When Martin Luther launched the Reformation by posting of his 95 Theses Against the Sale of Indulgences on October 31, 1517 the recently invented printing press became the tool of the Reformation. Both sides of the conflict, the Reformers and the orthodox Roman Catholics, claimed to be on the side of truth. It was the power of the free, unfettered flow of information through print media that allowed the Reformation to spread.
In the same manner, any reform or gospel resurgence in our modern day will be facilitated by the internet. Whereas some Christians would desire to separate and isolate over doctrinal minutiae, when Christians are able to visually see the differences between the actual implementation of the various interpretations regarding tertiary doctrines, a tipping point for one side over the other may very well be reached. One such example is offered below through a couple of videos sent to me by Jack Beavers. The first video portrays the story of a female associate pastor who preaches the gospel at her church in Mississippi. Compare her humility, faithfulness and gentle spirit with the pastor in the next video who describes in graphic detail his view that all the problems we face in the world are caused by men acting like women. In this case, we might all agree that the male in the second video might want to act more like the woman in the first video. The kingdom of Christ would be better for it.
89 comments:
Incredible.
I find it hard to believe that people would even listen to the man. His tone, his subject, were all wrong.
Six times, all that did it were destroyed. Yep, makes me wanna run out and do it too. Not.
Anybody know what seminary he came out of?
Stan
Stan,
He received his M. Div. as a Home Economics major at SWBTS in Ft Worth. I got my degree there in Pottaye Training in 2007.
Phil in Norman.
If you go to his website, you'll see that he never went to seminary or even college. He does brag that he knows over 100 verses of scripture (King James only of course). Probably the funniest and saddest video on Youtube.
OK...that was hard to watch.
I haven't noticed in the Bible where Jesus put emphasis on men being "wall hitters" or hunters...talk about non essentials!
our churches are operating like big businesses with marketing campaigns to sell the church...
ministers are being crude in the pulpit....to make sure they keep the women in their places, I guess...
add the power guys using the power they claim not to have ...to control everything possible... except protecting the innocent from sexual predators in the pulpit....
that's a pretty good picture of why I and many others have left the Baptist churches.
If the ministers and leaders are running off life long Baptists...what do the unchurched see?
I don't think it's necessarily fair for the male dominance point-of-view to let this guy represent it. You could put a clip of Juanita Bynum, Kathryn Kuhlmann, or the Church Lady, and it would still be a toss-up leaning towards the lady's side.
Preaching aside, Wade, do you personally think there's something to the numbers representation he was talking about (Six times something is mentioned means it's about man, etc.)? I have never heard someone present it that way.
Apology in advance for the following comment.
I wouldn't want to have to clean that wall either, but it does seem a harsh punishment for such an action.
Sorry, guys, but I'd certainly rather listen to the woman preach of those two. I've laughed at jokes told by preachers but it's a good thing I wasn't in the same room with him because once he got going, I couldn't stop laughing, and I don't think he intended laughter from his audience.
Susie
So THAT is why America is going down the drain. :o)
I noticed that he used the same phrase we hear quite a bit on this blog and within the SBC:
"You don't like it but it's in the Bible, folks."
Let me get this straight, those of you who feel this guy is a nutcase, (and I would agree) also equate his message with those of us who believe the Bible prohibits women from being pastors???
If this is the case there can be no dialogue between opposing views on this issue on this blog.
Give me a break guys..you should know better. Surely you do know better.
jrm
Brother Wade,
When I was in seminary getting my Associate Degree in Divinity from SEBTS, we had many of the moderate Profs still teaching. They would take an extreme position of fundamentalism, much like this preacher you have presented, and say; That is what those that are leading the Conservative 'take over' believe. Then they would take an extreme position from the liberal point and say, That is what liberals believe. Then they would take a position that was presented in a humble tone and place it out there as their beliefs. Once they did that it was then obvious that the other two positions were not what someone should believe and therefore there was only one position left to believe and it must be right.
You have just done the same thing that I have seen most moderates do. The lady pastor, not only is a lady but she is also an African American lady. You have presented those who believe that women should not be pastors as, not only absolute idiots who dominate women and are wife beaters, by those who would deny women to be pastors have some racists issues mixed in all of this theology.
Great Job! You have presented a case for women to be pastors because the mean men only want to keep them barefoot and pregnant.
Blessings,
Tim
This is truly sad!
First, it is sad that this passes for preaching in many circles.
Second, it is sad that Wade has chosen to hold this individual up as a representative of the complementarian viewpoint.
Why not post his sermon on why Billy Graham is going to Hell... or why he threw his TV in the garbage 7 years ago?
Clearly this is another straw man as brother Tim Rogers has clearly pointed out. Shame on you Wade, you twist this argument the way the preacher in the video twists scripture.
Actually, Wade is not using a strawman argument. He is instead relying on the principle that even a single, accurate counter-example invalidates a theory. ;)
Greg Harvey
greg
Only a intellectual pygmy would make such a statement. I expect better from you.
jrm
The message I got here is that we can have wonderful gospel messages spoken by women that can save people for Jesus and other well-educated women teaching those who would become pastors. The fella is just there as a reminder to those (few?) who would say any, & I mean ANY guy preacher is more holy and proper and fitting than a woman.
Considering the subject matter of the previous thread -- that women are the indirect image of God and cannot bear/due proper justice to the glory of God or the Word of God like a man can because of hierarchy and a woman's lesser essense --
This is a simple demonstration that the Word of God, preached with love and in wisdom, carries its own authority. Gender neither adds to that nor takes away from it, unlike the dogma that we hear from certain camps.
David Simpson,
IF I held to numerology as articulated by the infamous Henry Bullock's book "Numbers in Scripture, and IF I were inclined to teach the significance of numbers, and IF I did see meaning in the number six - it would be impossible to link numerology to chapter and verse divisions as the pastor in the video did because there WEREN'T any when the Bible was written.
To Tim, Joe, Jack and anybody else:
Read Greg W.H.'s comment.
And, for an additional reflection:
If you are sensitive about your view being linked to extreme Fundamentalism, then maybe next time you wish to connect extreme liberalism with conservative, evangelical Bible-believing men and women who believe that men and women are equal in the New Covenant - you will think twice before doing so.
I'm glad to hear the man in the video does not represent you. I never said he did, but glad to know you willingly, and without prompting, say he doesn't.
However, the point of my post, as Greg mentions above, is to show that it is one thing to articulate a principle that men ought to be men, and women ought to be women (and know their place - and that it is not a man's place), and quite another to see the implementation of the principle - and then the implementation of the opposite view and ask yourself, "Where is there more gospel present?"
Guys/gals,
Some in this comment stream seem to think Wade is raising a "false dilemma" in his post. [Where there are ONLY two options with which to address an issue and, since one is undesirable or impossible, we must choose the other.]
That's not what I got out of this at all. There are other options as he has pointed out for ever and ever. [He's done so over the past three years for sure and that is even the point of this post if I'm reading what he's saying correctly.]
The point is, as I see what is written, you CAN disagree over tertiary doctrines and not separate over them. But, if we don't learn this, things can wind up, as shown by the videos, where the gospel is being preached if even by women and isn't being preached if even by men.
I want to wind up on the side of the gospel being preached and, even if some disagree with my interpretation of some passages as to gender, embracing all who make up the Body of Christ.
Paul Burleson,
Precisely.
Just think how much money we could save on porcelain fixtures in churches' mens' rooms.......
Wade,
Sorry. I was thinking/writing as you commented and didn't see yours. I don't want to appear to be speaking for you. So I will just not speak for you. That will make moot any appearance of anything anyway right? :)
Dad
Dr. Shaw understands and articulated well her calling -'equip the saints'.
Then there is the other guy.
There is no comparison here, however if compared to other pastors, I still have doubts that she would be found wanting.
Gosh and I was ready to start a new men's movement called: Pisser Keepers.
Actually, Wade is not creating a false dillema, or a straw man. IF it is anything than it is the stated fallacy that Greg mentioned, though he did not call it a fallacy.
It is called, The Accident and Converse Accident. The latter would fit here.
See, Copi Cohen's Introduction to Logic. I would recommend it for all of blogdom.
Brother Wade,
You make a further clarification and you italicized it. Does that mean it is a quote from some other place that I missed in the article? If it is a quote from some other place, where is it from? Could it be that you are just italicizing it in order to make your point stronger? Either way, I have a question concerning the comment. You say; "evangelical Bible-believing men and women who believe that men and women are equal in the New Covenant". Would that be the New Covenant that we are speaking about in the Bible or the New Baptist Covenant as articulated in Atlanta?
If the first, then you negate your entire argument by this post. You say that we should be able to work together and understand that others have different views of how Scripture is interpreted. However, you present the second video as someone that you would never be able to work with.
If the second, then you negate your argument by the ones organizing the event. Are you trying to say that Jimmy Carter does not believe in universalism? As he has clearly pointed out he believes that others will get into heaven without believing in Jesus Christ. That is extreme liberalism. And I do not have to go far to connect that thinking even with Enid. Walk down the hallway to your associate pastor's office who attended the event.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Wade,
Just re-read my last statement. I am not saying that your associate pastor believes in Universalism. I am saying that you are connected with such belief by his attendance and promotion of such an event sponsored by one that is a universalist in his theology.
Ml,
You receive the award for the funniest comment in the history of Grace and Truth.
Tim,
I point blank asked Mr. Carter, "Do you believe that people who reject Jesus Christ will receive the judgment of God in hell."
He responded. "Absolutely. That is why I share the gospel in every Sunday School lesson I teach. People from around the world, from different religions and backgrounds, come to hear me speak. I do not berate them, I do not ridicule their religions, I simply present Christ as the answer for forgiveness of one's sins, the removal of guilt, and the entering into a personal relationship with God."
Now, Tim, I must ask you. Should I believe what you tell me Jimmy Carter believes, or should I believe what Jimmy Carter tells me he believes?
I'll let you answer.
To all those who are upset with Wade and believe the man in the second video was used to represent those who hold to the complementarian position:
My old pastor used to say, "When I threw a rock at a bunch of pigs, the only one that squealed was the one that got hit."
LH
Oldest trick in the ministry.
Compare the 'kindest-gentelest' example on 'your side'. Bring in the 'roughest-most offensive' argument on the 'other side'.
WA-LA.....there you have it. A presentation made for symbolisms sake...not the subject matter.
I was saved in a fundamentalist independent baptist church. I witnessed first hand the incredible burden of legalism and the hypocrisy of a good ol' boy network. When many of the values of the conservative resurgence were articulated, I had concerns that it could go too far and become something that was anything but the gospel.
For those of you who don't see eye to eye with Wade, it might help you to understand that those of us coming from such a background long for the liberty and grace with have in Christ and not another set of "rules taught by men". While you may see it as biblical fidelity, due to my background, I see it as an encroachment on soul competency and sliding down the slippery slope toward legalism. I say this knowing full well that those who embrace CR values have no intent of taking us there. However, it may help you to know that those of us who have escaped from extreme fundamentalism fear that the SBC is moving toward the man in the second video, not away from him.
Grace,
Jeff
Wade,
It is easy to make fun of someone that is so narrow minded that he only needs one blinder to block his narrow set eyes in his mule stubborn head.
Behind all this there is something else going on that affects many a serious young folk coming out of college headed to SWBTS.
I have a young lady who graduated Valedictorian and Nataional Merit Scholar and is called of God to the international mission field. Next year, do I direct her to SWBTS or to another seminary?
Second, can you imagine a pulpit committee looking at your resume, seeing that you graduated in 2009 and someone on that committee being conversant with what is going on at SWBTS under Dr. Patterson's administration?
I do not think I can ignore these two situations with the three God called men and women in my church headed to seminary in two years.
Phil in Norman.
Tim, I am not sure where you are coming from with your comments here. On your blog a while back You wrote this about Wade:
It is the same with some that responded to what you perceived was a tragedy, but you now realize that the injured was not part of the doctrinal family you have known as the SBC.
Can you explain in what way he is not a part of your 'doctrinal' family of the SBC? Since I am SBC, and your post was not clear as exactly what doctrines he holds that make this the case.
Thanks, Lucy
Wade,
I think that guy's message was entitled "Streams in the Desert."
Can you confirm? :)
Mark
"And I do not have to go far to connect that thinking even with Enid. Walk down the hallway to your associate pastor's office who attended the event."
Are you saying that because someone attended the event, they are a universalist or agree with everything presented there?
Can someone attend an event where they may disagree on doctrine?
Can they cooperate with others who disagree?
What about T4G?
Is it more about Democrat/Republican?
A third option is that neither one should be in the pulpit.
where is there a 'pulpit' in the NT?
To Wtjeff:
You said "those who embrace CR values have no intent of taking us there."
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe not all those who first thought the change in the SBC was a good thing want to go there, (some actually believed at least at first that it was about the Bible) but you only need to look at the SBC seminaries, especially Southwestern, to see where a leader of that is taking it.
I guess it depends on what you consider "CR values", They seem to have turned out to be: male supremacy, treating people badly in the name of Jesus, unlimited procreation, no responsibility for the environment, theocracy, etc.
Susie
To Phil in Norman:
Whatever else you recommend, you sure don't want to send a young woman to a seminary (or anywhere else) where they will treat her like dirt. It's hard enough anyway for a young woman called to ministry of any sort without making it harder. That apparently would be true of any SBC seminary now. I don't think any of them would be supportive of her whatever her calling (unless, of course, it is to be a pastor's wife!)
Susie
Anonymous,
Where is there blogging in the NT?
dwmiii
Tim Rogers and Bart Barber,
Why was The priesthood of the believer changed in the BFM2000 to The priesthood of the believers?????????
Why is it that you and the ones you Identify With can’t see How the Powers to Be have and are Manipulating the SBC??? I believe the Truth is finally coming to the Surface as to what is happening at SWBTS with the 2 “Pees” that participated in the Writing of the Believers Study Bible when Truth was KNOWN,
Believers Study Bible
Author: Title: The Believers Study Bible
Author:
Contributors
Bible Study Articles
Dr. W.A. Criswell Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Jack Graham Prestonwood Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Joel Gregory First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas
Dr. O.S. Hawkins First Baptist Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Dr. Richard Lee Rehoboth Baptist Church, Tucker, Georgia
Dr. John MacArthur Grace to You, Santa Clarita, California
Dr. James Merritt First Baptist Church, Snellville, Georgia
Dr. Dorothy K. Patterson Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Paige Patterson Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Dwight “Ike” Reighard New Hope Baptist Church, Fayetteville, Georgia
Dr. Adrian Rogers Bellevue Baptist Church, Cordova, Tennessee
Dr. Jerry Vines First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida
Dr. Ed Young Second Baptist Church, Houston, Texas
Study Notes
David Allen, Ph.D. Richard D. Land, D.Phil.
John Paul Avant, Ph.D. David E. Lanier, Ph.D.
William E. Bell, Jr., Ph.D. Charles Lowery, Ph.D.
Preston Bernhardt, Jr., M.A. Shawn Madden, M.A.
Ricky Brantley, D.Min. Kenneth Mathews, Ph.D.
John Burns, Th.D. Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
L. Russ Bush, Ph.D. H. LeRoy Metts, Th.D.
Paul Carlisle, Jr., Ed.D. William E. Nix, Ph.D.
Lamar Eugene Cooper, Th.D. Luis L. Pantoja, Jr., Th.D.
Gerald P. Cowen, Th.D. James Parker III, D.Theol.
George B. Davis, Th.D. Wayne Poplin, Th.D.
George Davis, Jr., Th.M. John L. Pretlove, Ph.D.
David Dockery, Ph.D. John C. Shanks, Ph.D.
Huber Drumwright, Th.D. (deceased) Bruce D. Smilie, M.A.
H. Leo Eddleman, Ph.D. Kirk Spencer, M.S.
Keith Eitel, D.Miss. John B. Stepp, Th.D.
Weldon Estes, Ed.D. Chuck Ward, D.Min., Ph.D. (cand.)
Gary A. Galeotti, Th.D. C. Richard Wells, Ph.D.
George L. Klein, Ph.D. James Wilson, D.Min. (cand.)
Edmund E. Lacy, Ph.D., Th.D. Paul C. Wolfe, Ph.D.
The Priesthood of the Believer as stated in the Believers Study Bible..
Leviticus 8
8:2 The priesthood of ancient Israel foreshadowed the priesthood of Christ.
The Epistle to the Hebrews forcefully concludes that the O.T. priesthood reaches
its climax in the Person of Christ (cf. Heb 2:17, 18; 3:1; 4:14-16; 5:1-10; 6:20;
7:11-28; 8:1-5; 9:11-25; 10:11-21; 13:11-15). The tearing of the veil (Matt 27:51;
Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45), which was a type of the human body of Christ (Heb
10:20), marked the termination of the O.T. priesthood and the inauguration of the
N.T. priesthood of Christ. Since no human being is any longer needed by the
believer to gain access to God, this results in the great N.T. doctrine of the
“priesthood of the believer.” Aaron’s sons were priests by virtue of their kinship
to Aaron, the high priest; their priesthood was a birthright privilege. Believers
today are priests by virtue of their kinship to the new High Priest (cf. 1 Pet 2:5, 9;
Rev 1:6). Regarding the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, cf.
Ex. 29.
In His Name
Wayne
blogging is another form of communication...like a letter...read to everyone... except it does not take as long.
We have interpersonal two-way communication in the NT through letters. Where is the 'pulpit' in the NT?
Dear Phil in Norman,
Please direct your Valedictorian to Beeson Divinity at Samford University in Birmingham, AL.
In their doctoral program, I have had the great privilege of learning alongside (and from) conservative Baptists, moderate Baptists, Nazarenes, Anglicans, those of the Church of Christ and Assemblies of God, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, military chaplains, hospital chaplains, and a fine female Southern Baptist university chaplain who has more spirituality in her fingernail than this twit from Anderson has in his entire family tree.
Blake Dempsey
Susie,
You said to Phil:
"Whatever else you recommend, you sure don't want to send a young woman to a seminary (or anywhere else) where they will treat her like dirt..."
Full disclosure: Phil is my Pastor and I am his volunteer worship leader.
That said, Phil will do the right thing with this young lady if she chooses to seek Phil's guidance. She's sharp and not ignorant of what is going on.
My oldest granddaughter attends an ABC church in suburban D.C. It is a wonderful, mission-minded church that in addition to financially supporting missions through multiple groups (including the SB IMB, by the way), they also get their hands dirty doing it themselves.
This granddaughter has been talking with her Youth Pastor (a female) about her feeling that somehow she is being called to a church vocation. Right here on the cusp of May, 2008, I am very happy that she is a member of a solid ABC church.
We SB's have a way of confusing what it means to feed and clothe the poor, heal the sick, and care for the widows and orphans. We are beginning to codify legalistic parameters on who can do what, when, and where.
Seems to me that Jesus came to rescue us from legalism. Maybe I slept through the SWBTS lecture which said otherwise.
Gary
What would be the point of a woman attending an SBC seminary for post grad education? It would be like telling the male students, you can attend, pay tuition but do not expect to be able to use it much unless you are willing to work with only men or kids and mostly for free. Of course, men would never stand for that.
Wade,
I pulled my copy of Bullinger off the shelf. Five is the number for Grace. His remarks came in at 4:35, which falls short of grace. He should have stuck with Romans 3:23.
Wade,
All kinds of nonsense exists out there so women say stupid things too.
See this video by Suzanne Hinn
Holy Spirit enema.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhw_5ye8Qo
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Brother Wade,
I have to take your word about the question and response. However, it certainly is a vast different answer than what he gives here. As a matter of fact note with me this brief quote from the dialog; "...Do you believe that grace ultimately applies to people who don't presently believe in Jesus?
Yes, I do...".
As to your quote, it seems that was the response he gave Brother CB Scott in that meeting you all had. If asked would Brother CB remember you asking that question. Because from what I remember from your associates now deleted posts concerning the events, Brother CB was the only one that asked any question relating to the gospel. Could it be that you think you asked him this question and just used the response that he gave to CB?
Sister Lucy,
With Brother Wade's nearly half-dozen caveats to the BF&M2k and his recent admission that his beliefs of women not being senior pastor is tied only to his cultural setting not Scripture, certainly should be adequate to address your concern.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Wade,
I am sorry, I forgot to place the link for the President Carter story.
It is here and here.
Blessings,
Tim
In the last comment stream and in this one I can see what argument is forming and I understand the parameters. As we decend into the abyss of 'the answer is either a or b it can't be both' I would like to remind us of the only doctrine that matters. Love. A misused word to be sure but I submit that this is the real answer to the whole women in ministry issue. Here is the deal. Some are reading certain verses and saying,'hey, that girl can't preach the Gospel to men!' and some are reading other verses and saying, 'whoa, that can't be right.' Others are joining the conversation and saying, 'Well, one or the other must be right.' My answer to that is no.
Our criteria as set up by the Son of Man himself is love. He said he is giving us one law. Just one. Count them- one. It is that we must love Him and each other. So, how about the women's issue again? If I correctly read the word and come to an impeccably biblical conclusion and then say, 'That woman can't be a pastor.' But I do not have love in my heart for God and that woman then I am wrong. If I decide that women can be whoever God calls them to be and all other opinions are controling manipulative and wrong therefore those naysayers can go to the devil- well, I am wrong again. I happen to believe that God can use a woman anyway he wants to- and has. And when I stand before him he may say to me, 'Son, you messed up, that is not what I meant.' Well, I can live with that. But I will not stand before Him on that day and have to hear him say, 'Son, you did not love that person.'
Man it is late here and I hope I am making sense because this is very important. Whoever stands and tells a female what she can or can't do must do it in love- real love for that person- or a really unhappy judgement is coming. So, judge yourself right now- ask the Holy Spirit for lots of help- what are your motives? Get them in line with love and if you do I really believe even if you can't exegete all those really tough passages you are going to hear the 'well done good and faithful servant' at the end.
belief matters wrote: A third option is that neither one should be in the pulpit.
Or that God can talk through the mouth of a donkey if he must?
(Big Grin)
The male pastor that the clip shows is from Tempe, AZ. I think that the 120 degree weather baked his brains out. :)
(I live in a Tucson suburb, so I can say that.)
His church is only about 100 mi. from where I live. Maybe I should go visit there some Sunday! - Not!
BTW, he's also one that doesn't believe in artificial birth control. Also, women have to wear dresses and children are supposed to be home schooled.
"With Brother Wade's nearly half-dozen caveats to the BF&M2k and his recent admission that his beliefs of women not being senior pastor is tied only to his cultural setting not Scripture, certainly should be adequate to address your concern."
Huh? Could you be more vague even if you tried? Are you saying HIS interpretations of scipture are wrong and yours are right? Or, are you missing the fact that he is WILLING to discuss different interpretations with people and you aren't?
What is it with guys like you and Barber? Do you take Authoritarian Arrogance 101 in seminary? Perhaps they don't offer Christlike Humility 101 anymore? :o)
Tim,
Did you know that I can show you several links where Billy Graham says almost the exact same thing? Graham said on at least 2 occasions that are documented that people can go to heaven who have never heard of Jesus Christ. One was quoted in Newsweek and the other was in an interview with Robert Schuller. Was he misquoted? The Graham folks said no when I contacted them about it. Both are online and verifiable.
So that would mean that any affiliation you have had with Graham whether cooperating with a crusade or training materials would implicate you as well in promoting a wrong belief.
Holy Spirit Enema
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0FMZiEmM14
Is this the kind of women we should follow?
seems a much fairer comparison to the young preacher boy
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Tim Rogers,
Is there any particular reason that you did not include the rest of the quote from Jimmy Carter?
It includes this statement: "So, the opportunity for everyone to be saved through the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone."
I think the operative word here is "opportunity". Of course, folks who adhere to certain aspects of Reform theology might not agree with this either. However, that is an interpretive point of scripture but not a basis for declaring someone a universalist.
In the next paragraph quoted in the link you have provided one can either choose to interpret President Carter's statement as universalism or as his stating he is not taking the position of God as judge as to any other person's relationship with God. I believe Billy Graham has made a very similar statement recently.
My point would only be this: We far too often read into others' words what we wish/want them to say based on our preconceived ideas about that person instead of engaging with them in a conversation that is mostly listening with the attempt to understand.
As Strider points out love is the only law of Jesus. When we love others we listen and try to understand, then we engage with love in a conversation so that all are taught by the Holy Spirit.
Tim Rogers,
I continue to be amazed how you state as fact what happened at events where you were not present, beliefs of people with whom you are not acquainted, and my own views regarding the BFM.
It is always best to allow people to speak for themselves.
Robert I Masters,
If you are attempting to prove that there are poor women preachers as well as poor men preachers, the point is conceded.
Now, would you concede the point that there are excellent famale proclaimers of the gospel as well as excellent male proclaimers of the gospel?
Brother Wade,
You say; "I continue to be amazed how you state as fact what happened at events where you were not present..." Are you saying that you asked President Carter "Do you believe that people who reject Jesus Christ will receive the judgment of God in hell." at the meeting that you sat in with Brother's CB, Marty, and Ben?
As to your views on the BF&M, you placed the caveats, not me. Also you are the one who said your belief forbidding a woman as Senior Pastor was cultural, not Scriptural. That is what you say, not what I am trying to propagate.
Brother/Sister Traveler
I included two links to these articles for the readers to read them in full. Dr. Mohler points clearly that this is universalism as does Beliefnet. Your insinuation that I may be quote mining would hold water if I had not included the articles. However, because the articles it seems that your insinuation, is just that, an insinuation without any facts.
Blessings,
Tim
Wade,
All people,everywhere are commanded to share the Gospel!
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
proclaim is the questionable word!
Traveller,
Your comment, [which I thought was excellent] where you said....
"My point would only be this: We far too often read into others' words what we wish/want them to say based on our preconceived ideas about that person instead of engaging with them in a conversation that is mostly listening with the attempt to understand."
....reminded me of the harley motorcycle rider called 'Big Ed' who stopped at a tent meeting and when the Evangelist asked for people to come forward for prayer was first in line.
The preacher asked him, "what can I pray about for you.?" Big Ed said, "pray for my hearing."
The preacher immediately put a finger in his ear, his other hand on his head, and, with a loud voice, began to shout, holler, and pray. When finished he asked Big Ed, "how's your hearing now?"
Big Ed answered, "I don't know, it's next Wenesday at the courthouse."
[Just so we won't forget to laugh once in a while.]
Brother Wade,
I seem to be on a roll today. I do not want to answer for Brother Robert McMasters, but I may as well do so. :>)
You ask him; "Now, would you concede the point that there are excellent famale proclaimers of the gospel as well as excellent male proclaimers of the gospel?
I will concede that fact easily. I have listened to female preachers proclaim the Word of God. I admit that there are some ladies that are very brilliant at expounding God's Word. My wife goes to Beth Moore events and Women of Faith events all of the time. When she comes home she has some of the messages that truly spoke to her. I listen to those cd's along with her and sometimes while I am alone.
However, this issue is not about how good someone can preach. It is not about how well someone can hold another's attention. It is about what the Scripture means in Titus when it says that Older Women are to teach the Younger Women. It is about what the Scripture means when it says that the Bishop is to be the Husband of one wife. It is about what the Scripture means when it says There is neither Jew or Greek.
All of this that we are dealing with, is not about how we feel or how we do not feel, it is about what the Scripture says.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers,
It might help you to listen to Dr Charles Stanley’s sermon this past Sunday, about being moved by the Sermon of a Korean Pastors Mother-in-Law while in Korea.
On His Name
Wayne
"All of this that we are dealing with, is not about how we feel or how we do not feel, it is about what the Scripture says."
Actually, it is about interpreting the passages you refer to in your comment as proof texts or in the whole of scripture.
I agree that feelings have little to do with it. Thinking, conservative and smart people interpret the passages you refer to differently.
"You say; "I continue to be amazed how you state as fact what happened at events where you were not present..." Are you saying that you asked President Carter "Do you believe that people who reject Jesus Christ will receive the judgment of God in hell." at the meeting that you sat in with Brother's CB, Marty, and Ben?"
It is amazing the hairs you will split trying to paint Wade a liar.
You, and others, have been doing it for a long time. And we wonder why more and more people are not trusting the SBC leaders and thier followers.
Why do you do it? To get in good with the powerful?
Anonymous because you guys are scary what you will do to try and ruin people.
Tim Rogers,
CB Scott was with me on only one conversation of four individual conversations I have had with the former President, two in person and two via phone. The issue is not CB. The issue is you implying that Mr. Carter believes in universalism when he personally told me something different. In addition, the article you allege proves Mr. Carter's universalism says something much different when quoted in full (as pointed out by an anonymous commentator above). Finally, I am choosing to believe the best about you and refuse to believe you are not intentionally seeking to discredit a brother in Christ, either me or Mr. Carter, and as such, I myself will refrain from exploring any possible absence of integrity on your part.
When Martin Luther launched the Reformation by posting of his 95 Theses Against the Sale of Indulgences on October 31, 1517 the recently invented printing press became the tool of the Reformation. Both sides of the conflict, the Reformers and the orthodox Roman Catholics, claimed to be on the side of truth. It was the power of the free, unfettered flow of information through print media that allowed the Reformation to spread.
In the same manner, any reform or gospel resurgence in our modern day will be facilitated by the internet.
I suspect the fact that the first document produced by the printing press was Gutenberg's Bible had a large part in the Reformation. It was the availability of God's Word to the masses, not man's opinions, that changed the religious landscape.
That same inerrant Word is freely available today. The internet does nothing to increase the average Westerner's handle on the Scriptures. All the net is doing is dividing denominations over piddling issues.
The first free flow of information resulted in the church splintering into tens of thousands of denominations. What will be the end result of this one?
I think that the myriad of aspiring Luthers in the world need to go back and take the material in the thread on brokenness to heart before they continue their attempts to make their marks on the church.
Lin,
I have not read this post (watched videos) as of yet.
I have not read all of the comments in this thread.
So if I am asking you a question which would be out of context relating to the whole body of your comments here please forgive me, but I must ask you this question. I am driven as an obsessed person to ask people this question.
Therefore I ask you to forget the subject of this post. Forget cb, Tim, Wade, Paul, Ben, President Carter, Billy Graham or whoever is involved in this comment thread and answer this question as if you and I had known each other all of our lives and were the best of friends, please.
Do you believe a person can abide with God in the afterlife apart from a salvic relationship with Jesus Christ?
cb
CB,
Of course not.
Why do I feel like I am being set up by the all knowing cantankerous CB? :o)
Ya know, trust is important in any relationship. :o)
"The first free flow of information resulted in the church splintering into tens of thousands of denominations. What will be the end result of this one?
I think that the myriad of aspiring Luthers in the world need to go back and take the material in the thread on brokenness to heart before they continue their attempts to make their marks on the church."
Good comments. I think you're Catholic, right?
Another Catholic "Anonymous"
Paul,
Thank you, not only for the laugh, but for making my point better than I did.
Wade, et al,
Somewhere about three comments in this stream got way off track. I think the issue here is what does a person who holds to complementarianism (hope I spelled that right or someone will accuse me of being misleading) believe about women and ministry?
And the answer is, lots of different things. For example, I note that the woman in the video is an associate pastor, who preaches. I'm not going to take serious issue with that, and I hold the comp position. She has leadership over her ( and I'm assuming it is a man) and she is preaching. Not a problem for me.
The young, and horribly misguided man, preaching in the 2nd video does manage to make some good points, even though his overall message is piss poor (to use his terminology). There is a real problem in our culture with men not acting like men and letting women take places of leadership that men should be fulfilling, and that includes in the home and the church. Talk to SBC men and find that many of them find church to be largely feminine and soft with little connection to daily life. That's the reason the majority of people in churches are women and that's the reason the majority of leaders in churches are women. They are all that is there!
What is appealing to me about the comp. position is that I can explain it from Scripture directly without trying to justify changes due to cultural deviations. Further, I have seen the transforming power of the Gospel change lives and families as men realize what their roles in their homes and churches should be as they come under conviction of the Holy Spirit, repent, and take up the yoke of leadership they are called to take. Further, I have watched wives weep over the return of their husbands to their place of leadership as they lay down the burden of trying to lead a family and instead pick up the role of helpmate, confidant, and lover that Scripture calls them to.
I hope that we can move beyond these two videos to a more defined discussion of the issues at hand.
I have enjoyed Pastor Wade's stand for the truth of scripture in the arena of the IMB controversy and the study of scripture that it has provoked on both sides. I hope we can do that with this issue as well.
On His Journey,
Ryan Abernathy
one of the pastors
The Journey Fellowship, OKC
A univeralist like JIMMY CARTER can believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven, by ack that either in this life or the next all will come to see Jesus.
Lin,
You are right. I do say things and ask questions to build traps when I am playing games.
This question was a serious. That is why I couched it as I did.
I am very glad you answered as you did.
I know Wade is not a Universalist. I know Tim is not deceitful. They are both forceful men which is exhibited in their independence and stubbornness.
I do believe President Carter to have leanings toward theological liberalism and he most definitely needs to stay at home and hush his mouth about foreign policy. He proved his lack of understanding in that arena when he was President of the United States. We are at war and he needs to stand down and shut up because we are at war and some of the things he says and does could cost American boys and girls their lives.
I don't think he understands that in war they use live rounds and really blow people up. And when a former president shoot his mouth off it fuels the enemy's aggression. It seems that many politicians do not understand that and have not since 1963.
Enough of that. The reason I ask you the question was because of a comment you made. I felt that to ask you that question was far more important that to enter this little set-to at the moment. Maybe later. :-)
I do thank you for your answer and I am happy you answered as you did. For there is no other way to heaven other than the grace of God made possible by the atonement of Jesus.
I am sure we will cross swords about something in the future as we always do.:-)
I am happy we agree on this. There is nothing more important on this earth than the way and means of grace.
cb
"The reason I ask you the question was because of a comment you made. "
Clever, CB.
So one of my comment's lead you to you question whether I believed that one had to have a salvic relationship with Christ to enjoy Him forever in heaven?
I am sure you realize what you have done. You are leaving folks with the impression I have said something that would make you, A PASTOR, question whether I understood or believed the primary Gospel.
I certainly hope you will point out the comment that lead you to such a bizarre conclusion.
Very clever, indeed. Perhaps pastors shouldn't play such games.
"I know Tim is not deceitful"
I hope someday to believe the same about you.
Good comments. I think you're Catholic, right?
Why would you think that? Because I'm not an anarchist?
Catholics believe in a higher authority. It's the information highway flavor of protestants who seem to favor their own opinions over any other interpretation of God's word.
I'm right, and everyone else in history is wrong. Makes sense, eh?
CB,
I decided not publish my comment. It was about three hundred words in response to you about the shape our country is in tonight wondering if you put the same measure of judgment on President George W. Bush as you do President Jimmy Carter.
But it is best to leave the politcs to a secular forum, do you not agree? Besides I do not want to pick on you while your down.
Phil
Lin,
I am sorry for not identifying the comment. It was the "Billy Graham" comment.
I was not trying to trick you in any way, just as I explained.
Now, you may make what of it you wish. I am just glad, as I said before, that you answered as you did. Nothing more and nothing less.
cb
Phil,
I said what I said in regard to what a former president said about the current administration in a time of war.
The enemy does not make much of what I would think or what you would think of the present administration.
It might surprise you what I think of the current situation.
BTW, soldiers getting killed is far more than politics. Would you not agree?
cb
The Graham comment is truth and was made because of what Tim has said about Wade being liberal in doctrine and would be more comfortable with the CBF.
Here are some links to the Graham interview with Schuller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE
Note, he says whether they know the Name of Jesus or not. He also says they may not be ‘conscious’ of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC2WPR7q4pU&feature=related
Here, John McArthur talks about Graham's statements.
The Newsweek Article is no longer available but was online in 2006 where something similar was said.
Sounds like Universalism. But then we all know he is not. So, what should we make of it? Should any SBC pastor having anything to do with BGEA be labeled a liberal and told to join the CBF where they would be more comfortable?
"Makes since, eh?"
Hey,I'm on board with you.
You are Catholic, right?
CB,
My comment was tongue in cheek just to give you a hard time. I figure no one does and you will never learn patience and be perfect like the rest of us if no one tries your soul; you know, the James 1:2-4 sort of of thing.
Phil.
CB, I have been convicted that I was too hard on you and may have inferred a motive from you that was not there at all. Mea culpa.
Tim,
I read the beliefnet article, as well as Mohler's. Mohler did not attentively read the entire article he based his on. The beliefnet article carried an editorializing comment that did not do justice to all of Carter's statements.
One of his comments sounded like it might display a universalistic idea, but that was later tempered by another comment that spoke of salvific grace through faith in Christ Jesus alone. I personally believe that calling Carter universalist has to do with a prejudgement that he cannot be a believer, since he is not a Republican!
Unlike Wade, I have not spoken to Carter on the issue, but it seems to me that he is addressing the issue that Paul raised in Romans chapters one and two. We will be treated by God in accordance with what God has revealed to us. Salvation is by faith (dependence upon God) just as it was for Abraham, centuries before Christ Jesus. Abraham did not know the name Jesus. He accepted the same character of God we find displayed in Christ.
The quote in Acts 2, "no other name" refers to there being no competing means of salvation. It does not necessarily mean that one must pronounce the name Jesus in order to receive grace. Rather, one must come in dependent faith before God, as John attests throughout.
In Acts 17, Paul makes a similar claim in Athens. Salvation is a product of grace, not works, even when those works have to do with pronouncing the name Jesus. There is no other way. There is no alternate path. There is no competing Savior. Where folks do not know the name of Jesus, I will have to join Carter in attesting that God's grace operates among those who have not heard the gospel we have to share. The results are in God's hands. The means are in God's hands. If Abraham was deemed as righteous by God, I will have to trust that there is some kind of hope for those who have not yet heard what we have been charged to share.
The operative word is grace. That will not necessarily mean that all receive grace unto salvation, but that God's grace overflows even upon the unrighteous, as rain from heaven.
After inhaling and choking on my soup over the PK comment and then laughing for about 5 minutes, I've concluded that I need to get out more.
ANYWAY, I wanted to address this comment:
"However, this issue is not about how good someone can preach...It is about what the Scripture means in Titus when it says that Older Women are to teach the Younger Women."
Some of us would wish, then, that the older and younger men - who are very busy constantly interpreting/revising the Curriculum for us - would be quiet long enough for this to happen.
Post a Comment