His question was very sincere, and I wished to answer him in a respectful, helpful manner. I began by acknowledging I could be wrong in what I was about to tell him, but I believed so strongly in what he was about to hear that I would resign from my ministry if it could be satisfactorily proven to me from Scripture that I was wrong.
I told him that I could not recall anything I had ever done in my life for the Lord that was not somehow, in someway, tainted with sin. Whether it be visiting the hospitals, preaching a message, conducting a funeral, or any other activity normally associated with "ministry," I told him I didn't think I had ever experienced a moment when I had been fully committed or fully devoted to God. In addition, I could not envision a time in my life where I could ever be one hundred percent sold out to Christ. He seemed surprised by what I told him, but then he was shocked by what I said next. I told him that I did not believe God was bothered by my lack of commitment to Him or the presence of selfishness or pride in my life, nor was I, because Christ had removed all the just anger and wrath of God due me for my sins. God would never withhold His blessings, His goodness, or His love from me because of my poor performance or unfaithfulness to Him because Christ guaranteed I would only and always receive blessings and goodness from God. I then explained to him the basis for my belief and how it differed from the way he believed and lived his life.
I told the young man I felt he had been living his Christian life based upon the principles God built into the old agreement between the nation of Israel and Himself. This agreement is called "the old covenant" in Scripture. It revolved around the law of God and Israel's corresponding faithfulness and obedience to that law. If Israel obeyed, God would bless. If Israel disobeyed, the judgment and wrath of God would be poured out on God's people through affliction and other enemies God brought into Israel's path to chasten them for their sins. For example, Israel was conquered by the Babylonians because Israel had violated God's Sabbath commandment. Their captivity in Babylon corresponded to the number of years the Sabbath commandment was not kept by Israel (70). The Old Covenent was an agreement based upon God's law and Israel's agreement to keep it and be blessed or break it and experience God's wrath.
However, in the new agreement between God and man called "The New Covenant," Jesus Christ, sent by God Himself, came to fulfill the law in the sinner's place. Whether it be the law of conscience, natural law, or the covenantal law of Israel, Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed God's law in my stead. Likewise, in His death Jesus fulfilled the law by bearing the just punishment and righteous wrath of a holy God due my unfaithfulness and sin. My trust in the person and work of Christ has brought to me "the great exchange." God has given to His Son all my sins and the consequences of them (God's wrath) and He has given to me all the righteousness of Christ earned by Christ's perfect and complete obedience to God's law and the consequences of that perfect obedience (God's blessing).
For this reason the mercies, grace and blessings of God are mine forever because of Christ and His performance on my behalf. God treats me as if I was perfectly righteous because He sees the righteousness of His Son in me. I don't have to worry about being "completely sold out" to God in order to earn His favor, but rather, I daily rest in the person and performance of Jesus Christ on my behalf and continually receive His favor. I have "peace" with God because I rest in Christ. This leads me to live according to the following principles:
(1). I don't have to shout at God to get His attention, or have multiple people pray to get God to "do something" on my behalf; the Lord is near, and He is good to me at all times (Phil. 4:5-7; Romans 8:28).
(2). I don't ever think of God's goodness to me in terms of my obedience to God through obeying His law; rather, I see God's continual delight in being everlastingly good to me because of Christ's obedience on my behalf.
(3). I never barter or bargain with God by asking Him to do something for me and then promising Him something in return; rather, I trust God's faithfulness to me even in periods of my own unfaithfulness because of Jesus Christ's personal obedience in my stead.
(4). I never avoid sin out of "fear" of God's wrath; I avoid sin because my understanding of God's love and goodness to me in Jesus Christ deepens.
(5). I am able to acknowledge my own sins to others--including my pride and my selfishness--because I know I am accepted by God the way I am, and He is in the business of making me into the person I will become.
When I finished visiting with this young man I could tell he had been given some things to think about. I don't know whether or not he will ultimately agree with me, but I hope the summary of our conversation gives you a glimpse into my belief that the New Covenant is not just a theology, it is a way of life.
99 comments:
My take is that Jesus came so that we might have abundant (not just eternal) life. And, just as we want to give gifts to our children that they want, God .. so much more .. wants us to have an abundant life.
He saved my soul by imparting Jesus' righteousness to me, and He wants me to lead an abundant life. One that will point others to Jesus. And I figure He left those instructions behind, in the Bible, so we could have just that.
Maybe one of the bigger truths that comes out in Paul's writings is that, the closer to God you get, the more apparent our current (even though saved) sin nature becomes, which made His grace just that much more staggering to Paul.
May it be so with us.
Wade, though I disagree with you in many areas of religious belief and theology, I think the spirit of what you are saying is right on here.
There are actual reasons for living a good life, seeking truth, love and faith. It benefits us in real, positive ways rather than just saving us from arbitrary, retributive punishment.
Wade,
Your words:
“I don’t have to…have multiple people pray to get God to “do something” on my behalf…” were truly a benefit to me as I’ve wondered why I was not as ‘sold out’ on some Scriptures that others rejoiced in such as:
“Are any of you sick? You should call for the elders of the church to come and pray over you, anointing you with oil in the name of the Lord. Such a prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make you well. And if you have committed any sins, you will be forgiven. Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.” (James 5:14-16 NLT)
I’ve felt as a hypocrite in being part of pouring oil on their heads – thinking Jesus used spit.
Having my feet washed thinking I was not an Apostle and the washer sure wasn’t Jesus.
And having your sins forgiven by confession followed by a righteous person producing wonderful results always sounded like a Catholic confession booth to me.
You mentioned, “Whether it be the law of conscience…”
Someone wrote: “Conscience is when God chooses to remain anonymous.”
And as our understanding and awe at this amazing grace grows (as Paul prayed so often for believers), our faith in HIm and love for HIm can grow greatly.
I think it is when we add anything to grace that we add to the words of the Revelation of Jesus Christ warned against in that great letter from John to the churches.
Thank you for preaching the Gospel. I once, not very long ago, lived and thought much like that young man. I've had to hear the Gospel over and over to find rest for my soul.
You wrote
" I told him that I did not believe God was bothered by my lack of commitment to Him or the presence of selfishness or pride in my life, nor was I,"
Am I misunderstanding "nor am I"
I assume you are making a greater point an not really saying that you are not bothered by your selfishness or pride.
Hebrews 12:7
Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?
Matthew 5:45
... He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
1 Cor. 11:30-31
That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.
2 Corinthians 1:5
For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ.
These scriptures show that there is the general suffering we all experience, but there is also, even now in Christ, the possibility of discipline. We all would agree that Jesus atoned for our sins, but there are rewards to consider, along with the development of character.
As for everything we do being "tainted with sin", this is not only inconsistent with the HOLY Spirit within us and attributes EVERYTHING we do to the flesh, but it also denies scripture:
Matthew 1:19
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man...
Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Romans 6:18
You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
Revelation 19:8
Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God's people.)
So it is patently false that everything we do as believers is tainted with sin.
The young man presumed that he was suffering for lack of doing well enough, and Wade's answer was that nobody does well enough, but that hardly means his suffering could not have been for some problem that God wanted to correct.
Are we to understand that because we are saved we have a license to sin? This would mean that the many Baptist pastors who have been caught in terrible sins really are "covered by the blood" and shouldn't worry about any consequences.
But if not, then we have to admit that sometimes God might discipline us with sickness or loss of some kind.
We would also agree that we should "die to sin" out of love for God, but that is something we choose, not something God imposes on us, or it wouldn't need to be said.
I could say much more, but the point is that this response to the young man needs a more consistent and thorough response that takes all pertinent scriptures into consideration.
Hebrews 12:7
Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children.
Matthew 5:45
... He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
1 Cor. 11:30-31
That is why many among you are weak and sick...
2 Corinthians 1:5
For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ...
These scriptures show that there is the general suffering we all experience, but there is also, even now in Christ, the possibility of discipline. We all would agree that Jesus atoned for our sins, but there are rewards to consider, along with the development of character.
As for everything we do being "tainted with sin", this is not only inconsistent with the HOLY Spirit within us and attributes EVERYTHING we do to the flesh, but it also denies scripture:
Matthew 1:19
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man...
Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees...
Romans 6:18
You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
1 John 3:7
...The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
Revelation 19:8
...Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God's people.
So it is patently false that everything we do as believers is tainted with sin.
The young man presumed that he was suffering for lack of doing well enough, and Wade's answer was that nobody does well enough, but that hardly means his suffering could not have been for some problem that God wanted to correct.
Are we to understand that because we are saved we have a license to sin? This would mean that the many Baptist pastors who have been caught in terrible sins really are "covered by the blood" and shouldn't worry about any consequences.
But if not, then we have to admit that sometimes God might discipline us with sickness or loss of some kind.
We would also agree that we should "die to sin" out of love for God, but that is something we choose, not something God imposes on us, or it wouldn't need to be said.
I could say much more, but the point is that this response to the young man needs a more consistent and thorough response that takes all pertinent scriptures into consideration.
Great post.
I had a colleague one time who was into the "faith" movement, "name it, claim it" type teaching. He definitely believed that sin in his life brought God's wrath, or at least gave the Devil an opportunity to get him. He had part of his colon removed due to a medical condition that he had. He believed it was because he did not have enough faith and had sin in his life.
We had not worked together for years, when one day I saw him on T.V. as an advocate for a Gay group here in town. He was out of the closet, so to speak.
I tried to share with him, as you did this young man, but it did not appear to do him much good. He really liked Copeland, Hagan (sp?), Fred Price etc.
I often wondered about the pain he must have lived with, and I wonder why his life went so much the other way suddenly.
Carrying a burden like this young man with whom you spoke and my friend is a terrible thing.
We all acknowledge God as holy, that He wants us to live godly in Christ Jesus. And the more we live, the more we realize how far away we are from that ideal.
But that should drive us to God's mercy and to see the significance of Christ's sacrifice.
It often drives people who are really trying hard to despair.
Keep up the good work. There are a lot of people in churches who need to hear and understand this.
Louis
The righteousness we live in now as believers, is the righteousness which is by faith in Christ Jesus. He was made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God IN HIM.
That is the gospel. We are not found having our own righteousness, but clothed in Christ's righteousness.
By sharing vicariously in the life of Christ by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, we share in both his glory and his sufferings, even as we share in his righteousness.
Suffering is not punishment for sin, merely a part of being IN HIM.
We will have trouble in this world, Jesus said, but be of good cheer, He has overcome the world, and we are IN HIM.
Was he telling us that He has overcome his own "discipline"? No, suffering is not discipline.
Correction is given through the Word of God. All scripture is God-breathed and useful for instruction and training in righteousness.
I feel great pity for those who still believe that their works of righteousness are anything more than the filthy rags the prophet Isaiah compared them to.
It is faith in the finished work of Christ that is pleasing to God. Diligently seeking him is how we obtain the rewards of fellowship God longs to pour out on us.
I am sure those well versed in scripture do not need me to post references, which is great because I have work to do.
May the words of our gracious God be spiritual life to all who read here. Thank you for such a beautiful explanation of the rest of faith, Wade.
Eric,
Am I misunderstanding "nor am I"
I assume you are making a greater point an not really saying that you are not bothered by your selfishness or pride.
You assume correctly. I probably could have worded that statement better. I am not bothered in the sense that I know God is not bothered. Of course, all sin has consequences on earth, and to the extent that any sin harms someone I love or reflects poorly on my Father who loves me and gave Himself for me, I am bothered.
By the way, someone might read this and think "But what about those believers who abuse children, or profit from selling illicit drugs, or other heinous crimes? Is God not bothered by that?"
My answer is a simple one: If the Spirit of God has regenerated a sinner and has taken up residence in the life of that sinner, the nature of the sinner changes. The dog returns to its vomit because it remains a dog. A sinner forsakes his sin because his heart has changed.
God is always bothered by sin and He will either punish it in the sinner or in the sinner's substitute. The evidence that you have a substitute is the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life who continually reigns you in by teaching you of the incredible goodness of God, for "it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance."
"A sinner forsakes his sin because his heart has changed."
True enough. But are you saying that this change immediately results in a mature believer who never falls or backslides, and God never uses sickness or misfortune to get their attention so they can repent? Or that there is not period of growth between rebirth and maturity?
Anonymous,
"Are you saying that this change immediately results in a mature believer who never falls or backslides, and God never uses sickness or misfortune to get their attention so they can repent? Or that there is not period of growth between rebirth and maturity?"
I'm saying the opposite. We are His "workmanship" (literally "masterpiece") and He doesn't mess up.
I'm trying to help those who think God hates His people to understand that He is working in us through all our faults, failures, weaknesses and sins.
And He will eventually ensure we reflect the character of His Son.
In other words, He's a pretty big God who completes the work He begins.
"My answer is a simple one: If the Spirit of God has regenerated a sinner and has taken up residence in the life of that sinner, the nature of the sinner changes. The dog returns to its vomit because it remains a dog. A sinner forsakes his sin because his heart has changed."
Good post Wade. I think your above words express the heart of the issue. It seems that whenever a Christian speaks of NC freedom in Christ, someone feels obligated to insert a big BUT in the middle and remind us all that it's not a license to sin. But I don't know anyone who holds to NCT that believes it's a license to sin. I think it tells us more about the heart of those who question than it does about the heart of those who hold to freedom in Christ.
but there are rewards to consider, along with the development of character.
What reward? for doing what? It was Christ who procured our salvation, it was God who gave us salvation, it's God who keeps us and any good deeds we do is God doing them through us? Why would we be rewarded for things we did not do?
Hebrews 12 helps us to understand about discipline, repentance, that comes from the Lord,
“ My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD,
Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”[a]
7 If[b] you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
BTW Wade, The New Covenant is a way of life especially because we now have the indwelling Holy Spirit.
And what concerns me is the lack of teaching or even acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit in a believers life.
Much of this goes back to our focus on human authority and chain of command structure in our churches and marriage. We have so called specially anointed humans we are to obey and follow, we have those who are watching to see if we are in our 'assigned' gender roles, we have accountability groups, etc.
We do not need the Holy Spirit because we have replaced that function in our lives with humans we follow and obey.
We need to go alone to our prayer closets. Escape the clamor and noise of the humans we have been following and pray for the Holy Spirit to take over.
Wade, you said "I'm saying the opposite. We are His "workmanship" (literally "masterpiece") and He doesn't mess up.
I'm trying to help those who think God hates His people to understand that He is working in us through all our faults, failures, weaknesses and sins."
And I agree. But He also works WITH us, or there's no point in giving us instructions or filling the New Testament with exhortations to strive, contend, reach, work, etc. That is, there is no need for God to tell us to do what He is already doing. If we are but passive stimulus/response organisms, we hardly need commands or instructions. So the whole New Testament stands as a witness to our need to "work out" (not "work for") our salvation. We are not utterly passive.
Debbie said "What reward?"
1 Cor. 3:11-15
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, THEIR WORK will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of EACH PERSON'S WORK. If what has been built survives, the builder will RECEIVE A REWARD. If it is burned up, the builder will SUFFER LOSS but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
"I think it tells us more about the heart of those who question than it does about the heart of those who hold to freedom in Christ."
But Darby, consider this. We have quite a few professional Christians who have basically changed the definition of sin. And then we have other professional Christians who say it is a sin to even question whether a long time Christian leader who lied for 9 years is saved at all. They even question whether the clear obvious lies are really lies! It is a sin to even suggest there is a salvic problem here.
And many are told it was not a sin what Patterson did to Klouda.
People are confused. And that is because they are following man instead of Christ.
Look at these lists I think we overlook quite a bit or try to redefine them. I cannot ignore them because I said I believed in Jesus at one time in my life. The presence of any of these things in my life means I need to question my salvation:
9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Agreed, Lydia. I'm concerned with those who immediately question (or challenge) someone who suggests there is true freedom in Christ. I think people are confused because the gospel has been incrementally diluted (polluted) over generations until the actual freedom of the gospel sounds like antinomianism.
Anonymous,
In your comment to Debbie where she asked you "what reward?" you wrote:
1 Cor. 3:11-15
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, THEIR WORK will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of EACH PERSON'S WORK. If what has been built survives, the builder will RECEIVE A REWARD. If it is burned up, the builder will SUFFER LOSS but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
I will devote an entire post on what I believe is a misinterpretation you are making on the text above.
Those verses deal with leaders in the church who try to build their ministry on dollars, programs, buildings and recognition--when persecution comes, everything they work for will "burn up" but those who built their ministries on the truth of God's word will see their fruit remain--lives changed for the glory of God.
More later.
Wade,
I'll list more verses about works and rewards, but even if this were the only one, it still shows that at least SOME believers will get them; this cannot be denied.
Matthew 6 (many verses)
Matthew 10:41-42
Matthew 16:27
Ephesians 6:8
Philippians 3:14
Colossians 3:24
Hebrews 11:6
2 John 1:8
Revelation 11:18
Revelation 22:12
And those are just the ones directly talking about rewards. But again, the entire NT is useless if God does it all and we have no choice about the pace or extent of our spiritual growth. To emphasize, this is NOT about getting saved but getting rewards.
"the builder will RECEIVE A REWARD. If it is burned up, the builder will SUFFER LOSS but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
"everything they work for will "burn up" but those who built their ministries on the truth of God's word will see their fruit remain--lives changed for the glory of God."
Then what does "suffer loss" mean? if the reward is "changed lives", then the loss must be "unchanged lives". And if this is God's doing and not the "leader's", then what does God lose, or what does the leader gain?
I look forward to your explanation, including why only "leaders" are responsible for "changed lives" instead of every believer, since we're all charged with preaching the gospel. :-)
Wade: Hope you and your audience are aware of the easily googled God In America PBS starting Oct 11.
PBS Frontline production easily googled. Just wanted to share the heads up.
I'm not sure HOW or IF the following information applies to this post, but here it is (and it IS INTERESTING):
"Colossians 2:13-14
is sometimes presented as proof of Paul's antinomistic views.
For example, the NIV translates these verses: "...he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."
HERE COMES THE 'HOWEVER' :)
However, the NRSV translates this same verse as: "...he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." This latter translation makes it sound as though it is a record of trespasses, rather than the Law itself, that was "nailed to the cross." The interpretation partly hinges on the original Greek word
χειρόγραφον
which according to Strong's G5498
literally means "something written by hand" which is variously translated as "written code" or "record", as in a record of debt."
My take on this is that a person's position on antinomianism can be affected by the various translations of St. Paul's writings,
and how just one Greek word can be translated variously and applied in two very different contexts, so that two believers can come up with two totally different theories.
Fascinating.
It certainly isn't God who keeps us from that abundant like, or from being devoted enough. We, or Satan acting on us, take the credit. It's like we're all still stuck in Corinth listening with one ear to those sirens across the street.
I can't tell you just how much my faith has grown and how sure I have become of my salvation and belief in God due to just this.
When I gave up on trying to measure up, when I quit trying to be 'good enough' When I learned to just sit in His peace, love and assurance so much changed in my life. I don't doubt anymore, my depression nearly vanished, even my marriage got stronger.
So much of my youth was spent evaluating things like my feelings..."I don't feel God!" " I don't feel saved" and "How can I possible be saved and do *that* (usually some minor little thing that someone has blown out of proportion)
Now, I know that my salvation is not based on emotion or feeling, or even based on the things I do wrong (or 'right') My salvation is based on Christ and what HE has done.
It is a message that we need to make louder. We say we believe in 'grace only' but in practice, we absolutely do not!
I had to shake my head sadly just yesterday and a friend of mine who is deeeeeep in QF/P/FIC and is *very* legalistic post about how we are saved by grace alone--yet she does not believe that- at all! To her salvation comes in not using birth control, being totally submissive, homeschooling, never working out of the home, etc....
We have put so much unBiblical, manmade trash into our lives and try to claim it is 'the Godly way'
This is grace? No wonder so many of our youth run for the hills when they leave home!
Wade,
Great article!
I'm always amazed at the number of Christians who are afflicted with "prisoner syndrome".
Such people, having been in prison, have no idea of how to live in freedom, and must interpret Scripture so that they remain shackled.
For me, I'm just thankful that Jesus meant it when He said, "Tetelestai"! I can contribute NOTHING to my freedom, which He bought!
Some thoughts from the Orthodox tradition on
'the cup of blood of the New and Eternal Covenant':
John the Forerunner (the Baptist), “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
St Paul, “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast.”
Hebrews 12,
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, . . . and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, . . . and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood . . . .”
That whole passage reminds one of the Passover passage in the Old Testament where the blood was sprinkled on the doorways, and it was one of the Great Feasts.
The Orthodox word for Easter is Pascha, or Passover. It comes from the Hebrew word 'Pesach' which means the 'Passover'
Anonymous brother,
Does 1 Peter 2:5 not suggest that even our most spiritual service must be mediated? I think Peter intends to communicate that our "spiritual" service is made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ because even our "spiritual" service is corrupted. And Peter intends for Jesus to be praised because he is constantly bridging the gap between where we should be and where we are. That's such good news. And I think Jesus is doing this for the Church every moment of every day for all our lives because at no moment does any man love the Lord his God with all his heart, soul, and mind.
Blessings,
Patrick
From the Patristic writings:
an essay from Irenaeus of Lyons on
the Old Covenant and the New Covenant
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/461/Old_and_New_Covenant_Irenaeus.html
"Does 1 Peter 2:5 not suggest that even our most spiritual service must be mediated?"
Patrick,
When I consider all the NT letters, I see mostly instructions and encouragement for us to do something. Sure, we all agree that God "makes it grow", but does He not also command us to strive and work and discipline ourselves?
It doesn't have to be black-and-white, only this or only that. God opens the doors, but we must walk through them. But if one begins with the belief that even one inch toward human free will means denying the sovereignty of God, of course every verse will be interpreted according to that presumption. Personally, I believe God isn't fooling us or giving only the illusion of choice. :)
Hi ANONYMOUS
you wrote this:
"But if one begins with the belief that even one inch toward human free will means denying the sovereignty of God, of course every verse will be interpreted according to that presumption."
I agree with you. We are limited by our finite perceptions. That does affect our ability to fully understand many things which have been revealed in Scripture. In our pride, we may 'get it wrong' if we assume we understand the Infinite completely.
God doesn't lie to us.
He says Himself that we are given 'choice' in Deuteronomy (30:19),
"I have set before you
life and death,
blessing and curse:
therefore choose life."
Is not the Infinite Lord able to be Sovereign and yet permit choice ?
Of course He is.
anonymous: Scripture interprets scripture. We cannot discipline ourselves anymore than we can follow the law or any other thing a holy God requires. We must let the Holy Spirit do it through us and when we fail we have 1 John 1:9. It's not an illusion but it is showing what a Holy God requires that we cannot do. That is why we have the Holy Spirit and why Christ had to die on the cross. He conquered sin and death. Something we can never conquer. Everything the apostles did they did through the Spirit, not their own self discipline.
I'm sorry but I can't make sense of this:
"We cannot discipline ourselves... We must let..."
These two things contradict each other. Either we can't do anything, or we must do something.
Same thing with this:
"let the Holy Spirit do it through us and when we fail..."
Is it the HS or us?
Same thing with this:
"It's not an illusion but it is showing what a Holy God requires that we cannot do."
A book full of commands to do things we can't is truly a book of illusions... or of God mocking us. I think this arises from misapplying the limitation of the Law to absolutely everything, even in Christ.
I don't disagree with this at all:
"He conquered sin and death. Something we can never conquer."
Salvation is only by faith in what Jesus did. But then what is the rest of the NT for?
Finally,
"Everything the apostles did they did through the Spirit, not their own self discipline."
Paul said in Phil. 3:12-14, "Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.... I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."
To press on toward the goal to win a prize doesn't sound at all like something God needs to do, but something Paul (and all of us) need to do.
Again, sorry, but if scripture interprets scripture, I have to conclude that we have things to do, and we will be rewarded for doing them. I don't know what the rewards are and I don't care. My motivation is to please my Savior, which is something I choose to do every day, out of gratitude.
Wade--
I think this young man is like so many today:
Wanting to capture and control God!
The book of Job speaks clearly to this simplistic way of thinking = if you do good / God blesses you--if you have trouble / you brought it on by bad deeds.
The only thing troubles do is remind us life is never easy / strange things happen which are beyond our control / those who love God do their best and trust that God can bring even good out of bad things.
I am age 64. In my younger days--especially in my first 10-15 years of church work, I was convinced that God had destined me to a big church somewhere. I had gifts of speaking / reasoning / counseling / leading a church staff.
In the 1980's I was fired from a growing suburban church just south of Johnny Hunt's Woodstock. It was growing so fast, you could not help but succeed.
The reason I was fired was a refusal on my part to bless and condone serious moral corruption among some church leaders. I pulled a trick in a way, but they were at a crossroad and failed as a whole church.
When the few corrupt Deacons orchistrated my dismissal, I went straight to the congregation with a letter. Essentially it said, "OK, the Deacons are calling for my resignation. Their reasons are silly and have been presented without open attempts to resolve any issues straight up and with clear discussions between me and them. I want you to make this a matter of prayer, but you have to decide whether to accept my resignation or not in a called Business Meeting this Sunday morning."
My phone started ringing the second the mail was dropped. After some 2 hours of ringing, I helped my family pack the camper and we went to Stone Mountain to enjoy some time together as a family.
My reasoning was this: the church has a problem. Many knew they had a problem. We already had an "almost scandal" and now a "real scandal" out of the current deacon leadership and 2 staff members. I have been honest with deacons who have some integrity and see through the fake deacons. The ball needs to be in the court of the congreagation and I don't have to lead this revolt which needs to take place. They called me after problems with a promise to resolve them and had not done so.
If they have the guts to fire some deacons and start behaving like the Body of Christ, it will be a blessing. If they choose not to do such, then neither I nor any Pastor can help them. They can make choices without me coaching them. Let's see what happens.
(cont.)
It wasn't pretty. They got the DOM who was related to one of the corrupt deacons through marriage to moderate the Church Conference. He started out by saying, "The Pastor has resigned and you have to accept his resignation . . ." Not enough were willing to do what they needed to do by about 5%. I was fired.
Today that church is the same little group while Woodstock is the biggest church in the area just 3 miles north.
Looking back, it was a time of great hurt. It was more so for my wife and children than for me personally. I was given a call to 2 other churches simultaniously and had a choice for my future ministry. God was watching over us for sure.
On the other hand, God was true to His word about vengence: I could not have imagined in the "encyclopedia of vengence" how he could deal with people who wreck a church with corruption as their guide.
All of us should take God more seriously about meeting out punishment to those who consciously ruin the Kingdom work. I am convinced punishment and Hell do not always wait until the afterlife. God IS a God of justice and retribution to those who mock him and act in ways of cruelty and abuse of true followers.
Life seldom works exactly like you plan it. Most "successful" pastors do so because they are fortunate enough to be surrounded by good lay leadership and a family which supports them.
The question of integrity arrises when things don't go well / you question if Good really meant to put you in this place / you are willing to lay it all on the line to follow Jesus' way---even if you risk the threat of being fired!!
Satan loves to stop integrity with a big dose of doubt using numerical success as the simple guide as to whether you were a success or failure.
I have no regrets and now speak as a sage who has been there---and trusted God---who opened the doors so that my hardship helped others to find a way in this tough life.
...but anyway, like we were saying, women should NOT be pastors.
-K
"THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE HAS ANOINTED ME
TO PREACH GOOD NEWS TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME
TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES
AND RECOVERING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET AT LIBERTY THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
TO PROCLAIM THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD" (Luke 4:18).
The plain fact is that we do what we know to do .. teach, preach, minister, counsel, give, visit, etc .. and if any good comes from it, it's a result of the action of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those around. We've all done things that God blessed wonderfully, while the next time, doing the same thing, we fall flat.
Our victory is in the doing, not in the results. Those victories belong to God, and to Him alone.
We're just unworthy servants, doing (hopefully) our duty.
We are purified by the "fire" with trials just like gold is purified by the fire. God will use what ever means necessary to sanctify me (to set me apart) from the world. Whatever it takes you purify us or maybe just give us a direction change. Not just spiritually, but physically also.
To have an attitude of "I'm gonna sin anyway, so God nor I am concerned" is absolutely false.
After salvation, we should love God enough to obey His commandments. We are to be new creatures.
Please, please, please! Never be satisfied with yourself spiritually. Always strive to be a better Christ follower tomorrow than you were today.
A completely sinless life is impossible in this world we live in. But, we must draw nigh to Him and He will draw nigh to us. The more we put into our "walk" the more we will get out of it.
Your friend said: "He felt he had personally experienced the anger of God..."
Man isn't able to stand up under the wrath of God - not even a tiny little bit. Moses showed us (burning bush) that he wasn't even able to be int he presence of the Lord let alone and angry one.
TO think we could withstand the awesome and awful power of the living God is... well... prideful.
;)
NC theology certainly has its intrigue and attractiveness, the problem I have with this post is that I just don't see this teaching on sanctification taught by anyone until the last generation or so. Can anyone point to any early Baptist or Puritan that taught a NC approach to sanctification? Btw, can one not have a same view on justification as laid out in this post, without the same understanding on sanctification?
One of the Baptist classics is the book, "Pilgrim's Progress", by John Bunyan. Anyone care to comment about how author of that book viewed sanctification and compare that to NC?
Romans 13:9-10
" . . . whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this saying,
(namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is
the fulfillment of the law."
We are sanctified through what Christ did on the cross. We are being sanctified and long to be Holy because we love Christ, God, the Trinity. We do not want to quench the Holy Spirit. It's not out of fear, but out of love. No one has been made to love anyone out of fear. That may be compliance but no heart change. Then we get wore out trying after a while. We can no longer change our selves for the better in sanctification than we could save ourselves in salvation. Sanctification begins in the heart and is a work done by God, which shows itself in works, not the other way around.
Can anyone identify the quote below? How does fit with what Wade sets out in this post and what others are so diligently defending? I will say that it is more thoroughly biblical and "new covenant" than anyone I've seen pushing NC theology.
Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]
I found another quote: "discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness".
Can anyone identify this and compare this to what other have been saying in this thread, especially Debbie when she says "We cannot discipline ourselves anymore than we can follow the law or any other thing a holy God requires. "
It appears to me this issue is over human failure and imperfections vs. an imagined "perfect world" where man arrives at some kind of perfection.
This has been a debate always.
Are you aware of "Logos Theology" which related to the beginning of John's Gospel?
It is a total mystery as to what he is trying to say until you know something about the perfect Logos World.
No need to explain unless you are really interested. It can certainly be Googled.
Wade
Awesome post. Please start a satellite church in North Carolina.
"Can anyone identify this and compare this to what other have been saying in this thread?"
Phillip, I appreciate your apprehension concerning NCT. Please believe that everyone I'm aware of who holds to some form of NCT is just as concerned with holiness and godliness as everyone else. No one is holding to this view because they want to sin.
Your above question has an easy answer, and I'm glad you brought it up. The verse you quoted is a common response to NCT, even though it actually bolsters the NC position. Paul says to discipline yourself for godliness. Right on. But we cannot import our own definition of godliness into this text when Paul clearly tells us what godliness is.
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."
Paul wrote the above statement so that Timothy and his church "may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth." So for Paul, behaving in a godly way is being in Christ. That is the mystery that has been revealed through the New Testament. Hope this helps.
Lydia, you said,
“Much of this goes back to our focus on human authority and chain of command structure in our churches and marriage. We have so called specially anointed humans we are to obey and follow; we have those who are watching to see if we are in our 'assigned' gender roles, we have accountability groups, etc. We do not need the Holy Spirit because we have replaced that function in our lives with humans we follow and obey.”
The Conservative Resurgence flexed its muscles in doing exactly as you said when my son and all our missionaries received a letter in April 1997 from the President of the IMB asking them to have:
“A CONFIDENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO FOLLOW THE WISDOM AND GUIDANCE OF GOD-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP WHETHER WE NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND OR AGREE.”
Wade Burleson said...
..my belief that the New Covenant is not just a theology, it is a way of life.
Dear Wade,
Jesus drank from 3 cups during the Last Supper, but the last - the fourth - he did not drink from then.
Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36, Luke 23:36, and John 19:30 show Jesus drinking vinegar or sour wine on the cross, from a sponge placed on a hyssop branch.
The hyssop branch was symbolic of the sprinkling of the Passover lamb's blood using a hyssop branch - see Exodus 12:22.
So Jesus was truly the Passover Lamb; then he said, "It is finished."
When did Jesus drink the last cup?
Rex,
I understand your concern about such a statement sent to your son, but the CR was absolutely necessary to save the convention. Weren't the liberals just as dictatorial when they represented such a small percentage of the convention and yet had a choke hold on the power base and finances of the convention? I agree that at times the CR went too far, but it's so much better than the flat out apostacy that was prevalent in convention leadership prior to the CR.
If you want to see what the future of the SBC would have been had it not been for the CR, watch the CBF. I mean you're in a world of hurt if you actually have to call for a vote on whether or not to sanction practicing homosexuals as missionaries, and the margin between the two sides is only 199 votes. For me, I'm way less afraid of the CR than I am of that kind of apostacy.
The Conservative Resurgence flexed its muscles in doing exactly as you said when my son and all our missionaries received a letter in April 1997 from the President of the IMB asking them to have:
“A CONFIDENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO FOLLOW THE WISDOM AND GUIDANCE OF GOD-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP WHETHER WE NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND OR AGREE.”
Tue Sep 28, 09:19:00 AM 2010
Yes, I am familiar with the letter as some of my relatives received it, too. And, of course, saw right through the unbiblical stance of some 'specially anointed and appointed human' in the NC Body.
Oh, and since when are adult believers not to understand what passes for wisdom and guidance from other humans? What constitutes such special wisdom and guidance being given to these special few who were not even in the trenches in missions but in their comfortable offices making policy? What a dangerous position to put forward. God is no respector of persons. Sounds like cult of personality to me. Be a good little person and obey the leader. That is how evil grows.
Want to control the venue? Just claim to be either God's man or God- appointed. This is blasphemous. But people actually fall for it.
But it does show how enamoured we have become with positions and titles instead of Christ.
I know some who decided to leave their careers and all the years they put in so they would not be expected to follow man instead of Christ or sign oaths when their yes is to be yes and no to be no. It was worth it to them.
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/covenants.htm
Kevin M. Crowder said...
...but anyway, like we were saying, women should NOT be pastors.
-K
That's funny right there, I don't care who ya are!
But I think what Wade is really saying in this post is that baptism is essential to salvation. That's my interpretation, anyway, and who's to say I'm wrong?
-----
Tom
Actually Tom, I think he is saying there are a lot of MEN who should not be pastors. :o)
What Kevin (and others) do not understand is that some women already function as "pastors". They are just not paid career professionals.
Actually Tom, I think he is saying there are a lot of MEN who should not be pastors. :o)
What Kevin (and others) do not understand is that some women already function as "pastors". They are just not paid career professionals.
Stick 'im, he's done!
lol
John Wylie,
I like your pleasant attitude, but it’s too bad you’ve fallen for that old repeated story of the SBC and our Seminaries being controlled by liberals.
Do you think Paige Patterson would have done an efficient job on his list of all liberal professors?
All of them could ride in one Volkswagen. Patterson and Co. cry was ‘battle for the Bible’, but was really just a smokescreen for gaining control by fooling people.
If you don’t believe that, ask Wade who thought at one time missionaries should be fired who refused to sign the BFM 2000, but he said, “Not anymore.”
As far as removing ‘liberals’ from the SBC; what was the ‘body count’?
In the first place, the definition of ‘liberal’ by the C/R was anyone that was not “one of us”.
Patterson told the president of SWBTS, Russell Dilday, “You’re conservative all right, but you’re NOT one of us.”
BTW, Dilday brought SWBTS to its highest attendance, but under his replacement – now Patterson - SWBTS has become a joke.
I’m not the only one that believes if the SBC continues with its legalist ways, it too will become a joke.
John, you’ve heard of the ‘Race-card’? I believe there’s one worst than that – the ‘Homo-card’.
The new convention of Texas (SBTC) in recruiting churches, used their news journal (October 1998 Plumbline) to declare but no proof the CBF had leaders that:
1. Deny deity of Christ, need for His death, and importance of his virgin birth.
2. Call for the ordination of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons.
3. Proclaim Bible does not condemn all forms of homosexual behavior.
4. Refer to God as “mother”.
5. Defended the reproduction and distribution of child pornography.
Patterson used the ‘Homo-card’ with the last speech before the vote to withdraw from the BWA by saying they were “gay-friendly”.
What he said fit in with his reported words of ‘If you can’t think of something bad to say about the opposition, make something up.’
One difference between the SBC and the CBF:
The ‘glue’ that holds Baptists together under the CBF is MISSIONS; but the SBC ‘liberals’ say it’s DOCTRINE (as they see it; and it’s ‘our way’ or the ‘highway’.)
Lydia,
In comparing the replies of John Wylie and your’s, if John was a nail, he should hide from your hammer.
Yes, why would someone give up their call from God in leaving their careers or burn at a stake over signing a piece of paper?
On the other hand, why not die for truth? – Jesus did.
"In comparing the replies of John Wylie and your’s, if John was a nail, he should hide from your hammer."
Rex, you are too funny! I like John, too, we just disagree big time.
"Yes, why would someone give up their call from God in leaving their careers or burn at a stake over signing a piece of paper?
On the other hand, why not die for truth? – Jesus did."
We should not be expected to die for disagreeing with those who also proclaim Christ. Sounds like the Catholics and Reformers, doesn't it? Exile or ruin those who disagree with your doctrine of following men instead of Christ! Yikes.
"We should not be expected to die for disagreeing with those who also proclaim Christ."
This is the same as when some claim that women must "suffer for Christ" at the hands of their "Christian" husbands! Those bigwigs in the SBC who teach it should be ashamed of themselves.
"This is the same as when some claim that women must "suffer for Christ" at the hands of their "Christian" husbands! Those bigwigs in the SBC who teach it should be ashamed of themselves."
You are right! And that is when we tell them that Christ has already paid that price for all believers.
If the leaders who teach this would instead present themselves to be beaten in place of the wife, their sister in Christ, they would model the carrying of each others burdens in the Body of Christ.
Rex,
The Baptist Standard was the source I used for the information on the vote concerning gay missionaries.
I mean absolutely no disrespect at all to you, sir, but when a convention has to vote on whether or not to send practicing homosexuals as missionaries there is a big problem. Add that to the fact that there was only a 199 vote margin that kept the CBF from sending gay missionaries.
www.baptiststandard.com/2001/7_9/homosexuality.html
Believe me, I'm not trying to defend Dr. Patterson, but I do defend the CR because I believe it was absolutely necessary to save the convention. The above example proves this.
Concerning your comments to Lydia, I respect and like her, she's an intelligent lady and anyone who debates her had better do their homework.
Lydia,
I agree with John on his saying, “anyone who debates her [Lydia] had better do their homework.”
But I would add ‘it takes more than homework to show you’re wrong when you’re right.’
Truth needs no defense; it only needs to be heard.
John, I did not refute you on your point the CBF had a vote whether to send homosexuals as missionaries, but you keep harping on it and saying that proves the C/R was necessary.
I agree their vote should never have happened, but did it have anything to do with the C/R?
I believe the comment of Ron West (still a long time missionary) tells why the C/R happened.
Truth of Conservative Resurgence (CR)
I have lived in a country where the centralized authority was similar to that in Russia. There was a centralized authority that controlled everything, especially information. I have thought several times of some similarities with that authoritarian control and what we have seen in our convention. For example, one of the priorities for Pressler and his followers was to take control of the Baptist Press.
As far as the “nationwide organization of loyalists that was prepared to swat down those who challenge the ruling party,” in my home state of Arkansas at one time there was a network of loyalists with at least one in each association assigned to work with the pastors and one with the lay people. Then there was a district leader over several associations to receive the reports from the associational organizer. The district leader then reported to the state leaders. These men in the association would report names of those who could be counted on to be loyal to the CR organization and those who were not on board. From this report it was decided who was worthy to serve on SBC trustee boards and other convention appointed positions. It also allowed them to know who to keep off boards and to be prepared to call them liberals if necessary. They also let people know who they were to vote for and get out the vote at the state and national conventions.
You did not even have to be a dissenter to be considered dangerous. If you were not actively supporting the CR organization and calling those outside the organization liberals, you were under suspicion for not being sufficiently conservative.
The greatest sin would be to support an SBC presidential candidate not endorsed by the CR leadership. For example, Winfred Moore and Richard Jackson were strong theological conservatives who would have appointed conservatives to positions of responsibility in our convention. However, if you dared to vote for either of these men you were a disgrace to the CR organization. That is why I have always said, even though for some individuals the issue may have been theology, but for the CR organization the issue has always been power and control.
Fri Dec 26, 10:07:00 AM 2008
John,
You “proved” the C/R was necessary by what the CBF ‘thought about’ but did NOT do, but will you comment on these statements of what the C/R did do?
Please reply with ‘H’ or ‘S’ with ‘H’ representing the ‘devil being happy’ and ‘S’ representing the ‘devil being sad’.
C/R did NOT permit these people to be missionaries:
1. Those baptised under water by missionaries/pastors but not in a Baptist church.
2. Those that have a private prayer language such as Rankin who is the president of the IMB.
3. Those that weigh too much.
4. Anyone that will NOT sign their creed – BFM 2000.
5. Many long-time missionaries that refused to sign their creed.
6. C/R prevents women from being pastors. (There are thousands world wide.)
7. C/R prevents women from being chaplains.
8. C/R keeps women in their ‘place’. (Kitchen)
9. C/R changed marriage from partnership into ‘pecking-order’.
10. C/R made women second class Christians – cannot teach men; especially Hebrew.
11. C/R fired Russell Dilday.
John, if you think the ‘H’ or ‘S’ does not apply, feel free to explain why any of the above was necessary.
Rex,
The reason I said that it proved that the CR was necessary is because the CBF is made up largely of those who left the SBC. It proves that there were a lot of liberals in the convention. I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.
1.) I believe in believer's baptism not Baptist baptism. This is the last vestige of old landmarkism. You and I would agree here.
2.) I don't believe that tongues were a private prayer language, and I think the convention has every right to protect itself from
charismatic infiltration.
3.) I don't think it's any of their business how much a person weighs.
4.) I personally agree with the BFM 2000, however, I can certainly see why some would not want to sign. But there must be some mechanism to ensure doctrinal integrity among the missionaries, especially in light of the fact that they are paid by sbc churches. So I think that they should be required to make some sort of doctrinal affirmation.
5.) I think the same would apply to veteran missionaries.
6.)-9.) I am a complimentarian, but would disagree with the way you characterize it.
10.) I believe that the prohibition of teaching men only applies to the church, not an extra biblical position like a seminary professor. I went to an independent Baptist college and had a lady professor for my English classes. She was a great teacher.
11.) I really don't know much about the Dr. Dilday firing, would you please fill me in?
I respect your personal experiences, and I realize that I was a little boy during the original take over in 1979, but I have researched a lot about the CR. There is no doubt that although the liberals were always a small percentage, they wielded undue influence in the convention. They were particularly successful at taking over the universities. So although some things were done in the name of the CR that I disagree with, I stand by my assertion that the CR was necessary.
John,
I’ll answer your last request first (#11).
I typed in “Columns by Russell Dilday” to Google.
It listed several references of Dilday’s book, “Columns”. I saw one reference on Wade’s “Grace and Truth to You” Friday April 5, 2007 which stated "A better way to let people learn the facts about the conservative resurgence would be to read Russell Dilday's book Columns."
The statement was made by Rzrbk and signed Ron West on Fri April 6, 09:45 PM 2007.
John, you remember Ron West and his comment that I quoted on the subject – the truth of the C/R.
I guess what he said made no difference to you, and if you read Dilday’s book the results will probably be the same – based on the theory: ‘There’s no one as blind as those who refuse to see.’
Here is a link for a book review of Columns.
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/issue/053/Columns-Glimpses%20of%20a%20Seminary%20Under%20Assault%20By%20Russell%20H.%20Dilday%20Reviewed%20by%20Darold%20Morgan_053_27_.htm
I thought it interesting when Dilday asked why he was being fired. The fundamentalist board trustees told him, “We don’t have to have a reason; we got the vote”.
They had his office lock changed before he was fired. Later, they complained to Patterson in a letter that they did what they were told to do but no one was backing them up and people were saying there was a special place in hell for them.
Patterson had put many fundamentalists on the board, and now he is working for them. Or should that be ‘they’re working for him’?
I believe it’s the same pattern he did with selecting 15 friends to rewrite the BFM 1963. With Patterson, you don’t have a committee; you have a one-man run committee just like his school SWBTS that’s becoming a joke.
(I was going to copy/paste what Wade said about what they were doing to keep the ‘number of students up’, but I forgot where he said it.)
I plan to reply to your other comments later.
BTW, thanks for replying.
John,
Your reply that upset me most was your saying:
“I personally agree with the BFM 2000, however, I can certainly see why some would not want to sign. But there must be some mechanism to ensure doctrinal integrity among the missionaries, especially in light of the fact that they are paid by sbc churches. So I think that they should be required to make some sort of doctrinal affirmation.”
Our forefathers wrote the BFM 1925, and the 1963 did NOT take anything away from it. The 1963 was a committee of ALL the presidents of the States that welcomed any suggestions from open doors.
The 2000 was written by 15 hand-picked by Patterson that met in secret behind closed doors – saying: “We can’t tell what we’ve written but you’re going to like it.”
Churches did not have a clue before their messengers went to the Convention where they were ‘brained washed’ before they had a chance to really study the issues that changed the two previous BFMs.
The 2000 was a ONE MAN DEAL that added insult to injury by SS Litature saying: “The 2000 statement of The Baptist Faith and Message is our doctrinal guideline.”
A ‘guideline’ takes preference to what is written…therefore the 2000 has more authority than the Bible. (John, would you explain that to me?) If egos had weight, Patterson would need a wheel barrel.
Patterson wrote the forward to Criswell’s Study Bible which said, “Harmonization of apparent discrepancies and explanations of passages thought by some to contain error are afforded the reader.”
After his preaching at Prestonwood Baptist Church, I asked if his statement applied to all the ‘errors’ or only some of them. He replied to the crowd in a loud voice:
“We got all of them!”
I asked about the girl being dead in Matthew and alive in Mark and Luke.
He said in a low voice that only I could hear:
“We got all we could.”
John, did Patterson tell not just an untruth, but a lie to the crowd?
I’ll write more about missionaries forced to sign the 2000 later.
Rex,
I persoanlly have read the BFM 2000, I haven't found anything wrong with it. However, I never said in that statement that missinaries should be forced to sign the BFM 2000, I just said there ought to be some sort of doctrinal affirmation for paid missonaries that are paid by sbc churches.
If I understand you correctly, are you basically saying that you are not an inerrantist? I was reading last night a document by David Flick where he referred to inerrancy as "...the new fangled doctrine of inerrancy..." If that is what the moderates believe, and I think it is based on what I've read, then I'm more convinced than ever that the CR was right.
John,
This is a quick note on ‘Inerrancy’.
None of the BFMs have wisely NOT used ‘inerrancy' because, I believe, they wanted to avoid a can of worms caused by the acceptance of ‘THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY’ by the SBC which states:
“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
E. Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”
John, would you explain the difference of me calling something in the Bible an ‘error’, and others calling the same thing an ‘illusion’?
‘Inerrancy’ has been made a ‘code word’ if one is to be accepted by the powers that be. When Patterson jumped on the IMB for have women over men, the first line of defense from Rankin was something like: “Why everyone in the IMB believed in inerrancy.”
How did Christianity survive nineteen hundred years without ‘inerrancy’ that was invented by fundamenalists?
Due to the confusion, arguing, firing, heartache, and squabbling among Christians, I’ve said it before and I’ll saying it again:
‘Inerrancy should go back to where it came from – the smiling lips of the devil’.
BTW,
The word ‘missionaries’ does not have the word ‘sin’ in it. Like you said, you should use spell check. :)
Ut, oh, is my face red?
I didn’t use spell check or:
“I’ll saying it again…” would be ‘I’ll say it again…”
My above comment is too complicated and not worth explaining.
John,
This is a quick note on ‘Inerrancy’.
None of the BFMs have wisely NOT used ‘inerrancy because, I believe, they wanted to avoid a can of worms caused by the acceptance of ‘THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY’ by the SBC.
which states:
“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
E. Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”
John, would you explain the difference of me calling something in the Bible an ‘error’, and others calling the same thing an ‘illusion’?
‘Inerrancy’ has been made a ‘code word’ if one is to be accepted by the powers that be. When Patterson jumped on the IMB for have women over men, the first line of defense from Rankin was something like: “Why everyone in the IMB believed in inerrancy.”
How did Christianity survive nineteen hundred years without ‘inerrancy’ that was invented by fundamentalists?
Due to the confusion, arguing, firing, heartache, and squabbling among Christians, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, ‘Inerrancy should go back to where it came from – the smiling lips of the devil’.
My above comment is too complicated or worthwhile to explain.
John,
This is a quick note on ‘Inerrancy’.
None of the BFMs have wisely NOT used ‘inerrancy because, I believe, they wanted to avoid a can of worms caused by the acceptance of ‘THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY’ by the SBC.
which states:
“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
E. Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”
John, would you explain the difference of me calling something in the Bible an ‘error’, and others calling the same thing an ‘illusion’?
‘Inerrancy’ has been made a ‘code word’ if one is to be accepted by the powers that be. When Patterson jumped on the IMB for have women over men, the first line of defense from Rankin was something like: “Why everyone in the IMB believed in inerrancy.”
How did Christianity survive nineteen hundred years without ‘inerrancy’ that was invented by fundamentalists?
Due to the confusion, arguing, firing, heartache, and squabbling among Christians, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, ‘Inerrancy should go back to where it came from – the smiling lips of the devil’.
John,
While you’re thinking that over, I’ll tell how Michael Whitehead (lawyer for the SBC) explained the meaning of what is written in all the BFMs about the truth of the Bible.
What is written is this:
“We believe that the Bible has God for its Author; salvation for its end; and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.”
“…without any mixture of error…” had bothered me for many years, and I asked him to explain.
He said, “What that means is the truth of the Bible is true and the untruth of the Bible is not true.”
(He did NOT like the explanation) and said: “So we added (to the BFM 2000) ‘and that all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy’.”
John, I like what the 2000 says because ‘Bible’ is not used but ‘Scripture’. There is a big difference between the two. Since God cannot tell a lie, ‘Scripture’ is all truth, perfect, inerrant etc. and does not have the lies of the devil/man, ignorance, and stupidity.
Rex,
Thank you for your straight forward answer.
You really believe that the doctrine of inerrancy came from the Devil?
John, thank you for a straight question.
Since inerrancy didn’t come from God for 1900 years, and seeing the mess Southern Baptists are in by the C/R; who else is there?
But for a direct answer: Yes.
Let me ask you a question: Should the ‘glue’ that holds Baptists together be ‘doctrine’ or ‘missions’?
Remember the old saying: ‘If two Baptists are discussing a subject, there will be three opinions. :)
I personally believe doctrine should be the glue that holds us together. I believe this for a number of reasons. 1.) The Bible makes doctrine paramount, almost all of Paul's epistles were refuting false doctrine; Peter, Jude, and John also centered on doctrine. 2.) Missions, while certainly important, are to no avail if what is being taught is wrong. Paul warned the Corinthians of those who preach "another Christ" and the Galatians he warned about those who preach "another Gospel". Missions won't get anyone saved if what is being preached is another Christ or another Gospel. I mean both the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are very active missionally, but they preach another Christ. Doctrine is the very basis for our faith and if we lose our doctrinal integrity our missionary efforts are futile. True Bible missions does not neglect sound doctrine; the gospel is doctrine. Pastors are instructed to teach sound doctrine.
"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) (ESV)
Besides this, the bible is clear about not having fellowship with those who claim to be saved and yet promote immorality. Churches that are "welcoming and affirming" should not be fellowshipped with, even under the guise of being missional.
Thank you for this conversation, Rex, it is clear that you and I are not going to agree on this. Liberalism is a pervasive thing, and it is necessarry to separate from it. The CR was a good thing for everybody, the liberals have their fellowship, and the conservatives have their's.
John,
I believe you misunderstood the question. I asked what holds BAPTISTS together. Do Baptists preach another Christ – another Gospel? Baptists are not Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. Baptists don’t tolerate immorality. They teach sound doctrine.
The glue that holds us together is the love to carry the Great Commission throughout the World by combining our money for missionaries to answer their call from God to preach the Gospel.
I was named after my uncle who was a missionary to China for 30 years. When Communists ran him out, he went to Korea for 8 years. His work was carried on by his son, Dan Ray for 39 years. Dan’s son, Mark Ray is an active missionary.
When the C/R took over, they built legalist walls to keep sin out, but made prisoners within. They didn’t trust the Holy Spirit to guide those He called without their two cents.
When Dan was a missionary, about all the IMB (Foreign Mission Board) did was send monthly checks. Now, as one missionary said, “They tell us how to breathe.” His supervisor had told him, “Tonight I’ll pray and tomorrow I’ll tell you what God’s will is for you.”
I’ve met many missionaries as I’ve spent 18 months overseas as a volunteer construction worker on 18 mission trips.
Once there were six missionaries in our home. One couple was sent back until they could make up their minds to obey orders. The husband had sent an angry email saying he had been doing his job for 15 years, and he would not listen to a new kid that didn’t know much of anything about the customs etc.
Another couple was facing being fired if he accepted being pastor of a Baptist church because the church had chosen the sermons to be preached in English. He had permission to be their interim pastor, and based on salvations, he said, “We must listen to God and not man.”
He is still their pastor, but no longer a missionary even though Jerry Rankin wrote me saying, “I cannot imagine anyone considering firing xxxxx. He and his wife are effective missionaries and under their leadership, xxxxx Church has certainly demonstrated an effective ministry which the IMB endorses.”
It’s a shame when the ‘powers that be of the C/R’ can run over the President of the IMB.
The same thing happened when Rankin told my son, since he was ‘grandfathered’ in as an older missionary, he would NOT have to sign the BFM 2000.
When Ranking couldn’t make good on that promise, he told my son he wouldn’t be fired if he refused to sign.
Well, we know the history of that don’t we John? You say the C/R was a good thing for everybody…I’m afraid you don’t have a clue.
Rex,
You said, "Baptists don’t tolerate immorality."
Apparently about 40% of the messengers in the 2001 annual meeting of the CBF do. The BGCT maintains a realtionship with the CBF, almost all of the "conservatives" who were supposedly ran out by the CR are now working in CBF circles, including Dr. Dilday. The scriptures are clear that we are to have no fellowship with immoral people who claim Christianity. When one goes in a liberal direction they always ultimately forsake the Gospel. You said regarding Baptists,"They teach sound doctrine." Obviously not everyone who claims to be Baptist teaches sound doctrine.
Rex, I can read, and based on the words written by the very ones who make the claim the CR was not necessary, I can say they've made the case the CR was indeed necessary. Yes some of the leaders of the CR have done things I don't agree with, but at least they haven't apostacized into liberalism. I have more of a clue than you give me credit for, sir.
John,
How come the only response you make is ‘LIBERALISM’?
That ‘dog’ stopped hunting long ago when the biggest liberals stole the name ‘conservative’, took over the SBC, and is choking it to death with LEGALISM.
Even my pastor who was an officer in the new convention (fundamentalists) of Virginia said if the present leaders of the SBC are not replaced; the SBC will die a slow death.
The Vice-president of the IMB, Avery Willis, was a former pastor of our church in Grand Prairie, TX. After speaking at a home coming, I asked if he knew the situation of the missionary (one of his former members in our church) facing being fired.
He said yes, and he had spoken with my son at a conference in England a few weeks before. I told him my dad’s philosophy on rules; the best thing about a good rule was to know when to break it.
He said that’s interesting but his hands were tied.
John, how is the C/R so great if it ties the hands of the President and Vice-president of the IMB?
John, do you know what brought about a vote nine years ago by the CBF concerning homosexual missionaries? I don’t have a clue, but I believe the reason the CBF is hated is based on a statement I heard:
“They’re getting money that should be coming to us!”
That’s the real reason – the green-eyed monster – jealously.
Rex,
Based on the stats I've seen about the financial woes of the CBF, honestly I can't see why anyone would be jealous. The fact is the CBF is in a much sharper state of decline than the SBC. I'm glad the CBF was formed, because now liberals can use their own money, instead of the money of good conservative SBC churches, to promote their agenda.
As far as the vote, I don't know what brought it on, the Baptist Standard article didn't say. But what I do know is that the margin between the opposing sides was only 199 votes. This is repugnant, and in my mind, more than demonstrates what would eventually have happened to the SBC if the "moderates" had stayed.
Rex, it is obvious that conservatives and moderates can't stay together in a convention, that's why I think that the CR and the forming of the CBF are both good things.
John,
Are you denying the SBC leaders were jealous of the CBF? They told the BWA if the BWA even thought of accepting the CBF, the SBC would cut the money they gave the BWA in half which they ended up doing.
The next year, the leaders told the BWA the SBC would leave the BWA if they accepted the CBF. When the CBF was accepted, the leaders made a big show of turning in their name badges and walking out. Then the SBC Executive Committee appointed a committee to ‘dig up’ some reasons for leaving. A report was ‘made up’, and when it was proven untrue, Chapman said Patterson had written the report even though Chapman was the chairman of the ‘investigating committee’.
More info can be found on Wade’s Post and comments at:
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-southern-baptist-convention-in.html
Years ago, there may have been none more against the CBF than Wade, but ask him now how he has changed his mind.
At one time, Keith Parks was pastor of my cousin’s church. Parks was president of the Foreign Mission Board for 12 years and became president of the CBF. His wife asked my cousin if he was related to ‘Rex Ray the blogger’. Said she believed every word I wrote.
Ha! Now that proves everything. :)
Rex,
No true conservative would have anything to do with the CBF. As for the BWA, they have long been a bastion for apostacy, quite frankly, I'm surprised it took the SBC so long to leave. Just read the BWA's "A Common Word Between Us And You" letter to Muslims, in it they basically claim that Muslims, Chirstians, and Jews worship the same God. Rex, if you want to be a part of that then get after it, but many conservative Baptists want nothing to do with a world organization that links with the likes of the CBF or the ABCUSA or the Baptist Union.
I appeciate your comments, they've solidified my belief that the CR was absolutely necessary.
John,
Do you want to split legalist hairs that Christians, Jews, and Muslims DO NOT worship the God of Abraham?
When the Jews rejected Jesus, did their God suddenly turn into the devil? Was the CBF trying to find common ground worst than Paul speaking to people about the “unknown God” they worshiped?
Paul said he would become all things that he might win one for Christ.
A fundamentalist, Jerry Fawell was asked why he changed his doctrine to join the SBC after he had fought them so much.
John was his answer true when he replied: “I haven’t change; they have come around to my way of thinking.”
You said, “No true conservative would have anything to do with the CBF.” Is that because the CBF is trying to preach the Gospel to the world?
You sound like the disciples wanting Jesus to stop those that were using His name to heal people because ‘they’re not one of us’.
Thanks for the information that Dilday had joined the CBF. To understand Dilday, let me put you in his position.
Suppose you were fired by 51% of your church, and the rest said they would leave with you. What would you do?
A lot of the 5,000 student body told Dilday they would stop going to school in protest of his firing. He replied it was more important for them to continue their education, and would not hear of their leaving.
Yes John, that’s what "true" conservatives would do.
Rex,
I believe that Jews and Christians worship the same God, but the Jews failed to recognize their Messiah. The Muslims worship a reinvented tribal moon god, that's not legalism, that's the truth. Once again you've proved my point for the need of the CR by your own words.
You said, "Is that because the CBF is trying to preach the Gospel to the world?" No because they embrace open immorality. How could they be "preaching the gospel" when many of their churches sanction sin?
So true conservatives would go rub elbows with a fellowship where 40% of them believe in gay missioanries? No Rex, that won't wash. Dr. Dilday showed his true colors, just like Joel Gregory did when he linked arms with apostates.
Rex,
Look I mean no disrespect to you or your family. But, the bantering back and forth between you and I demonstrates that conservatives and moderates cannot coexist in the same convention. That's why I believe the CR was a good thing, the fact is, that the moderates did not reflect the values of the typical conservative church in the convention. The CBF was formed and now accommodates moderates, this fight no longer needs to be fought. Moderate missionaries, moderate pastors, and moderate professors all have a home in the CBF.
John,
Maybe you have a good idea that “Moderate missionaries, moderate pastors, and moderate professors all have a home in the CBF.”
I suppose you mean their congregations and the old conventions of Texas and Virginia also since they’re moderate.
Why don’t you make a motion at the next SBC that their money be rejected? No? – I figured as much.
Is the “vote” in 2001 the only thing you have against the CBF?
When Patterson became President of the SBC in 1998, the previous President, Tom Eliff said: “All barnacles and parasites had been removed from the ship of Zion.”
Since the “vote” didn’t take place till three years later, why did Eliff think of them as “barnacles and parasites?
I believe it was because the CBF was given money from churches that had been giving to the “ship of Zion”.
You said, “As far as the vote, I don't know what brought it on.”
Maybe you should find out before using it as ammunition to execute the CBF.
From a group that has used over and over ‘the ends justifies the means’, it wouldn’t surprise me if they infiltrated the CBF, made the motion, and almost got it passed; just to throw dirt on the CBF.
Rex said,
"From a group that has used over and over ‘the ends justifies the means’, it wouldn’t surprise me if they infiltrated the CBF, made the motion, and almost got it passed; just to throw dirt on the CBF."
Really? Wow that's ridiculous and you know it because messengers to annual meetings have to come from CBF churches. Broadway Baptist Church Ft. Worth is a pro gay church still in good standing with the CBF. Fact is that many CBF churches are pro homosexual.
"I suppose you mean their congregations and the old conventions of Texas and Virginia also since they’re moderate.
Why don’t you make a motion at the next SBC that their money be rejected? No? – I figured as much."
Quite frankly, Rex, I could care less what those moderates do. The SBC doesn't need their money, and the BGCT has already withheld a lot of funding from the SBC. BTW almost every week the conservatives of the BGCT are going over to the SBTC. There are now more SBTC churches than the entire CBF. I love the SBTC and the SBCV personally. Also to let you know I am not currently in a SBC church so I couldn't make the motion anyhow.
John,
Do you think it’s impossible for a ‘spy’ to join a CBF and become a messenger?
I noticed the Broadway Baptist Church Fort Worth has withdrawn from the BGCT.
You said, “The SBC doesn’t need their money.”
Is that why Morris Chapman screamed and hollered because it was suggested that 1% be cut from the Executive Committee’s budget?
You said, “Every week the conservatives of the BGCT are going over to the SBTC.”
That wouldn’t surprise me as Seminaries like SWBTS led by Patterson have brain washed students how great the BFM 2000 is. We have one now that said he would lead our BGCT church to accept the 2000 and move to the SBTC.
For someone not in a SBC church you sure have a lot of advice. I’m in a BGCT church that started in 1944 where I was a charter member. I was challenged to ask the church for the removal of the pastor, and if that failed, the church would be asked for my removal. I replied the whole thing would be a can of worms. The 2000 has been made into a can of worms and I hope someday the devil chokes his slop.
Rex,
I'm not giving "advice" just stating what I believe to be true. Besides, I was saved and baptized Southern Baptist, and I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours. As far as I'm concerned the BFM 2000 is by far the best doctrinal statement the SBC has ever put out.
BTW, Rex it would take more than a single "spy" to pull that off, and even if that did happen 40% of the CBF messengers voted for gay missionaries. No amount of conspirarcy theories will ever change that fact.
I also know that Broadway left the BGCT, but it is still in good standing with the CBF. And the executive director of the BGCT Mr. Everett said "I pray that there will be opportunities in the future for Broadway and the BGCT to partner together in mission and ministry," so not exactly a clean break Mr. Everett still wants to "partner" with this gay affirming church. Rex, that is indefensible no matter what spin you put on it. If you do defend such a statement you're just verifying that the CR was absolutely necessary.
Why would you call for the removal of the pastor? He has obviously been honest about his intentions. Perhaps instead of calling for his removal you should just let your church decide what convention to be in by a vote.
As far as my not currently being in a convention church, I was saved and baptized in a convention church, and I have as much right to express my views as you do yours.
John,
You said, “Why would you call for the removal of the pastor? He has obviously been honest about his intentions. Perhaps instead of calling for his removal you should just let your church decide what convention to be in by a vote.”
What convention/BFM our church should choose has never been in question, but our attendance has dropped in half.
I did not call for the removal of the pastor, but like I wrote:
“I was challenged to ask the church for the removal of the pastor, and if that failed, the church would be asked for my removal.”
The pastor was the one that challenged me to ask for his removal and if that failed, he would ask for my removal.
I said the church wouldn’t remove either one of us and it would be a can of worms.
I was thinking what was best for the church and thought his idea was stupid. If he was asked to be removed, it should come from all the deacons.
John, do you think I was a coward to refuse his ‘duel’?
Rex said,
"John, do you think I was a coward to refuse his ‘duel’?"
No sir, I do not think you were a coward. I did not know it was the pastor that made the suggestion based on your previous comment. I was just trying to make the point that it's not always appropriate to ask for the pastor's resignation just over a disagreement. Anyhow, I think you were wise in how you handled it. And based on the comments I've seen you make, calling you a coward would be the farthest thing from my mind.
John,
Thanks. I like the way you said that.
And I would not count on you being a coward in challenging you to a ‘duel’. :)
Maybe it’s about time to say “Nuff said” or as my dad would say: “All the tators are dug in that field.”
Post a Comment