Wade Burleson, on his blog, Grace and Truth to You, wrote this article entitled Church Authority: What It Is And What It Is Not in which he reprints this article, Authority in the Local Church, from his father Paul Burleson's blog.In response, Chuck Andrews wrote this article, Authority, Leadership, & Relationships.
Wade Burleson also wrote this article, Are We Southern Baptists Becoming a Benign Cult? The Danger of Casually Dismissing Scripture When Defining 'True' Christianity.
How do these ideas relate to the abuse of "church authority" being witnessed in churches today? Are we seeing this type of abuse of authority in Bellevue Baptist Church? Please cite specific examples.
Mac Brunson, pastor of FBC Jacksonville, Florida, recently modified their church's bylaws to include a church disciplinary committee.Dr. Adrian Rogers did something similar at Bellevue over ten years ago with the formation of a Church Displinary Council except that it's not a part of the bylaws. As we know, these are the bylaws of BBC, written in 1929, and for the most part they are ignored by the church administration. Here are the bylaws transcribed.
Has the Church Disciplinary Council ever been utilized since its formation?
Thanks to "junkster" for this topic idea.
672 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 672 Newer› Newest»AOG my brother,
Yes, I understood your position as such, and have fulfilled it with said answers which met the questions previously proposed there of. The rhetorical nature of your questions have been duly noted, and have been also answered in that vein.
So how can I be of further assistance, sir?
:)
Just sayin'.
me.
gmommy said...
Lin,
The LAST thing you are is a dumb blonde!!!!
I've been suspicious about her calling herself that, also. I've never seen her, but I seriously doubt that she has blonde hair, unless it comes from peroxide.
"I'm ok with finger puppets ... so long as they keep to their proper place and don't usurp the authority granted to other kinds of puppets."
That is a veiled reference to their gender, now isn't it?
See what happens with metaphors? You turn it into Patriarchal finger puppets! Men!
I've been suspicious about her calling herself that, also. I've never seen her, but I seriously doubt that she has blonde hair, unless it comes from peroxide.
10:06 PM, January 05, 2008
Them's fightin' words.
Lin,
I thought you still knew who was who.
My daughter called me after both debates but I can't stand to hear her say something nice about Hillary...
My daughter's kinda like Junk...REALLY tries to be fair.
Hillary lost her cool...scary to watch!
Junk...
how many blondes do you know (adults) that don't get it from a bottle????
Well, I've seen gmommy. She is pretty, but she's not blonde.
Just sayin'.
oc.
gmommy, YOu know what is scarier? The Baptist ministers I seen who support her. One posted on Burleson's blog the other day.
Said a woman in his church worked at the mansion as a hostess and said Hillary was a great mother and wife. Real nice lady.
I thought maybe he should ask Vince Foster or Web Hubbel but one is dead and the other out on parole.
gmommy said...
My daughter's kinda like Junk...REALLY tries to be fair.
I guess that's a compliment ... but I can't imagine extending that so far as to end up saying something nice about Hillary.
gmommy said...
Junk...
how many blondes do you know (adults) that don't get it from a bottle????
I wouldn't know ... I'm generally not privy to that info.
Junk...
how many blondes do you know (adults) that don't get it from a bottle????
10:20 PM, January 05, 2008
That is NOT fair! I was born blonde and have been blonde all my life. Just because blondes tend not to age well is not our fault. After 40 it starts becoming a kind of murkey dishwater blonde/gray that needs a bit of oomph. Nutin wrong with that.
It's not like I am Margaret Hoolihan peroxiding my roots every week for crying out loud. Just a rinse to kind of blend the blonde and the gray into a nice smooth tone.
Where is concernedsbc'er when you need her?
Today I was talking to a man that I was in SS class with when our kids were young.
He said several times how pretty I USED to be!!!!!
He is going to snap later and be so embarrassed!!!! LOL
:)
but thank's OC
Lin,
I hope PP didn't know the SBC man that spoke well about Hillary...!!
Junk...if we got on Hillary's case REALLY bad..
you would probably find something nice to say about her...you are incredibly fair!!!!
Lin,
I've always said I wasn't going to color the gray...but after this year..I am having second thoughts!!!!
You know you are a knock out, gmommy. :)
Just sayin'.
oc.
"Today I was talking to a man that I was in SS class with when our kids were young.
He said several times how pretty I USED to be!!!!!"
That is hysterical. But he must be punished.
My cousin met an old old friend of her mom's (who was extremely beautiful...grace kelly kind of beauty) and this old friend said, Oh, your mother was so beautiful...You know...YOU don't look a thing like her! :o) We have laughed (and cried) over that one for years.
Lin,
I've always said I wasn't going to color the gray...but after this year..I am having second thoughts!!!!
10:33 PM, January 05, 2008
Once you start, it's a form of bondage. :o)
gmommy said...
Today I was talking to a man that I was in SS class with when our kids were young.
He said several times how pretty I USED to be!!!!!
I can't imagine that any woman (including yourself) used to be any prettier than you are now.
Well, I cannot thank everyone enough for the riveting and deep doctrinal discussion tonight.
Iron sharpens Iron as they say.
But I must press on to the sleep I need for Genesis 6 (and the Nephilim) tomorrow. Ought to be interesting. :o)
Lindon said...
Once you start, it's a form of bondage. :o)
Oh so true! I finally gave up on "Just For Men" and now I bear a striking resemblance to Kenny Rogers!
I hope you guys don't mind if I join the party. I've been reading the interesting discussion on "under grace" and "under the law". It is interesting, but there are a few key things that I think should be considered. First, the law was a revelation of he righteousness of God. Man wasn't able to recieve (or keep/fulfill) it even in small doses (ie Abrahamic Covenant led to Noahide Law led to Mosaic Law led to Deuteronomical Law etc). All law was an attempt by God to aid man in our quest for our lost relationship with Him. However, the law and prophecy of the Old Testament was not fulfilled until Christ's incarnation and birth to the virgin. When He in His sinless state give up His spirit to God, He said "it is finished". God demonstrated His approval by the Resurrection.
All Old Testament scripture pointed toward Christ leading men to live in faith that the Messiah would come. After Christ, we have to live like the law is fulfilled and believe that God has done what He promised He would.
For me (and I think for many in the New Testament times ie judaizers) it is easier to trust myself and try to "earn" salvation and believe that God might do what He has said than to live "recieving" salvation by faith and simply trusting in God.
Long post, but just my thoughts.
OK..Junk and OC..
that's a little thick!!! There's something in the Bible about flattery..
I really didn't get offended. He was just being honest about what he thought....
he wasn't trying to hurt my feelings and I have eyes...well ther aren't as good as they USED to be LOL!
the REALLY funny part is that he is now single(not by his choice) :)
Lin,
It WOULD be bondage to color my hair...I don't want to!
And that is hysterical about your cousin! People don't mean to say most of what they say! I walk around with my foot in my mouth!
Nass,
Can you post that new link??????
Lin, etc, Am I the only one mourning Dan Fogelburg? What a genius. You guys are truly versed and educated on so many things, no wonder I pipe in on just an irregular basis. I think I sound like a 5 year old. NOT FISHING for you to correct that PLEASE. I am just figuring out how basic my knowledge is. EXAMPLE: NEVER EVER heard of a take-over of the SBC... haven't heard of half the people you guys know about in the ministry. Now I am afraid I look like I pop on randomly as well. All that to say I think you guys ALL OF YOU are BRILLIANT. Forgive me if I am a popper-onner. ; 0
ps. I'll try to work on the typo's in the future :)
Gmommy. No flattery.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Jeremy.
Welcome bro.
just sayin'.
oc.
gmom,
This one?
It's a new blog dedicated to expo... uh... shedding light on the sexual improprieties of Darrell Gilyard.
STM,
The SBC conservative resurgence in a nutshell...
One last check...
Jeremy, You da man. Right on. Oh, and we ignore spelling here. Thankfully...er...right Nass? Nass?
Stopthemadness, Love the Dan.
We love popper onner's. Don't we guys? Guys? (They are all in bed reading their bibles for SS tomorrow)
And none of us are brilliant. We just love the Word and hate SBC politics. That is why we talk about both so much. :o)
Re: Blog on Darrel
Man. In this day of new technology, ain't nobody gettin away with anything.
Does not mean anyone cares enough to actually desire a godly pastor.....for thier church...but at least it is not swept under the rug...people know what they are gettin into...
stopthemaddness!
Before this blog I knew NOTHING about the SBC OR most of the theology we discuss.
I did NOT know there were so many reformed thinking Baptists or most of the vocabulary words I recognize but won't dare try and spell tonight.
Lin used to listen to me tell her how I listened to Charles Stanley tapes...she gave me lots of grace.
It's been a learning process for many of us.
OK...some started out brilliant :)
It's really neat when someone comes on here and they are all about being right...then you watch them grow and open to new information and join in with us...really cool.
A lot of the time when we have discussions..I am emailing someone and asking what something means...or doing a google or reading the scripture.
Many times I have used someone's post as my Bible stuudy lesson.
Do you remember Amos???
I have emailed him a million questions...Lin 2 million!!!
We are growing out of the packaged box we thought we belonged in!!!!
And you have never acted like the blog police!!!:):)
Thanks for the encouragement. I've been reading the posts here for a while. I am a young pastor who was led astray by Warrenism. I am sad to say that over the past year I have almost ashamed to consider myself part of the SBC. I have been comforted many times by the words in these blogs. You have helped me realize that I am not alone in my dissatifaction with our denomination becoming more interested in politics than salvation. I guess I just wanted to say thanks for being an encouragement.
jeremy,
are you for real or playing with us??
Spoken like true bro's/sisters in CHRIST OUR LORD. That one I KNOW 100%, J-E-S-U-S.
I think the old stopper of the madness needs SLEEP.
Good Night and God Bless you on SUNDAY as we move forward. PLEASE pray I go to church tomorrow.
I feel like saying I LOVE YOU. PEACE and GRACE.
Goodnight.
OC,
HUH????
stop...where are you going???
Jeremy.
Feel free to bust loose buddy!
You are in good company. More than you know.
Just sayin'.
oc.
OC ummmm-hmmmmmmmmmmmm
all riwhat then ummm hmm
jis sayun
gmommy said:
how many blondes do you know (adults) that don't get it from a bottle????
SOTL says:
AHEM...( clearing throat)and squirming in her chair.
:)
stop,
I understand what you mean..the people on this blog are real..and they have held me up during a hard year...here's a little secret..
ConcernedSBCer is a great cook!!!!!
gmommy,
It's ok. Just playin' a bit.
oc.
gmommy,
My grandfather was a bivocational pastor for 41 years in small SBC congregations. I was called to the ministry at 18 and began working with youth. After my wife and I married we moved from our hometown to a nearby city where we were both attending college. We became involved with a "new kind of church". Everything seemed great, until I started noticing that the pastors were more becoming more interested in being a successful church than be a holy faithful congregation. After seminary, I have begun to realize that purpose driven wasn't just wrong in many ways...it is destroying Christianity. I have clashed with many of the local pastors over my views, but at the end of the day I care more about being a faithful servant than a "successful pastor".
“necessarily raises the questions: who, or what, is the Israel of God? Does God have 2 peoples, or 1? Does God have 1 plan of salvation for the Jews and another for the Gentiles? In my view these are questions of great import.”
1 People, circumcised of heart, not flesh and 1 plan for salvation. (Romans 2)
But you already know this....
When we decided to call ourselves a NT church and start teaching that there is a dichotomy between the NT and the OT we err.
The OT is an example of what will happen to the church. It happened to God’s chosen people then and now we are in the time of the Gentiles. The entire bible was written to the church...to God’s people, Israel. It is meant for instruction and as an example to all believers. From page one to the last page there is example, doctrine and warnings in a language we can understand and in parables that only we (believers) can understand. If it reads any other way, we need to re-evaluate our connection to the vine.
We see Him extending His grace to the world through Jesus just as he did to the Jews through Moses. He will deliver his people. We see in Romans 11:25 that His patience and long suffering will continue until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Then we will experience a stunning judgement just like Jerusalem did. That is what Revelations is all about.
What He did with the nation of Israel, he now does with the church. If you don't believe this, just compare the church today with Jerusalem then. We are under seige, experiencing famines and destruction because we have turned away from God. Haggard, Swaggart, PTL, who is next? Everyone points to a vibrant religious system and a world full of christian churches today but then forget that Jerusalm itself was the very seat of Jewish religion...the heart of it. Just as our churches are the seat of our religion today.
He is the same God. He has never changed. Malachi 3:6 For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
and one more secret....SOTL has beautifl NATURAL blonde locks!!
G--And you know this from the BOWLING ALLEY I presume? ; }
jeremy,
thanks for sharing with us..how did you find us?
I don't think I would have found our blog if someone hadn't pointed me to it.
EZ,
I know how serious you are but a ...hello blog friends ...would have been a nice opening....
just sayin :)
Jeremy, I am praying for pastors just like you. You are more rare than you may know.
BTW: Are you familiar with Paul Washer's sermons?
(I really do have to go to bed...if I don't answer...I;ll be baaaaaaaack tomorrow)
God Bless YOU!
Welcome, Jeremy! If only more pastors would see through the PD stuff as you have. Bless you!
oc,
It's past your bedtime don't you think? You're delirious.
I went to MABTS. When I heard about all the issues at BBC I began to research what was going on. I don't know why I've hung around really. I usually read the posts every night to see what is being discussed.
I don't always agree with everything said or the way some things are said, but I like being challenged by some of the discussions that arise.
know how serious you are but a ...hello blog friends ...would have been a nice opening....
just sayin :)
11:21 PM, January 05, 2008
Give Ez a break. He is a man on a mission.
Larry, give us some grace. We are growing, too. I think you may be right about giving more encouragement but I won't sugar coat any heresy. You do know I have been joking around tonight a lot, don't ya?
I KNOW it is out of character from my normal blogging self so you may not realize I have been joking in love and fun. Pure Joy. All of us have been blog police at some point. We could even get badges!
(Junk...don't you dare say, "we don't need no stinking badges")
Larry,
No bro. You got the wrong idea about us. Hsng with me bro, and you will see yourself being loved by the greatest of those who are called to Love. Be patient, and you will feel yourself being loved by those who love best. They have been the healers, the lovers in my life. Give them a chance, bro.
These people will turn your head around, and if you let them, they will turn your life around too.
Just sayin'.
oc.
lin,
No. I must look into him. But I guess I'd best get to bed.
I don't always agree with everything said or the way some things are said, but I like being challenged by some of the discussions that arise.
11:26 PM, January 05, 2008
My philosophy is if it drives us to scripture then it is worth it. These guys have always driven me to dig deeper. You won't find Your Best Life now here or your Purpose Drive Life. So youb will feel right at home!
Larry,
If you let me get you all mad....then I don't know what to say to you.
Aren't you being a little overly sensitive????
You asked me to explain to you and I did.
The remark to Stop was in response to HER remark...not about you,honey.
I apologize that I don't say things to you that I don't mean.
I don't think I say anything MEAN to you.
I don't know of anyone else that picks at you...so why don't you try JOINING discussions instead popping out to warn someone.And then acting pitiful.
I did what you asked of me and you still are being fussy.
Lin said....
(Junk...don't you dare say, "we don't need no stinking badges")
Lynn Says....
Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!
OC,
your post to Jeremy is weird honey...go nite nite....
Lynn,
You just get in from Bowling?????
oh!! and Stopthemaddness.....
uhhhh sure!!!! Concerned cooks for us at the... bowling alley... :)
Jeremy, bkwormgirl,
Welcome to the blog. It is good to see you folks!
Stopthemadness, I got busy tonight and missed out on a lot of the discussion. Let me know if OC or AOG didn't cover the answer to your question. I surely don't want you to think I was ignoring you. Looks like you have a pretty good grasp on things...
Lin, you are way smarter...and a good bet that you are better looking...at least I hope you are...and you better hope too!
Would everyone...except OC...
say nice things to Larry so he won't be all upset.
My goodness...why would one lowly woman bother you so much?
EZ,
you made me laugh!
gmommy,
Ok, I will work on my intro a bit more. Maybe I can begin with a blond joke on my next post..
Ease up on Larry, He is a good guy, just rubs you the wrong way most of the time...:)
I guess it's time for all good bloggers to go to bed now...I seem to be posting to the air..
nighty.
gmommy said...
Lynn,
You just get in from Bowling?????
oh!! and Stopthemaddness.....
uhhhh sure!!!! Concerned cooks for us at the... bowling alley... :)
11:39 PM, January 05, 2008
Actually I got home at 9:30 tonight lol.
OK EZ...
I really didn't think I was that bad but I will totally be sweet now. I did try and be truthful...usually I get a better response.
I was teasing you about your intro!:) Intensity is a good thing..just fun when we are silly sometimes!!
Lynn,
Bet I know why you didn't have time for your blog friends......
Sweet Dreams ya'll.
Just sayin'.
oc.
gmommy said...
Lynn,
Bet I know why you didn't have time for your blog friends......
12:03 AM, January 06, 2008
LOL. It wasn't the reason you think it was lol.
good night John Boy:)
Night Sue Ellen....
0r whatever...
just sayin'.
oc.
Sue Ellen was on Dallas. I believe you meant "Mary Ellen."
Good night, all.
Churches differ on whether giving 10 percent of your income is part of God's plan. How long before we see ATMs inside Bellevue?
larry......
this is the not-the-real larry.
for the sake of our shared name, hang in!
these bloggers 'take no prisoners' when it comes to confronting threats.
carelessly worded posts are challenged rather quickly most times.
we have all experienced that, I think.
relax and continue.
the reward of being provoked to think outside of our comfort zone is a good thing.
and usually AOG is the only one that gets a little cranky :)
I just intimidated AOG...he's upset!!!
tsk tsk...now you know neither of those are true.
eprov.
Larry is a cool name, don't ya think...
Just sayin'.
Larr...uh...oc.
:)
oc.....
the not-the-real Larry name has worked for me for almost 63 years.
uh, well, 39 years for sure.
so I would say it's a good one!
OC, mah man! I didn't know when I wents to my crib you done gone thru some stuff widdout me.
I woullda holla'd.
See whut Im sayin now????
p.s. SERIOUSLY I went to church and it was a new year type get your spiritual act together sermon, GOD KNEW WHAT WE NEEDED and I am so happy. ALSOOOOOOO---FBC has a GREAT speaker at 600pm 2-nite.
I am so excited he is a comedian, yay.OC he aint the shizzz like you brother so dont hate.
See what Im say'n,
STM
Aog,
I knew I could tease with you.
eprov,
Glad you affirmed Larry.
If I were REALLY being mean I'd understand his reaction.
I sat by another BBC person in SS class today.
STM,
try not to encourage OC in that area :)
Hey, did you mean First Baptist....on E.Parkway?????
So glad you went today!!!!
I think STM meant Faith Baptist in Bartlett... FBC.
I have no idea why I didn't realize that,Nass...thanks!
"ALSOOOOOOO---FBC has a GREAT speaker at 600pm 2-nite.
I am so excited he is a comedian, yay.OC he aint the shizzz like you brother so dont hate.
See what Im say'n,
STM"
1:26 PM, January 06, 2008
It should be noted that Swanberg actually made a stop in Memphis back in August at BBC.
OC, you didn't think a GIRL could do that better than you did ya now?
I thought I remembered the picture of that guy in August. Hope we make it in tonight.Need to hurry.
FAITH can't be more welcoming. I wondered, back when, if they were too newish, but the preacher is a great PREACHER, A SUPER GUY. It is weird when he never talks about his authority. Or money. Or how bad he has it. During the several times I have been there, not ONE sermon about himself. Who knew? GMOM, What do you mean? ; ) WHAT area? ;| :0
FYI to the ladies:
Mrs. Rogers will be the guest speaker at a breakfast at FBC on Saturday morning at 9:00. Tickets are $10.
In my quiet time this morning this is what I was reading. Malachi 1:10 (NIV) "Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD Almighty, "and I will accept no offering from your hands."
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this verse. Specifically if it applies to our world today. Yes, I know it is the OT, but I wonder if God feels the same way about so many of the churches that exist now. I know that now we hold dear the idea of the royal priesthood of the individual believer. But I can not help but wonder if at some level this message does not reflect the way God views commercial churches. Does God desire us to close our temple doors because we offer so many useless offerings? I am not talking about individually, I am talking about in general terms - the church community at large. And please, I am not advocating closing the church doors just yet, but I really am beginning to wonder just what good we are doing for the Kingdom of God to have so many churches that are teaching false doctrine or that only offer milk and no meat for sustenance.
Just throwing out a question.
bkwormgirl
Very interesting question Bkwormgirl.
I don't want to give my opinion until our theology friends respond...
but isn't it good to know you won't get a "pre packaged SBC" answer here?!
"And please, I am not advocating closing the church doors just yet, but I really am beginning to wonder just what good we are doing for the Kingdom of God to have so many churches that are teaching false doctrine or that only offer milk and no meat for sustenance. "
Wow, I think about this all the time.
It is really scary. I believe that God is going to save for Himself a remnant and please...hold on to your hat...I think it is going to be smaller than we think. Matthew 7 gives us a clue (as does the OT) becuase in Matthew 7 He is referring to professing Christians.
I don't think much that is called church today really is of Christ. (I did not always believe this) I think we have built flesh temples that appeal to our psychological needs. (felt needs as Warren calls it)
What does taht have to do with anything? We were created for ONE purpose: To worship God and enjoy Him forever.(God means Godhead). But churches spend most of their time talking about 'man' and not God.
To me, there is the visible church and the invisible church.
Read this from Amos 8:
11"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord GOD,
"When I will send a famine on the land,
Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water,
But rather (W)for hearing the words of the LORD.
12"People will stagger from sea to sea
And from the north even to the east;
They will go to and fro to (X)seek the word of the LORD,
But they will not find it.
Ouch, that pasted bad. But, God never changes and we see this very thing today...people flocking to these huge churches and never hearing the true Word, the full Gospel.
This also applies to those of us who are searching for a church that is faithfully preaching God's Word, not the Purpose Driven stuff. I am one of those still looking for such a church since mine has gone/is going off the true path.
bkwormgirl,
You will find much the same warning in Isaiah 1. Isaiah followed Malachi by about 3-400 years. Malachi was before the exile to Assyria and Isaiah was after.
To answer your question is most certainly does apply. Keep reading! God's people are bent on repeating the same mistakes they did in the OT. Then they were called Israel and today they are called the church, but they are all His people.(Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6)
A good study of Jer 23, Ez 34 and Mat 23 will show you exactly what is happening in many churches today. The only safety you have is to know and have a personal relationship with the WORD. Keep reading!
hey Francesca!!!
Francesca,
Have you ever seen someone you thought you knew and ran up to them to sat HI!!...and they weren't who you thought??
so sorry...I was thinking you were someone I had dialoged with a while back....
but still happy you posted!:)
Note to new poster, "sisterinchrist"...
1. Your profile isn't visible which is a requirement to post comments here. Please edit to make it visible if you'd like to post again.
2. We are all aware of that website (which is actually a blog) to which you referred, and I don't know of anyone except the author who condones the things said there. It needs no further exposure here.
3. Nice try, CP.
Bad weather. Ya'll be careful.
just sayin'.
oc.
Hi guys, Remember the other night we were discussing Old/New Covenants and Grace? I found an interesting article on just this subject.
http://www.grantedministries.org/articles/is_there_a_covenant_of_grace_j_z.pdf
Lin's link.
CP, never mind then. Must have been a case of mistaken identity.
From the article:
Furthermore, no Christian "system" of thought can ever be absolutely fixed. Even John
Murray, an ardent covenant theologian, encourages us to subject this system to further
analysis.
It would not be, however, in the interests of theological conservation or
theological progress to think that the covenant theology is in all respects
definitive and that there is no further need for correction, modification,
and expansion. Theology must always be undergoing reformation. The
human understanding is imperfect.... there always remains the need for
correction and reconstruction so that the structure may be brought into
closer approximation to the Scripture....It appears to me that the covenant
theology...needs recasting (The Covenant of Grace, The Tyndale House,
1954,pp.4-5)
oc says:
Uh huh. "The human undestanding is imperfect...".
And otherwise, thou shalt be God, huh? Just watch what you put on others.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Its' all happening at the ZOO.
Siberian tiger slaughter and mauling and its' spiritual allegory.
"ITS' ALL HAPPENING AT THE ZOO
Watchman's article:
"Pastors are neglecting the clear admonition of Scripture to be "sober" and "vigilant" regarding our Adversary the devil - thereby failing to provide an adequate hedge of protection or retaining wall for their flocks."
oc says:
And the problem I have is that so may "pastors" think their sheep are so stupid as to not recongnize it. We see it. We have eyes. We see you let us die.
The sheep now a days are the ones having defend the faith. Often times, some Shepherds don't see it, or maybe don't want to. It's sad that some will let the sheep get slaughtered and just stand by watching, as they protect some program.
And furthermore, the fact of the matter is that the sheep are are often closer to God than the Shepherd is. Sometimes the "Shepherd" is just a hired gun, there to just promote another program. And I guess they aren't paid enough, because they don't even do THAT well. Have you seen it?
Just sayin'.
oc.
If ever I get killed by a wild animal, please make sure that I'm not the object of a tortured metaphor.
It's a deal, cakes!
It's not the metaphor that will torture you.
I might kill you though.
My goodness! It's a threat on your life !!!
Love you bro.
just sayin'.
oc.
When I said :
Just watch what you put on others.
That wasn't personal on you Lin,
I've seen your heart, friend. I know better.
just sayin'.
oc.
lin,
Interesting article...I think he paints in a few broad strokes on a few points...namely his seeming assumption that if one adheres to a covenant view of redemption, then they are by necessity paedobaptist. Just ain't so. Where I part ways with paedobaptists is their hermeneutic in interpreting the Abrahamic covenant's fulfillment in the New Covenant.
He makes a valid point that "covenant of grace" and "covenant of redemption" are terms not found in Scripture...but then neither is "rapture", "carnal Christian", "once saved, always saved", or "dispensational truth". If you find any of those, let me know ;) I do however think it's pretty obvious that throughout redemptive history God has dealt with man in terms of covenant..I'm quite certain that term is there. He also inferred that paedobaptists believe each covenant was a full explanation or revelation of the covenant of grace...but I've never heard that from a paedobaptist. He also seemed to infer that covenantalists are all reconstructionists (seek to install a theocracy)...some do...but not all by necessity.
Great quote by Murray...ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda..still true today.
Lin,
This stuck out in the article. Maybe I am reading it wrong but...
”In summary, then, we must see the books of the Old Testament as that body of literature
which was associated with the Mosaic Covenant. Those books were absolutely binding
and not to be tampered with (see Joshua 1:6-8). Likewise, with the coming of a New and
better covenant, a new body of inspired literature arose. This New Testament literature is
binding on the New Covenant community (Rev.22:18-19; see Meredith Kline's The
Structure of Biblical Authority, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972, pp.68-75). The use of the Old
Testament by the Apostles in Acts and the Epistles is primarily to unfold, as Christ
Himself did, from Moses, the prophets and the Psalms "the things concerning Himself"
(Luke 24:27,44). Their use of the Old Testament was Chistocentric (Christ-centered), not
nomocentric (law-centered).”
Well, if this is saying what it appears to be saying, I disagree. The OT and NT are Both Christ centered. The OT speaks and teaches Christ before He became flesh and walked among us. The NT teaches Him after He became flesh and walked among us. It is thinking like this that focuses all attention on 1/2 of the WORD.
1 Cor 10:10 1 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
James 5: 10 As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.
2 Peter 2: 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
He has been doing THIS since He threw Adam out of the Garden...
2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Today, we have a better promise, a better sacrifice and a better mediator...we are truly...Without Excuse.
One WORD and that is all of Him, OT and NT.
The Battered Sheep article
(the link on the right)
is really good today!
What happened at BBC is an epidemic! Baptists need to wake up to the reality. This corruption of the church is coming from the top.
There are many SG out there!!
"If ever I get killed by a wild animal, please make sure that I'm not the object of a tortured metaphor."
At your eulogy the possibilites would be endless!
He had the heart of a lion but unfortuantly, the speed of a turtle.
(It is the best I can do on short notice)
"That wasn't personal on you Lin,
I've seen your heart, friend. I know better. "
No problemo. But thanks for reminding me. I forgot my famous disclaimer when I posted the link:
Be a Berean. :o)
Lin said:
Be a Berean. :o)
oc says:
I always remember it.
Thanks Lin.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Lin,
Thanks for the article on coventants. In addition to the very good explanation of the relation of Law to Grace and to Christians, the analysis of the relation of Covenant Theology to infant baptism was quite helpful. I read a book recently on various views of baptism, one of which was the Reformed/Presbyterian view. As the article indicates, the bulk of their position on baptism is based on their understanding of Coventant Theology. It was good to read a strong, biblicaly-based response.
ezekiel said...
Lin,
This stuck out in the article. Maybe I am reading it wrong but...
”In summary, then, we must see the books of the Old Testament as that body of literature
which was associated with the Mosaic Covenant. Those books were absolutely binding
and not to be tampered with (see Joshua 1:6-8). Likewise, with the coming of a New and
better covenant, a new body of inspired literature arose. This New Testament literature is
binding on the New Covenant community (Rev.22:18-19; see Meredith Kline's The
Structure of Biblical Authority, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972, pp.68-75). The use of the Old
Testament by the Apostles in Acts and the Epistles is primarily to unfold, as Christ
Himself did, from Moses, the prophets and the Psalms "the things concerning Himself"
(Luke 24:27,44). Their use of the Old Testament was Chistocentric (Christ-centered), not
nomocentric (law-centered).”
Well, if this is saying what it appears to be saying, I disagree. The OT and NT are Both Christ centered. The OT speaks and teaches Christ before He became flesh and walked among us. The NT teaches Him after He became flesh and walked among us. It is thinking like this that focuses all attention on 1/2 of the WORD.
I believe that the portion of the article you quoted is saying exactly what you just said (so I don't get what you are disagreeing with).
Junk, I don't disagree with that statement. I posted the article as food for thought because we are discussing it. I really need to read it again...stuff like that I have think about as I read it and check stuff. I read through it pretty quickly.
Let me make myself clearer on this:
I agree the OT unfolds Christ and is about Christ! I also believe that we are under a New Covenant. jesus fulfilled the old one. He kept the law while He was here.
That means I am only under what is commanded in the NT. Some of it overlaps from the OT but not all. To make my point, lots of CT folks believe we kept the moral law in the NC but not others like the ceremonial law, etc. Some believe we kept some ceremonial law like the Sabbath, tithing, etc.
I don't think we kept any of it because the whole point of Christ is not what we 'do' or 'works' of the law but what is in our hearts. If I am regenerated, I won't murder someone. If I am regenerated, I will joyfully give. That sort of thing.
That is why I have a problem with posting the 10-C all over the place...if you read the first part it says it was given to Israel. Israel was a Theocracy. (Please do not interpret this that I believe I can go against the 10-C, that is NOT what I mean) It seems to represent works of morality and not true salvation which is a work of the Holy Spirit only.
Was that clear as mud? :o)
"In addition to the very good explanation of the relation of Law to Grace and to Christians, the analysis of the relation of Covenant Theology to infant baptism was quite helpful."
Junk, I am constantly amazed that Mohler, and others in our denomination have no problem brining in folks who baptize babies to speak and teach but have a problem with a woman speaking anywhere there are men.
This just blows me away. As my friend Scott said, what happened to the Puritans?
Not to mention those martyrs that died keeping their children from a false forced baptism. Have we lost our minds?
Anybody seen BBC's new "God loves you just the way you are" billboard? Is it just me, or does it seem like that's a skewed message? Yeah, God loves us even while and though we are sinners -- but it is in spite of how we are, not because of how we are. "God loves you just the way you are" sounds like He has no demands of us and no expectation that we should be any different. Am I right? Or being too critical?
Lin said...
Junk, I don't disagree with that statement.
Lin, sorry if I wasn't clear ... I was asking Ezekiel what it was about the statement he disagreed with, because it sounds to me like he was saying basically the same thing as the quote.
To clarify, I took the quote to be saying that the purpose of the OT is to point us to Christ (rather than to give us laws to live by), and Ezekiel also said that the OT was about Christ. So I don't understand why Ezekiel said he didn't agree.
junk,
This one?
NASS,
That's the one. I hadn't noticed the diversity mix of the pictures on the billboard. Suppose those are models, or did they find the one Asian member and one African American member for the photo?
Yeah, I know, I'm bad.
believe that the portion of the article you quoted is saying exactly what you just said (so I don't get what you are disagreeing with).
Junk, I don't disagree with that statement. I posted the article as food for thought because we are discussing it. I really need to read it again...stuff like that I have think about as I read it and check stuff. I read through it pretty quickly.
oc says:
I don't disagree. I only think....Oh.., you do need to read again... all of us do...
Just sayin'...
oc.
lin,
Has Al Mohler baptized any babies to your knowledge? Or...have any of those paedobaptists been allowed to preach or teach paedobaptism at the Seminary or whatever other places you're referring to that he "brought in" to? Charles Spurgeon was known to allow paedobaptists to preach from the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle...he was criticized for too...but then he was criticized for pretty much anything and everything in his time as well. But now he's probably one of, if not THE most quoted preachers...and THAT from a large number of preachers who would have hated Spurgeon had they been his contemporaries. Btw Spurgeon was an avid reader of the Puritans who were a mix of Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists...he got his theology from them.
From the posts of late it's obvious there's quite the disdain for those who hold to a complimentarian view of gender roles..ie Mohler, Patterson, etc, or perhaps it's just men in general. But you're going to have to throw out quite a list of folks who hold that view if you want to rid the SBC, or evangelicalism at large of such...including the likes of Danny Akin, John Piper, Alistair Begg, etc, etc, etc. I know the SBC and the church universal is in trouble in our times folks, but you need to be very careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's extremely easy in times like this to become "anti-" everything and everybody. A "demon under every bush" mentality if you will. I don't agree with any preacher/teacher on every last point, but if the "hit list" keeps growing at this rate, there won't be anybody left..including some good men who don't belong on that list.
I'm very familiar with Dr. Mohler's speaking/preaching in Presbyterian churches and seminaries, and having Presbyterians speak/preach/teach at Southern. I've listened to many of those messages in those situations and not once have I heard a Presbyterian speak/preach/teach paedobaptism, and vice versa...yet each walk away with their particular distinctives intact. Some of Mohler's closest friends are paedobaptists, yet I have yet to meet or hear a Baptist take a stronger stand for Baptist distinctives than he has...or for Biblical fidelity. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but it's wise to remember that for however much we may know, we still "do not know as we ought" and we all still see "through a glass darkly".
It seems odd that a year ago everyone was up in arms about a 25,000 dollar check that went to a church with a woman preacher...and now those who would agree with the view that such a situation (a woman behind the pulpit) is un-Biblical, are being criticized for their views. I know everybody thinks that guys like Mohler, etc should have stood up and spoken out about all that's happened at BBC, or "done" something about it. But that's not how it's supposed to work is it? A major Baptist distinctive is the autonomy of the local church...if you want a hierarchy that can tell another preacher/elder/church what to do you'll have to become a Presyterian...that's how they do it.
PS lin, the ground has been saturated with the blood of Christian martyrs throughout the history of the church...it continues today...and it's not all Baptist blood.
allofgrace has now descended the soap box ;)
"From the posts of late it's obvious there's quite the disdain for those who hold to a complimentarian view of gender roles..ie Mohler, Patterson, etc, or perhaps it's just men in general."
Oh, yes. I know I "have quite the disdain" for men in general. {rolls eyes} It's exceeded only by the disdain those with that same complimentarian view have for those who have an egalitarian view.
A few months ago I actually heard a Bellevue man say that "women are saved from being second-class citizens through the privilege of rearing children." I suppose the corollary to that statement is that women who never have the privilege (or make the choice -- and we know what Al Mohler thinks about that) to rear children are forever second-class citizens -- which is obviously how PP and others like him feel. You'll have to forgive me if I find it difficult to conjure up warm and fuzzy thoughts about someone who considers half the human race to be relegated to second (or lower) class status because they were born with an extra "X" instead of a "Y" chromosome.
I think a lot of people are just now waking up to the fact that not all we've been taught all these years is necessarily Biblical truth. For too long we've swallowed and followed just because it's all we've known. Read about one man's journey and ultimate change of heart here.
Disclaimer: I really do like men! I think every woman should own one. :-)
"It seems odd that a year ago everyone was up in arms about a 25,000 dollar check that went to a church with a woman preacher... "
To me that was never an issue at all. It was her support of abortion and homosexual "rights" that to me were the only issues.
God does not Love all just as they are...never has, never will..
This sloganeering is simply a lie and is not true at all.
Gos fashions some vessels for honour and some for dishonour..
Some He shows compassion to and some He does not purpose to do so ...IN ORDER THAT gOD WILL RECEIVE ULTIMATE GLORY.
The pulpits are openly lying when they misrepresent the King of Kings and God of all gods in this regard .
Romans 9 declares that God loved Jacob but ...(gulp ) "hated" Esau...and when did God hate Esau ? Before Esau was even born.
The clay has no say in whom the potter shows mercy and grace, and whom God fashions for dishonor. Even before they are in the womb.
Try preaching this undeniable doctrine of unconditional Election and Holy Purpose of Sovereign GOD TRUTH today to Americas " love-infatuated" and wholly misled and billboarded millions of fully deceived mankind and see if this doesnt once again get them to cry in unison ..get the nails, get the hammers.." Crucify him ! ", once again.
The billboard is a lie..and serves man, not the GOD of Holy Scripture.
But it makes men " feel " good...and in America 2008...thats all that matters.
WE OPENLY MISREPRESENT AND REDEFINE AND THUS OFFEND HOLY GOD, BUT ARE EXTREMELY CAREFUL NOT TO OFFEND NON-SOVEREIGN, NON-DIVINE MEN.
Does God " HATE " ANYONE...???
The answer..not from unbiblical redefining man, but entirely from GODS WORD ..is...YES, He does Hate
YES, GOD DOES HATE
P.S.
Sorry for the "typo's"
I wasn't wearing my reading glasses earlier.
: ))
At the risk of being thrown to the wolves by "watchman" again, I will say simply this:
The views expressed by the persons who post here don't necessarily reflect those of the moderator or other commenters.
Honest question, not meant to offend or spark debate, but if this is true (and I agree with it to an extent as we don't have any control over God)...
"The clay has no say in whom the potter shows mercy and grace, and whom God fashions for dishonor. Even before they are in the womb."
Then what's the point of evangelism? I mean, if certain people were "fashioned" to be disposable, and no decision we can make is going to change that, either to accept or reject the power of the Holy Spirit, then what... is... the... point? It doesn't sound to me like it's any different than cosmic karma or relegating women to second-class status because, after all, that's the way God "fashioned" them to be. Could someone please explain this to me? It's a serious question, and it gives me a headache to think about it too much.
Uh, just sayin'. Does the word "hate" pertain to "preferences" and not to a person?
Just askin'.
oc.
ps. watch what you think you know.
oc,
I would ask that if the verse in question is merely speaking of "preference", then why would God "prefer" Jacob over Esau? Were they not both worms? Jacob's name means "supplanter"...he was a schemer and along with his mother, schemed to cheat Esau out of his birthright. Was it because He saw something good in Jacob that He did not see in Esau? Or was Paul teaching that all are equally and deservedly under condemnation and mercy shown to anyone is mere grace...and grace which is neither moved nor motivated by anything in the creature, but arising from God's own will and purpose...which is to show before men and angels that it is not according to him who wills or runs, but to God who shows mercy. Evangelism is not an option...it's a command..that in and of itself should be reason enough, but God has also ordained to "through the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe." God's purpose in election encompasses all means to His ordained ends.
"Evangelism is not an option...it's a command..that in and of itself should be reason enough... "
Bingo! But if nothing we can do will ever affect (note I didn't say "determine") whether someone is saved or not, then I repeat, what's the point? I see none.
... but God has also ordained to 'through the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe.'"
Someone interpret (in proper context), please.
... and please pass the Excedrin.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the Unconditional Election of God unto Salvation.
GODS UNCONDTIONAL ELECTION ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE
1 Corinthians 1
1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
The Glorious Bible Doctrine of Election ....
GODS GLORIOUS ELECTION
EXCELLENT YOU TUBE VIDEO EXAMINATION:
If election and predestination be true ..why evangelize?
IF ELECTION IS TRUE, WHY EVANGELIZE?
There is none good, not one. All are "Worms". Including me. No one deserves God's good pleasure or His salvation.
But to get to get down to it, He purposes and has ordained that He shall save "whosoever will". John 3:16.
I am one "whosoever" who believed.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Yep AOG. I'm on of those who believed the foolishness, and are so saved. So glad I did !
If God hates then the Bible has some false teachings in it. I John 4:8 states that God is love. Love and hate cannot co-exist. John 3:16 states that God loved the world - so again, how can you have a God who hates us, and yet loves us. God hates the sin of the world - but we are not our sin, we are bound by sin (until freed and redeemed by Jesus' shed blood.) The verses that are cited in that article are all OT - and before people were eternally redeemed. Now, even though we sin, and break fellowship with God, we are still covered under the blood of Jesus.
Just my thoughts...
Junkster, Lin,
What I was disagreeing with was the idea that I think the author was trying to convey. That idea is the one so deadly to many today. When we teach the OT was specific to the Mosaic law and the NT is specific to the law of Christ, we have to start trying to find out what the difference in the two covenants,(old/new) or two laws (faith/works)…and that leads to all sorts of error and confusion.
The way I see it, the difference between the two covenants is in how they either fail or how they are maintained. The Old covenant was faulty (Romans 8:7) and the people did not continue in it. (Romans 8:9) The New covenant has a better mediator, a better sacrifice and the law is internal (written on our hearts) rather than external (written on a rock).
But the Law remains the same. The law written on our hearts and minds (Romans 8:10) is the same law He gave to Moses. The same law Moses had to write on a rock after he broke the first set.
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Now, Romans 6,7,8 follow that, and here are a few key verses but please, do read them in their entirety.
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
7:3 So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
7:10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].
7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Then Romans 8
8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And finally 1 Cor 15. To understand Romans 7:4 you have to understand that we as Christians are no longer married to Adam. We are married to Christ. Adam died. Christ has been Raised!
15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
15:47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
15:48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
We seem to forget what Christ really did on the Cross. We serve in the newness of the spirit, not in oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6)
I think if you will look at it, you will find the Law was in the garden. It was the tree of knowledge(Gen 2:16-17)....God's people operated under that law through the times of Enoch, Noah, Abraham till Moses delivered it written on a stone. Jesus then promised to write it on our hearts in Jer 31:33 and delivered on that promise.(Romans 8:10)
BKWORM WOW I would be more careful than to speak that the Bible contains falsehood.
The New Testament is very clear that while the essense of GOD IS LOVE...God hates...
Here is Romans 9..( New Testament )
The King James Version (Authorized)
romans 9 - Study This Chapter
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed F33 from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, F34 and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder F35 shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I >>> hated <<<.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? "God forbid". 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted F36 to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Proverbs 6;16-19
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
bkwormgirl,
Very good thoughts!
Nass,
My thoughts...and these given very quickly....
the idea that just being obedient to scripture on witnessing is pointless in light of God's election or foreknowledge makes the same sense to me as our deciding there is no point to worship and fellowship ...since churches can be corrupt and people can be hypocrites...it's just not the right way to think ...to me.
We aren't responsible for the end...just our obedience.
That's a much shorter response than I would like but on a quick break.
I have some thoughts posts from earlier but think I'll wait for later.
Does God Love or does God hate?
The answer is YES to both, and is not a contradiction, but a human misperception of GOD.
DOES GOD LOVE OR DOES GOD HATE? THE ANSWER IS YES TO BOTH
Sermon delivered by C. H. Spurgeon on Jacob and Esau
JACOB AND ESAU,IS THE SCRIPTURE CORRECT WHEN IT PLAINLY SAYS ESAU HAVE I HATED?
AOG, Your soapbox is welcome to me. iron sharpens iron.
"lin,
Has Al Mohler baptized any babies to your knowledge? Or...have any of those paedobaptists been allowed to preach or teach paedobaptism at the Seminary or whatever other places you're referring to that he "brought in" to?"
Does padeobaptism color how they view the full gospel? I would say yes. Funny how we are told over and over to check church history on beliefs but we overlook the blood of the martyrs over this issue which is NOT scriptural. By having them into seminary to teach, they are giving credibility to what they believe. (Mohler has also had someone who teaches baptismal regeneration and there was an outcry over it from many pastors in town. This pastor was also the pastor or a huge seeker mega, like Mohler's church. I know this because he is my former pastor.)
but a woman could never speak at chapel simply because she is a woman...which she cannot change.
So forgive me if I see Mohler not so much standing on distinctive principle but expediency.
" Charles Spurgeon was known to allow paedobaptists to preach from the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle...he was criticized for too...but then he was criticized for pretty much anything and everything in his time as well. But now he's probably one of, if not THE most quoted preachers...and THAT from a large number of preachers who would have hated Spurgeon had they been his contemporaries. Btw Spurgeon was an avid reader of the Puritans who were a mix of Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists...he got his theology from them."
So, I guess if Spurgeon did it, all is ok? My point in bringing this up in the first place is that Mohler is ready to die on the comp hill which is much harder to prove in scritpure (you have to READ into it) than he is on baptizing babies? Why? It makes no sense unless he has an agenda, which he does. I don't care if every single preacher in American says comp is the only biblical interpretation. They would be wrong. They would be contradicting a lot of other scripture.
"From the posts of late it's obvious there's quite the disdain for those who hold to a complimentarian view of gender roles..ie Mohler, Patterson, etc, or perhaps it's just men in general. "
I gotta roll my eyes with Nass here. I grew up 'conservative' SBC and it was NEVER like it is now. It was a Holy Priesthood and in all the many churches I was in, women taught, prayed and just about everything except being the pastor. But they did speak from the pulpit a lot. It was no big deal. Now one would think it was the biggest heresy out there. What changed? What changed is a huge backlash against the culture which turned out to be an EXTRA biblical stance.
"But you're going to have to throw out quite a list of folks who hold that view if you want to rid the SBC, or evangelicalism at large of such...including the likes of Danny Akin, John Piper, Alistair Begg, etc, etc, etc."
Alot of folks were wrong about slavery, too. They used scripture to prove it was not wrong. A lot of folks were wrong about baptizing babies, state church (could't Calvin read scripture and see that was wrong?), transubstantiation, and many more.
\
" I know the SBC and the church universal is in trouble in our times folks, but you need to be very careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's extremely easy in times like this to become "anti-" everything and everybody. A "demon under every bush" mentality if you will."
It is not really about being anti everything at all. I am asking questions. Why are we so quick to accept padeobaptists but not a women teaching? There is plenty of Greek proof we have gotten those verses about women wrong and we also know scripture does not contradict itself which it can only do with the comp view.
" I don't agree with any preacher/teacher on every last point, but if the "hit list" keeps growing at this rate, there won't be anybody left..including some good men who don't belong on that list."
You have never been called a sinner for witnessing to men and not staying in your 'role'. YOu could never understand. The Baptist church has always been automnous and I would like to keep it that way. I have no desire to see Mohler further his cessationist, non-priesthood of believer views any further. I have every right to call them out and discuss them wherever I am allowed.
"'m very familiar with Dr. Mohler's speaking/preaching in Presbyterian churches and seminaries, and having Presbyterians speak/preach/teach at Southern. I've listened to many of those messages in those situations and not once have I heard a Presbyterian speak/preach/teach paedobaptism, and vice versa...yet each walk away with their particular distinctives intact. Some of Mohler's closest friends are paedobaptists, yet I have yet to meet or hear a Baptist take a stronger stand for Baptist distinctives than he has...or for Biblical fidelity."
What Baptist distinctives? The ones he claims? There are a lot of Baptists who are NOT Calvinists and I know of at least a few who are really saved! :o) I also know single women missionaries who teach men who are saved. I also know those who have a private prayer language who are saved and those who are not cessationists who are saved. So what distinctives are you talking about?
Mohler spends most of his public time warring with the popular culture. We discussed his silly article about couples choosing not to have children. It was down right silly as many of his warring articles are. He could spend more time actually on scripture than culture...which is what his job is for. He is NOT my spokesman as much as he thinks he is.
Perhaps he should match up his orthodoxy to match his orthopraxy. he is a famous man and has subjected himself to questions. He is authoritarian and has a horrible temper. After that becoming public he did apologize. I have close friends who work there so I happen to know if that apology was only for public consumption or not.
He has been in power too long. All of them have. There is a great website that is developing ideas for new policies for the SBC which are overdue.
Mohler being SBC president is a conflict of interest. He is a paid employee of the SBC. As an employee of the SBC, he answers to the churches (who appoint trustees) He will be able to appoint trustees not only for himself but for all entities. Now that is power and a definite conflict. If he has a lot of character, he will resign as President of SBTS and then run for President of the SBC. Will he do that?
":erybody's entitled to their opinion, but it's wise to remember that for however much we may know, we still "do not know as we ought" and we all still see "through a glass darkly"."
So does Al Mohler. I do not follow men. Only Christ. Since Al speaks out so much on behalf of Baptists, perhaps you can tell me why his personal pick for KBC had Gaines speak at their annual meeting? One would think someone like Mohler would be appalled at having someone like Gaines given credibility?
Sorry but the dots connect all toowell for me. Mohler is a master politician. He is not really that worried about the truth.
"t seems odd that a year ago everyone was up in arms about a 25,000 dollar check that went to a church with a woman preacher...and now those who would agree with the view that such a situation (a woman behind the pulpit) is un-Biblical, are being criticized for their views."
And all this time, I thought it was about abortion, etc. There are liberal women pastors and that is a shame. Adrian Rogers was very much against women outside the comp role of wife and mother and I think that is what shocked everyone. And yes, I disagree with AR over that.
"I know everybody thinks that guys like Mohler, etc should have stood up and spoken out about all that's happened at BBC, or "done" something about it. But that's not how it's supposed to work is it? A major Baptist distinctive is the autonomy of the local church...if you want a hierarchy that can tell another preacher/elder/church what to do you'll have to become a Presyterian...that's how they do it. "
Oh, but he uses his soapbox to speak out all the time. Why not on this issue? Or all the adultry in pulpits? Or the embezzling money? He can't tell any church what to do but he can use his public soapbox on these issues, too. But, he doesn't.
"S lin, the ground has been saturated with the blood of Christian martyrs throughout the history of the church...it continues today...and it's not all Baptist blood."
I was referring specifically to ana baptistswho were murdered over the baptizing babies issue and for refusing to attend the state church. Specifically the ones murdered by the state church of Reformation. (Church history is full of blood and false beliefs)
rant over. :o)
"But the Law remains the same. The law written on our hearts and minds (Romans 8:10) is the same law He gave to Moses. The same law Moses had to write on a rock after he broke the first set."
We need to define the law. What God wrote on the tablets is only representative of the whole law of Moses. There is ceremonial, moral and civil law for a Theocracy. It is everything we read in Leviticus, etc. This was for Israel as a nation.
How is the ceremonial law written on our hearts? Or even the civil law which calls for stoning over things that are forigiven in Christ?
When Jesus said the most important commandments were Love God with all your heart and love your neigbor as yourself...the second part was not on the stone tablets. But it is buried somewhere in Levitiucs, I think.
Can we be more specific about the law and the NC? I think this is very confusing. I believe the OC unfolded Christ and is about Christ. I do agree with that but for all the verses we use to say, that law is wrtten on our hearts we can quote verses that says the 'letter' kills but the spirit saves. And that we are no longer under the law.
Lin says:
gotta roll my eyes with Nass here. I grew up 'conservative' SBC and it was NEVER like it is now. It was a Holy Priesthood and in all the many churches I was in, women taught, prayed and just about everything except being the pastor. But they did speak from the pulpit a lot. It was no big deal. Now one would think it was the biggest heresy out there. What changed?
oc says:
Nothing's changed. And us "guys" better watch ourselves, and not get cocky. Church history will reveal that women kept the church alive in times when it was nearly dead. Not men. Just sayin'.
Besides, we let "mere women" teach the most impressionable, don't we?
If anybody, only Deacons and preachers should teach our kids, if we really cared about them, right? What they learn at those ages colors their life. And we are leaving it to... women? And we have for years...
Seriously.
Thank God for those "lowly women".
Without inciting a "Calvin/election" discussion, I say this, without those women, I would be in Hell as we speak. I'm confident of that.
God Bless them.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Lin,
Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Galatians 6:22 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
James 2:82 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ
Luke 24:44Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Fulfilling the Law Through Love
Hebrews 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
The Great Commandment
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
The Golden Rule
Mat 7:12"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Acts 24:14But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. 16So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man..
Now before you tell me that Paul was preaching to the Jews here just ask yourself the question…did he take another message to the Gentiles? Or did he use the law and the prophets?
See also 2Kings 17:13, Dan 9:10, Zech 7:12, John 1:45, Acts 13:15.
The Law and the Prophets bear witness to His righteousness. They did then, and they do today. Acts 28:23 and Romans 3:21-31. I think they are the two witnesses in Rev 11. But that is another sermon.
When we look at the ceremonial law, we have to consider them just as we do the Prophets. As God's will is revealed, and comes to pass, the message becomes one of an example of things past. There is prophecy that has been fulfilled, but we still learn from it. There is law that has been fulfilled and law that continues to be fulfilled. Is there any more need of laws that regulate ceremonial blood sacrifice when the final sacrifice has been made? Jesus fulfilled it, but as his disciples, we must fulfill it as well.(Romans 12:1) We can only do that spiritually. In Christ.
Leviticus 19: 9(K) "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
11(L) "You shall not steal;(M) you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12(N) You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so(O) profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
13(P) "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him.(Q) The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14(R) You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall(S) fear your God: I am the LORD.
15(T) "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16(U) You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not(V) stand up against the life[a] of your neighbor: I am the LORD.
17(W) "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but(X) you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you(Y) incur sin because of him. 18(Z) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
What part do we want to be free from and what part can we ignore and still...Love our neighbor....
When you do that, you are loving God...because he is made in God's image. Just like us.
That is the way we fulfill the law.
Ez, My mom used to always say, "We are under the law to love one another". :o)
I really don't think we disagree very much at all. (Not that would matter if we did). I posted that article becasue I thought it was interesting and we had been talking about the OC and grace.
I think where I am coming from is that the church has kept many things from the OC that are not in the NC and it ends up being more of a work than a spiritual thing. Like tithing instead of giving and the sabbathinstead of daily worship. These are temple laws of the OC.
AOG, I want to apologize for being so 'assertive' in my last post. My heart is heavy with these specific gender roles that are being put upon us that did not used to be there. It really has become a hill to die on because it involves the witness and service of half of Christianity.
OC, you are right. Why are they trusted to teach the young boys? this is a question I have had all along. the comp view taken to it's logical conclusion can only be painted into a legalistic corner. We have to start making up rules to fit the position. And we are seeing this being down before our very eyes. They are basically resurrecting the "separate but equal' teaching.
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has professors and pastors teaching such things as: Women are made in the INDIRECT image of God. As if the materials God used has anything to do with His image bearing. And basically teaching teaching that women need earhtly priests. Some are teaching 'eternal sonship' as in a hierarchy eternally within the Godhead instead of a united will.
They are going overboard reading INTO scripture what is not there to teach a 'natural' male authority that is not in Genesis 1-2 but only a result of Genesis 3 and our own sin.
To add insult, CBMW have even given women instructions on how to give a man directions without appearing to 'teach' him. :o)
I would be most happy to ignore them except so much of it is false. And I am seeing more and more young men coming out of seminary who are calling women 'wicked' who do not hold to the comp view. If one is going to accuse women of being in sin for a belief, they should be willing to engage in a scriptural discussion. But ironically they won't. Why? Because women are not allowed to teach men anything in scripture.
Kind of a catch 22 for the gals.
Jeremiah 31
The New Covenant
31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will makea new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Then look at Hebrews 8 which quotes Jeremiah 31. Then look at verse 13.
Because Jesus says this in the upper room and I think the Apostles knew He was referring to Jeremiah...
Luke 22
"This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
Ez, I don't see how it is we disagree on this?
Christ fulfilled the Law. No one else could. You don't disagree, you just don't fully understand each other. And thank God, that's not necessary at all.
just sayin'.
oc.
Lin said this:
OC, you are right. Why are they trusted to teach the young boys? this is a question I have had all along.
oc says:
Know what? I don't know. But I sure am glad they did. Not just for myself, but also for my kids.
I can't thank the women of the church enough. Bless you, and thanks. From me, and my kids.
oc.
“Because Jesus says this in the upper room and I think the Apostles knew He was referring to Jeremiah... Luke 22 "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
Jeremiah preached the new covenant in Jer 31 about 6-700 years before Christ. His death on the Cross fulfilled scripture and prophecy where His sacrifice and blood did what couldn’t be done with the sacrifice of animals. (Hebrews 10:4) Christ wasn’t so much referring to Jeremiah as He was announcing the Arrival of the New Covenant to His disciples. We have to remember that He was surrounded by the disciples that did not turn back in John 6:66. The statement in Luke 22 was referring to His earlier statement in John 6:52-56. If we eat His flesh and drink His blood then we are true disciples of Christ. We abide in Him and He abides in us. (A little preaching to the choir there)
The old covenant was certainly done away with. But as I understand our conversation, we are talking about the Law, not the OC. The Law is alive and well. And unbelievers will be judged by the Law in Rev 20:12 according to what they had done. See also (Gal 3:10)
Your Mom sounds like a very well read lady! While we are on the subject of that post...
I think where I am coming from is that the church has kept many things from the OC that are not in the NC and it ends up being more of a work than a spiritual thing. Like tithing instead of giving and the sabbathinstead of daily worship. These are temple laws of the OC.
That is more or less what Israel did way back when. The fleshly performance of the Law became their religion rather than their instruction resulting in repeated falling away. (Granny or Junior that religeously goes to church every Sunday morning but lives like hell the rest of the week do the same thing they did. Only the punishment under the NC is going to be worse.) The Israelites didn’t see the spiritual aspect of the law and I am not sure we see it any better today. We might not be killing sheep and goats, or stoning folks with rocks but if we look hard enough at any church today, we will see the same types of “works”.
And it does matter if we differ. That means we get to talk about it till we don't.:)
Could someone explain to me what Al Mohler's position is with regard to women having children? I'm not sure i get it.
Thanks :)
SOTL,
In his own words.
allofgrace said...
Charles Spurgeon was known to allow paedobaptists to preach from the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle...he was criticized for too...but then he was criticized for pretty much anything and everything in his time as well.
Spurgeon also had women deacons.
Just sayin'. :)
From the posts of late it's obvious there's quite the disdain for those who hold to a complimentarian view of gender roles..
I'm not sure that is the case (though it may be for some). The concern I am detecting is not so much about differences of interpretation as it is that some would try to enforce their interpretation as the "official Baptist position" and deny liberty in secondary and tertiary doctrines. It is one thing to assert "this is what the Bible teaches" about a secondary matter, it is another to indicate that any other position is "liberalism" or denying the truth of the Bible.
As an example, suppose there are two Baptists (immersed believers who are members of Baptist churches): One person believes the Bible teaches that women can be pastors, that the gift of tongues is still valid for the church today, and that it is okay to drink some wine as long as you don't get drunk. Another person believes that the Bible teaches that the role of senior pastor is for men only, that tongues ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture, and that a Christian should always abstain from all alcohol. Each of these individuals is completely committed to the absolute truth, reliability, and sufficiency of the Bible. And each believes their positions are what the Bible teaches, having studied the relevant texts and having sought the leadership and teaching of the Spirit of God. Each one believes that the other person's interpretations of the texts and the conculsions they have drawn are incorrect.
But suppose one of these Baptists says to the other, "Because you hold to those positions and practices, you are not really a Baptist, or you are not a good Baptist, so I cannot fellowship with you, or work together with you in spreading the gospel." The person who refuses fellowship or cooperation over those matters which are not essential to the gospel or to salvation is placing those secondary doctrines over the clear commands of Christ -- which is nothing other than legalism and arrogance (after all, there is no way the other person might actually be right!).
Soooo ... I think that is the concern. I don't think the disdain you are noticing is for those who hold to a certain view, it is mostly frustration at those who would use those views as a means to exercize control over other sincere believers who disagree, when the matter isn't a doctrine essential to the faith.
Junkster,
Well Said!!
New BBC Open Forum said...
Honest question, not meant to offend or spark debate, but if this is true (and I agree with it to an extent as we don't have any control over God)...
"The clay has no say in whom the potter shows mercy and grace, and whom God fashions for dishonor. Even before they are in the womb."
Then what's the point of evangelism? I mean, if certain people were "fashioned" to be disposable, and no decision we can make is going to change that, either to accept or reject the power of the Holy Spirit, then what... is... the... point? It doesn't sound to me like it's any different than cosmic karma or relegating women to second-class status because, after all, that's the way God "fashioned" them to be. Could someone please explain this to me? It's a serious question, and it gives me a headache to think about it too much.
It seems normal to me that trying to get our heads around God's perspective would give us headaches. :)
The short answer is (as others have indicated): (1) We do what God tells us to do because He says so, not because we understand it (a concept I am still trying to get across to my 14 yr old son -- "because I said so" is a perfectly valid response from one in authority), and (2) God has not only determined who will be saved (election), He has also determined how they will be saved (through hearing His the gospel message, His Word, and by responding to it with repentance and faith). Which is what was meant by the statement "... but God has also ordained to 'through the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe.'"
Clear as mud? If you can totally comprehend it in such a way as to explain it so that no one one has any further questions or controversy over it, you will have accomplished what no one has been able to do so far for about 2,000 years.
"Clear as mud?"
Uh huh. I'd say so. Thanks!
ezekiel said...
What I was disagreeing with was the idea that I think the author was trying to convey. That idea is the one so deadly to many today. When we teach the OT was specific to the Mosaic law and the NT is specific to the law of Christ, we have to start trying to find out what the difference in the two covenants,(old/new) or two laws (faith/works)…and that leads to all sorts of error and confusion.
I think the author was not saying what you think he said. :)
His point was that the function of OT Law for the believer today is primarily to point us to Christ, not primarily as a set of rules for our conduct.
The Old Covenant was with all of the physical descendants of Israel (the Jewish race), which was composed of both true believers and also those who were merely of Jewish physical descent. But the entire Law of Moses was binding on both the true believers ("spiritual Israel") and those who were merely biological descendants.
With the coming of Christ and the institution of the New Covenant, the Law of Moses is no longer binding on Jewish believers, and it never was binding on Gentiles. (For example, God never expected or commanded non-Jews not to eat pork, and that rule is now not binding for Jewish Christians, either.) Again, the purpose of all 600+ of the commands of the OT Law for us today is to point us to Christ, not as commands for our behavior.
That is not to say that there are no "laws" or commands that God makes of us as believers today. On the contrary, Jesus made it plain that the standards of what God actually expects of us as His children are much higher than those contained in the OT Law. The point the author was making was not that we aren't bound by commands from God today, just that the function of OT Law in the lives of NT believers is not to give us rules for conduct, it is to point us to Christ.
Junk and EZ and others,
Thanks for discussing these issues that ARE very hard to put our brains around.... and not trying to be the total expert...and also being respectful to women!
Good thing PP and Al weren't in charge when Lottie Moon was trail blazing!!!
I'm happy to report from RO...a PCA Presbty. church...that the minister says what Junk was saying ...and that salvation isn't "either or"....not the extreme nass was thinking of when she wondered why we should bother to witness...and not the total dependence on what part man has to do with it.
I definitely think it's wrong for these ministers to count the numbers of baptisms and decisions and members as "their claim to fame"....very man centered...and how so many of us have been taught to think.
I'm sure that some churches do think that sprinkling the babies makes them a shoe in for heaven...BUT at RO, I have been there twice now when they sprinkle the babies and it isn't extemely different than Baptists dedicating babies except that it goes a little deeper as far as I can see. It's not just a time to take pictures with the preacher ...no pictures and a lot less show... much more reverant and sweet and not centered on the rock star minister AT ALL!
The minister says very clearly....this in no way means salvation for this child....
I am still learning but I just don't think we as Baptist have gotten the full meaning on why this is done.
I know there are extremes everywhere...and that's why Junk's last post is so good.
We don't need to be concerned with being so right on some of these particulars...AND we need to study and be sure of what the SBC has changed and added to the way things should be.
I see from the scriptures that Jesus was very respectful of women.
And we are made in the image of God just as much as men.
I am personally not sure where the scriptural boundaries are really drawn but the BAptists seem to be alot more hung up on keeping women barefoot and pregnant than other denominations...I'm still learning but I don't think God limited our gifts and service or meant that men are over women in general...
just my 2 cents after my nap.
Lin
I don't care if every single preacher in American says comp is the only biblical interpretation. They would be wrong. They would be contradicting a lot of other scripture.
...
There is plenty of Greek proof we have gotten those verses about women wrong and we also know scripture does not contradict itself which it can only do with the comp view.
So, Lin, don't mince words, tell us what you really think! :)
We both know (as I wrote above) that there are dedicated believers who genuinely hold to different views on complementarianisn vs. egalitarianism, and neither of them is denying Scripture or ignoring selected passages or not attempting to honestly and accurately interpret the text. Just as with the Calvinism / Arminisism debate, there are believers fully committed to understanding Scripture who disagree about what it is teaching.
I understand your reaction -- just as it is hard for you to see how a person can study the texts and not see them as teaching egalitarianism, it is hard for me to understand how people can read the Bible and not see it as teaching the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP). But we just have to accept that sincere and godly people can and do disagree, and it isn't always because they have some devious personal agenda.
When I read statements made by both egalitarians and complementarians, it seems that both sides sometimes mis-characterize the other and that both sides sometimes over-react and formulate their positions in response to the other, rather than on the basis of the text alone. Example: Complimentarians accuse egalitarians of being radical feminists who dislike men. Not a fair characterization of egalitarian views--and if an egalitarian does have those views, it is a perversion of the doctrine. Likewise, egalitarians accuse complementarians of being mysogynistic Patriarchists who want women to have no other role than wife and mother. Also not a fair characterization--and if a complementatian does believe those things, it is also a perversion of the doctrine.
In my opinion (for what that's worth), we all need to beware of elevating secondary matters and, in all humilty, leave room for the possibility that (as sinful creatures) when it comes to matters not essential to the faith, we might be wrong in our interpretations.
"Spurgeon also had women deacons."
What??? Does John McArthur know this? :o)
"I'm not sure that is the case (though it may be for some). The concern I am detecting is not so much about differences of interpretation as it is that some would try to enforce their interpretation as the "official Baptist position" and deny liberty in secondary and tertiary doctrines. It is one thing to assert "this is what the Bible teaches" about a secondary matter, it is another to indicate that any other position is "liberalism" or denying the truth of the Bible."
Thank you. that is exactly what it is all about. It has gotten so bad that in some Baptist seminary circles some young men are refusing to discuss scripture interpretations at all with women. Instead they just rebuke them that they are wicked, a sinner, in rebellion, etc., if they do not agree. My favorite is: You don't disagree with me, you disagree with God. (Where have we heard that before?)
I have no problem with the comp view as long as it is not forced upon me and I am not called a sinner for my egal view. It is not as if I have not studied whole scripture on the matter.
Just the one word 'head' has enough confusion surrounding it that it needs deep study in Greek because the word used, Kephale, for head is a rarely used word in Greek. Had the Holy Spirit meant authority in this verse, He would have never used Kephale as there are clearer Greek words for authority. Even old Lexicons (very old) do not describe the word as meaning authority.
And this is JUST one example. Besides, God's Design was for a ONE FLESH union. He said so clearly.
"And it does matter if we differ. That means we get to talk about it till we don't.:)"
Amen!
You said the unbelievers will be judged by the law and quote Rev 20. I need to look this up. I had NEVER even thought about that.
don't think the disdain you are noticing is for those who hold to a certain view, it is mostly frustration at those who would use those views as a means to exercize control over other sincere believers who disagree, when the matter isn't a doctrine essential to the faith.
11:59 PM, January 09, 2008
that is exactly the problem I have with it. They ARE teaching that it is essential. I am frankly stunned at how much time, energy and money is being poured into spreading this teaching. They have whole conferences about it!
Let me give you an example of how deep this goes. There was a conference here in my city a while back with some of the big names: Piper, McArthur, etc. It was sold out but they did not realize they overbooked. Couples who came to the conference were told to have their wives give up their seats for the men so they could be taught. The wives had to leave!
A good friend of mine was one of those wives who paid for a seat! What is worse, they were told to do it joyfully. As if finding anything wrong with that would be a sin.
"If you can totally comprehend it in such a way as to explain it so that no one one has any further questions or controversy over it, you will have accomplished what no one has been able to do so far for about 2,000 years."
Bravo! You did a great job in less than 4,000 words which is saying quite a bit. We have had free will drilled into us from an early age and it is hard to change that whole paradigm.
I wasn't even looking for proof of election when I found it all over scripture.
ONe thing I have come to understand is that believing in election should make us MORE evangelistic. Because scripture teaches that people are saved by the hearing of the word (meaning the full gospel) and we do not know who those people are so we must evangelize everyone.
Also, it means we must teach the full gospel and not all this silly stuff that has nothing to do with it like 5 steps to a happy marriage, complementarianism, etc.
I have to wonder how many people can be actually saved in these churches that do not preach the full gospel but think they do. I say this because most people think Evangelizing is inviting someone to church. :o(
The word Evangel means Gospel.
Junkster,
" The point the author was making was not that we aren't bound by commands from God today, just that the function of OT Law in the lives of NT believers is not to give us rules for conduct, it is to point us to Christ."
Look back at my 6:07 post. What I am saying is the NT law of Christ is not any different from the Law of Moses. Jesus has been here from the beginning and His rules of conduct have not changed. They were there in the Garden, they were there before Moses and they are here now. He says they are. All their ceremonial law was made mute when the tent, the temple and the ARK was lost, and when the perfect sacrifice was made. There is no earthly (fleshly) place to perform them. But that doesn't mean that they were pointless then. In fact they were images of things to come. And those things have come. Why practice a ceremony representing an image to come when we have the real thing?
The Law teaches us His righteousness and shows us why we need Him. In that sense it certainly points us to Him. I know we are arguing a pretty fine point but one that I feel strongly about. I am shocked at what NT only teaching has done to dilute, weaken and more or less gut the whole counsel of God. When people tell us that there is no need to fear God and that we can live as we want (no Law) we have people that have totally missed the Gospel.
We want the benefits but we don't want the responsibility that goes with it. (Law) Reminds me of a term we probably all know. Gold digger..
We want the check book but we don't want any form of anything that even resembles rules of conduct. (Law) (Rebellion)
That folks, is adultery and it is all over the OT. That didn't go away with the New Covenant either.
Today that law is written on our new heart. Just like it was witten on the hearts of Adam, Enoch, Noah....they had the law, it just wasn written on a stone. We have the law written in both places, the stone (bible) and our hearts. If our actions don't line up with the WORD, we have to question whether or not the law is written on our hearts.
1 John 5:5 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
No rules of conduct?????
"So, Lin, don't mince words, tell us what you really think! :)"
I promise I was not burning any under garments while that was being written. :o)
Ok, I was a bit strong. Ok, Ok, way too strong.
(Your rebukes are so gentle and loving that they work! I must learn from you)
Junk, you are like the voice of reason. Again you have explained it quite well. See, I do not think comps are not saved or in rebellion to the Word. I just think they are reading INTO scripture what is not there.
On the other hand, way too many comps are characterizing egals as in sin and rebellion. CBMW is one of them. It is very sad and must be answered.
I absolutely love both John McArthur and John Piper as preachers of the Word. But when McArthur says I am not made in the direct image of God and was made to be ruled over by men...I have to turn him off. That is just not true and negates what Christ did on the cross tearing the veil in two. Jesus did not leave earthly priests just for women. If I am made to be 'ruled' over by a man then my spiritual growth can be only as much as his. How could I ever be allowed to surpass my 'spiritual authority' in spiritual growth?
Piper is not as bad but believes that the law of 'primogeniture' is in play. Which is bizarre because many times the first born son is NOT the one God blesses or uses in the OT. Besides Primogeniture is for inheritance and not authority. Sometimes it seems they are really reaching to make it fit.
When you really start studying the differences you see that we can all be guilty of reading into scripture what is NOT there in many areas.
"We both know (as I wrote above) that there are dedicated believers who genuinely hold to different views on complementarianisn vs. egalitarianism, and neither of them is denying Scripture or ignoring selected passages or not attempting to honestly and accurately interpret the text. Just as with the Calvinism / Arminisism debate, there are believers fully committed to understanding Scripture who disagree about what it is teaching."
You know, we also have a generation of young men coming out of seminary who believe that one must believe election/DoG to be saved. That is just not true.
"I understand your reaction -- just as it is hard for you to see how a person can study the texts and not see them as teaching egalitarianism, it is hard for me to understand how people can read the Bible and not see it as teaching the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP)."
Junk, TULIP is not in the Bible. :o) Especially in CAPS. Although the meaning behind each letter is to some degree. :o)
Question: Have you always seen the Doctrines of Grace in scripture? Were you raised with it?
"I see from the scriptures that Jesus was very respectful of women."
gmommy, this is where I think comps miss it. Jesus was RADICAL and totally counter culture when it came to women. If one reads the Talmud to see where the Jews were on treaing women you would be shocked.
"Better to burn Torah than to teach it to a woman" is just one example from the Talmud.
If we knew more Talmud, we would understand some of the things we are reading about women in the NT church and what Paul was really saying. Paul was about Freedom in Christ. Not more man made rules.
I cannot even imagine what would be thought of Mary Magdalene if we transported her to this century.
And I doubt Lottie Moon could do what she did with the current SBC.
By the way, my sister was in
China a few months ago and their guide took them to Lottie Moon's old home. (There is no marking there, you have to know where it is because of this information being handed down by word of mouth. And they were told not to use the word, 'missionary' at all while in China.)
A family is living in it. It is literally a shack. Can you imagine how rough it was back then?
I told my daughter the story of Lottie Moon for GA's. About her starving to death because she gave what little she had to the Chinese people and how she was so starved that when they finally got her to leave she died on the ship home.
The irony of Lottie Moon is that she came from a prosperous family and gave that all up to starve to death in China for HIS NAME to be exhalted among the nations.
The folly of even asking the question,
Which Bible Doctrines are " non essential " ?
Charles Haddon Spurgeon on " are there "non-essential" Doctrines of The Bible ?
"NON-ESWENTIAL"Doctrines of the Bible? According to whom ? God? or man?
Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the presumptions of mere men when by tradition and following their own hearts, they by implication are actually accusing the Holy Spirit of teaching so called " non-essentials" in the Holy and Inspired WORD of the Sovereign GOD of ALL.
excerpted from OLD TRUTH.COM
Charles Spurgeon on "Non-Essential" Doctrines:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say that any one part of the truth is unimportant, you do as good as say - to that extent the Holy Spirit has come upon an unimportant or valueless mission. You perceive it is declared that he is to teach us "all things"; but if some of these "all things" are really of such minor importance, and so quite non-essential, then surely it is not worth while disturbing our minds with them. And so to that degree, at any rate, we accuse the Holy Spirit of having come to do what is not necessary to be done; and I trust that our minds recoil with holy repulsion from such a half-blasphemy as that..
[If more understood this] they would surely study a great many things that they overlook now, and I think they would not be so apt to excuse their own need of diligence in the school of Christ, by saying:
"Well, there are some all-important doctrines; we have studied them, and that is enough."
Brethren, when a boy goes to school, he may say, "If I learn arithmetic,
I shall be able to be a tradesman, and that is what I shall be; [so I do not want to learn those other subjects]." But the schoolmaster says, "My boy, you are put under my teaching to learn all things, and it is not for you to pick and choose what class you will attend." Now, we are scholars under the teaching of the blessed Spirit, and it is not for us to say, "I will learn the doctrine of justification By faith, and when I know that, I shall not trouble my mind about election, I shall not raise any question about final perseverance,
I shall not enquire into the ordinances, whether believer's baptism or infant baptism is right; I take no interest in these things; I have learned the essential matter, and I will neglect the rest." Thou will not say this if thou art an obedient disciple, for do you not know that the ministers of Christ have received a commission to teach all things that Christ has taught them, and do you think that our commission is frivolous and [annoying]? Do you think that Christ would bid us teach thee what it is no need of thee to learn, or, especially, that the Holy Ghost would himself come to dwell in the midst of his church and to teach them all things, when out of those "all things" there are, according to thy vain supposition, some things that were quite as well,
if not better, left alone? . . .
"All truth must be necessary for you and for me, or else the Spirit of God would not have come to teach it to us, and that while we may give more prominent importance to the greater and more vital truths, yet there is not one truth in Scripture to which we are allowed to say,
"Be still, be quiet, we do not want you."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon ...
"That idea about "non-essentials" is wicked and rebellious. Cast it from you; go without the camp. Be particular in every point. To the tiniest jot and tittle seek to obey your Master's will, and seek his grace that you may walk in the way of his commandments with a perfect heart. But then, if you do walk according to this rule, others will say, "You are so bigoted".
Thus reply to them: "I am very bigoted over myself, but I never claim any authority over you. To your own Master you stand or fall, and I do the same".
If it be bigotry to hold decisive views about God's truth, and to be obedient in every particular, as far as God the Spirit has taught me,
if that be bigotry - all hail bigotry! - a most hallowed thing. "
--Charles Spurgeon, The Tabernacle - Without The Camp
"All truth must be necessary for you and for me, or else the Spirit of God would not have come to teach it to us, and that while we may give more prominent importance to the greater and more vital truths, yet there is not one truth in Scripture to which we are allowed to say,
"Be still, be quiet, we do not want you."
Key words: while we may give prominent importance to the greater or more vital truths...
That is exactly what we are talking about.
A perfect example of this is speaking in tongues. Are they essential to be saved? No.
FBC Muscle Shoals is having a Church Discipline conference.
(hey I am actually on topic of the thread!)
I pray that they will teach about godly elders. One huge problem with Church Discipline (which IS practiced but wrongly and for personal gain with many authorities) is there are rarely godly elders who do not discipline in the flesh based on who they like, who is important, etc.
So many think the title gives them spiritual discernment and authority.
Think David Coombs carrying out Church Discipline. :o(
But I have also noticed reading the Epistles such as Corinthians, that Paul is speaking to the whole Body about discipline. Not just to elders.
Al Mohler has thrown his name into the hat for the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention
Al Mohler has thrown his name into the hat for the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention
12:12 PM, January 10, 2008
Oh, GREAT!!! Baptist ladies, get out your burkas.....hope you look good in blue.
"Oh, GREAT!!! Baptist ladies, get out your burkas.....hope you look good in blue."
I do.
:o)
EZ wrote:
"No tank tops or shorts allowed.
Okay, sorry.
Ladies?
speaking of shorts and baptists....
speaking of shorts
Did yall know that in the Middle East, the babies have to be covered up...no shorts or legs showing.....
my niece is going with her 2 year old...
(random thought caused by Nass' pictures)
One thing these great discussions have done for me is increase my vocabulary...who knew all these terms before????
Mohler , Vance Havner and others on POST MODERNISM AND THE EMERGENT CHURCH
POSTMODERNISM AND THE EMERGING CHURCH EXAMINED
watchman wrote:
"speaking of shorts and baptists...."
Oh, my eyes! My eyes! Owwwwww!!!
speaking of shorts and baptists....
speaking of shorts
5:49 PM, January 10, 2008
Watchman has a sense of humor!!!
In the last 6,000 comments on this blog, did I ever tell you all I have a gen-u-wine burqua from Afghanistan? I also have a typical girls outfit. Both bought on Chicken street...the souk or market in Kabal.
It is just like the blue ones in the pictures here and the fabric is pure silk...very nice fabric. YOu cannot see a thing and the head part if very tight. (I hvae a big head)
It is extremely hot to wear anytime, but I was thinking of putting it on sometime and driving around to see what would happen. I love to freak people out. But I am afraid I would end up in court and on the news and every Muslim in town would equate it with naming my teddy bear Mohammad or something like that. (we have lots of muslims here). I just don't need the hassle.
Post a Comment