concerning what even you call tieratary issues and mormons who believe a false gospel, no matter how sincere they may be.

Jack

Joe Blackmon said...

perhaps you might want to take this one back Wade and draw a clear line of distinction between fundamentalist baptist in which you have a clear and honest disagreement with concerning what even you call tieratary issues and mormons who believe a false gospel, no matter how sincere they may be.


'Taint gonna happen, Jack. That would involve admitting that mormons preach a false gospel and further admitting it is not belief that saves a person but it's what they believe--in other words, being definitive about what is and isn't the gospel.

Trying to find that here is like trying get start a camp fire on the ocean floor with sticks and a box of matches.

Anonymous said...

Paula,

Once again with the Reading Comprehension FAIL.

How did you get through grade school? Seriously.

That's not at all what Anon said and you know it. It's just that you and Joe are caught in your quest to have loaded questions answered in a black or white way.

I find a strange similarity to the Pharisees here.

Just stop. The only people looking foolish is you and Joe. Your motives have been exposed and you're just mad that Debbie ain't around to be your whipping post anymore.

You might want to go back to SBC Voices. There you had Dave Miller protecting you and your drivel.

Over here, you're way outgunned.

-bill

Anonymous said...

Miller couldn't stand the smell of brimstone either

Joe Blackmon said...

Over here, you're way outgunned.

Yeah, so totaly outgunned am I. Wade says If he(a mormon) is trusting the righteousness of Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul, he is (a Christian).

No qualifiers. No explanations. Well, if that person is a mormon they believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers. If that person is a mormon, then they believe that God used to be a man. If they believe either one of those things then they don't believe the real gospel because they don't have faith in the real Jesus or the real God. Therefore, no matter how loudly they claim "I'm trusting in Chist" since they are trusting a false Christ who came from a false God their faith is irrelevant. It does matter what you believe. Faith does not trump belief in this case. If they follow the wrong Christ and believe the wrong gospel, they end up in hell.

Anonymous said...

I think some people in this thread need a nice, strong, fruity drink.

Paula said...

I think some people in this thread need a nice, strong, fruity drink.

Seriously. Especially the ones who seem to think they are this blog's bouncers. And the ones who think Jesus doesn't mind sharing His Bride with others. Oh, and the ones who think it's mean to tell the truth but "pure" to flame-broil the truth-tellers.

Anonymous said...

and you and joe attack Debbie . . .

pure hatefulness

Anonymous said...

I guess I do not understand the "take home" that Paula and Joe get from being so agressive. I mean, there has to be some sort of pay off for them to not be able to conduct a conversation without using that tactic.

Can you explain Paula and Joe?

AMS

Wade Burleson said...

Paula, Jack and Joe (sounds like a singing group), :)

I don't know that I have ever met a Mormon, ever, who is trusting in the person and work of Christ for their salvation.

For clarification, I have met many Fundamentalist Baptists who are trusting in the rightesouness of Christ for their salvation, and there have been probably just a few Fundamenatlist Baptist(not many, certainly far less in number than Mormons) who are trusting in their own righteousness.

Hope that helps!

You guys have a great day!

Wade

Paula said...

I guess I do not understand the "take home" that Paula and Joe get from being so agressive. I mean, there has to be some sort of pay off for them to not be able to conduct a conversation without using that tactic.

Can you explain Paula and Joe?

AMS


I'm trying my best to just ignore all the false charges and hate spewing from many here, all in the name of defending "the gospel of nice". But I'll make this one exception.

If someone insulted my husband and I just stood there and said nothing, I'd be ashamed of myself. It's nothing less than treason and hatred to stand idly by while a loved one is trashed.

That's how I feel when people drag Jesus through the mud.

If such a thing does NOT raise the ire of anyone claiming His Name, the problem is with them.

I'm in this out of love and loyalty to my Savior.

And for you and yours to turn a blind eye to the vicious, hateful screeds being spat out against me and Joe is yet another example of the hypocrisy you all seem to enjoy and call righteous. Be ashamed of the real Jesus if you want. But don't say you weren't warned.

Anonymous said...

"I think some people in this thread need a nice, strong, fruity drink.

Seriously. Especially the ones who seem to think they are this blog's bouncers. And the ones who think Jesus doesn't mind sharing His Bride with others. Oh, and the ones who think it's mean to tell the truth but "pure" to flame-broil the truth-tellers."

Well, start telling the truth and I'll stop flaming you.

Keep being complicit in lies and deceit and I'm going to stay after you. It's real simple. Stop with the Pharisee impersonation, the Peter Lumpkins' "woe is me" act, and the petty loaded questions that allow you to attack regardless of the answer given and we'll all stop attacking you.

Then, we can enter into the Christlike dialogue and civility that Joe Blackmon was all about in 2008 but has since decided that he is the way, the truth, and the light rather than Christ.

Until then,

-bill

Anonymous said...

I regret that you perceive my comment drags Jesus through the mud.

Thank you for your clarification. You have certainly made yourself very clear.

Praying that you have peace,

AMS

Anonymous said...

Oh Paula,

You do everything that you call everyone else out for doing.

You just think that since you were the first to claim Christ, then that makes you the one that's right.

It don't work that way.

-bill

Anonymous said...

"I'm in this out of love and loyalty to my Savior. "
hogwash

slandering Debbie out of love and loyalty to WHO ?

SICK

Wade Burleson said...

Paula,

Who is insulting Jesus?

It seems to me that everybody but Jesus is being insulted.

:)

r. grannemann said...

I met a young Mormon missionary once who I believed was saved.

We met on an airplane, had a long discussion, and I came to discover he had gone forward at an invitation in a Baptist church. As I listened I found he was trying to reconcile his Mormon background and teaching with his new found faith in Christ. He had a twisted theology, but I decided the Spirit had indeed begun a good work in him. I finally told him that if he was still trying to reconcile the two faiths in five years, then I would worry about him, but that I didn't think he would be.

Salvation is a work of the Spirit, and a consistent theology is a lagging indicator.

Anonymous said...

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but... I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -Robert McCloskey
This seems applicable to this thread. Is this called talking past each other?
HM

John Fariss said...

Joe,

You said, in response to Jack, that, "That would involve admitting that mormons preach a false gospel and further admitting it is not belief that saves a person but it's what they believe--in other words, being definitive about what is and isn't the gospel."

Foolish me: all this time I thought salvation was through WHO one trusted one's life and soul with, rather than a "what."

Maybe it's as my father-in-law used to say (snidely), "Live and learn, die and forget it all."

Or perhaps do you want to revise/clarify your comment?

John

Darrell said...

our lack of exposure narrows our knowledge of people in the real world. in every religion there are people who do not agree with every tenent of that religio.

Paula asked, (nicely) "So a Christian can believe Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and that a man, if he's good enough, can become a god equal to the Father?"

There are many mormons that don't believe this doctrine. Just as there are plenty of SBC that don't agree with some SBC doctrines.

those who work or have worked among them eventually find this out. however, just as in the SBC, there are people who will "seek them out".

Joe Blackmon said...

Foolish me: all this time I thought salvation was through WHO one trusted one's life and soul with, rather than a "what."


Of course it's through "who". You are exactly right.

But a person who says they're trusting in Jesus for their salvation and that Jesus is Satan's brother and that Jesus' Father used to be a man just as we are has not trusted the correct "who" because "what" they believe about him is not true. They have trusted another "who" as evidenced by "what" they believe.

Lydia said...

"If he is trusting the righteousness of Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul, he is.

I've met very few Mormons who do that,..."

This is the problem. The pimply faced 'elder' Mormons on their mandatory mission journey, that come to my door DO claim Christ as their Savior. As a matter of fact, their literature looks eerily like the marketing stuff put out by the local Christian mega.

If Glenn Beck called himself a Christian instead ofa Mormon, most would have no problem with what he claims. But because he calls himself a Mormon, we have to question if he really understands truth about Christ or even what Mormons teach.

Words must mean things. It is the same problem some of us have with Christian "yoga".

How much melding can we do before non one recognizes the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh?

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Peter deletes many post that speak the truth. He deleted honest questions about Ergun Caner and could never say that Ergun lied on many occassions about coming to America in 1978 instead of 68 or 69. . .

What reason is he giving for deleting your post?

Joe Blackmon said...

Keep being complicit in lies and deceit and I'm going to stay after you. It's real simple

Uh oh, Paula. You better watch it. bill has his eye on you and you 'bout to get "dealt wit", girl.

Paula said...

Uh oh, Paula. You better watch it. bill has his eye on you and you 'bout to get "dealt wit", girl.

Eek. o.0

Christiane said...

What scares me lately is that there is a certain strain of fundamentalism that apparently, perhaps inadvertantly, encourages some unstable people to hurt others.

And now, that people have been killed, the 'encouragement' is growing bolder.

I know that there must be accountability when a 'knowing' group of fundamentalists purposefully stir up unstable individuals. The unstable people are just as much victimized as those they hurt under the influence of certain 'fundamentalist' preachings.

I am very concerned about this.

Lydia said...

"What scares me lately is that there is a certain strain of fundamentalism that apparently, perhaps inadvertantly, encourages some unstable people to hurt others.

And now, that people have been killed, the 'encouragement' is growing bolder."

Gee Paula and Joe, think she is talking about you? Or maybe it is me. One thing we KNOW is that she is not talking about Muslims. :o)

But who knows with Cryptic Christiane.

Paula said...

Lydia,

The "cryptic" reminds me of a tactic used once by one of the trash services in our town. They were trying to tell me that "children would die" if I didn't switch companies. And I've already been accused of hurting kittens and who knows what else.

Good point about Muslims.

But, in an environment such as this where there's one standard for anti-fundies and another for fundies, "point" is a meaningless, hateful word.

Rex Ray said...

Rex Ray said...
Rex Ray said...
Rex Ray said...
Lewis,
You said in brief, “Some…take…negative experiences…with beverage alcohol as possessing more weight than the teachings of the Bible…There are some texts that could be cited in support of your position. But if we are…committed to shaping our lives around the truth revealed in the Bible, ought we not make that our…first appeal, rather than personal experiences?”

It’s been said it’s not a sin to drink, but getting drunk is a sin.

If it takes eight beers to get drunk, then one beer makes you 1/8 drunk and four makes you half drunk.

If it’s OK to be half drunk, is it OK to commit half adultery/murder/robbery?

If a drunk’s car zigzags, then do two half drunks make the same zigzag if they meet each other?

Drunk camel drivers never killed anyone, but alcohol related car wrecks kill more people than die in wars.


Oh horrors, I’m dealing with ‘experiences’, so how about “Woe to him that gives his neighbors drink…” (Habakkuk 2:15)

In Bible times they did not have whisky, but they had several kinds of wine.

Wine in the New Testament very often means grape juice. There was not in Bible times a different word for wine and for grape juice. When the juice was first squeezed out of grapes, it was called wine:

“So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.” (Proverbs 3:10)

Grape juice is wine, and when grape juice ferments, it is still wine.

The background of (Proverbs 3:10) is the reward of obeying and trusting God, and “new wine” or grape juice would be superior to fermented wine that (Proverbs 20: 1) describes:

“Wine is a mocker, beer is a brawler, and whoever staggers because of them is not wise.”

So the question arises: did Jesus make a wine that could make men stagger, or did he make the wine described in Proverbs 3:10?

If Gandhi read this blog and comments would he change his mind in saying?

“Give me your Christ but not your Christianity.”

I believe the last autonomous thinks Gandhi would not change his mind.

Some make you happy when they come, and some make you happy when they go.
Thu Oct 21, 12:04:00 PM 2010

PS,
I keep posting -I read it –copy- paste it in my file, but it disappears on the blog. How can I read my comment at the end, return to Wade's post, come back and it's gone? This has happened four times. I need help!

Thu Oct 21, 06:59:00 PM 2010

Thu Oct 21, 07:05:00 PM 2010

Now, change that to five times.

Jack Maddox said...

L's

What in the sam hill are you talking about!!?? My Lord this is just gotten goofier by the second!

Christiane said...

"Gee Paula and Joe, think she is talking about you? Or maybe it is me. "
Relax. Nothing so predatory as that, my dears.

I was watching a show last night that had a preview of a program about the murders of abortion doctors.
There was something in it that the wife of one of the murderers said about what 'changed' her husband and made him want to kill.

No doubt the man was unstable, I know, but it was WHO she said he was influenced by that really surprised me. It was enough to wake me up to some of what is possible in the culture wars.


'Cryptic Christiane' ?
I like that!

Christiane said...

Jack, no one's talking about YOU, dear.

Jack Maddox said...

L's

Only one woman can call me dear...and 'dear'...it ain't you

: )

Christiane said...

People my age call everybody 'dear', no need to take it personally.

no offense or disrespect intended

Darrell said...

yes, Morman women get beat by their husband husbands for giving their life to Jesus and being baptized. Are they to leave their children and run off to nowhere with no money and no skills?

I know a pastor that has had a gun pointed at him more than once while standing in the baptismal as he baptized Mormon women.

So, jo, paula if we send these christian women and their dozens of kids to you will your SBC church take them in and pay for their room, board insurance school etc.

No you won't. So, as they are forced to serve Christ in a hell hole and try to teach their kids about Christ and are being beat and maybe kicked out and banished...all you are willing to do is badmouth EVERYBODY. how do I tell a person being beat for their faith that YOU are a chrisitan by what she sees here.

I can't. because what i see in you here is not Christianity.

don't blame that on Wade.

Jack Maddox said...

L's

None taken - please take note of the smiley face

Jack Maddox said...

By the way L's - I just went back and read your blast about unstable people being effected by fundamentalist preaching - I agree

IT IS CALLED RADICAL ISLAM

That must be what you were referring to hmm?

Before you start calling out the occasional and tragic case of an abortion doctor being murdered and the cause somehow being linked to a 'fundamentalist' preacher let me remind you until the toll of abortion physicians deaths reach the number of those who died on 9/11, it really is a silly and somewhat pointless observation, even if it can be linked to said 'fundamentalist'

: )

Christiane said...

Jack, I don't think I was blasting anyone. There was something I saw that concerned me and I shared it.

I think it might be something that concerns us all.

I wasn't thinking about Islam, but about the 'process' that the murderer's wife said her husband underwent in order to become convinced that he must go out and kill. And it was about WHO she had seen guide him into that process over time.
She was thought-provoking and disturbing to listen to.

cermak_rd said...

"Before you start calling out the occasional and tragic case of an abortion doctor being murdered and the cause somehow being linked to a 'fundamentalist' preacher let me remind you until the toll of abortion physicians deaths reach the number of those who died on 9/11, it really is a silly and somewhat pointless observation, even if it can be linked to said 'fundamentalist'"

So wait, you're saying Fundamentalists have 3000 people they can agitate unstable people to kill before it's a problem? Speaking as a non-Christian, let me just say, ummm, ICK.

I'm fortunately, I live in Chicago. If we have Fundamentalists here, they are apparently massively overpowered by everyone else as I've never heard anything from them.

Lockheed said...

Mormons believe in a different God(s) a different Jesus and a different means of salvation. They deny the trinity, the perfection and immutability of God as well as a majority of other tenets of the historic Christian faith.

One cannot come to faith through the teachings of the Mormon church. One may hear, through the occasional reading of Biblical Scripture, the truth and later turn to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel elsewhere, but a self-proclaimed Mormon is, by definition, not a Christian.

It is possible folks here don't know enough about Mormon doctrine to make this judgment call... but read "Is the Mormon my Brother?" or other related books and educate yourself for when they knock on the door.

Great response to Lumpy, Wade.

Mark | hereiblog said...

I appreciate the post. The comment stream seems to have gotten off track a bit. Coming out of a sect of Mormonism myself with relatives still trapped in that religion inspires me to briefly respond. An inspiration that comes from a broken heart for my trapped family.

A better question might be "Is Mormonism Christian?" or "Does Mormon doctrine contain the gospel of Jesus Christ by which one can believe and inherit eternal life?"

I once noted an example of Mormon doctrine from a Mormon who said:

"We reject the Nicaean Creed and the non-biblical concept of the Trinity (non-biblical word) as a 4th-century fabrication....We believe that Jehovah (Jesus Christ, the Son of God) and Lucifer were spirit brothers. Lucifer (son of the morning) is our spirit brother who fell from heaven for rebellion at the grand heavenly council, where we were present and “shouted for joy” and overcame Satan by our love, faith, and testimony for Christ."

This is not Christianity.

Christiane said...

You know, the Samaritans were very different from the Israelites. But Christ didn't dwell at all on the nitty-gritty doctrines that separated the Samaritans from His own kind.

He focused on 'something else' in His narrative. about the character of the Samaritan who stopped and cared for the man at the side of the road who had been beaten and robbed.
That 'something else' is what I look for in the character of those whose faith tradition differ from my own.

There's a lot we can learn about what is REALLY important just by observing how Christ was with people when He was among us. What mattered to Him should be what matters to us. A lot.

Jack Maddox said...

L's said

"What mattered to Him should be what matters to us. A lot."

AGREED!!!!! And this is what He said concerning genuine faith

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

L's rejects the biblical gospel by her subtle universailsm - but this is nothing new to those of us in the blogosphere. Mormonism also rejects the biblical gospel - ask any former Mormon who has been saved...they will tell you. They are not bad people, just lost. God help us to share the biblical gospel with them!

Bob Cleveland said...

It has to be said that what mattered most to Jesus was the salvation of our souls. He had to die to accomplish that, which put an end to His personally doing all the other things that were important to Him.

Salvation .. and that, by through grace, by faith .. is what He died for, and it trumps all else.

After we're saved, after we've received salvation by faith in Him, then we can carry on the other works He did .. feeding, caring, ministering, etc. Before salvation, they're just so many faithless works.

That don't get us anywhere.

The other things He did should be things we do while about the business of making disciples.

Jack Maddox said...

Bob

Spot on my friend...spot on!

Christiane said...

In the story of the Samaritan, was it his 'lostness' that we learn about from Christ ? I don't see that. It wasn't his 'lostness', it was about his overflowing loving-kindness.

Jean Vanier in 'The Body Broken', speaks with simplicity, about what we do learn from Christ:

"Love not just those of your own tribe, your own class, family or people,
but those who are different,
those who are strangers,
who are strange to your ways,
who come from different cultural
and religious traditions,
who seem odd,
those you do not understand.
Love as the Samaritan loved the man he found beaten up by robbers,
somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho."

Anonymous said...

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.

Christiane said...

We are commanded by Christ to love.
Then that is what we must do.

Anonymous said...

John 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 All those who do evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Jack Maddox said...

L's

Love demands that we share the true gospel with those lost in their sin. The story of the good Samaritan indeed is an indictment on a Christless religion that promotes its own piety over genuine acts of faith, but our Lord did not intend it to be a treatise on the gospel. The mention of the man being a Samaritan did not speak to his spiritual condition as much as it did his ethnicity and it addressed the bigotry of Jesus's day. To be a SAMARITAN is not the same thing as being a MORMON - your understanding of it in that way only demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of what saving faith really is. I do not say this to be unkind at all but with the hope that you will one day reject your humanistic approach to faith and embrace the gospel and the Christ of the bible and not the one of your own making.

Jack

Christiane said...

Thank you, Jack.
For me, I'm on the right path for now.
In my religion, all love comes from God to us, circulates through our world, and returns to Him Who is it's Source.
So in the loving-kindness revealed in the 'Samaritans' of our own time, though they are different in faith, I see the merciful Hand of God preparing their hearts to receive the fullness of the Gospel.

past time for Evensong:

http://www.romanhurko.com/productDetails.cfm?CDID=2

Jack Maddox said...

L's

My final word for the evening

It is not about your path and it is not about your religion . That is your problem

grace for the evening

Jack

Christiane said...

Not to worry.
He goes before us always.

Anonymous said...

Hebrews 4:7
God again set a certain day, calling it "Today." This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."

Matthew 7:13-15
13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Darrell said...

I agree with Lockheed, he said the actual morman doctrine. I speak of those who have lived in the evil, were convicted by the holy spirit, saved and baptized in Christ and still are prisoners in their home.

Read the writings of Richard Wormbrand and it will help understand how to be a christian in an insane world of beatings, torture, and almost total hoplessness.

It is shameful what passes for Christianity now with some people and leadership. A few quaint doctrines and a radical mouth seem to do.

Richard was tortured for years and when he told the world, some in america call him a liar and most denominations shunned him.

We are to reach out to ALL with Jesus. This "ATTACK AND SLANDER" religion is straight from the pits of hell.

And yes, the women of whom I spoke are forced....forced to go to tabernacle regularly even though they love jesus and reject mormonism. there are hundreds,

hey, there are godly baptist in utah! actually being godly people and spreading the true gospel.

Darrell said...

Oh, I wanted to say that this type of fundalmentalism wade is writing about is the reason mormons are growing and the SBC is getting smaller.

I have friends who joined mormonism because the local church was peaceful and a great worship experience.

wrong as they are for joining the mormons, they were driven off by fundys in the SBC who are destroying the convention

Jack Maddox said...

Darrell said

"when we add man made things (BFM) and others as conditions, we fail."

Darrell, can you name just one SBC leader or personality that has stated that you must believe the BFM in order to be saved? Just one will be fine...that seems to be your implication in your earlier post. Did I misunderstand you? You seem to be pretty inclusive in your soteriology, which is between you and the Lord, however I think you may mis characterize SBC leadership. Disagree with em man, heck, flay away at em - but do not build straw men.

Jack Maddox said...

Darrell said

"Now, if they repent of that terrible sin and and repent of the belief that what they did was ok and reach out to Mrs Klouda and do all they can to restore the damange, then, they will have a chance of TRUE CHRISTIANITY."

Now here you seem to imply that they are not christians, but if they meet the conditions you just stated that they can be...

and you would call that the biblical gospel?

Darrell - no offense friend but your all over the map.

Just what is in your opinion the biblical gospel and do you really think that those responsible for Dr. Kloudas termination are not christians because of their actions towards her?

Darrell said...

soteriology is a five dollar word.


disobedience to god's commands and ways is witchcraft. 1 samual 15.
By your fruit you will be knowm.

that is scripture

not all who call me lord will go to heaven, only those who do the will of my father.

if a person claims to love me and does not keep my commandments he is a liar.

love your neighbor as yourself

honor me with your mouth and heart far from me.

Read up on the "destroyer" it leads to a lot of men and their arrogant habits of throwing their weight and power around.

scripture

you are either for me or against me

honor God with every deed and word
scripture

if a person acts like a devil, he is condemned.

that is scripture

i am not all over the map, just all about scripture.

to many people want to cover and explain away sin, including what was done to mrs klouda.

that is why america is in its current state. to many religious people hiding behind a doctrine that says they can act any way they want, call themselves christians and go to heavens

To many devils in 3 piece suits

Jack Maddox said...

You seem to state and you are correct that there is nothing one can do to be saved that stems from meritorious acts . You stated

"That is, "all who call on the name of the lord shall me saved"

when we add man made things (BFM) and others as conditions, we fail."

I agree! Yet then you state

"that is why america is in its current state. to many religious people hiding behind a doctrine that says they can act any way they want, call themselves christians and go to heavens"

I am not sure what you mean by 'heavens' unless you have adopted some tenant of Mormonism that you seem to defend or perhaps it was just late/early (smiles)

Either way - do you not see the contradiction in these statements? You then take several passages absolutely out of context in many places and throw them around like a Jehovahs witness on steroids neither rightly dividing or properly applying and the seem to equate salvation with some kind of test of works.

so, having said all of that can you simply do 2 things.

1) Can you answer my original question?

"Just what is in your opinion the biblical gospel and do you really think that those responsible for Dr. Kloudas termination are not christians because of their actions towards her?"

If your response is that you did answer it then I can only respond by saying that you have absolutely no concept of grace, the gospel or the saving work of Christ on the cross and I would recommend to you Wades post on grace and imputed righteousness from a few days ago.

2) Could you simply explain what one must do to be saved?

shadowspring said...

Just started reading the comments today and, wow, do they go off track?

I am so glad that only Jesus decides who is and is not welcome in the kingdom of heaven. Nowhere have I ever read that a person must be perfect in doctrine to be "saved" but truly anyone who repents and trust in Jesus for His acceptance on the basis of His atoning blood shall be saved.

Most interesting, in the parable JESUS told- JESUS! GOD HIMSELF!-about who gets in and who doesn't (the goats and the sheep) two facts stand out that few people take seriously.

The ones who were called goats and turned away were SHOCKED! They had complete "assurance" of their own salvation, yet they did not enter in their master's joy.

The ones who were called sheep and welcomed were SHOCKED! They were not expecting the welcome.

Brings new meaning to the admonition, "let everyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall".

Those prating on and on about Mormons and red herrings and such sound just like the enemies of Christ who sought to discredit Jesus with their convoluted and dishonest questions.

I am so glad that not one person on this blog ( or planet for that matter!) makes the decision about whether or not a person is "saved". Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God takes orders from no religious tradition.

Wow. Just wow. So much hate, so much strife. It's just so ugly to see people who name the name of Jesus exalt themselves and their doctrines above the clear command of Jesus to take the lowest seat and serve one another in love.

Wade, thank you for following the Lord Jesus with all your heart. Your life, the way you have resisted hate, the clear logic of all your criticism, devoid of animosity, always motivated by concern for the lambs of Jesus- well, keep on keeping on. I appreciate you very much.

Rex Ray said...

Off topic
How do comments ‘disappear’?
How did my comment to John H disappear? It was there because his comment is still there replying to me in saying: “Rex Ray—not sure about IMB, but am aware of their total abstinence policy… Thu Oct 21, 08:53: AM 2010
My comment of October 20, 2010 said:

“Chris Riley,
You said, “I don’t think Lumpkins “high view” has been allowed in the SBC.”
Seems like I remember the SBC addressing that issue in some way, but I know the IMB stopped all board members from any social or otherwise drinking. Wade was upset with their decision but went by their rule as long as he was a board member. Maybe he had a toast the day he resigned?
If I’m wrong about any of that would someone please correct me?

Dr Who, You said, “Don’t agree with them…and you’re on their hit list, blacklist, ignore list,…They will come after you.”

Hey! That sounds like Jim Richards (SBTC Executive Director, Vice-president SBC) saying, “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.”

I’m glad the law protects us from being identified like Henry II did by branding Paulicians (Baptists) on their foreheads and no one was allowed to help them. They perished from cold and hunger. (Trail of Blood)

I know I’ve said that many times on Wade’s blog, but it still applies.”


IS THIS ‘DISAPPEARANCE’ A QUESTION TO THY PEACE HOW COMMENTS DISAPPEAR?

Rex Ray said...

October 20, 2010
Lewis,
I’ve been trying to post this comment for two days.

You said in brief, “Some…take…negative experiences…with beverage alcohol as possessing more weight than the teachings of the Bible…There are some texts that could be cited in support of your position. But if we are…committed to shaping our lives around the truth revealed in the Bible, ought we not make that our…first appeal, rather than personal experiences?”

It’s been said it’s not a sin to drink, but getting drunk is a sin.

If it takes eight beers to get drunk, then one beer makes you 1/8 drunk and four makes you half drunk.

If it’s OK to be half drunk, is it OK to commit half adultery/murder/robbery?

If a drunk’s car zigzags, then do two half drunks make the same zigzag if they meet each other?

Drunk camel drivers never killed anyone, but alcohol related car wrecks kill more people than die in wars.


Oh horrors, I’m dealing with ‘experiences’, so how about “Woe to him that gives his neighbors drink…” (Habakkuk 2:15)

In Bible times they did not have whisky, but they had several kinds of wine.

Wine in the New Testament very often means grape juice. There was not in Bible times a different word for wine and for grape juice. When the juice was first squeezed out of grapes, it was called wine:

“So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.” (Proverbs 3:10)

Grape juice is wine, and when grape juice ferments, it is still wine.

The background of (Proverbs 3:10) is the reward of obeying and trusting God, and “new wine” or grape juice would be superior to fermented wine that (Proverbs 20: 1) describes:

“Wine is a mocker, beer is a brawler, and whoever staggers because of them is not wise.”

So the question arises: did Jesus make a wine that could make men stagger, or did he make the wine described in Proverbs 3:10?

If Gandhi read this blog and comments would he change his mind in saying?

“Give me your Christ but not your Christianity.”

I believe the last autonomous thinks Gandhi would not change his mind.

Some make you happy when they come, and some make you happy when they go.

Paula said...

Either way - do you not see the contradiction in these statements? You then take several passages absolutely out of context in many places and throw them around like a Jehovahs witness on steroids neither rightly dividing or properly applying and the seem to equate salvation with some kind of test of works.

Jack Maddox, I'm thoroughly enjoying reading your comments. :-) Excellent job!

Contradiction is the BIG issue in this whole thread.

They want to dispense with "doctrine" and only judge behavior (who made them the judges anyway?).

But then they turn around and say it isn't our righteousness (BEHAVIOR) that saves us but only right belief. They can't make up their minds!

Nobody says PERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF ALL AND EVERY SECONDARY DOCTRINE is necessary for salvation. Nobody.

All we're saying is that ONE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE-- THE GOSPEL-- is necessary for salvation. That is exactly what they themselves say when they agree it isn't our righteousness (BEHAVIOR) that saves us.

They want to judge fundies by behavior but also say salvation isn't by our own righteousness. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Which is it? Are we saved by OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS/BEHAVIOR, or JESUS'?

Wade Burleson said...

"They want to judge fundies by behavior but also say salvation isn't by our own righteousness. They want to have their cake and eat it too."

I do believe, Paula, that you may be missing the difference between sinners who seem to be "proud" of their behavior (the self-righteous who point out their superior morality) and those sinners who refuse to boast in their own behavior (even their "good works"), but can only find themselves boasting in the righteousness of Christ.

Paula said...

I do believe, Paula, that you may be missing the difference between sinners who seem to be "proud" of their behavior (the self-righteous who point out their superior morality) and those sinners who refuse to boast in their own behavior (even their "good works"), but can only find themselves boasting in the righteousness of Christ.

Wade, you still haven't explained how a religion that insults Jesus by making Him the brother of Satan and teaches that all males can become gods like the Father, can be wedded to the exclusive claims of the real Jesus.

I'll answer this question when you answer that one.

But how can you not see that it is the fundyphobes who are proud of their righteousness and point out their superior morality, their good works? This is what you do every time you blast Joe. It's hypocritical and contradictory. Good behavior without salvation is no better than salvation without good behavior. That describes the situation between you and Joe: two sides of the same coin, and it is right to question the salvation of both of you.

But again, I'll thoroughly deal with this latest diversion of your after you face the burning question about the exclusiveness of the only Jesus capable of saving anyone. And I mean YOU to face it instead of letting these hateful slanderers keep throwing distractions.

Wade Burleson said...

"Wade, you still haven't explained how a religion that insults Jesus by making Him the brother of Satan and teaches that all males can become gods like the Father, can be wedded to the exclusive claims of the real Jesus."

?

That's not even a question for me. "A religion" that "insults" Jesus is not of God. That's not even debatable.

Bill said...

Wade "blasts" Joe.

Paula, can you actually read? Seriously.

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

That is the point! Darrell seems to trumpet salvation by faith alone in Christ alone which is certainly the case, however he then claims that the true proof of salvation is not acting out in the way those he disagrees with did towards Dr. Klouda. This is a contradiction. You said to Paula

"...... that you may be missing the difference between sinners who seem to be "proud" of their behavior (the self-righteous who point out their superior morality) and those sinners who refuse to boast in their own behavior (even their "good works"), but can only find themselves boasting in the righteousness of Christ."

Thank you for agreeing with scripture on this most important point. I am not sure how that applies to Paula but your point is well taken and you are absolutely correct! Now if Darrell can come to grips with the truth that our salvation is based upon Christ's righteousness and not our own, and moderates and liberals are not the only ones privy to that grace, then we will begin to get somewhere.

I am concerned for Darrells soul and anyone who equates salvation with works

Its not the gospel!
It does not Save
It misrepresents grace

Paula said...

That's not even a question for me. "A religion" that "insults" Jesus is not of God. That's not even debatable.

Yes, it is a question for you. Because it means Mormons cannot remain Mormons and be Christians at the same time.

So will you come out and say, point blank, that MORMONS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS? I need to see you write those words, because then you'll finally be on record as saying that anyone, even Carter, who says Mormons are Christians is either lying or ignorant, because "that's not even debatable".

PS: How is bill's behavior, Wade?

Wade Burleson said...

Paula and Jack,

You ask me about a religion, and I answer.

What I am against is anyone, including the two of you and Joe, making judgments about individual persons.

Once you start questioning the "salvation" of a person who claims faith in Jesus Christ, whether it be Darrel, Debbie Kaufman, Bill, or anyone else, I believe you cross the line.

Paula said...

Wade, you have NOT answered. You've evaded and distracted and done everything BUT answer. You refuse to say that Mormonism, which has a fake Jesus and countless gods, is not compatible with the exclusive claim of the real Jesus and the One True God.

What I am against is your double standard. If it's Jesus' righteousness and not our own that saves us, then by what right do you judge anyone's behavior? You have judged Joe to be lost in this very thread, yet you claim nobody should so judge. You have crossed your own line.

When you stop judging us fundies to be lost based on our behavior, and when you admit that no Christian can also be a Mormon, then and only then will I believe you understand salvation by faith in the right Jesus.

But instead you defend even the most vile commenters here while focusing only on those who dare to say that salvation is in Jesus ALONE.

I had hoped you would finally see how you contradict yourself and do the very things you condemn fundies for, but it is clear you will not.

Wade Burleson said...

Paula,

Let me, again, say: "A religion" that "insults" Jesus is not of God. That's not even debatable."

If you can't understand that, I can't make it any clearer. Mormonism, the Southern Baptist Convention, the New Age Movement -- ANY religion that insults Jesus and His person and work on behalf of sinners is not of God.

Period.

Darrell said...

talk about word twisting. NOBODY WHO TRULY LOVES JESUS WOULD DO ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE ACT LIKE THE KLOUDA ACT.

NOBODY, NOWHERE, NO TIME. yet we are run amuck with peopLe that claim jesus act like the devil.

1 sam 15 says acts of disobedience TO gods commandsare witchcraft.ie: demonic activity.

(love your neighbor as yourself, all your hear to god, honor with every deed,) YET, THERE IS THIS GREAT PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT HAS CONVINCED MANY THAT ALL THINGS DONE BY CERTAIN PEOPLE OR GROUPS IS OK EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGE AND CREATOR OF THE WORLD SAYS IT IS NOT.

there are dozens of verses to speak of false christians.

why is it that so many get on the bandwagon and become the mouthpiece to defend demonic acts?

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

You said

"Once you start questioning the "salvation" of a person who claims faith in Jesus Christ, whether it be Darrel, Debbie Kaufman, Bill, or anyone else, I believe you cross the line."

Why is it then my friend that Darrell has not crossed the line when he questions the salvation of those who fired Dr. Klouda? You did the very same thing when you made your snide comment about fundamentalist who are trusting in their own righteousness. You quickly retracted and rightly so!

I question Darrell because by his own words he equates salvation with works and pulls scripture out of context to do do. I question Darrell because I am concerned about him. You want to win a argument - I want to clarify what is the saving gospel. 85% of Americans "Claim" to be Christians - should we as SB simply target the 15% because it is wrong to 'question' those who claim faith but may not have a biblical understanding of what saving faith really is?

Sadly, for you Wade it seems this is nothing more than winning an argument and one upmanship politically

Sadly, but fortunately, you are not very good at either.

BTW - I for one have never questioned Debbie Kaufman's salvation - shame on you for implying that I have. I disagree with Debbie on many points but she is a sister in Christ who understands the gospel clearly in regards to saving faith.

Wade Burleson said...

One final word, Paula, and then I'm gone for the day for ministry.

You ask: "If it's Jesus' righteousness and not our own that saves us, then by what right do you judge anyone's behavior?"

?

The only thing being judged is one's trust in THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, (i.e. their own "good works," their own "moral behavior," their own religion, etc...) for the favor and grace of God.

If a Mormon trusts in his "religion," or "his own works," or his own "moral, clean living" he is on his way to hell.

Paula, for the final time, if you can't understand what I am saying, I can do nothing else to help you.

Wade Burleson said...

Jack,

I'm glad we agree it is inappropriate to question the salvation of "individuals" who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

Have a great day.

Jack Maddox said...

Darrell

Thank you for your response. You have not answered my questions directly but you have indeed given indication to what your position is.

I do not believe you have a clear understanding of what the saving gospel is or at the very least you are unwilling to articulate it.

By the way - using all caps is screaming - the Bible says that we are to be angry and sin not - you apparently have lost your cool and have strayed into sin, thus by your own standard you have committed the act of rebellion in disobeying Gods word therefore you have committed the act of witchcraft - again, this according to your own twisted logic and scriptural back flipping. Based upon this you must understand you are no different than the ones you accuse. Repent!

: )

Thank the Lord your wrong and Gods favor is not based upon you, me or anything else we may do or not do but on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

New BBC Open Forum said...

"If only you knew what "that sick woman" dishes out in secret..."

so is SHE slandering Debbie now?

Actually, in this case she's not. I've been on the receiving end of some of Debbie's unprovoked, unsolicited private rebukes. (I have the evidence if anyone wants to dispute that.) You get a quite different impression than you do in her public comments. I'm still waiting to see the comment(s) from Lydia that she deleted but refused to address the content of calling them "too vile" to repeat.

There's NO excuse for Joe's vicious comments and attacks on people (including Debbie) which are, interestingly, in sharp contrast to what he writes on his own blog (are there two Joe Blackmons?), but at least he's public with his attacks.

I think some people in this thread need a nice, strong, fruity drink.

Ain't that the truth! With little paper umbrellas. All while sitting around a big table together.

Whoever said you're all talking past each other was right! Please continue.

Paula said...

If you can't understand that, I can't make it any clearer. Mormonism, the Southern Baptist Convention, the New Age Movement -- ANY religion that insults Jesus and His person and work on behalf of sinners is not of God.
You still refuse to say that Mormonism DOES insult Jesus, and that no Mormon can also be a Christian. If you can't understand that, then I can't make it any clearer either.

And if, as you say, it is not our righteousness that SAVES us, then it is not our unrighteousness that CONDEMNS us. If YOUR good behavior doesn't save you, then JOE'S poor behavior doesn't condemn him. You can't have it both ways.

Is it okay for YOU to question someone's salvation?

Is it okay for YOU to judge people by their works?

Is it okay for anti-fundies to boast about their good deeds?

Those are the kinds of questions you need to ask yourself in all honesty, without evasion or distraction. You will not answer them publicly, which is a tragedy because of your influence. You see the damage influential people can do and that's why you expose them. But you are in the same boat; you teach a vague, contradictory "gospel" that is leading many astray. And you won't even give so much as a slap on the wrist to anyone who uses hatred and mockery if they're doing it against "fundies". This proves that niceness isn't the real issue at all. The real issue for you is your loathing of "fundies".

And that's the truth.

::sigh::

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

You have a great day also - I trust you will be able to navigate it better than you have your position on this thread because quite frankly your positions have been about as inconsistent as the BCS rankings....(smiles)(Wink)

Blessings!

Anonymous said...

"If YOUR good behavior doesn't save you, then JOE'S poor behavior doesn't condemn him. You can't have it both ways."

What? Good night.

Methinks that's scary. Please, someone, tell me this woman is not a Southern Baptist?

That's frightening.

Susan said...

Jack, I don't know whose perspective you represent, but in wasting my time reading through the comments, you and Paula look a tad bit petty and more than a tad bit self-righteous.

Paula said...

Wade,

The only thing being judged is one's trust in THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, (i.e. their own "good works," their own "moral behavior," their own religion, etc...) for the favor and grace of God.

You, Wade, are trusting in your own righteousness. You continually use it to bash Joe over the head for his behavior, which you have judged to be unrighteous. He has the gospel, you have the niceness... two sides of the same coin.

And you still refuse to say that no one can remain Mormon while also trusting in the real Jesus.

Wade, for the final time, if you can't understand what I am saying, I can do nothing else to help you.

Then you said,

I'm glad we agree it is inappropriate to question the salvation of "individuals" who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

Will you publicly apologize to Joe for questioning his salvation?

Anonymous said...

Paula,

You are screwed up in the head. In honor of our blog host, I will not question your salvation, but I do question your sanity and emotional stability.

Paula said...

Clarification:

When I said Wade has "niceness", I mean the superficial sugar-coated words. He isn't so nice to fundies. And doesn't have a problem with all the "not nice" comments people make in his defense.

And I continue to be amazed at various individuals' ability to self-righteously judge other people to be self-righteous.

Paula said...

"Paula,

You are screwed up in the head. In honor of our blog host, I will not question your salvation, but I do question your sanity and emotional stability."

A prime example of "niceness". Thank you for providing this excellent object lesson in the new meaning of "nice".

Lydia said...

"What I am against is anyone, including the two of you and Joe, making judgments about individual persons."

This is a good point. Everyone needs to learn how to communicate like Christiane. She is cryptic but gets her points across about certain people without ever naming names. She is never direct but makes slippery accusations wrapped in whipped creme with plausible deniability if questioned too closely.

If you guys would communicate like that, you could make the point that liberals are causing people to murder and get by with it. :o)

Jack Maddox said...

Susan

As far as who's perspective I have, well I hope my perspective is just that, Mine. I represent no ones thoughts and I opine of my own volition. I readily admit to my own fallacy and potential for wrong thinking and wrong opinions. I would hate to misrepresent someone with my own thoughts. However, Petty? Is it petty to ask for clarification what is the saving gospel? Is it Petty to ask Wade to simply be consistent? Is it Petty to ask Darrell to clarify why those who fired Dr. Klouda are not christians? Or is it Petty when the accusation is made that in the SBC one must believe in the BFM to be saved, to ask the accuser to name one person who has made such a claim? Is it petty to simply expect people to speak their opinions without lobbing straw men and red herring grenades all over the room of opinion and thought? Is it petty to question the validity of the BCS and the Sooners being the number one team in the nation? (OK that one was for humor - Wade will get it)

No - what you think is petty is that I disagree with Wade and his blatant political and idealogical warfare on all things SBC and current SBC leadership. This goes WAY BACK for Wade...Way back...

But hey - if you think thats petty - I stand charged!

: )

Paula said...

Lydia, now I see the light! :-) Gosh, no wonder they think I'm nuts! (Apparently the ones that come right out and say it need to learn this too!)

Do they have classes in Enid on how to communicate this way? It would be well-attended.

Lydia said...

" am so glad that only Jesus decides who is and is not welcome in the kingdom of heaven. Nowhere have I ever read that a person must be perfect in doctrine to be "saved" but truly anyone who repents and trust in Jesus for His acceptance on the basis of His atoning blood shall be saved.'

But there are some BASICS (note I did not use 'fundamentals' so as not to offend Christiane) they will understand if they are saved.

I think it would be good if we listed those basics they would understand because they define a Born Again new creation...

It is Jesus plus NOTHING. It is not a Baptist Jesus or a Mormon Jesus or a Jehovah Witness Jesus.

Perhaps Cheryl would come over here and explian why a JW has a different Jesus so that means they cannot be a "Christian JW".

Quite frankly, I am seeing this attempt to Christianize such things everywhere.

Again, I bring up Glenn Beck. This has been such an alarming thing to watch as to how many professing Christians believe Glenn Beck is a Mormon Christian!

He "sounds" like a Christian in many respects. If he said he was a Christian, most would not question based upon what we have heard him say about Jesus, etc.

Some here are claiming he can be called a Mormon yet be a Christian.
Being a Mormon is not like being a Methodist or a Baptist. The roots of Mormonism are blasphemous and cultic. I really do not care to hear about difference sects and now they are different. The bottomline is they teach a DIFFERENT Jesus than the one of the Word.

Christ, as in WHO HE IS, is exclusive and all I see here are folks wanting to make many roads lead to Christ so as to sound nice.

This is the Oprahization of Christianity. It has been coming on so long that most cannot recognize it. This is the insult to Jesus Christ.

To me it is just another variation of the Gnostics.

Anonymous said...

Paula wrote:

"And I continue to be amazed at various individuals' ability to self-righteously judge other people to be self-righteous."


Yeah, because you've never done anything like this yourself.

Tell you what, I'm going to quote one of the comments I made to you over on SBC Voices that got deleted:

"You're a liar"

There, now we're all out in the open.

Also, it's clear you're not welcome here because of your past actions. Until you submit a heartfelt apology to Debbie, Wade, and others whom you have tried time and time again to smear and attack rather than dialogue with, then maybe we'll start to ease up on you a little.

All you're getting here is exactly that which you have given in the past.

Sucks, don't it?

-bill

Anonymous said...

Paula wrote:

"Wade,

The only thing being judged is one's trust in THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, (i.e. their own "good works," their own "moral behavior," their own religion, etc...) for the favor and grace of God.

You, Wade, are trusting in your own righteousness. You continually use it to bash Joe over the head for his behavior, which you have judged to be unrighteous. He has the gospel, you have the niceness... two sides of the same coin.

And you still refuse to say that no one can remain Mormon while also trusting in the real Jesus.

Wade, for the final time, if you can't understand what I am saying, I can do nothing else to help you.

Then you said,

I'm glad we agree it is inappropriate to question the salvation of "individuals" who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

Will you publicly apologize to Joe for questioning his salvation?"


Joe Blackmon is publicly advocating hurting and causing pain to fellow believers in Christ. He revels in the fact that people "got what they deserved" when they lost jobs, livelihoods, their church families, and any number of things that we all hold dear just because they were on the wrong side of a dispute.

How is that Christian? Where did Jesus revel in another person's suffering?

If Joe Blackmon's warped sense of Christianity is the true doctrine in wanting to hurt others, then you can have it. I'll take the love and forgiveness that I've found in Christ. You can take the hate and anger found in Joe.

-bill

And quite frankly, you and Joe are the ones that owe Wade an apology. You're here only to attack and smear, not engage in Christlike dialogue that Joe advocated two years ago.

And I doubt that either of you two are Christian as well...

Jack Maddox said...

Lydia

Stop being petty

Jack

: )

Paula said...

Good words, Lydia.

And can we sign "bill" up for the classes in sugar-coating poison? I think Cryptic should take him under her wing personally, because he needs a ton of work. She must feel ill reading what he writes. That's probably why she never criticizes him. (it can't be because of who the poison is being shot at)

Jack Maddox said...

Bill said

"And I doubt that either of you two are Christian as well..."

Bill

You can't say that here - it messes up Wade's logic - uh, hold on...wait a minute...oh...ok...my bad, I just read the rule book.

ITS ME THAT CANT SAY THAT HERE,

but I am pretty sure you can, at least it seems that way. It can get very confusing.

sorry - I will go back to destroying the SBC now

: )

Jack

Joe Blackmon said...

bill,

When I read your comments, it makes me wish really, really hard that this was not the internet. Just kidding!!!!

Lydia said...

"You know, the Samaritans were very different from the Israelites. But Christ didn't dwell at all on the nitty-gritty doctrines that separated the Samaritans from His own kind"

Of course He did not,
Christiane. Because He was bringing an EXCLUSIVE message that was the SAME for both of them.
Both are saved the same way to the SAME Jesus Christ.

There was not a 'Samaritan Jesus' or a Pharisee Jesus or a Tax Collector Jesus or a Roman Jesus. Just as there is no Mormon Jesus, JW Jesus, Yoga Jesus, etc.

It is the same EXCLUSIVE Jesus through the same narrow gate for everyone.

NOW we are focusing on what IS exclusive about Jesus. Your comment above is a red herring meant to equate the beliefs of the Samaritans/Irealites to Chrsitianity. Jesus was bringing both the SAME message: I am exclusive. The ONLY way to truth and life.

Mormons are not Christians. They might be searching for the REAL Jesus and we MUST help them and love them. (If they are really searching, like Cornealius, they will be found)

But their false Jesus is a satanic fake. To equate Mormons/ Christians differences as equating to Samaritan/Isrealite differences
tells me you may not really understand who the REAL Jesus Christ is.

Don said...

Wade

"I'm glad we agree it is inappropriate to question the salvation of "individuals" who profess faith in Jesus Christ."

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if someone says "I am a Christian," then we shouldn't ever question the validity of their conversion. I may be misunderstanding the point you are making here.

Let me illustrate.
I visited a church recently and attended the Sunday morning small group bible study. A lady opined that she believes we should be more tolerant to people of all faiths, including Islam, Mormonism, etc. She further went on to say that everyone who is searching will find the Jesus "energy." I found out later that she is into eastern mysticism and meditation.

Of course, I confronted her that as Christian's, we worship a person, Jesus Christ, not an energy or a feeling. Christianity is about a personal relationship.

Now she professes to be a Christian. Yet, she is being incredibly synchretistic and has a incorrect view of Christianity.

Do I do her any favors by affirming her to be a Christian? I don't think so.

Rather, the most loving thing I can do is communicate to her that she does not believe in Jesus in a Biblical way. You cannot be a Christian and believe the things she believes.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Christiane said...

Hi LYDIA,

Thank you for sharing that with me.

My feelings and thoughts are different from yours in many ways concerning 'the Gospel', I know.
And, being cryptic, I don't get my point across very well. That is a 'given'.

Here is something I find expresses my faith better, and it includes that parable in a special way. :)

Please permit me to share:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POm7_WBMJTI

Jack Maddox said...

L's

I am snapping my fingers right now!

I would call into account your understanding of the gospel but Wade said I can't do that here. Darrell can, but I can't. I don't think darrell will however because he calls into account the people who fired Dr. Kloudas' understanding of the gospel

Again, it can be very confusing in Mr. Burlesons neighborhood

(Sung to the Mr Rogers neighborhood theme)

"Wont you be... wont you be... wont you be... be my neighbor...unless your a conservative and we deem you a fundy then you cant be my neighbor!"

I am going to McD's to get me an order of 'chicken' nights and some fundy fries!

be back in a little bit

Jack Maddox said...

woops - i meant chicken 'nuggets'

lol!

Christiane said...

Hi JACK,

Stay out of that junk food !!!!
Go get some REAL food:
it's 'fry' day at your local Knights of Columbus Hall where I bet they are having a fund-raiser fish-fry.

Holy Cat-fish! (and the cole-slaw: to die for!) :)

Eat well, my friend. God loves you.

Paula said...

"woops - i meant chicken 'nuggets'"

:-D

Are chicken nights like boogie nights?

Lydia said...

"My feelings and thoughts are different from yours in many ways concerning 'the Gospel', I know.
And, being cryptic, I don't get my point across very well. That is a 'given'. "

Christiane, we must not make up our own brand of Jesus based upon OUR thoughts and feelings. We are given the truth about the narrow gate and the exclusivity of Jesus Christ from the Word.

Darrell said...

jack, must be tough and lonely on that throne as judge and know it all always right.

if you don't believe the Klouda incident was an act of evil, then I pitty you.

NUFF SAID (oh, some vague rule said I was shouting and you said that was sin.)

was my caps as evil as the evil done to klouda by evil

no more wasted breath
darrell

Paula said...

The Klouda firing was an act of evil.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody is saved without placing faith in the real Jesus and no other. AFTER they're saved then we can talk about behavior.

Saying the right words is not salvation without a change of heart, and self-righteous actions are not salvation without a change of mind.

Both the mind and the heart have to change. The mind must believe in Jesus as the only God/Man exclusive of all other faiths. The heart must not grieve the Holy Spirit.

We all agree the men who fired Klouda did an evil thing. But when will we all agree that a false gospel that weds the Bride of Christ to many other "lovers" is a very evil thing?

Jack Maddox said...

darrell

Peace friend!

Your the one spitting vile out around here buddy! Your bitter spirit dude is about as toxic as I have seen in a long time. You call me judge? You basically crucify anyone that does not agree with your bitter, myopic opinion.

You said

"If i use the "klouda" stardard, then all who did that to her and all that supported those that did that to her are not christians."

You are playing the judge

"There is so much howling by demons who spout poison on this blog,"

Again, you are playing the judge

"I can't. because what i see in you here is not Christianity."

Here come de Judge (Darrell)

"that is why america is in its current state. to many religious people hiding behind a doctrine that says they can act any way they want, call themselves christians and go to heavens
To many devils in 3 piece suits"

Judge!

"NOBODY WHO TRULY LOVES JESUS WOULD DO ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE ACT LIKE THE KLOUDA ACT."

Uh....yeah.....JUDGMENT

anyway - you get the point. Darrell, it seems it is not me who is on the throne brother.

oh, and by the way, that really irritating thing in your eye...thats a beam...you ought to remove it!

smile man...let the anger go...eat a fundy fry! They are great!

Or as Christine says - go get some KC fish - it is FANTASTIC ALSO!

Jack

Paula said...

Now Jack... you know it isn't judging when they do it. It's only judging when we do it.

::eyes rolling::

:-D

Christiane said...

Hi LYDIA,

You wrote this: "Christiane, we must not make up our own brand of Jesus based upon OUR thoughts and feelings. We are given the truth about the narrow gate and the exclusivity of Jesus Christ from the Word."

'the truth?' ???
Honestly, how many versions of 'the truth' have people tried to form from the seamless robe of OurLord?
He can't be divided up.
He IS 'the truth'.
And He is the 'LIVING Word'.

The 'Christ' of the Holy Gospels is the One I embrace.
We try in our human weakness to explain 'the fullness of truth' with 'OUR own words' but it isn't enough. And realizing this, we must then do what we should have done all along:
we point towards Christ.

His Words, His actions, His teachings. If they don't inform our thoughts, and transform our feelings by the grace of the Holy Spirit, then we ARE 'lost and harassed and without a Shepherd'.

Anonymous said...

Joe,

I wish this wasn't the internet too.

I'm sure you and I would discover that we'd both like to hunt or fish or whatever.

I'm sure you and I could be really good friends.

I'm also sure you'd find that you and I are more alike theologically except for a few minor points.

It's just a shame that those few minor points have caused you to build a wall not to keep moderates or whatever out, but they keep you fenced in from knowing and loving fellow believers in Christ.

Then again, you'd probably just like to Rochambeau with me. I get first kick.

Paula, I don't sugarcoat my attacks because I don't want to stretch your reading comprehension.

-bill

Louis said...

Rex, finally I am back at my computer and able to reply to your comment about MY comment.

You cite Habakkuk 2:15 in support of your position; however, you are careful to cite only that portion of the sentence which supports your thesis. The full sentence contained in Habakkuk 2:14 has nothing whatsoever to say about abstinence, but is a warning against using wine as a weapon to manipulate one's neighbor. It's not a good idea to amputate part of a Scripture passage in order to torture it into making it say what you want it to say. ;-)

Paula said...

bill:

You hate me, I get it already.

Lydia said...

'the truth?' ???
Honestly, how many versions of 'the truth' have people tried to form from the seamless robe of OurLord?
He can't be divided up.
He IS 'the truth'.
And He is the 'LIVING Word'.

The 'Christ' of the Holy Gospels is the One I embrace.
We try in our human weakness to explain 'the fullness of truth' with 'OUR own words' but it isn't enough. And realizing this, we must then do what we should have done all along:
we point towards Christ.

His Words, His actions, His teachings. If they don't inform our thoughts, and transform our feelings by the grace of the Holy Spirit, then we ARE 'lost and harassed and without a Shepherd'."

Christiane, you have communicated over the last 3 years on this blog you do not believe there is a narrow gate and that Christ is exclusive. You would not even acknowledge there is a hell.

You are a Universalist even if you do not recognize it. Which is a doctrine that denies the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

You have even claimed on this blog that Mormons are Christians.

It sounds really nice and tolerant to communicate that all roads lead to Jesus. But it is a lie from Satan so it is really hate. Hate for Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice.

Louis said...

Incidentally, Rex, this is actually the second time I've called you out on this same misuse of Habakkuk 2. The first time was on Wade's post of October 12, 2009, in reply to which you referenced the first part of Habakkuk 2:15 in support of your position on abstinence. When I commented after you on that occasion to call attention to your amputation of the verse in question, you acknowledged that you "remembered only the part of the verse that you liked." Did you mis-remember again on this occasion? ;-)

Anonymous said...

More recently, the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a "deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object."
Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a temporary emotional state

Paulas namin em for us.

right

Paula said...

Paulas namin em for us.

right

Fri Oct 22, 05:01:00 PM 2010


You hate me, I get it already.

Anonymous said...

Paula plays the youhateme card
boohoo

Anonymous said...

Paula wrote:

"bill:

You hate me, I get it already."

Nope. Don't hate anyone.

I just disagree with you with extreme prejudice.

If you notice on all these blogsites, I only give with people have given to others. I've even gone after Debbie Kaufman a few times when she wandered off the reservation.

With you and Joe, it's only because you two take the stance that everyone who disagrees with me is a heretic and obviously not a Christian. Back off that stance and accept that you aren't going to get a black and white answer for a subject that is every shade of grey, and I'll go so far as to delete each and every comment that I've leveled at you.

Quit playing the part of the Pharisee and I'll quit as well.

And if Joe would model WHAT HE ADVOCATED HIMSELF back in 2008, then I'll back off from him as well.

You two have painted yourselves into the corner than you either have to keep trying for the "GOTCHA!" that's never coming or you just have to lash out at the people who disagree with you.

Just stop and look at what the people are actually trying to say to you two and you'll find that many of them agree with you. They just aren't going to phrase it black and white when there are so many delicate situations where mormons have accepted Christ but are trying to find A) guidance and B) a way to detach themselves and/or their families from the religion as they pursue Christ.

Since you obviously have no clue the difficulties of following Christ from your Ivory Towers since you two are the self appointed mouthpieces from God, I wouldn't expect that the two of you to understand that sometimes following Christ costs you more than just having internet insults hurled at you.

Then again, it's your Christianity and we're all just going to hell...

-bill

Christiane said...

Lydia, no way are we Catholics aren't as exclusive as you guys are. We are sinners and pray together for the Lord's Mercy on the whole Church 'cause we KNOW we need Him.

As for being 'universal', we a famous for it. We actually believe that LOVE has something to do with going to heaven. Really.
Here's a Catholic story about how one man got there. (try to have a sense of humor when you read it :)


CATHOLIC UNIVERSALISM: 'all dogs go to heaven' :)

"A man and his dog were walking along a road when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead.
He remembered that the dog walking beside him had been dead for years.

After a while, they came to a street of pure gold. As he got closer, he saw a man at a desk. He called out, "Excuse me, where are we?"

"This is Heaven," the man answered.

"Wow! Would you happen to have some water?"

"Of course. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought up."

"Great! Can my dog come in, too?" the traveler asked.

"I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets."

The man thought a moment and then turned back down the road. "Never mind," he said.

After another long walk, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate. As he approached, he saw a man leaning against a tree. "Excuse me!" he called. "I'm very thirsty. Do you have any water?"

"Yes, sure, come on in."

"How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to the dog.

The man said, "There is a special bowl for dogs by the pump."

The traveler took a long drink and filled the water bowl for his dog. "What do you call this place?" the traveler asked.

"This is Heaven."

"Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was Heaven, too."

"Oh, you mean the place with the gold street? No. That's hell."

"Doesn't it make you mad that they use your name like that?"

"No, they're doing us a favor. They screen out unsuitable candidates -- the folks who would leave their dog behind."

Yes. We Catholics absolutely believe that 'love' has something to do with heaven. It takes a bunch of forgiven sinners to know something about that. :)

Have a great weekend.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 227   Newer› Newest»