A friend who serves as an International Mission Board missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention sent me the following quote from Dr. Jack McGorman. Dr. McGorman taught New Testament at Southwestern Theological Seminary for five decades, and is considered one of the most popular and effective professors in the history of SWBTS. From the notes taken in Dr. McGorman's class by my missionary friend, it seems the good doctor had a very good understanding of how Christian unity is not the same thing as Christian uniformity. Dr. McGorman said:"The more insecure leadership is the more they demand uniformity. There are things which we don't have to believe exactly as someone else does. You can't have uniformity without coercion. The best marriage is unity without uniformity."Additionally, in the introduction to a book Dr. McGorman wrote entitled, "The Gifts of the Spirit", Dr. McGorman astutely points to one of the major problems we seem to face within our beloved Southern Baptist Convention:
Unfortunately the gospel of Jesus Christ sometimes suffers as much at the hands of its defenders as it does from its distorters. This is difficult to acknowledge because it is always the hardest to recognize and repent of our "spiritual" carnality. It is precisely at the point of what we regard as our greatest spirituality -- whether in the claim of special religious experience or in the claim of loyal defense of the truth -- that we are most vulnerable to carnality. How shall the Holy Spirit convict us of the sin we attribute to him as our greatest good!"In the spirit of Dr. McGorman, I remind Grace and Truth readers that you will be able to watch our third Sunday morning worship service LIVE, via the Internet, at 11:00 a.m. Central Time, or you may join us for the evening service at 6:00 p.m. Central Time LIVE via the Internet. Special guest is William Paul Young, author of The Shack. If you would desire to see a modern illustration of what SBC demands for uniformity look like, then you might read some of the comments attached to this former post.
In His Grace,
Wade
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»No comments yet? I can't believe it.
Wade,
As FBC Pelham no longer has evening services, I'll be watching Sunday night. Perhaps every Sunday night.
Oh. Love the quotes, too.
Wade,
I will send you my bill for marketing charges! I said my piece or is it peace and I love you you even if you are a liberal!
Robert from Geneva
Dr. McGorman was one of my favorite profs at Southwestern. His NT courses were truly outstanding. In one of life's ironies, even though the school named a conference center for him and Dr. McGorman continued to maintain an office and a study carrel in the library, he wasn't permitted to teach in his final years due to his refusal to sign the BF&M 2000. In that action, he proved once again to be one of my heroes.
Wade,
As you well know the CR movement took place in Houson in 1979, but it roots go all the way back into the fifties.
I can well remember as a student at OBU and as the president of OBUMA the bouts with Anson Justice, the bouts with Paige Patterson and Judge Pressler who had the full support of such men as Hugh Bumpas and Bill Criswell.
I entered OBU in the fall of 1961 and entered SWBTS in January of 1966. I stayed an extra semester at OBU. I had a history major and enough hours for an English Literature major and a Philosophy minor, but need twelve hours of electives. I graduated from SWBTS in 1970 doing work at North Texas State while going to Seminary in Ft. Worth, living in Denton and working on my MA in History.
In all the process of the CR and the succeeding years, I have asked person after person, many of them dear friends in the CR, who were the Liberals at SWBTS besides Dr. Dilday?
Dr. McGorman, Dr. Gideon, Dr. Garland, Dr. Fish, Dr. Estep, Dr. Bennett, Dr. Walker, Dr. Terry, Dr. Vaughan, Dr. Pinson, Dr. Northcutt, Dr. Baker, Dr. McBeth, Dr. Hendricks, Dr. Newport, Dr. Gray, Dr. Douglas, Dr. Shelton, Dr. Tidwell, Dr. Drakeford, Dr. Thompson, Dr. Tolar or Dr who...?
These men were so conservative, I would venture that their underwear stood up straight when they took it off to go to bed at night.
Where were the Liberals? The Pressler/Patterson crowd reminded of me of the great soldier Don Quixote, but in place of tilting at Windmills they tilted at real men, real ministers with real reputations. At least the people of La Mancha knew who the windmills were. We never did find out who the liberals were.
Why destroy whole faculties when all you must do is deal with Dr. Francisco, Dr. Elliott and about five others in the whole convention?
BTW, all the Drs mentioned about were a-millennial and it seems all the leaders of the CR such Rogers, Criswell, Pressler, Patterson and most of those with them were pre-millennial Dispensationalist. Were they liberal because they were a-millennial? Well, surprise, so were all the founding fathers of the Reformation: Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Hubmeir, Simons, Knox, and on and on. After all they were all Roman Catholic priests and could not escape their upbringing and were wrong in eschatology since I am a Dispensational Pre, but to call those profs liberal is to call Luther, Calvin and Zwingli liberal. Did not make sense then, and does not make sense now.
Just wondering. Since "Joe" has such an ardent flavor for the CR, maybe he can tell me.
Phil in Norman
Awesome book. William Paul Young's book, The Shack, spent 43 weeks as the number one book on the New York Times Best Seller List.
Phil,
Yes indeed! Who were the liberals? What was the body count?
You wrote a great comment showing how the majority can be fooled if a lie is shouted loud and long enough.
Now that echo is tearing at them, and the majority is waking up to see they’ve been deceived…thanks to people like Wade, Ron West, Bob Cleveland, Gary Snowden, you, and others.
I question one thing you said: “Who were the Liberals at SWBTS besides Dr. Dilday?”
Does being fired make a person a liberal? Especially being fired by trustees that Pressler/Patterson and leaders of the SBC placed on the board to accomplish the job as shown by Trustee Ollin Collin’s letter (in part) to them, May 9, 1994:
(Dilday’s book, Columns, page 283:
“I have to ask, why has there been such a strange silence from you…concerning the action taken by our board in terminating Dr. Dilday on March 9? …We finally did what you men had been leading us to do…and yet once it was done it was as though we had leprosy and nobody wanted to associate with us...”
Page 299:
…chairman of our board would say, “Russell, you have recommended professors who are theologically conservative, but they are not politically conservative”—meaning they are not in lock-step with the Patterson/Pressler political party. Or as Paige Patterson put it, “Russell, you’re a conservative all right, but you’re not a courageous conservative,”—meaning you haven’t supported our campaign.
Page 297:
“Then why was I dismissed? I believe there was only one reason. I had vigorously opposed the fundamentalist takeover and domination of the SBC. I was therefore—even though a theological conservative—on the ‘wrong’ side of the denominational controversy. The fundamentalist majority on the board wanted a president who favored the winning side and who would be unquestionable loyal to the new hyper-conservative leaders of the SBC.”
Phil, thanks again for your comment.
I suppose no one in the world could be more “loyal to the new hyper-conservative leaders of the SBC” than SWBTS has now.
Any resemblance to Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard? :)
Robert,
In response to one of my posts you said that Wade was a liberal because he invited a heretic to speak in his church and supported women pastors. Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, Paul Pressler and other CR leaders have appeared with, supported and accepted support from Sun Myung Moon R.J. Rusdoony and other heretics. I think Charles Stanley once said he had no problem with a women preacher as long as she wasn't ordained. Does that mean you think these mean are liberals? Does that mean you think the CR is a liberal organization if it is led by liberals.
I graduated from SWBTS with a MDivBL in December '93, just before Dr. Dilday was fired during the spring semester of '94 (never had Dr. McGorman for a class, but knew of his good reputation). At the time, I thought BOTH sides--the Fundamentalists' trustees AND Dr. Dilday--handled the matter badly. Five years later, I was elected to serve as a trustee of the Missouri Baptist Convention and witnessed for myself the Fundamentalists' TAKEOVER of that convention (completed in the autumn of 2001)--and I changed my mind about Dr. Dilday's responses to his treatment by the trustees.
They all can say what they will, but there is no sufficient reason under Heaven for the Fundamentalists essentially to have made a shipwreck of so many lives and Baptist organizations--there just were 'way, 'way too few "liberal" anythings among us, as someone posting above said. I believe the Fundamentalists will answer to God for what they've done, if they aren't already.
Again, in Christ there are no "spiritual cousins"--the Lord has made us brothers and sisters in Him, and He will have us behave as those He paid such a high price to make us; or make us wish we had somehow. Increasing maturity chooses His way about the matter without needing to experience the pain.
David
P.S. Example of the "conservative" and "liberal" thing: During one of the pre-2001 MBC annual meetings while I was a convention trustee, when it appeared to me as I stood without a seat at the back of the packed convention hall, that one of the known Fundamentalist leaders was directing traffic to and from the floor microphone to continue debate of trustee-supported (at least, at that time, majority supported) committee/officer nominations, I stepped up to the man and asked him which he didn't like: the people being nominated OR the process of their nomination. The fellow acted like I was talking to the wrong guy AND as if he didn't have time for me, but I pressed the matter while the debate continued (led at the front of the room by the president of the convention, another known Fundamentalist). Walking back toward him--and now me--was a woman who had just spoken to the matter at the nearby microphone. The woman immediately and without invitation joined in the "conversation" that the other fellow was trying not to have with me (she demonstated more "backbone," Joe, did the man had!), identified me with another person she knew from the same Missouri town and MBC church, and insinuated that that person (my fellow church member, who actually had helped elect me to attend the meeting as a messenger from our church) would disagree with what I seemed to be saying as that person was more conservative--even believing "correctly" about abortion-on-demand matters, for example. Having grown a bit more frustrated by the man's avoidance of me BUT the woman's intrusion in the conversation, I looked at the woman and said, "Lady, I don't know who you are--but you aren't MORE conservative than I am theologically. For example, I believe that if you and your husband conceive a child together, you should give birth to that child even if it kills you to do so! The child didn't ask to be murdered under any circumstances!" At that point, the debate on the floor closed, with the Fundamentalists opposing the recommendations as presented having won; Fundamentalist sympathizers sitting in the area shook hands with the known Fundamentalist microphone director as he walked away from me--and I was catching on to what they were doing to and in the MBC! In the mind of the butt-in lady, I'm sure, we parted company with me as a "liberal," but only because I disagreed with what she and her microphone friend were trying to accomplish that day (she was elected to the trustee board during the 2001 annual meeting, when the Fundamentalists had accomplished the MBC takeover--and the same day I resigned my position on the board with 2 years remaining, as the handwriting was on the wall: the MBC would never be the same, sadly).
". . . The Bible writer Mark recorded that John (the Disciple of Love) and a few others of Christ’s first followers reported to the Lord how they’d recently put a stop to the somehow-effective ministry of an unnamed man they observed serving among demon-possessed residents of Capernaum (Mark 9:38-40). It was true: the fellow’s violation was, technically, only one of matriculation (apparently, he’d become a Christian but forgotten to enroll as Number 13 in Christ’s band of 'followers officially permitted to do ministry in Jesus’ name')—and it was true too, they knew, that the Standard Handbook for Disciples’ Casting-out Devils was yet unpublished by the Lord, but John and his fellows were very certain that capping any future ministry by this unqualified man must express God’s heart on the matter. If the disciples had learned anything from Jesus, they evidently thought, it was that uniformity of methods was paramount among them. No matter how good the guy had gotten at trusting in Jesus’ authority for expelling ruthless demons from terrified Capernaumites, for his exorcisms to count the anonymous man must follow in actual physical company with The Twelve, doing or saying only what the Twelve were doing or saying when and how The Twelve were doing or saying it. Jesus’ reply confirmed to John that he and the others were terribly wrong—that the Lord finds sufficient ground for blessing any follower’s practical ministry to needy people based, not upon the church crowd with which that Christian hangs out, but simply in his personal confession of Christ as Savior and public acknowledgement of Him as Lord when ministry opportunities arise. Jesus Christ highly prizes His followers’ unity in mission for sin-captive souls, not methodological uniformity . . ."
(Excerpt from a recent BGCT evangelism-related tract; point: UNITY, not necessarily uniformity, counts with God)
David
Ron,
I am not aware of those men you mentioned allowing Sun Yung Moon to preach in pulpit during a worship service.
BTW....You probably dont like Rushdoony's theology but he was a regenerated Christian,unlike Sun Yung Moon.
Robert from Geneva
No way is Rushdooney a Christian.
He is an opportunist.
As a graduate of SWBTS I can assure you that Jack MacGorman was truly a man of God who loved his students and taught the Word of God. He just wasn't part of the political establishment nor did he play their games. I was there during the Naylor years so I know all about the CR firsthand.
As far as liberals, I would definitely say that Boyd Hunt was one but he was the only one I knew firsthand. The rest of the accused were just that--accused. The leaders of the CR (of which I was one) were well aware of their tactics. I have since repented of any part I had in their takeover.
My professors at SWBTS, if they said anything at all about the CR, only said, "Students, if this fight is to stop, it must stop with you; it isn't your fight--don't join in it."
UNITY without conformity:
THE BODY OF CHRIST
"Many Members
1 CORINTHIANS 12:12,14,17-27 NKJ
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.
14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?
18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased.
19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?
20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body.
21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.
23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty,
24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it,
25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.
26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
Each Member Does Its Share
EPHESIANS 4:11-16 NKJ
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head -- Christ --
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
Do Not Judge Others
ROMANS 14:4 NKJ
4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
Most likely, we will not understand, or agree with, all that other members of the Body of Christ may do. That is because our assignment is different, and we do not have all the knowledge that our Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, does.
ROMANS 14:10,13 NKJ
10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.
Division
The devil wants to bring division and strife to the Body of Christ -- over anything -- in any possible way. We must resist the devil and walk with God in peace and love.
MARK 3:24 NKJ
24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
1 CORINTHIANS 3:3 NKJ
3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
JUDE 1:19 NKJ
19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
TITUS 3:10 NKJ
10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,
1 CORINTHIANS 1:10,13 NKJ
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
13 Is Christ divided? . . . .
Love As Christ
When we criticize others who claim to be following Jesus, we show our spiritual immaturity. Jesus commanded us to love with an unselfish, self-sacrificing love. He said people would know those who were His followers because they would display His kind of love.
JOHN 13:34-35 NKJ
34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Anon,
Your right....Rushdoony is not a Christian. But Rushdoony was a Christian and you have no evidence to the contrary!
have you read The Instutes of Biblical Law?
I doubt it. But I could be wrong!
Robert from Geneva
"The more insecure leadership is the more they demand uniformity. There are things which we don't have to believe exactly as someone else does. You can't have uniformity without coercion. The best marriage is unity without uniformity."
This is true for human relations. Even with our relation to Our Lord Jesus Christ, it's only Unity and not Uniformity.
I am afraid, for people who insist on Uniformity in certain parts of their life, it impacts them and their immediate family, relationships and friends with these "fruits".
Thanks Emmanuel Baptist Church for broadcasting the evening service of William Paul Young's testimony.
IN OUR MIDST, DWELLS GOD'S
BEGOTTEN SON
Hi, it's me, L's
Sometimes we think that the demands to conform and not to respect our difference are merely modern problems.
That is not the case.
Dialogue and disagreements have always been part of Christian life, because, being human, we all want our own way.
But are there lessons we can learn from long ago about how Christians chose to look past their differences and to worship Christ as one People?
Consider this hymn from a thousand years ago:
LENTEN HYMN
Where charity and love prevail, there God is ever found;
Brought here together by Christ's love,
by love are we thus bound.
With grateful joy and holy fear God's charity we learn
Let us with heart and mind and soul
now love God in return.
Forgive we now each other's faults as we our faults confess
And let us love each other well in Christian holiness.
Let strife among us be unknown, let all contention cease
Be God's the glory that we seek, be ours God's holy peace.
Let us recall that in our midst dwells God's begotten Son;
As members of his body joined,
we are in Christ made one.
No race or creed can love exclude,
if honored be God's name;
Our family embraces all
whose Father is the same.
Gregorian Chant, 11th Century
'Ubi Caritas Et Amor'
Wade, I am reminded of something I read yesterday in Calvin Miller's little devotional book, The Words of Christ: "The grim responsibilities of defending our faith can ofttimes leave us unable to experience the joy of our faith."
Florence in KY
Here is a good article.
http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=1343
the public rebuke of False teachers.
Robert from Geneva
“Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).
Robert from Geneva
Good advice for you, robert
How do know if wade is a liberal?
You notice that Smyth and Helwys is publishing his book.
Robert from Geneva
Wade,
I thought it interesting that your sister and brother-in-law, thinking it might be impossible to get to Enid on a week-end because of their staff responsibilities in Tulsa Oklahoma, went to hear William Paul Young last night at Mabee Center in Tulsa. Melody had this to say about their experience.
"It was awesome! He was one of the most humble, grace-filled people I’ve ever met. Actually I didn’t meet him, but it feels like I did after his talk. His story is unbelievable, and it’s absolutely amazing what God is doing through this book, which is just the story of his 11-year struggle of facing his pain.
I’m trying to figure out a way to make it to Enid, but I don’t know if that will happen. Just wanted to share and encourage you to go if you can at all. You won’t regret it! Love you all!!"
Paul,
You used two paragraphs to describe Absolutely Nothing about the Content of what Paul Young said!
"It was awesome! He was one of the most humble, grace-filled people I’ve ever met. Actually I didn’t meet him, but it feels like I did after his talk. His story is unbelievable, and it’s absolutely amazing what God is doing through this book, which is just the story of his 11-year struggle of facing his pain.
I’m trying to figure out a way to make it to Enid, but I don’t know if that will happen. Just wanted to share and encourage you to go if you can at all. You won’t regret it! Love you all!!"
It was eerily like a description I read of a lollapooluza....maybe we should call it the Enid Shacka-pooluza.
Robert from Geneva
Robert, go back to Geneva.
Don't be such a 'la la poo-looser'.
The grim responsibilities of defending our faith can ofttimes leave us unable to experience the joy of our faith."
Makes you wonder whether or not we should be spending as much time correcting each other and arguing amongst ourselves. We are commanded to be joyful. We aren't commanded to argue and bicker.
Robert-
Sitting here wondering if you'll take scripture's advice and avoid Wade. With what I have seen you post here about him, I would think you would want to.
Anon,
Get some backbone...dont be gay!
use your name...you can do it...I know you can...with Gods help.
Robert from Geneva
I thought wade was into diversity!
Or is it just that you need the attention Wade's blog affords you?
Robert,
With respect, I have no idea who you are but I had no intention of speaking to anything Paul Young said. I was quoting a description of a wonderful experience a daughter and her husband had upon hearing a man speak and chose to share that with Wade and others on his public forum.
You're welcome to read it, think anything you choose about it, and to comment on it as you see fit. That's your perogative and Wade's gift to you.
But know this, that with regards to my wanting to say anything about what anyone says about anything, I would want to do it as I choose and to whom I choose. If I choose not to you will have to live with that. Your ideas of oughts and shoulds are of little consequence to me personally.
Watch Wade be interviewed by Carla Hinton for 'Oklahoman' TV
at this site:
http://newsok.com/author-william-paul-young-thinks-outside-box/article/3354933
This is a remarkable interview!
People have to envy those in Enid who will have the opportunity to hear Wm.Paul Young speak.
Wade, you did good. :)
Anon,
I didnt realize that Wade was a United Methodist now...explains his love for the Shack.
The video was actually Chris Buskirk!
Robert from Geneva
Paul,
your telephone or texting service is not working! C,mon man!
Robert from Geneva
Robby, take your meds.
Anon,
Intelligent conversation there....c,mon you can do better than that idea.
Robert from Geneva
Robert,
I know many in the reformed movement are so tired of the hard heartedness, crass attacks, and name calling that seems to go with hard Calvinism they feel they need to make apologies for being in the reformed movement at all or being a Calvinist.
Does it have to always be attack, attack, attack with no quarter given and none asked, just cut the child from the mother's womb and dash its brains against the wall?
If you go back and study the religious wars of the sixteenth, seventeen, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we have very little on the Muslims as far as evilness. If you do not believe me, just look at Ireland until 1990, and all done in the name of Jesus by both R Catholic and Reformed; just go to South Africa or the old Rhodesia which we now call Zimbabwe. "Beware of those who call bitter sweet and evil good."
Paul's comment was about his sister's experience and not a commentary about the right or wrongness of the speaker. You need to be a little more like Gemaliel when you speak of men like Rick Waren or Paul Young.
Phil.
All,
I have not read any comments following mine of a little while ago so I can be as careful as possible in my own motive here.
I sinned in a two-fold fashion before I went out to plant trees in the back yard from which I've now returned, without finishing the task, to make amends.
First, I said to Robert, "With respect..." then proceeded to speak words that were disrespectful. For that I apologize to you, Robert, and all who read.
Two, I violated scripture in that I was offended at what Robert said and should have said so privately. Robert, for that I apology and do so to any who read my comment.
If someone thinks it was alright for me to say what I said I wish to point out a couple of things.
Everyone's "flesh" is of a different flavor to some degree. My flesh is a strong, controlling, set people straight, confrontive kind of flesh. [I pastored that way for far too many years early on] So I've learned personal offenses, if not handled correctly by me, will do great harm. When the Spirit leads me it will generally be toward a softer, kinder, and less confrontational and less personal response. [Privately usually] When I do have to confront I must make sure I do so without it being personal or in violation of sound principles.
Some people have a soft, human kindness, fearful of offending kind of flesh and the Spirit would probably lead that person to a stronger, more confrontive, and more personal approach in response to offending situations. They would, I suspect, find themselves pleasently surprised at themselves in those moments.
Notice I said "generally" and "probably" because this isn't set principles but patterns I've noticed in my own journey with the Lord.
I know my flesh patterns and I know a little of the work of the Spirit. My comment earlier was of the former. I said it publically so my apology is public.
Know that when I need to I have been known to write an e-mail privately. The blog areana is no more a place for my flesh to be on parade than any other place. I am responsible for me and that's why I needed to say this.
I'm going back to plant trees and will wait to read what anyone might say later. Thank you all for being Kingdom people.
Robby brings out the worst in all of us, Paul.
It's his game.
Paul Burleson, you are a better man than me. And I'm going to try to learn from you, brother.
John Fariss
Hard copy of Hard Ball hit the mailbox today! Only made it to the dedication page but so far so good :)
How do know if wade is a liberal?
You notice that Smyth and Helwys is publishing his book.
Robert from Geneva
Fri Apr 03, 02:27:00 PM 2009
Robert, A liberal cut my hair yesterday.
"I know many in the reformed movement are so tired of the hard heartedness, crass attacks, and name calling that seems to go with hard Calvinism they feel they need to make apologies for being in the reformed movement at all or being a Calvinist."
I am coming across the exact same thing from quite a few who are in the Reformed camp who are just grieved over the legalism and vitriol.
the vitriol and hard-heartedness are demonic
Demons don't have to do a thing. It is the sin of our own human condition that cause this vitriol and hard hardheartedness. It causes division to the delight of the scorner.
and the delight of Satan
Robert said ...
How do know if wade is a liberal?
You notice that Smyth and Helwys is publishing his book.
Robert from Geneva
Lin said...
Robert, A liberal cut my hair yesterday.
Lin, does that mean you got your hair cut by Smyth and Helwys?
:)
To anonymous former leader of the CR,
I am glad to hear you have repented of your part in the take ever. You say the CR leaders were well aware of their tactics. Could you elaborate on that. Also, you said Boyd Hunt was a liberal. I had Dr. Hunt for systematic theology. I do not recall anything he taught that was outside the bounds of ortodox theology or the BFM. Could you share something that would make him a liberal. For example, did he deny the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, salvation by Grace, return of our Lord or any other fundamental teachings of scripture.
Ron West
Lin, does that mean you got your hair cut by Smyth and Helwys?
:)
Fri Apr 03, 07:58:00 PM 2009
Nope. Just that a liberal gave me a conservative hair cut.
I'm about 1/3 through Hardball Religion right now.
Regardless on where you come down on PPL and/or requiring Baptism only in an SBC chruch, I think it is impossible to come to the conclusion that the leaders of the IMB BoT operated in a Christian manner. Rather than debating the subject on its merits they resorted to playing silly political games.
Personally, I don't know a thing about PPL so I can not argue for or against the practice based upon any Biblical principle. However, ostensibly the guys (and gals) on the BoT would be more informed than me and they should be able to defend their position rather than make every attempt to stifle discussion and ram through their ideas by brute force.
Paul Burleson,
Thanks for the apology. I hold no animosity to you or anyone on this blog.
I simply believe Paul Young has no place in any evangelical church.The company of men who agree with me gives me confidence in Christ.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Men give you confidence in Christ.
So THAT's what's wrong.
Only By His Grace,
you said....
If you go back and study the religious wars of the sixteenth, seventeen, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we have very little on the Muslims as far as evilness.
You forgot one thing, the 20th century is the bloodiest on record and the Muslim atrocities far outnumber all the other atrocities. See Nina Shea....Freedom House.
What in the world does this point have to do with Paul Young. I have never advocated any war on him. I just think that heretics should not be allowed to preach at Christian Churches! If you want to argue for him... be my guest. I would hate to answer to God for that as a pastor.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Paul,
Responding in a way that is contrary to the predilections of our particular flesh requires remarkable discipline and really dying to self. Many of us in the blog world unfortunately don't operate that way most of the time. Thanks for the reminder that we should.
Anon,
Here is your verse......
Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory.NASB proverbs 11:14
Robert I Masters
from the southern baptist geneva
Sir Robert under the flag of Calvin leads the theocons to victory in Washington D.C.
Hey guys,
Spend the next 9:21 watching this....maybe that will cool the rhetoric some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdmJVL_-hzM&feature=channel
Thank you, Jeff Parsons.
You are in the right place at the right time.
We all need to hear and see that message. Healing Words.
Jeff, you are a peace-maker, a child of God.
God Bless !
Robert,
I thought your response to Paul was harsh, and more harsh probably than you intended it to be.
The religious wars for two hundred years after the Reformation were as bloody as can be imagined. We are not responsible for what the Muslims do, but we are responsible for what we (Christians) do. When Mohammed dies with a sword in his hand and blood on the sword, it is exactly what I expect of Mohammed; whereas when Ulrich Zwingli dies on a battle field with a bloody sword in his hand, I expect more from him. When Calvin burns Servetus at the stake, I do not expect that from him, but when Mohammed murders a whole village of non-believing pagans, it is exactly what I expect from him. The answer to the Calvin and Zwingli problem to me is simple. They were men of their times who had not divorced themselves from their contextual violence. We do not excuse what they did, we try to understand it.
All I am saying is this vehemence toward other believers needs to stop. Connotative words as liberal and heretic should be used rarely and very selectively. I think the words conservative and liberal are now meaningless because of abuse and misuse in political and Christian circles. Classic Liberalism and Classic Conservatism are old and well respected schools of thought. From one point of view, Jesus was the greatest liberal who ever lived. A few other Liberals of note would be Locke, Copernicus, Galileo, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and so forth.
Phil
WTJeff,
I find the first comment applicable in this scenario!
You also have to pay attention to some of his other sermons. We are to love the sheep (fellow, repentant brothers and sisters), rebuke the swine (unrepentant Christians who knowingly and willingly dwell in their sin), and to shoot the wolves (false teachers, or those who may not be false teachers, but happen to be teaching a false understanding of any given Christian doctrine).
So the WOLF is running around devouring lambs even at Wades church. He goes by the name William Paul Young. The Shephard, Wade Burleson, invites the Wolf into his church to devour the young!
take a look at this video from this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y
Robert from Geneva
Only by His Grace,
Iam sorry Phil but I just disagree with you here.....
All I am saying is this vehemence toward other believers needs to stop. Connotative words as liberal and heretic should be used rarely and very selectively. I think the words conservative and liberal are now meaningless because of abuse and misuse in political and Christian circles. Classic Liberalism and Classic Conservatism are old and well respected schools of thought. From one point of view, Jesus was the greatest liberal who ever lived. A few other Liberals of note would be Locke, Copernicus, Galileo, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and so forth.
many leaders have used the term heretical to describe William Paul Young in the shack....Al Mohler, Mark Driscol, Michael Youseef, Chuck Colson
I have repeatedly said that explained why I think that Wade is a theological liberal. Nothing you have stated convinces me to move of my position. He seems to embrace it so why do you insist on being a anti-label dogmatic.
Robert from Geneva
The problem with calling Wm. Paul Young a 'heretic' is this:
he wrote a work of fiction, not a doctrinal thesis.
A book like 'The Shack' has been used by God to strengthen the faith of many who are suffering emotionally crushing burdens.
Is God also a 'heretic'?
Why are people drawn to this book?
Why are its 'opponents' so afraid of its influence?
Have they read it?
One interesting thing this book has done is to highlight those 'christians' who need something, anything, to call 'heretical' as though they were the judges for all of us.
Control freaks and censors report for duty!
Let good Christian people meet William Paul Young and decide for themselves about him.
Remember this: most name-callers are very insecure in their own beliefs and their own self-esteem.
They also cannot abide that other people can think for themselves with clarity and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The 'haters' and 'vilification experts' have weighed in. Let Mr. Young have his audience and speak.
His message is certainly NOT one of hate and vilification. And HE is getting a lot more attention than the 'haters'.
They don't like that.
Robert,
I don't agree with the complete theology of all who speak in my pulpit. I have Jews for Jesus, Chosen People and numerous other groups over the years. In Denton I had a whole Black Methodist Church over to our church just so I could make a statement about race relations in 1967. I am not a Methodist, do not sprinkle and hold to perseverance of the saints.
A Conservative in my pulpit does not make me a conservative no more than Liberal in my pulpit makes me a liberal. If after fifteen years in this pulpit my people do not know what I believe... well they have mental problems.
I belive your argument is that because Wade has a liberal to speak in his church that makes him a liberal and to me that is silly.
Phil
Maybe 'The Shack' is the kind of fiction we need in a society that has out of control violence and horrific predatory activity towards our dear children.
This book looks into the soul of someone suffering from the effects of a society we fostered with our cynical religion and neglect of morality and ethics at ALL levels, especially in the churches.
Some don't want us to see into the soul of that suffering because it might change the status-quo, and take away their power and influence.
Robert,
"Anon,
Your right....Rushdoony is not a Christian. But Rushdoony was a Christian and you have no evidence to the contrary!
have you read The Instutes of Biblical Law?
I doubt it. But I could be wrong!
"
What? How do you get eternal security out of this? I thought we believed in once saved always saved?
The wolves are the ones hollering 'heretic'.
Anon,
Nothing you have stated is a new argument.
Paul Young is a heretic.
We dont kill heretics in this age.
We should not have heretics in Gospel believing churches!
Robert from Geneva
I had Boyd Hunt for systematic theology at SWBTS and sat and listened as he regularly ridiculed any conservative, said the flood during Noah's day happened only where Noah lived, and said pointedly that he could never say the Bible was inerrant. He consistently praised liberal interpretations and ridiculed conservative positions. So I guess in my book at least, that makes him a liberal.
I do get very weary of people inferring that all liberals are sweet, wonderful and kind and that all conservatives are wicked, hard-hearted, and evil. There are pigs in every camp....
I sat in on numerous meetings with the highest level of conservative leaders (among them Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, and Charles Stanley) and at those meetings it was always stressed that we should attack the liberals for: their weakness on inerrancy and their softness on homosexuality. It was decided that this would play well in the pews so it became the plan of attack. Sadly, it was carried out quite well.
The worst part was that it was plainly stated that if there were not facts to substantiate an allegation, just make them up.
I have close friends today in the liberal element and they said they were just as evil. Seems that ungodliness arises when power, money, and position are our goals.
Ezekiel,
Dont look into the comment too deeply....all I was saying is that he is no longer alive on earth. Is vs Was!
Only by His Grace,
I belive your argument is that because Wade has a liberal to speak in his church that makes him a liberal and to me that is silly.
my understanding is that the church I attend would never allow any outside speaker to preach from the pulpit.
my mothers church which is not a Southern Baptist church will not even support reformed missionaries, they are dispensationalist. It is a pretty common practice to not allow those whom you not hold doctrine in common to have a place at the pulpit.
Robert from Geneva is a 'heretic'.
We don't need 'heretics' polluting Christian blogs.
Was your mothers church a jehovahs witness kingdom hall?
Anon
No a Bible Church....you know like the Bible.
but the church I attend would not allow that here in Nashville either...and it is a Southern baptist church...imagine that a SBC that agrees with a Bible church.
Ya think maybe because that is what the Bible teaches!
Robert from Geneva
Robert you wouldn't know Jesus if you tripped over him.
Phil,
I appreciate your comment about the harshness of Robert's response to my apology. But I have to confess that I didn't hear hashness in it. I heard hurt. I understand why that might be.
Your following words, especially.."All I am saying is this vehemence toward other believers needs to stop" are all wise words for Robert, me, whomever. Thanks.
I sought to address this hurt I sensed privately with Robert but could not find his e-mail or telephone number. This, of course, means he is choosing to communicate, as far as I can tell, anonymously. That's his right and I respect that.
I would also like to correct some things just for the record. My original comment was one FROM my daughter [Wade's sister] and her husband's time in a meeting in Tulsa with William Paul Young that I had chosen to use with her permission. It spoke to the spirit of the man which I appreciated.
It, after the fact, became obvious to me I had a goal of ALL appreciating Young's spirit as did I because I got angry when Robert didn't. [My anger usually comes from someone blocking my goals, a "how dare they" mentally. Stinks of flesh to me.] That was the reason for my apology which was needed.
Also, while saying some things in a totally wrong spirit and motive, for which I correctly apologized, I did not apologize for the remarks themselves nor did I see a need to do so. I believe them.
For example, I do hold to my stated opinion... "Your ideas of oughts and shoulds are of little consequence to me personally" as a reality. But that's of no consequence to Robert, [or whoever he/she is] I'm sure, nor should it be.
I just don't follow the "shoulds" or "oughts" of someone else for me who has not invested in a real relationship. I think that is a healthy approach to life.
But..and here's a big but.. there's certainly a proper time and place in which to say that. I believe the motive or spirit of saying it can make it a godly thing or a flesh thing. You know which I saw in me.
I don't agree with Robert on most things. But to say that he wouldn't know Jesus if he tripped over him is, in my opinion, too harsh and judgmental.
Where is the evidence that Robert knows Jesus?
Just one example of a time when Robert spoke of the love of Jesus?
We would be thrilled to see evidence of that, instead of all the hatred for others.
Paul Burleson,
Not sure why you believe Iam hurting.
Here is my e-mail....refbaprob@clearwire.net.
I know of Paul Young, he grew up amongst the same tribe called the Dani as I did in Irian jaya aka West Papua province in Indonesia now. I have read and listened to probably all his written ,videoed, spoken.
He simply believes in something other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The bible is absolutely clear on what to do with such men.
Iam off to work in a garden so wont be back till later....
God bless
Robert from Geneva
Robert,
Thanks for clarifying. I'm often off on my gut feelings.
Also, thanks for your e-mail.
By the way, After discovering WP Young's book nearly a year ago, I've also read every word he's said or written that's available on-line and read every review of his work available both pro and con, and will just have to disagree with you here. He's certainly far more Wesleyan than am I but knows Jesus as Lord as he understands Lordship.
He's my brother in the Lord and I have a feeling he would account himself well in any theological debate. He just avoids that kind of forum. He's much more into fiction and metaphors to reach and teach hurting people. More power to him.
quoting Robert: 'The bible is absolutely clear on what to do with such men'
oh, Robert, you are so lost
Robert,
What specifically in Paul Young's writing is it that you label heretical?
Just watched a Paul Young interview on youtube and he told a funny story about a pastor in Australia who had forbidden his flock to read Paul's 'heretical' book 'The Shack'.
Then, there was a change in church leadership and the new pastor and his wife were being entertained at the church for a tea. Someone asked them if they had read anything interesting lately, and the new pastor's wife took a copy of 'The Shack' out of her bag and said, "Yes, this is the best book I've read in a long time. Has anyone else here read it?"
Three-fourths of the congregation raised their hands! :)
So the more 'negative' publicity for Paul Young's book, apparently, the more interest in it.
People want to find out FOR THEMSELVES what all the fuss is about. That is a VERY healthy reaction, I think. L's
Christiane,
I am so glad people are not robots and I am not forced to do my members thinking for them as their Pastor.
Phil
Hi PHIL,
It's me, L's
Amen to that!
Apparently people who read this book have a 'gut' reaction to it.
I certainly did: could not put it down.
Can't imagine why anyone would want to 'forbid' or 'warn' someone about reading it. It is, after all, fiction, and an allegory at that. I found the book to be very moving.
I kind of like it when people get 'excited' about a new approach that shakes up their thinking and gets conversations going. And I absolutely love it that this book has helped so many to come closer to God. If the book can do that for people, why are some calling it 'heretical'? I don't understand their thinking, unless they are assuming that it is a book that 'teaches doctrines', which it does not. Love, L's
BARUCH HABA B'SHEM ADONAI
(Bessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord)
PALM SUNDAY REFLECTIONS
"Jesus, you set your face towards Jerusalem
and walked alongside those who suffer.
Be our vision that we too may walk the way of compassion and extend a hand to those we meet.
Lord, hear our prayer...
And in your love, answer.
Lord, you stopped to heal the sick and tend to those broken in body, mind or spirit.
Be our vision that we too may be a source of healing to all in need of your grace.
Lord, hear our prayer...
And in Your mercy, answer
Jesus, you said, “The first shall be last and the last first.”
Be our vision that we too may work towards your realm – when the marginalized and oppressed will be raised up and know that they are indeed beloved children of the Holy.
Lord, hear our prayer...
And in your loving-kindness, answer
Lord, you entered Jerusalem with peace in your heart.
Be our vision that we too can live as people of peace in the face of the world’s many conflicts.
Lord, hear our prayer...
And by your strengthening Spirit, answer
Bless us, O Blessed One, as we enter into the days ahead of us. We will need your power and presence to sustain us as we move through these difficult days together.
Spirit of Love and Life,
stay close.
These and all the prayers of our hearts we offer in faith, as we pray the way you taught us to pray,
SINGING . . . "
(Adapted from a prayer by Annabel Shilson-Thomas, UK)
What should really be read is Dr. McGorman's article entitled "The Orthodoxy that Made Jesus Angry." This was a powerful message to people who had zeal for correct theology, but did not please God. This essay was vilified by many and likely contributed to McGorman's ability to make the extremists unhappy.
He was one of the best professors I had anywhere; and modeled Godly humility and zeal for learning about the New Testament.
TA, could you please share a site where we can read the article?
we know WADE has no discernment or he wouldn't be taking the positions he does...so does it really surprise us that he invites this guy, makes the book available with no "warning sign"??? Surprised...no just a consistent lack of judgement(s).
Dr. Macgorman was a man of great integrity, in his life and in his study of the word. I set through many of his classes and was challenged by his very thorough knowledge of the text, but what most impressed me was that he could not teach the text without showing how it had touched his heart. I left many of his classes in tears due to the touch of the Holy Spirit alive in the words that He taught. How blessed we would be if all our seminary professors taught with such a Spirit.
Africa M
Hard to imagine the great contrast between a Dr. McGorman and a Paige Patterson.
Can you imagine the SWBTS led by someone like Dr. McGorman?
Good to know that there were once people like Dr. McGorman in the SBC. What ever became of him?
Gary Snowden,
After 91 comments, why has no one, replied to the comment you made about McGorman being taken out of the classroom because he would NOT sign the BFM 2000?
Having a conference center named in his honor, and not permitted to teach?
That takes the cake!
How can anyone honor a man and not honor his beliefs?
What did McGorman mean when he said, “The more insecure leadership is the more they demand uniformity”, and “You can’t have uniformity without coercion”?
What better illustration of coercion for uniformity was shown in demanding him sign the BFM?
He refused to bow to the bullying of “If we say pickles have souls, then pickles have souls!”
He refused to bow to a man made paper that (my opinion) made women second class Christians. Look at what’s taken place at SWBTS and all over the SBC.
He stood for Baptist tradition that we don’t sign creeds.
How many here can say they have done the same?
In our BGCT church, I’m the only one on our bylaws committee that is standing for the BFM 1963, but the fat lady hasn’t sung.
robert from geneva, in case you have forgotten, you are so full of it! just wanted to remind you.
Debbie's blog > Saturday Night Session With William Paul Young
Let me begin by telling my impression of what William Paul Young is not.
*He is not a Universalist. I know, I know what has been written about him, but listen to him speak in detail. He is not a Universalist.
*He is not a heretic. His love for Christ, his theology, his love for his brothers and sisters in Christ is incredible. In fact except for a handful of people through out my lifetime of fifty three years, I don’t think I’ve seen as much love and grace coming from a Christian.
*His portrayal of the Trinity is not unbiblical, in fact he understands the Trinity quite well, and the names given fit perfectly when you understand why he chose the names he did, portrayed them as he did. If you have ever been deeply wounded where something in you dies, you will understand perfectly why he wrote it as he did. I’ve been there, I understood.
A comment above included this criticism of Wade:
that he ' makes the book available with no "warning sign"??? '
I wonder if the person who wrote this understands how important the work of the Holy Spirit is to guide and direct us towards the things of God?
Man-made 'warning signs' are nothing compared to the power and majesty of the Spirit's work within us, helping us to discern what is of God and what is not.
Whoever wrote this has placed his/her faith in man-made guidance.
Those 'warning signs' backfire and speak of men trying to control people, trying to close off freedom of thought and self-determination.
Most Christians are alive to their own powers of discernment as received from the Holy Spirit. They will dismiss the man-made efforts to over-ride that gift, and to replace it with the dictates of a small group of ideologues posing as 'the only Christians who can think for others.'
Wade shows great faith in the Holy Spirit's gifts of discernment by welcoming Paul Young into his church to speak openly and to meet the congregation and visitors.
Wade rejects the totalitarianism of the fundamentalists who cannot abide that others can think for themselves and can do this under God's guidance.
There must be, somewhere in the history of the Baptist faith, a tradition that allows for people of this faith to seek God freely.
I think that there must be.
If there is, then Wade's gift of trust in his congregation's ability to use spiritual discernment freely, is proof of a 'resurgence' of that tradition.
What a great compliment Wade pays to his congregation.
What a meaningful testimony of trust in the holy gifts of discernment given to us by the Spirit of God.
Just some thoughts on a Sunday morning in Lent . Love, L's
Pastor Scott blog > A Personalized Review of "Hardball Religion" by Wade Berleson
Why I was chosen to review Wade’s book I do not know. I have never professionally reviewed a book before and there are many men who are far more capable than I. I think I remember saying something on Wade’s blog a while back and the next thing I knew I had a link to my blog in the blog roll. This is both common and ethical practice in the blogosphere. Perhaps this is how my name was chosen. But if God saved the Jews through the reading of the book of the records of the chronicles in Ahasuerus’ bed chamber, he can surely save me from making a huge mistake as well through the rantings of a well-known blogger. I perceive the providence of God in what has happened.
Prior to receiving the request to review Wade’s book, I was seriously contemplating leaving the SBC. I have always been on the fringe as an informed observer but a few years back when the Missouri Baptist Convention attempted to quietly seize control of our church’s assets, and therefore rob us of our autonomy, I was pushed to the edge. Shortly after that, our church was bribed by a layperson with $10,000 of much-needed revenue if we would only do things the way that traditional SBC churches do things. And now, there is bickering at the top again. As I see it, Trustees of all things SBC are on the bottom of this flip-flopped SBC hierarchy and need a stern reminder of this fact. And for those who see the SBC as a place to become a rising star, repent of your wicked thoughts and rightly use the pulpit that God has granted you the authority to be in to lead the sheep and not to impress musty suits at the bottom of SBC hierarchy. It sometimes reminds me of a third grade girl’s gym class bickering over who likes who, though the stakes are indeed much higher here.
Integrity.
The SBC needs a return to leadership with moral and ethical integrity. Hopefully, soon.
Read comment stream. Agree with Paul: Robert is hurting. Something's wrong.
Prayers needed.
read my current post on my blog, thanks
http://watchinghidtory.blogspot.com/
feel free to comment
Charles
I happened to be home this morning and listened to all or part of six sermons (or speeches, as the case may be) -- Steve Gaines of Bellevue Baptist, Sandy Willson of Second Presbyterian, Memphis, Joel Osteen, Adrian Rogers of Love Worth Finding, David Breckenridge of First Baptist, Memphis, and William Paul Young at Emmanuel, Enid. I'd like to listen to the latter again, but suffice it to say for now that was by far the best of the six -- even if the speaker did incorporate the word "crap" a minimum of six times!
Wade, I hope you will put this morning's service in the archives. Every time I've tried to watch a program on your church's website, the feed always cuts off at least once. This morning was no exception, and I missed about five minutes in the middle while trying to reconnect.
I also hope you will stream and archive tonight's service. Did you record last night's program?
Thanks!
Wade,
This is just an observation I've made when watching your services. I'm truly not trying to be mean or catty, so I'll try to put this as kindly as possible. Wade, you've got a rather "large" congregation there, and I don't mean just in numbers. Ever thought about offering some church-wide nutrition and age and fitness-level-appropriate exercise classes? Maybe even a church-family weight-loss challenge?
Other churches have implemented similar programs with great success.
I truly enjoyed listening to William Paul Young speak at Emmanuel. He appears to think like the way I do. I wish he had spoken 3 times longer.
When Emmanuel service broadcast appears to freeze or gets cutoff, try reloading or refreshing the page. It appears to work. Sometimes I end up losing a minute, before I reload the page. But on the whole their internet streaming service seems to work very well.
I just watched WPY on your internet feed. Would someone please take Robert's computer away from him? He is going to have a cow when he sees that WPY spoke on the creation account.
Hey, I was so glad to see someone else who knows the correct translation is 'turning' instead of what some monk changed it to in the 1300's. Yeah! He did get the creation account and fall relationships right. And does not read into them what is not there like many of our SBC brethren do so they can have someone to lord it over.
And this is coming from someone who is not a great fan of The Shack
New BBC Forum,
Honestly, I have not given thought about implementing a church wide nutritional program. I work out at least an hour a day and would encourage others to participate in physical exercise and good nutrition as much as possible, but my concentration is more on God healing the soul. It's not that focusing on the body is not important, it is, but it just seems there are more important things to me than gauging physical health - and wanting to change it for the better - by eyeballing the size of one's body.
Just my opinion.
Lydia,
The finest message I have ever heard - bar none - was the 8:30 a.m. message delivered by Paul Young. I have sought permission, and it has been granted, to archive the video on the Internet. It should be up sometime tomorrow.
I have heard many criticize Paul Young by saying his weakness was his understanding of the Trinity. After hearing this Palm Sunday message, which was different than the 11:00 a.m. message streamed live (which was also excellent), I am fully prepared to tell anybody who will listen to that 8:30 a.m. message that the greatest STRENGTH of Paul Young is his understanding of the Trinity.
Wade
Wade,
Will you be streaming and archiving tonight's service? What about last night's program? Will you also be archiving the 11:00 a.m. service?
Thanks.
"I have sought permission, and it has been granted, to archive the video on the Internet. It should be up sometime tomorrow."
I will definitely watch it.
Nass, not to nitpick but I have a friend with Lupus who blew up 60 lbs while on steriods who could not help it. She did not eat more or anything like that. I try not to judge that because there are some medical considerations and genetics to consider. Ever see pic of the folks in the Irish potato famine? They were fat!
I do think fat Christians will make it to Glory if they are truly saved.
BBC,
Tonight's service will be streamed.
The 11:00 a.m. service is already archived.
We will archive the 8:30 service later this week.
Hope yo can join us at 6:00 p.m. Central Tonight.
Let me know what you think.
On Unity Without Uniformity
Only the Holy Spirit, which creates unity in love and mutual acceptance of diversity, can liberate humanity from the constant temptation of a desire for power on earth that wants to dominate everything and make everything more uniform.
Ben
Lydia,
Obviously there are medical problems that can contribute to weight problems, and those are not the people I'm talking about. Medications, hormonal changes, low metabolism, diseases, etc. can all be factors. I've struggled with a couple of these issues myself (and I finally did something about it, i.e. proper medical treatment then exercise as tolerated since diet was not the issue). I doubt this is the case with many people though. In many cases it's a lack of exercise, proper nutrition, and pushing away from the table soon enough. I was speaking only in generalities, and of course one's weight has nothing to do with one's salvation. I never implied it does! But even factoring in the ten pounds the camera adds, it doesn't add extra chins and spare tires!
The bottom line is that healthier Christians will be happier, more effective Christians. Churches have all sorts of "programs" and Baptists (especially) are always ready to sit down and eat at the drop of a hat. Bellevue (since that's the church I'm most familiar with now) has big trays of donut holes, orange juice, and coffee on Sunday mornings. What kind of message does that send? Fried chicken and pizza dinners on top of this don't help.
Other than basketball and softball and organized sports for a select few (namely the youth), there is very little in the way of physical activities in many churches. Most of us aren't interested in participating in that sort of thing. A lot of us don't feel well enough physically to participate if we wanted to. Therefore, it seems to me if churches are going to offer all these "programs" anyway, they should be offering something that will truly benefit a lot more people. There's no reason members' spiritual nourishment has to be neglected in the process.
I will also say this. I am not likely to listen to anything a grossly fat preacher has to say. I figure if (medical conditions aside) he can't control that area of his life, what other areas is he "lacking" in?
All JMHO.
"Hope yo can join us at 6:00 p.m. Central Tonight."
Only if you promise not to capture my IP address and issue a subpoena to my ISP!
Or to send a taped video message from the Pastor down the Video Stream to confront the blogger.
:-)
i agree with encouraging folks on their weight. i'm a fat fat fatty and have been for 15 yrs. i finally got sick of it (again) and have been working on it very hard.
there is a great program called first place (firstplace.org) that is used in churches all over the country. very balanced.
it is a self-control issue-which i believe the bible talks a little about.
By far, I'm more concerned with my spirtual exercise but we all know there are benefits to staying healthy. However, people do make judgments based on their perceptions and a well tailored, in shape person will--for the most part--have that initial advantage. An elder/pastor must set the example here, along with leading his family, and watching his life and doctrine.
We don't have a Sunday evening service so I'll try to tune in at 6:00. WHAT?! No Sunday evening service and I dare call myself a Christian?
Thank you, David. That's the one I was thinking of but couldn't remember of the name of it. I believe you're right about it often (certainly not always) being a matter of self-control and the lack of discipline when it comes to exercise (an area I struggle with daily and often lose).
Not to get too off topic here, but I do know there are a lot of hypothyroid people walking around who don't know it. Most doctors rely on one test for thyroid, the TSH, and that doesn't always show the whole picture. My thyroid tests were always "normal" yet I had hypothyroid symptoms. I've been on thyroid medication a year now (Armour, not Synthroid). My thyroid tests are still normal, but I've dropped 40 pounds with very little effort and feel better.
Lots of good information here.
I'm sorry, what was the topic again?
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/the-faulty-foundations-of-the-shack-part-1/
Robert from Geneva
Rex,
Thanks for picking up on the absolute silence about Dr. McGorman, the subject of the post, not being allowed to teach by the same seminary that named a building in his honor. That really has to be the height of hypocrisy.
Paul Burleson's blog > What I Think of William Paul Young
I watched. I confess to being a watcher of people. I'm also something of a cynic when it comes to popular preachers who are obviously making a lot of money or getting a lot of accolades for what they are doing in ministry. My trust level of professional Christians is at an all time low. I've spent some time now recovering from the pain of pretense that has been ripped away to show a darker side to many men in ministry whom I have admired. The thing that has saved me from perpetual cynicism is the honesty which has forced me to see my own battles with flesh. But I AM a watcher as a result and that is where things are with me. You can tell I'm as concerned with a man's character as I am his doctrine. BOTH are significant but I wouldn't give you the time of day for one without the other. So I did watch. What did I see? That is my report to you.
I use this funny sounding phrase because it describes what I mean completely. I heard him speak the gospel. Perhaps the clearest I ever hear except when I hear Wade preach or when I hear someone one on one simply tell of the Father loving so much that He sent His Son who did the work sufficient for the Father to be justified in lavishing Grace on people who don't deserve it and the Holy Spirit creating life and sight in dead and blind people so they can respond see that reality.
I heard him articulate the biblical concept of the Trinity as I see it in scriptures in a fashion that has convinced me that the knowledge of the Trinity is one of his strongest points of biblical theology.
Anonyous former leader in the CR,
Thank you for your candid testimony of your experience with CR leaders where you said the following:
"I sat in on numerous meetings with the highest level of conservative leaders (among them Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, and Charles Stanley) and at those meetings it was always stressed that we should attack the liberals for: their weakness on inerrancy and their softness on homosexuality. It was decided that this would play well in the pews so it became the plan of attack. Sadly, it was carried out quite well. The worst part was that it was plainly stated that if there were not facts to substantiate an allegation, just make them up. Seems that ungodliness arises when power, money, and position are our goals."
Your testimony affirms what I have heard others say and what I could clearly see as an outsider of the CR as early as 1979. I remember that early on they also wanted to use other issues like the virgin birth. On issues like inerrancy and homosexuality there are many shades of belief there and you can find something to attack even if they just use different words than you to describe their beliefs. Women in ministry did not become an issue until much later. Now days you would think the most basic issue that defines us as Southern Baptists is that women cannot preach in the pulpit.
I think the most significant thing about what you are describing is they set out with a goal of attacking and destroying peoples’ lives and reputations first then tried to find some means to accomplish their task. Conservative theology was not the goal. It was only a tool to use to get control for their party. They were able to use the fact that many Southern Baptists are uniformed about our convention and are easily persuaded to believe their lies. That is why I have always said the CR is about power and control and not theology.
I don’t know you situation today or if you could be harmed for speaking out on this issue. I wonder what would happen if you followed Wade’s example and spoke publicly about this and gave names and facts about what has been said. There would be a price to pay as Wade can testify. However, these people have been protected by operating in secrecy and darkness for 30 years. That is why blogs like Wades are important because they shine the light of truth on the CR.
Ron West
Impressive speaker is Paul Young:
The Genesis story wonderfully 'cleaned up' so that Eve doesn't look like the instigator. :) We women knew she wasn't. We always knew. :)
The concept of 'relationship' within the Trinity, the relationship between the Holy One and his creatures, the relationships that we have with each other: all well developed ideas to ponder.
Loved the 'healing' concept. We believe in this in my religion very much. At communion we say a prayer about this: 'Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof, but only say the Word and my soul shall be healed.
I am heavily into the healing power of Christ."
I could go on, but the one main concept that stood out most for me is that God is a loving God. And He does not abandon us in our time of trouble. That the time of trouble may actually be a way that God has to 'get through' to us, so that we can begin to understand and to heal. I had to learn this the 'hard way' as most of us do.
So I know what Paul said about this is true.
Wade, thank you so much for sharing this with all of us. For me, it is a great way to begin Holy Week, with a focus on the intensely active Love of God within our lives, bringing healing and hope. Thanks to Paul for sharing with us the wisdom that God has shown him through the difficulties in his own life.
Love, L's
David, have you had a thyroid work-up? Also, think about when the weight began to oome on, was there some kind of trouble that did not get resolved?
Advice: get a complete physical with blood work, establish an exercise routine that you enjoy (begin slow), eat small portions more frequently thru the day to 'shrink' your stomach. Protein every two hours (small amount) to keep your blood sugar level stabilized. And seek psychological and pastoral counseling. A support system or group is wise, if you can manage that. If you are able, get your G.P. to send you to a nutritionist and get started on a tailored program of supplements. Eat fresh foods as much as possible.
Pray. Remain calm. This takes time.
Thy Peace,
The internet feed from Enid has stuttered and broken up so many times tonight I've fully expected to see a "special message from Mac" any moment! I don't usually have this problem with 316Networks.
Errr... I think one "s-word" trumps the seven "craps" from this morning.
Fascinating speaker. Looking forward to hearing the early a.m. sermon and hope tonight's service will be archived as well.
Thanks, Wade.
Okay all you Mark Driscol Bashers.....please bash WPY for his profanity from the pulpit.
Robert from Geneva
Oooh, Wade. Lois Duncan is going to have a bone to pick with you. Don't you know you NEVER tell a lady's age!
Thank you Wade for sharing the live feeed tonight. I wish I could express how much it means to me.
Blessings,
Glen Woods
Robert,
You mean you listened to "the heretic"? Wow. I never thought you would lower yourself.
So, did WPY drop any "f-bombs"? Personally, I don't think the use of the "s-word" was necessary. In context, I can overlook the "craps."
Other than the "profanity," what were your thoughts?
Wade,
Thanks so much for sharing William Paul Young's words with us through the live feed. My wife and I sat together and watched. There are many people who immmediately come to mind that need to hear Young's experience of grace. I'll be passing along your church's site so that the presentation can be viewed by as many who will. Thanks for bringing Young to your church and into my home. May it continue to bear fruit.
My internet service conked out on me during the early part of the evening talk. I plan to watch it later this week from the archived section.
"Errr... I think one "s-word" trumps the seven "craps" from this morning."
I think WPY is not a preacher, but a heartfelt speaker. So in that context, I can understand his choice of words. It did not phase me, for it was conversational in tone and he was explaining.
New BBC Open Forum,
I just saw what you wrote...asumed you were accurate.
Those words are never acceptable in my mind. Especially from the pulpit.
BTW ...in the book when MAC uses the phrase SOB in front of Papa. Very wrong.
Robert from Geneva
"Those words are never acceptable in my mind. Especially from the pulpit."
Have you been critical of Driscoll then? If you have, I missed it.
"BTW ...in the book when MAC uses the phrase SOB in front of Papa. Very wrong."
Well, you just used it in front of us AND "Papa." I assume you've read the book then, too? (I haven't, so I don't know the context.) But from what I understand of the symbolism in the book, I think "Papa" hears everything... everywhere. In fact, "Papa" knows Mac's thoughts.
"What should really be read is Dr. McGorman's article entitled "The Orthodoxy that Made Jesus Angry."
Is there a link to this? Is there anywhere to access his writing? I have searched but cannot find anything.
Have you been critical of Driscoll then? If you have, I missed it.
Yes in the past but he has Reformed on that issue!
Iam not in the direct presence of God as Mack was that scene
Yes I have have read the book ...no problem with that at all!
My issue is letting him have the pulpit. The position that all the reformers understood should only be occupied by the Word of God.
Robert from Geneva
The only occurrence of SOB in The Shack: Page 224
Today, we are throwing a big rock into the lake and those ripples will reach places you would not expect. You already know what I want, don't you?"
"I'm afraid I do," Mack mumbled, feeling emotions rising as they seeped out of a locked room in his heart.
"Son, you need to speak it, to name it."
Now there was no holding back as hot tears poured down his face and between sobs Mack began to confess. "Papa," he cried, "how can I ever forgive that son of a bitch who killed my Missy. If he were here today, I don't know what I would do. I know it isn't right, but I want him to hurt like he hurt me ... if I can't get justice, I still want revenge."
Papa simply let the torrent rush out of Mack, waiting for the wave to pass.
"Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you release him to me and allow me to redeem him."
...
Could someone give me a scripture reference for prohibitions in "letting someone have the pulpit"? I can't recall one.
Robert,
You are always in the direct presence of God.
And the pulpit can never be occupied only by the word of God unless Scripture is only read and never preached from. Where preaching is involved, there is always intertwined the word of man(but I'm sure you would object that for Calvin that was not the case).
Robert: And I think God understands. IF you have ever been so hurt by something or someone(Mack's five year old daughter is murdered by a serial killer, the author is Mack and Missy) then using those words when in that deep of pain is being honest before God. I think He can handle it. Not only that, I think he wraps his arms around the one that wounded and love them deeply. I know He did me.
That should be I think He wraps His arms around someone who is that deeply wounded and love them deeply, then begins to take care of those wounds gently. An example in the Bible is Elijah.(1 Kings 17:1-6)
Complaining about a few 'words' used in an appropriate context to emphasize meaning is immature.
Robert is nit-picking in a childish manner. Petulantly childish.
Paul Young's use of 'words' in his book and in his speech were entirely used in context appropriately.
One wonders what Robert is so afraid of? Is it because Paul Young is a successful writer and speaker? Because Paul Young is recieving attention? Robert is afraid. Of what?
What is all the negativity about from fundamentalists? People can and do think for themselves. Fine to express your own opinion, but why want to deny that to others?
This shows a need to control people. Not healthy.
Why so negative, Robert?
Something is eating at you.
What's wrong?
Bob Cleveland,
Here is a link from John Piper on that subject.
http://tinyurl.com/dbgysc
note number 7 and following.
Chris Ryan.
yes as sinful man any preaching is flawed but our attempt should be to make His Word central.
i also assume you realize that many reformed churches have only one man to do that task...the domine sp.
We dont at the church I attend!
Robert from Geneva
Debbie Kaufman,
you said....
Robert: And I think God understands.
I disagree
Throughout Scripture the Holiness of God stops men in their tracks(so to speak). Mens mouth were shut up in reverence in awe. This just downplays the Asiety of God. His Otherness!
Debbie why make the shack the authority go straight to Gods Word. It is like you worship William Paul Young.
Attend !
Do you mean you are not a preacher?
Or a seminary professor?
O my goodness, with all your superior knowledge and your ability to judge others, we would think you were in a very important position in the church.
What gives? What is your theological training? Or do you just dish up crap and throw it out there to see who it sticks to?
Gary Snowden.
After your original comment about McGorman being prohibited from teaching, I’m reminded of the attitude of “See no evil—hear no evil—speak no evil’ by our fellow bloggers in not replying to the coercion by the ‘powers that be’ in using the BFM 2000 as a guillotine.
"My issue is letting him have the pulpit."
I didn't see a pulpit on that stage.
"Iam not in the direct presence of God as Mack was that scene"
I thought we were always in the presence of God. Usually to say one is in the direct presence of God is to assume one is dead (and saved).
New BBC Open Forum,
I had a feeling that no pulpit existed in Enid.....WPY often speakes w/o a pulpit.
My point as I stated to Byron before was the position as the Word of God as the center of worship not a physical piece of furniture.
I thought we were always in the presence of God. Usually to say one is in the direct presence of God is to assume one is dead (and saved).
metaphorically speaking...you really must read the book because you are making the precise point that I was making here. No man could see God and live much less curse in His prescense.
Robert from Geneva
Look up the meaning of skubala. It is a Greek word used in Phil. 3:8.
Robert,
See allegory. Sheesh. Good night.
Anony 12:32....For some reason WPY gets under Robert's skin. Maybe Robert had an encounter with some of those same natives in New Guinea that WPY did and it brings back bad memories. I hope not, but I want to believe there's some reason besides just being a jerk.
Robert: I can understand because I was there many years ago, and God healed me. He used people and the many times when it was just He and I. He also provided me with a loving, nurturing husband, who helped me to heal while loving me through it all.
Robert: In response to my worshiping Paul Young or using the Shack as a reference, Paul Young has written about and spoke these three days what I have been speaking and writing and believing and experiencing in relationship to Christ, God the Father for years. A personal relationship.That God cares, loves, and wants to heal us from pain that others have caused or that we have caused. He takes care of us as he did Elijah and Elisha. Like He did the children of Israel.
It's just so good to hear it again, although it is preached and taught in our church strongly, to know that it is being embraced by people all over the world, to people you would least expect, because of talks like this that Paul gives, and by the book itself, is something I've prayed for for many years. I take it as a personal prayer being answered, and for that I worship no one but the Trinity. My love for the scriptures has grown even more, and I didn't think that was possible my love for both was already so great. I hope you have watched the services, you will see how God moved each and every session. So much so that I am overwhelmed and have not been able to put it into words after Sunday night.
Did Paul Young speak Saturday night? If he did, is it recorded?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
It’s Robert, Robert, Robert—is Wade’s post about Robert?
He’s made 26 comments. Why do you people keep talking to him when it’s off topic?
There’s talk of diet to books, but the topic is McGorman!
What was probably the hardest decision that McGorman made in his life? Most people were fired that made his decision.
I believe it was the decision that he knew would cost him his lifelong job of teaching.
Without that job, think of all the students that would not benefit from his knowledge, skill, and passion of inspiring the Word of God in their lives.
Was that lost worthwhile?
It’s only worthwhile if it inspires others to stand against coercion.
It’s only worthwhile if people know about it, but are you helping to make it known?
Why not? Are you ashamed for him taking a stand against the BFM 2000, or are you ashamed of yourselves for not doing the same?
Robert,
OK. Your point? I didn't see a verse in there about "letting someone have the pulpit".
I haven't listened to the Sunday morning service, but his testimony last night seemed laced with what John Piper was describing. And if you want to start comparing notes as to Mr. Young's "qualifications" or worthiness to be there, remember the standard of behavior is Jesus, not whoever the pastor is.
I think that "standard" applies to blog commenters, too, so I'm a bit reluctant to start applying it to others. Unless it is my duty by virtue of a position of authority and responsibility into which God has placed me (I guess you know I'm not on Emmanuel's Pulpit Supply Oversight Board).
:)
An honest letter to Debbie Kaufman and Wade Burleson.
Hi Debbie,
In speaking of the shack you make many absolute statements of fact that simply are not corroborated! In fact many Godly men have written reams to show you theologically why your facts are wrong concerning the Theology of Shack. You give no rebuttal to those men.
I will try to illustrate a few from this post.
1) *He is not a Universalist. I know, I know what has been written about him, but listen to him speak in detail. He is not a Universalist.
Do you understand the difference between Universalism and Universal Reconciliation?
Most people are arguing that he holds to universal Reconciliation!
http://sheepfodder.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/the-shack-and-universal-reconciliation/
2).*He is not a heretic. His love for Christ, his theology, his love for his brothers and sisters in Christ is incredible. In fact except for a handful of people through out my lifetime of fifty three years, I don’t think I’ve seen as much love and grace coming from a Christian.
Secondly, Young consequently misunderstands God. I am compelled to ask whether Young has succumbed to Satan’s second ploy to doubt God’s righteousness and justice. On p.120 “Papa” (God the Father) tells Mack: “I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” These words echoes Satan’s You shall not surely die! If God is denied His authority to issue commands and to punish disobedience, then He appears to be a God other than the One revealed in Scripture. To say that God does not punish but only cures sin, is to misrepresent God’s righteous response to sin and to misunderstand the utter sinfulness of sin (Romans 7:13). Young’s god is The Great Therapist, not The Judge of all the earth who does right (Genesis 18:25). To misrepresent God is to violate the second commandment. I have a serious concern that the God presented in The Shack is a false image made by Young. Young’s “Papa” is not about law or punishment. He is all about love and relationship. But Young fails to make it clear that the perpetually promoted “relationship” that “Papa” seeks with men is a reconciliation that has a forensic foundation. For fallen sinners to have “relationship” with God, God must resolve our legal condemnation and guilt. Young suggests that we can “return to relationship” with God but shows little concern for our sin, God’s violated law, or our exposure to His righteous wrath. Young glosses over these legal concerns of God’s courtroom and thus builds his “shack” on yet another faulty foundation.
above from this link…..
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-faulty-foundations-of-the-shack-part-2/
3).His portrayal of the Trinity is not unbiblical, in fact he understands the Trinity quite well, and the names given fit perfectly when you understand why he chose the names he did, portrayed them as he did. If you have ever been deeply wounded where something in you dies, you will understand perfectly why he wrote it as he did. I’ve been there, I understood.
First, Young’s anti-authority antinomianism conditions his view of the Godhead. “Papa” describes the inter-Trinitarian relationships on p.122: “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship… What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.” “Jesus” speaks to Mack about the inter-Trinitarian relationships on p.145,146: “We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” “Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?” asks Mack. “Jesus” answers: “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship.” But anyone who has read only the Gospel of John knows that Jesus accomplished our redemption by His perfect obedience to the will of the Father. Paul wants us to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3). Young, however, views headship, a hierarchical position of authority, as intrinsically bad. Therefore such a bad thing cannot characterize the relationships among the Persons of the Trinity. Here Young confuses the ontological equality of shared deity by the Persons of the Godhead with their hierarchical relationships and functions in the economy of salvation. As equally divine, God the Father loves us and planned our redemption, God the Son accomplished our redemption, and God the Spirit applies the Father’s love and Christ’s accomplished redemption to us. When God saves a sinner, the Persons of the Godhead act hierarchically: the Son submitting to the will of the Father and the Spirit to the joint will of the Father and the resurrected Son. Young confuses God’s Being with God’s acting. This is a serious error on Young’s part.
from this link…..
.http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-faulty-foundations-of-the-shack-part-3/
lastly on a personal note…..I grew up amongst the Dani tribe as did Paul Young! And no I was not abused or molested by them.
http://www.papuatrekking.com/Dani_Lani_tribe_Baliem_valley.html
I have talked to several leaders who were pioneer missionaries and helped translate the Bible into Dani or least the New Testament. They all say that many of the concepts Paul Young uses come from Dani pre-christian life. So why should we bring Paganism into the church. They now follow Christ….many of them. Why return to their old ways which was before they heard the Gospel of the one and only living God….
Please , Please burn this idol down…it leads to Hell.
In Christ Alone
Robert I Masters
Bob Cleveland,
The Word of God states that the Word of God must be the center of any any worship service...ie the pulpit....not a physical piece of furniture!
If any man preaches anything other then the Word of God then he must be an Anathema. That was the point of John Pipers link. What any preacher must do.
If he "preached" the Shack then he preached something contrary to Gods revealed Word.
http://www.esvstudybible.org/search?q=Galatians+1%3A8
Robert from Geneva
Robert: Thank you for your comment here and on my blog which was put in spam due to the links. I have posted it and I have replied to you on my blog site.
Are any of the videos going to be edited?
Robert, it is becoming increasingly evident that you do not believe in the unity of the Trinity.
Boyd Hunt and Jack McGorman are two of the finest Christian gentlemen I have ever met. They both were extremely kind to me.
Troy
Dr phil
we need your help with this robert fellow who brings shame on this blog. please add him to your list of patience.
wally
Anon,
you said....
Robert, it is becoming increasingly evident that you do not believe in the unity of the Trinity.
So you believe in the circle of friendship?
Even Ben Witherington, no calvinist himself, agreed that the Shack was way off base here.
Robert from Geneva
Robert,
"If he "preached" the Shack then he preached something contrary to Gods revealed Word."
You don't know if he did?
He sure didn't, last night. I'll listen to Sunday morning shortly, then one of us will know whether he did.
Robert, there is no doubt that, from his speech, Paul Young's understanding of the Trinity (not his allegory) is solid Christian orthodoxy. Paul Young understands the Gospel.
You don't seem to have a concept of the unity of the Trinity.
Maybe this comes from your political theocon connections. I don't think you get it from Calvinism. How do you get all this hate-act out of the teachings of Christ? None of us understand how you do this. Where did Christ teach so much contempt for others?
It's just not there in the Bible. Where did you get it from?
Bob,
I just assumed that at one point he would share his testimony about he Shack.
1)Wade said he was going to do that at some point.
2)L,s seem to indicate something to that effect
3) according to Debbie Kaufman he did actually do that.....please see her post.
Bob......your going to quite length to focus on the minutae....the real question is the theologicy that the Shack potrays ...intentional or not...faithful to scripture.
Not one person on this comment section has been able to explain how that is Biblical. None are even attempting!
Anon,
Since you use no facts or names I do not recognize your statements as having any truth.
Impermissiable evidence in my mind!
Robert from Geneva
Robert,
I listened to the morning service online. He preached the gospel.
You accuse him of preaching The Shack. He didn't.
You said "My issue is letting him have the pulpit. The position that all the reformers understood should only be occupied by the Word of God." I do not call dealing with that "focusing on minutiae".
Bob ,
I was not talking about the morning service......do you worship God only in the Sunday morning service? There was other services at which time the community of believers were gaithered in Enid.
No?
Robert from Geneva
Robert,
Sorry. I didn't know you were there.
"Paul wants us to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3). Young, however, views headship, a hierarchical position of authority, as intrinsically bad."
Robert, this passage is always trotted out to prove hierarchy within the Trinity for eternity.
It is about HEADCOVERINGS. There is no such thing as 'headship'. And 'head' in this passage does not denote authority relationships. That is not what Paul is communicating. Had it been, he would NOT have used kephale. The Holy Spirit would have communicated a clear authority over word such as archon or exousia.
The fact that 'symbol of' was added by translators in verse 10 also poses a problem for your interpretation of this passage since Paul is actually saying a woman has authority over her own 'head'. as in actual 'head'
Now, the other problem you have is that verses 11 & 12 negate your whole premise.
"11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. "
I must simply question the academic intergrity of those who keep trotting out 1 Corin 3:11 as their PROOF of eternal subordination. That would include such academics are Bruce Ware and others.
Robert, one last question: Was the Lord of Hosts present at creation?
Lydia,
Then Young disagrees with the Bible doesnt he.....
Read the discussion between Brandon and Ben Witherington...Brandon is the theological go to guy on WPY blogs.
When you have a committed Wesleyan telling Brandon he is off base you know that something SUCKS in his theology.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/07/shacking-up-with-godwilliam-p-youngs.html
Robert from Geneva
Robert, I am NOT discussing Paul Young. I was responding to YOUR view of 1 Corin 3:11 which you used in a comment above as 'proof' of hierarchy within the Trinity.
It just does not map. Sorry. Bruce Ware is big time wrong on this one, too.
Your heresy of lessening Jesus Christ is worse than Paul Young. You mock His Sacrifice. After all, according to you, He was just following orders.
Lydia
Read the comment again ...it is not MY view.
SEE This GUY
.http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-faulty-foundations-of-the-shack-part-3/
I am NOT discussing Headcoverings.
Robert from Geneva
Lydia
Read the comment again ...it is not MY view.
SEE This GUY
.http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-faulty-foundations-of-the-shack-part-3/
I am NOT discussing Headcoverings.
Robert from Geneva
Mon Apr 06, 06:53:00 PM 2009
Robert, you are being ridiculous. YOU are the one that referenced 1 Corin 3:11 as proof of hierarchy in the Trinity HERE on this blog. You were attempting to teach Debbie. The whole passage is about headcoverings.
I was responding to YOUR faulty interpretation.
At least you are not on the generational curse for Paul Young, again. For that, we can be grateful.
loud scream.
Hi ROBERT,
It's me, L's
I just was able to see the archived speeches that Paul Young made at Emmanuel Baptist Church.
If you locate the Church site and follow the directions, you can watch these recordings.
I don't know if you have had an opportunity to see Paul Young speak, but take a look for yourself.
I can promise you that it is certainly worth your time.
If you see these videos and you want to let me know what you thought, I would like read your comments. I am interesting in your reaction to these speeches.
Give it a try, if you have time.
It may help you to understand the meaning of the metaphors and the allegory in Paul's writing.
Love and Prayers, L's
Lydia,
You are wrong Alan Dunn is the one was making the point.
I am Not discussing Head Coverings.
I was simply repeating Alan Dunn.
I WAS discussing Paul Young and dont intend to change on this post.
What do YOU believe about 1 Corin 3:11, Robert?
This has bothering me all day long...
Bob Cleveland asked,
"Could someone give me a scripture reference for prohibitions in "letting someone have the pulpit"? I can't recall one."
And this was Robert's answer to Bob's request for Scripture...
"Bob Cleveland,
Here is a link from John Piper on that subject.
http://tinyurl.com/dbgysc
note number 7 and following."
Not the Scripture which Bob requested. Just an appeal to man's opinion. To me, that was enough. That said it all.
Just sayin'.
oc.
Robert,
You do a lot of "assuming" and "repeating". I fear you are counting on too many "experts".
You can't have a relationship with Him filtered through other's experience and your assumptions.
I say that in love, because I tried.
oc.
OC,
Ya the Bible has around awhile so I am not that original!
Here are some of the BIBLE passages that John Piper quoted.
1. God predestined us and created us for the praise of the glory of his grace.
He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. . . . 11 [He] works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:5)
2. No one by nature wants to live for the praise of the glory of God’s grace.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
3. Therefore every person is accountable to God and guilty with no excuse and is under his just and holy wrath.
Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (Romans 3:19)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)
4. The final expression of that wrath is an eternal hell of torment cut off from the presence of God and all that is good.
The Lord Jesus [will be] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation 14:9-11)
Words from Jesus:
It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8)
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41)
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.' (Mark 9:47)
5. The plight of all men on the way to that punishment is that they are spiritually dead and blind and morally unable to see Christ as true and beautiful.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
6. People are rescued from this deadness and this destiny of destruction by the death and resurrection of Christ in their place.
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)
7. This atonement is applied to specific people in the new birth through the preaching of the word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit.
You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; . . . 25 And this word is the good news that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:12-14)
8. Preaching the Word of God continues in the life of the believer and the life of the church as a God-designed means (along with other means) of bringing about the reason for our creation—the praise of the glory God’s grace.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 3:16 - 4:4)
This text is addressed to a pastor about what he should do with his sheep, not to an evangelist about what he should do with unbelievers. Preach the Word. I love teaching, but that is not the word here. Teaching is part of it, but he says preach, that is: Herald! Announce! And the Word is “All the Scriptures” and “the truth.”
Therefore Paul thought of preaching as part of the life of the church.
Robert from Geneva
"This atonement is applied to specific people"
you like that don't you Robert
OC,
Ya the Bible has around awhile so I am not that original!
Here are some of the BIBLE passages that John Piper quoted.
1. God predestined us and created us for the praise of the glory of his grace.
He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. . . . 11 [He] works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:5)
2. No one by nature wants to live for the praise of the glory of God’s grace.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
3. Therefore every person is accountable to God and guilty with no excuse and is under his just and holy wrath.
Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (Romans 3:19)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)
4. The final expression of that wrath is an eternal hell of torment cut off from the presence of God and all that is good.
The Lord Jesus [will be] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation 14:9-11)
Words from Jesus:
It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8)
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41)
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.' (Mark 9:47)
5. The plight of all men on the way to that punishment is that they are spiritually dead and blind and morally unable to see Christ as true and beautiful.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
6. People are rescued from this deadness and this destiny of destruction by the death and resurrection of Christ in their place.
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)
7. This atonement is applied to specific people in the new birth through the preaching of the word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit.
You have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; . . . 25 And this word is the good news that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:12-14)
8. Preaching the Word of God continues in the life of the believer and the life of the church as a God-designed means (along with other means) of bringing about the reason for our creation—the praise of the glory God’s grace.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 3:16 - 4:4)
This text is addressed to a pastor about what he should do with his sheep, not to an evangelist about what he should do with unbelievers. Preach the Word. I love teaching, but that is not the word here. Teaching is part of it, but he says preach, that is: Herald! Announce! And the Word is “All the Scriptures” and “the truth.”
Therefore Paul thought of preaching as part of the life of the church.
Robert from Geneva
"3. Therefore every person is accountable to God and guilty with no excuse and is under his just and holy wrath."
Except women who have an earthly priest as their 'head'. Her husband will answer for her. And there is male headship in heaven as CBMW suggests.
Well Robert, sounds impressive. Very impressive and godly sounding with all the scripture quoting and such, and big name second hand experts. But I'm sorry, I'm not all that impressed. I've heard this many times. I can quote scripture and give you the best from the scholars. You've given us what Piper said. Did Piper do what he quoted for you?
Let's hear what Jesus did for you.
Maybe we both need to go back to that day long ago when grace was new and strange to both of us. When we did't take it for granted... we just stood amazed!
oc.
Its not about me....all about God and His glory.
I was not trying to impress anybody.
Just attempting to be faithful to God.
Robert from Geneva
If that's actually true, then don't make a big deal about where you want us to believe you are coming from.
oc from Mississippi.
I dont really think I have made a big deal.
Robert from Geneva
Gary Snowden,
You said, “Thanks for picking up the absolute silence about Dr. McGorman, the subject of the post, not being allowed to teach by the same seminary that named a building in his honor.”
Did you notice the silence that started Monday April 6, 9:36 AM and lasted till Bob Cleveland posted at 1:00 PM? There was complete silence for three hours and twenty-four minutes.
Why?
Did they feel guilty for being critical of Robert instead of praising McGorman?
Were they ashamed of McGorman for getting fired from teaching?
Were they ashamed for not standing with McGorman against the BFM 2000?
Bob Cleveland ignored those questions and jumped on Robert again. Once the ice was broken, the whole pack jumped in.
I'm sorry Lydia. I believe I may have sidetracked Robert a bit. I will step aside and wait for him answer your question. My apologies to both of you.
"Its not about me....all about God and His glory.
I was not trying to impress anybody.
Just attempting to be faithful to God."
so the deal is to be as obnoxious as possible to others?
and this gives glory to God.
Please.
No it doesn't. It gives glory to the Enemy. And you know it, too.
"I dont really think I have made a big deal."
look who hogged Wade's blog stream
colossal bid for attention shown
to what end? no one wants your god of hate and wrath
not even you
Rex and Gary,
I believe the situation regarding Jack MacGorman and the end of his teaching career at SWBTS is a little different than has been presented. Wanting to be fair to both Dr. MacGorman (a dearly loved professor of mine) and SWBTS at the same time, here was the situation as I understand it (and I believe the facts will bear me out here).
Under Hemphill's administration, the seminary desired to name the new conference center after Dr. MacGorman, which was against his personal wishes. When SWBTS informed him that the donors insisted on it, then he reluctantly gave in and allowed his name to be placed on the building.
At the same time, SWBTS was requiring all teaching faculty to sign the BFM 2000 as a condition to continue teaching there. MacGorman in good conscience could not sign it. As a matter of fact, neither did he sign the BFM 1963, but instead he had a signed copy of the Bible in his file.
This placed the seminary in a dilemma, because of its "requirement" for all teaching faculty, and one of its most respected and beloved professors who refused to sign. The seminary was willing to make "an exception" in MacGorman's case and let him continue to teach as long has he desired.
Dr. MacGorman,
(1) out of his personal conviction not to sign a man-made document,
(2) out of a sense of solidarity with his colleagues who had the same conviction and would no longer be able to teach at SWBTS, and
(3) not wanting to hurt the institution he loved so dearly,
VOLUNTARILY stepped aside and decided to give up his privileges of teaching at the seminary. As I stated earlier, I believe the facts will bear this out.
What this means is that the seminary (at least under Hemphill's tenure) was willing to live with the difficulty of an exception in MacGorman's case and did not force him from the classroom. I believe it also demonstrates the depth and quality of Dr. MacGorman's character and convictions.
Kevin Peacock
Kevin,
I suspect that your understanding of the events is probably accurate. I was basing my comments on a conversation with another SWBTS professor who also refused to sign the BF&M 2000 and related to me that Dr. McGorman wasn't teaching due to his refusal to sign the document. I didn't mean to imply (though perhaps the words of my comment did suggest as much) that SWBTS prohibited him from teaching because of his refusal to sign the BF&M 2000. I wholeheartedly concur with your estimation of his outstanding character and integrity which really was the thrust of my comment as well. The bottom line still is that his integrity wouldn't allow him to continue to teach at an institution that honored him by naming a building after him.
Point well made, Gary.
We have been privileged to walk with a giant.
Kevin
Anon,
so the deal is to be as obnoxious as possible to others?
and this gives glory to God.
Please.
No it doesn't. It gives glory to the Enemy. And you know it, too.
I simply disagree
Sound doctrine is often times obnoxious
to people who cant stand sound doctrine.
in this case the doctrine of the Shack.
BTW---I really dont recognize the authority of Anon, get some courage and sign your name
Anon
you said.....
to what end? no one wants your god of hate and wrath
not even you
God does HATE sin and is Holy.
I agree with R.C.Sproul that the Holiness of God is the attribute of God that is most lacking in the evangelical Church today.
BTW----I know no one "wants " a God of wrath but we dont have the option of making a God we want do we then. Thats why I believe in men are enemies of God due to our sin nature.
For the wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness.
2 Chronicles 34:25 (Show 2 Chronicles 34)
Because they have forsaken me and have made offerings to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands, therefore my wrath will be poured out on this place and will not be quenched.
http://www.esvstudybible.org/search
Robert from Geneva
your comment shows that there is a god for every personality type, tailored by that person to their needs, and used by that person to beat others over the head with.
small mean gods suit some people just fine
'Thats why I believe in men are enemies of God due to our sin nature.'
Can't agree.
men are the creations of God, made in His image, and they are His children. He is the 'Our Father' of Jesus' prayer.
Robert:
Just a suggestion. Please set you up a blog and quit clogging this one up.
men: enemies of God
" Calvinists defines total depravity as total inability.
They mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God. The effects of sin destroyed man's ability to accept God's gift of salvation. The human will is in bondage to sin and cannot respond to the call of God unto salvation. Fallen man is unable to choose the gift of salvation. The sinner is not a free agent because he is a slave to sin. Calvinists conclude that the non-elect are unable to repent and believe."
Robert's dark sick faith.
no wonder he treats people poorly, he considers them to be nothing at all. Of course, on the other hand, HE is 'one of the elect'
La-de-dah.
Kevin Peacock,
Thank you for your post about Dr. MacGorman. I had Dr. MacGorman for Galatians during the middle 1980s and I truly loved his presentation and his accent. He made the Scriptures come alive.
I also appreciate your knowledge of the facts concerning his refusal to sign the 2000 BF&M. There are many that comment on this blog that like to demonize it. I find it interesting that he also refused to sign the 1963 BF&M. I wonder by his refusal to sign the 1963 version means it is a creed also. Hmm!
men: enemies of God
6 For j while we were still weak, at the right time k Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but l God shows his love for us in that m while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, n we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from o the wrath of God. 10 For if p while we were enemies q we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by r his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received s reconciliation.
http://www.esvstudybible.org/search?q=Romans+5%3A10
BTW..I believe wade is a Calvinist too
Post a Comment