Condolences to my friends in Memphis
I read this morning that Willie Herenton was re-elected for a fifth term as Memphis mayor. Only bad things can come from that, and I'm sorry to see it happened. Before moving from the area, we refused to live inside the Memphis city limits, in great part because of the lack of positive leadership from Willie Herenton. Had Herenton had but one strong contender, rather than two, he would not be mayor today. (Of course, had a recount been requested by Dick Hackett in 1991, Herenton probably wouldn't have been mayor in the first place.) A runoff provision is looking better and better for Memphis mayor's races of the future.
And if Herenton or any of his supporters are reading this, I'd like to pass a message along to him: Winning an election with a plurality isn't necessarily an expression of God's favor; as a matter of fact, it might be an example of God's punishment that the city is reaping divisive, pugilistic "leadership" as a result of unwise voting decisions.
He quoted Proverbs 12:2 in his acceptance speech, but only part of it. The verse in its entirety: "A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn."
--Mike
311 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 311 of 311Now, let Mike have his blog back! :)
When's the captain getting back from his extended away mission, anyhow?
Amos 3:6-8 (New American Standard Bible)
6If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
7Surely the Lord GOD does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets.
8A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy?
Karen
you said: "Whatever your beef is with Dr. Rogers, take it up with him personally when you get to Heaven."
My beef with Dr Rogers is not him personally but his semi-Pelagian theology. (I'm sorry you do not understand that)
God is the one who has a problem with Adrian Rogers. When I get to heaven I will not be bothered with problems with Adrian Rogers. Any answers must be found now not then.
Charles
Watching history said:
"When I get to heaven I will not be bothered with problems with Adrian Rogers."
Exactly, Charles. So why should Dr. Rogers be bothered there with Bellevue's problems?
Watching said...
God is the one who has a problem with Adrian Rogers. When I get to heaven I will not be bothered with problems with Adrian Rogers. Any answers must be found now not then.
Lynn's Reponse:
I may not be a theologian, but I am a thinker. Who are you to say God has a problem with someone? Your not God.
Lynn,
AMEN!
Charles,
More verses! After you declared your first set to be without ANY loophole to prove your case, you now need more. You never responded to that little problem in Job I pointed out. Seems you think if you quote enough Scripture you might hit something. Proper exegesis isn't important if you just create a mountain, eh.
Now, about Dr. Rogers:
You say your problem is with his THEOLOGY. But your accusing him of not having acted to remove PW. And your accusation goes further, to say that God did not reveal the information to him.
So, am I putting this together right: You believe that because of his so called semi-Pelagian theology -- God punished him and Bellevue by withholding needed information from him?
Are you this hard on yourself? Or do you find grace in that catagory?
"I may not be a theologian, but I am a thinker. Who are you to say God has a problem with someone? Your not God."
Yes, this is only acceptable if you are talking about SG or those that don't leave Bellevue.
David
Doesn't Job 14:4 say the same thing as 15:14?
David said: "You say your problem is with his THEOLOGY. But your accusing him of not having acted to remove PW. And your accusation goes further, to say that God did not reveal the information to him.
So, am I putting this together right: You believe that because of his (so called) semi-Pelagian theology -- God punished him and Bellevue by withholding needed information from him?"
Well you are finally quoting me right, only my wife and daughters often accuse me of being too hard on myself!
Charles
maybe said: "Exactly, Charles. So why should Dr. Rogers be bothered there with Bellevue's problems?"
He is sitting and watching the parts of his beloved Bellevue built on wood, hay and stuble being burned. I Cor 3:12-15
Lynn's Reponse:
"I may not be a theologian, but I am a thinker. Who are you to say God has a problem with someone? Your not God."
God knows me and speaks to me. John 10:25-30
God apparently spoke and showed himself to Mohammed too. Not to mention Joseph Smith. And now Charles Page!
I'm starting to feel left out.
:-(
jm
If you are feeling left out read this:John 10:25-27 (New American Standard Bible)
25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
26"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
Did Muhammed and Joseph Smith hear this voice? Do you hear this voice? Does He know your voice?
I've always tried to be courteous with you for some strange reason you and I are alike in some way.
Charles
PS while I am provocative, I have tried to maintain a courteousy in my replies. Maybe I haven't always done a good job! I've tried.
memphis said...
It seems to me that they are mostly women that home school now (a job I would not want btw). I stop reading the blog regularly because I thought they really came off as self righteous. The other day, someone from awhile ago posted some very calm, well thought out comments, and they turned on him the minute he did not jump on their bandwagon.
I just read the exchange you were talking about. I thought 'finance guy' was one of the popular ones, too.
But what about 'housewife'? WOW! What a you-know-what!! And this is a person 'concernedsbcer' called their 'new friend' when she showed up out of the blue and started slamming Bellevue. (Seems like there should be more to friendship than blasting other people out of the water.) Once hw realized that she couldn't control the group, she abruptly said goodbye. I certainly hope she's more loyal to her husband than her blog 'friends'.
I have to admit that I've posted over there under a few different names. Just for laughs, one of my alter egos wrote nothing but ugly gossip about Steve and Donna Gaines, Jamie Parker, and even Linda Glance (whoever she is). It was really something to be lauded for spitefulness and then condemned by the same person for showing compassion under a different name.
But I do have to admit they aren't all bad. I hadn't been to church in a long time, but my feud with Sol led me to a place I'd never heard of. It's mostly made up of former drug dealers, struggling homosexuals, alcoholics, and homeless people. They have a praise band made up of former night club musicians, and the preacher's wife isn't even a Christian. I've never seen a more oddball group of people in my life. I feel right at home! (They have a handicapped accessible entrance, too.)
All that to say, all people need a place to fit in. It's a shame that the people over there don't have one. They can say that they do, but as long as they cling to their bitterness over Bellevue they obviously don't. Their own words testify against them. If their only sense of belonging is coming together to lash out and hurt others, well, what does that say about their new church 'fellowships'?
charles,
I've never seen you resort to personal attacks against others. I think some people are frustrated that you keep trying to make the same point over and over, but that's not a sign of rudeness. Don't let the visiting pastors discourage you.
If you and I are alike, then perhaps it's this. I've been wrong about a lot of things. I've treated a lot of people very badly by not listening to them. I treated them like they were playthings, and refused to acknowledge that their opinions were worth anything. I was motivated by nothing but bitterness, the same thing that powers the NBBCOF.
Back when I was about Jessica's age, I was driving my son to Wednesday night church. We were hit by a drunk driver. I never saw it, but one second we were singing along with Sammy Johns on the radio, and the next I was lying in the grass alongside Covington Pike watching my truck burn. Oh, how I wanted to do something, but I couldn't get up to help. My son died in the flames, along with the kid who slammed into us.
That night left me with an anger that I took out on other people. Never mind that they weren't responsible, I just had to make somebody pay. That rage cost me my marriage and my career. It was an irrational anger, and it's target was anyone who'd listen. It was almost like being possessed by demons.
I don't know if it's just old age, Sol's admonition, or the church I've been visiting, but I feel like freedom is finally possible. What I want more than anything today is peace with other people.
I'm not going to compromise my beliefs to create a false peace, but I am examining my thoughts to see if they are in fact really worth fighting over.
I hope you'll do the same.
JMD
John Mark,
Long time no see.
Would you email me?
KS
God love you, Bro. John Mark. God has made you a channel of blessing today.
MJM
WatchingHISstory said...
Lynn's Reponse:
"I may not be a theologian, but I am a thinker. Who are you to say God has a problem with someone? Your not God."
God knows me and speaks to me. John 10:25-30
Lynn's Response:
John 10:25-30 reads:
"25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
I fail to see how that scripture fits your arguement.
Has anyone been to savingbellevue.com lately? Now that site has a gripe with the billboards. I think the verse they quote is totally taken out of context. Any thoughts?????
JM,
You know you have never bothered me- your antics might have crossed the line at times, but they always entertained me.
Thanks so much for sharing and I am glad you have found a place to belong- I know some people will be critical of how they "do church" but opening the door to the Lord gives the Holy Spirit room to work and I am thankful for that.
And besides, you belong here with us too- Mikes 'hood wouldn't the same without you!!
I am pretty sure that verse doesn't say that God doesn't love them....
The way that is structured makes it seem like we have to clean up our act and then God will love us.
memphis,
Having suffered from the same affliction that JH does, I can assure you that he doesn't care about context. All he cares about is being right and getting even. It will truly take an act of God for him to see the light.
mjm,
You've never failed to be a channel of blessing in any of your posts. I hope you're as effective in the BBC choir as you are here.
JMD
jessica,
Aw, shucks! You're too kind.
BTW, I visited your blog and your daughter is just too adorable. There should be a law!
JM
Thanks John Mark, I didn't think anyone ever visited my blog!
It is mainly for our family and friends that don't live here to keep up with what we are doing.
She really is adorable, I can't deny it. I am thankful every single minute she is with me.
JM,
Bravo zulu! What a blessing!
The Lord is good, and his love endures forever!
If you and sol do lunch again soon, I'll feel left out if I'm not invited.
lynn
27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
Charles
jessica
I too visited your site and your daughter is adorable!
I have three grand daughters one 7 two about the same age as your daughter and one grandson 6 days old!
How much better can life get!
Charles
David,
Sorry about the mix-up! But I thought you were David Brown of SNAP. I wouldn't be offended if someone compared me to him! :) Could be worse - like comparing you to David Koresh (which never crossed my mind until I had to joke about it!)
Charles,
Carry on if you wish, but Dr. Rogers is dead and there's nothing you can do to change his semi-anything beliefs now. Why don't you spend time on Richard Roberts? He probably would welcome any arguement at this point! :) What I mean is, try to do some good for the future - the past is the past and nothing you say or do is going to change that. You may do some good by confronting things that are happening now. Understand my point? You're more than welcome to carry on your AR arguements, but it doesn't seem to change anything and isn't that the reason for good debate in the first place?
Karen,
I completely agree, it's not a bad thing to be compared to David Brown. I clarified for his sake, not mine. Though I do prefer not to be compared to Koresh... (:
Lynn "I fail to see how that scripture fits your arguement."
I THINK what Charles is saying is that if we hear GOd's voice, then we should be more open to the possibility that God gave him a vision of something that happened in heaven.
Correct me again, Charles, if I am misrepesenting your view.
david
I am not a mindreader so I can't say that whether you are misintpreting my view or not
On the surface I agree with what you are saying however sarcasm runs deep
Charles
karen said: "What I mean is, try to do some good for the future - the past is the past and nothing you say or do is going to change that. You may do some good by confronting things that are happening now."
Indeed I am confronting things that are happening now. They are tied to the mess that Dr Rogers left us.
What distrubs me is that there is no outrage at what Paul Williams did to his son seventeen years ago for 18 months. Paul wrote about a sin (I Cor 5:1) that was so horrible that even the gentiles would not mention it and it was tolerated by the believers. Paul was outraged and later the man was restored and the situation corrected.
I spent several hours this afternoon googling Paul williams to reread all that was being said. There was no outrage at PW but plenty at Steve Gaines. He handled it poorly and that is an understatement. But he dosen't deserve the criticism that is being dumped on him. I have said that he should have reported it to the authorities and that makes him an accomplice to the crime. Same for PW's wife.
So many reports include the info that AR was not knowledgeable of the fact and should be absolved of responsibility. His wife quickly jumped to defend him but she cannot
say whether he knew or not, only that he didn't tell her.
I have struggled with my outrage and in fact spent the night in the emergency room for symtons of a heart attack only to be told the next morning after all the test there is nothing wrong with my heart.
I have expressed my outrage with everyone I come in contact with. I went to a converted homosexual and ask him if I was wrong to be outraged. He had never known anyone who sodomized his own son and was repulsed at the fact, greatly repulsed. He said such a man was a "monster".
I went to my nextdoor Hindu neighbor and ask him should I be outraged and he said "why of coarse" I went down the street to my Church of Christ neighbor and ask him if I should be outraged.
He agreed as well and added that he often wondered if the size of Bellevue was because of men worshipping AR rather than Christ.
All my life I have heard of preachers preaching against homosexuality and mentioning NAMBLA and the terrible evil of that sin. The gays were in San Fransisco, Hollywood and Politics and inflitrating our school systems. They will destroy our society.
Even the practicing gays who have consensual sex do not even discuss a father molesting his own young son. Do you know and understand the harm that is done to a boy. His innocence is destroyed.
Liste to me, please, a SBC ORDAINED MONSTER DID AN EXTREMELY EVIL THING TO HIS SON NOT ONCE NOT TWICE BUT FOR 12-18 MONTHS. And then keep it secret for 17 years. He knew that he could have gone to prison and that he would not have survived prison because the vilest criminal has no tolerance for his kind. He would have been meat for the wolves.
How can any SBC pastor speak out against homosexuality when they have been silent about one of their own. There should be sack cloth and ashes from pulpit to pulpit.
In the Old testament if he brought an unblemished lamb to the priest for attonement and when the priest ask for the details of his sin for the proper attonement ritual he would have sent the man immediately outside the city walls and ordered him stoned by witnesses. He would not have an opportunity for appeal.
The man in Corinth was restored but I cannot find a reason for restoration in Hebrews 10:26 for PW. We have the responsibility to remit or retain sins and that is binding in heaven. John 20:23
All the blogging about Bellevue is against Steve Gaines and the current administrative blunders.
But where is the outrage against Paul Williams. I want to know if he still holds credentials with the SBC, where does he attend Church, where he lives and where he works. Is he still receiving financial subsistence from Bellevue?
We need to have people standing on the sidewalks warning people that the worst sort of pervert lives here!
I'm sure you will say to me, well why aren't you telling your neighbors about Christ. How can I hold my head up high when we as Christians allow this thing to go on. A MORAL FAILURE, conduct unbecomming an ordained minister, lapse in judgement.
What is this to do with semi- what ever you call it. When you limit God's sovereignty and modify the sinfulness of man and rewrite scripture you get this kind of unspeakable mess.
Karen ignore me or debate me. I'm not going away. God will grant me other venues. I haver to be obedient to him.
bbc observations said: "open forum"
"God is at work. Bellevue is no longer the Bellevue of old. It is more of an empty suit, so to speak. Nice building, pretty furniture, nice rooms, good recreation facilities…but no integrity, no humility, and no true repentance. It is as if God is relocating His church to FBC, GBC, and many other churches in the Memphis area."
See, other people see what I see and what AR observes sitting in his chair in heaven!
Watching,
We were all outraged at it. As much as we are pissed off at Gaines, we are pissed off at Williams. Both of them should be thrown in jail. Williams for the act itself and Gaines for the harboring of it.
Now please, get help so you can stop being stuck on stupid because all I'm hearing from you is its AR's fault. PETA called, they want you to stop beating the dead horse.
lynn
I'm betting that you have a very very small bladder and little capacity to be outraged!
Charles
from Wikipedia
Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus is an 1818 novel written by Mary Shelley at the age of 19, first published anonymously in London, but more often known by the revised third edition of 1831 under her own name. The title refers to a scientist who learns how to reanimate flesh and creates a being in the likeness of man out of body parts taken from the dead. In modern popular culture, people have tended to refer to Frankenstein's monster as "Frankenstein" (especially in films since 1930).
It is a novel infused with some elements of the Gothic novel and the Romantic movement. It was also a warning against the "over-reaching" of modern man and the Industrial Revolution, alluded to in the novel's subtitle, The Modern Prometheus. The story has had an influence across literature and popular culture and spawned a complete genre of horror stories and films.
There seems to be a spiritual tie here to the terrible mess that semi-pelagianism weaves. A monster was somehow created and was an ordained SBC minister.
Frankenstein wore a scientist's white lab apron over a very nice suit. He was a scientist! His name was Doctor Frankstein!
Paul williams was Roger's monster and Gaines had to deal with him.
Watching...
Don't you have other things to do than worry about someone who's dead? Geeze, I've never met someone so mentally disturbed before as you are.
To be honest, your facination with Dr. Rogers and what he did is rather frightening and quite frankly you need to see a psychologist about that. Its not healthy to obsess on something like that.
Charles,
While you're worried about simi's and bringing charges against Dr. Rogers, your Hindu neighbor is perishing. And what are you talking to him about?
Honestly, I think your passion might be better directed into a ministry at your church or sharing Christ.
FYI: I believe God is totally sovereign. As do most Baptist I know.
You're getting dangerously angry about things God didn't put in your control. In fact, the tension in understanding HOW we are chosen, elected and saved is a mystery that won't be fully revealed until heaven. The Scripture clearly teaches God wants everone to be saved. It also plainly says he has chosen and elected some. How does that square? It doesn't! And it dosn't have to. It's not my job, or yours, to make sense of it.
eThe Modern Prometheus
by Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
Dr. Loehle is a mathematical ecologist at the Environmental Research Division, Argonne National Laboratory. He is writing a book to be called "Chaotic Science: The Search for Pattern in Ecology."
In Greek mythology, Prometheus broke into Olympus, stole fire from the gods, gave it to mankind and was punished for his arrogance. If modern technology firms are to survive, they must likewise depend on regular infusions of "fire from the gods" --something we call inventions. What lessons can we technologists glean from the myth of Prometheus?
Charles: I woke up and realized that comparing Dr Rogers to Frankenstein was over the line. Before I reached my computer I decided, no, it makes a point. I apologize if it comes across as mean-spirited. Those who are angry with me will be angry regardless of what I say but the thinking person will think through this and see the literary comparrison.
In the world of Churches the mega-Church complex has become an out of control monster, arrogant and self-determined. They think themselves to be rich and have need of nothing. Infact they are wretched and destitute.
david said "FYI: I believe God is totally sovereign. As do most Baptist I know."
Dr Rogers says God is sovereign and therefore willfully limits his soveriegnty for man to make a free choice.
It is difficult for us to logically make the connection between sovereignty and human responsibility. We can go to extremes either way.
Perhaps you are going to the extreme of Rogers who said that God didn't harden Pharoah's heart until Pharoah set his own will, then God "crystalized his sin that was already in him." Man determines then God acts!
Now you can take the Genesis account and see where Pharoah hardened his own heart and where God hardened Pharoah's heart. It is about a 50/50 split.
Paul in Rom 9:17 seems to give preeminence to the sovereignty of God over Pharoah. God purposefully and intentionally raised up Pharoah for a purpose. So that if you are chosen you can be comforted that he was not under any obligation to choose you. Your will was excluded because you were dead in trepasses and sin.
Here is where the academic Calvinist is divided from the experential Calvinist. He has seen the sovereign God. As John Piper said in "Pleasures of God" we see a God who dosen't need man but a man who needs God. The sinners "drink at the river of his delights through Jesus Christ. And we will not be enthralled by this good news unless we feel that He was not obligated to do this."
We do know how the Spirit moves in election choosing man. It is not a mystery left to be discovered in heaven, else where would there ever be assurance of salvation?
david posted:
"FYI: I believe God is totally sovereign. As do most Baptist I know."
"The Scripture clearly teaches God wants everone to be saved. It also plainly says he has chosen and elected some."
I suppose you use II Pet 3:9 to support your belief. God is not willing that any should perish.
To arrive at that conclusion you have to adjust both the total sovereignty of God and the sinfulness of man.
Otherwise you make God do what He is unwilling to do. Let anyone perish.
How can you believe that God is totally sovereign and yet people perish against what appears to be His will that all be saved?
You have to say He is limited in His sovereignty. Man is not so sinful that he can make a free choice of Christ for salvation. This belief is incorrect but a consistent belief.
But you say the Bible teaches that the totally sovereign God elects and choses some for salvation. (Calvinism) and yet desires the salvation of all. (universal salvation) Some men will reject the offer of Christ's redemption and God is helpless to save them.
(semi-pelagianism)
Your argument is the argument of scoffers walking after their own lust. You are friendly to the sinners desires and offensive to the true believer who yearns for the comming of Christ.
You are saying the Lord is slack concerning His promises. We have to make up for that slackness by quickly devising a plan to usher in his Kingdom now. Get as many people saved as quickly as possible by any means necessary. There is an urgency in your thinking that bypasses God. I heard that message everytime I heard AR give an invitation. Scriptures are bypassed, corners are cut and shortcuts are devised all to the awful offense to God. It angered Him to the point of letting a monster go free to commit things worthy of death.
God dosen't want US who are elected to be swept away by your doubts. God is not slack concerning his promises but is longsuffering to us-ward not willing that any of (us) should perish, but that all of (us) would come to repentance.
You express your urgency in my going to my Hindu neighbor about my outrage because I want to know if a Hindu understands this awful sin. He does and in so doing He knows that my belief in Christ causes me to speak out to injustice and he understands that I am not out to win his soul rather the Holy Spirit in his good time will win him over. I have planted a seed, a seed that he understands.
"I don't understand all the things of God and I am grateful for that- would you want a God that humans could fully understand?"
God is sovereign, but returning love does require free will. God (through His sovereignty) knows that He had to give us free will- that doesn't limit his sovereignty, it enhances it.
It is like that age old question- if God is all-powerful, could he make a boulder so heavy that He couldn't lift it?
jessica
He had to give us free will- that doesn't limit his sovereignty, it enhances it.
It seems to me that it only enhances your ideal of what you want God to be. You are walking after your own lust. Rom 1:21 When they knew God they glorified Him not as God.
How does it not limit God's sovereignty?
jessica
I want a saving God I am not ashamed of though I will never fully understand Him.
I want to know Him in the fulness of his ressurecting power.
Charles: "Your argument is the argument of scoffers walking after their own lust. You are friendly to the sinners desires and offensive to the true believer who yearns for the comming of Christ."
How can you say you refrain from personal attacks? Your not attacking my argument, you're attacking me. I take no offense, but you should be careful.
Charles: "You are saying the Lord is slack concerning His promises."
I didn't say that. You said it and attached my name to it! Then told me what a bad thing it is to say. I have NEVER said God is slack concerning his promise.
Your insults don't bother me. It does irritate me when you decide to label what I eblieve and accuse me of either not believing God is sovereign or accuse me of believing that God is slack in keeping his promises.
You hide behind a screen name and throw verbal stones. It's easy to act the way you do when you dont' have to actually put the weight of who you are behind it.
Charles: "How can you believe that God is totally sovereign and yet people perish against what appears to be His will that all be saved?"
I don't have to UDNERSTAND something to believe it. I'm not in the "how" business, God is. It's his problem, not mine. And for him, it's not a problem.
I believe God is sovereign. I believe man is free to love God. I'm not worried if that isn't logical to Mr. Spock.
Charles: "while I am provocative, I have tried to maintain a courteousy in my replies."
Now, Charles to Jessica: "You are walking in your own lust..."
That's some courteousy, Charles.
Charles,
I believe you would tell God He is wrong if when you get to heaven he told you 2 + 2 = 5. Your whole argument would be that cannot be the case because it can't be understood in the nature of mathematics. You see, for mere men, 2 + 2 has always equaled 4 because that is the only way it makes sense.
Brother, God does not have to make sense and we don't have to comprehend all things. What we need to do and must do is put our full selves, human understanding and all) into His hands and let Him lead us to be what He created us to be and quit trying to do stuff because it seems good.
Your attitude, brother (and I say this in total love) is wrong --- not right!
I pray that you will get over yourself and get wholly into God. Then and only then will you drop Calvin, Armenian, anti Rogers anti-bbc... and proclaim Jesus. Something missing greatly from your shared words.
"I believe God is sovereign. I believe man is free to love God. I'm not worried if that isn't logical to Mr. Spock."
Mike would love this! Where is he? I don't know what to think or say without him ;)
Charles, I do know what you are trying to say but I do disagree. I don't think you are trying to be offensive with your choices such as "walk in your own lust" but you do know enough to know how that will be perceived.
Honestly, the reason your approach doesn't hold water for me is that you say the way I believe doesn't count- I can't be properly saved if I don't believe in the "elect", etc. To me saying that I MUST believe exactly that way before my salvation "counts" you might as well tell me that I have to spin around 600 times and light a candle or God will punish me.
You are saying God is sovereign but that Dr. Rogers did something wrong- either God controls everything or He gives us free will. I don't see why God would punish Dr. Rogers for something that he did not have the free will to choose.
On the line of God not having to make sense:
I was preaching yesterday on the diety of Jesus. I told them: "I believe God is expressed in three persons. You may ask HOW. Answer: I have no idea! But if you ever get to where you undertsand God, watch out. God is beyond our human minds. He reveals just enough of himself for us to realize we cannot possibly comprehend him."
(And charles, that does not mean we can't KNOW him. But knowing him does not mean undertsanding HOW he does what he does.)
--How did he create the world? beats me.
--How did he part the sea? Says with a strong wind... but it seems there is more than wind involved. Again, I dunno.
--How did the wall fall down? Don't know.
--How exactly did Jesus rise once dead? Not in my science book.
--How did God choose us and yet allow us to be free in choosing to accept his gift? I don't know.
And I'm not ashamed not to know. I'm overjoyed by it! Thrilled! Glad to have a God so big that I don't understand him.
david
One of the tenents of Calvinism is that God rules by decrees.
Westerminister Shorter Catechism Question 7: What are the decrees of God? Answer: The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Ps. 33:11 Isa 14:24 Acts 2:23 Eph 1:11-12
Question 11: What are God's works of providence? Answer: God's works of providence are, his most holy (30) wise (31) and powerful (32) perserving (33) and governing (34) all his creatures, and all their actions(35)
[30] Psalm 145:17. The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
[31] Psalm 104:24. O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
[32] Hebrews 1:3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high
[33] Nehemiah 9:6. Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
[34] Ephesians 1:19-22. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church
[35] Psalm 36:6. Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast. Proverbs 16:33. The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. Matthew 10:30. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Since you do not subscribe to man-made confessions, tell me what parts of these questions and answers bother you? What is the problem with this part of Calvinism?
Charles: "Since you do not subscribe to man-made confessions, tell me what parts of these questions and answers bother you? What is the problem with this part of Calvinism?"
That I don't subscribe to man-made confessions as authoritative does not mean I immediately have a problem with the doctrine they might outline.
Have you decided to act civil now? Have you decided to stop telling me and others that we are walking in our own lust? Are we back to theology... or visions... or Dr. Rogers... or will you suddenly start talking about rape again... or evangelism... or... what new wild branch will you take off on next? I can hardly wait. I'm breathless with anticipation. (Smile, Charles).
Look, this is simple:
I believe God is sovereign. I believe he is in control.
I also believe that he gives man freedom to sin. (that is: I do not believe God forces us to sin).
Ultimately I believe sin is the fault of man, not God.
I believe God chose to show mercy to man and pay the sin debt. As a result, any man that will repent and turn to Christ will be saved.
jon and david
I cannot believe that I am dealing with two seminary trained SBC pastors!
"Then said I, Lord, how long?"
You both are speaking like foolish men! You are appealing to Bible beliefs with fallacies of irrelevant evidence. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (the appeal to ignorance) You seem to assume what might be true is actually true. You seem to believe that a thesis is true because no one can prove it to be incorrect.
Adrian Rogers told a convention audience that if we say pickles have souls the seminary presidents better teach that pickles have souls.
You expect your congregations to believe in the diety of Christ simply because it is impossible to disprove it. You expect your people to believe in the trinity simply because it can't be proved.
While I believe that I understand myself what I am posting and it has come through years of deligent searching, not for a second do I assume that you understand what I believe. That is why I have the tenacity to repeat over and over in a variety of ways what my positions are. You grow weary of my persistence.
On the other hand you may know full well that what I am saying is the truth about God's plan of salvation so you resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to ignorance. You hear but don't hear. You see but don't see.
The very thing you detest is what you see in the cults, mysticism.
And yet the result of your arguments end in mysticism.
david
"I also believe that he gives man freedom to sin. (that is: I do not believe God forces us to sin)."
God gave Adam the freedom to sin. The result of that is that we are all sinners following the coarse of this world. We sin by nature not choice. We were conceived in iniquity.
Of coarse God does not force us to sin, however your statement implies that man is somehow capable of choosing not to sin. Isn't this a semi-pelagian view of man?
You said: "I believe God chose to show mercy to man and pay the sin debt. As a result, any man that will repent and turn to Christ will be saved."
Don't you believe that all that the Father giveth to Christ will be saved? Does this mean "any man" or "all that the Father giveth"?
This is my question; assuming you are right about a universal call to all men to choose, what is the time frame in which God offers that appeal? How long will he wait?
I say even so come quickly Lord Jesus, don't even wait for my loved ones to come into the fold! Don't wait till my Hindu neighbor accepts Christ! Come right now!
Will you discourage me from praying that way? Will you say wait a little while Lord while I get a few more souls into the kingdom.
Charles: "You expect your congregations to believe in the diety of Christ simply because it is impossible to disprove it. You expect your people to believe in the trinity simply because it can't be proved."
No, not at all. You don't get it.
I believe it is true because of REVELATION. I do not believe it because of LOGIC. I choose to believe the revelation of God even if I don't understand it.
And stop calling names. Grow up in Christ enough to talk nice.
Charles: "This is my question; assuming you are right about a universal call to all men to choose, what is the time frame in which God offers that appeal? How long will he wait?"
Don't ask me what you should ask in prayer. I don't know. In fact, Jesus didn't know when he was on earth. These are times and dates the Father has set. Perhaps you know, Charles.
Karen and Junkster (if you are out there),
Against my better judgment I made a visit to the other side tonight. They (and you) seem to see such evil in the Prayer Guide. I guess that is a matter of perspective. I have similar monthly prayer guides on praying for your spouse and your child. It is all in what you make of it.
A little perspective is nice- I haven't visited over there in so long I didn't I don't remember what they were talking about when I left.
I like you both, and I want to encourage you to "fast" from that blog (and this one if need be). I think you both have good heads on your shoulders and some time away might make you come back and look at all of that with new eyes.
The bitterness and animosity towards Bellevue is palpable through the words there and that is just not how Godly men and women should be speaking and spending their time.
Forget the names and faces behind it and just read the words.
I am sure this is fruitless, but I hope you will at least consider what I am saying and not just reject it outright.
Since we're on the topic of the prayer guide, I've got something to get off my chest.
'Watchman' is no friend of the church. He's a destroyer. His purpose is to make weak believers so uncertain about the sincerity of pastors that they'll never be able to trust anyone.
At least jokers like Sundquist were just trying to make a few bucks by selling books as a result of the conflict. He was an opportunist.
'Watchman' has a much darker purpose in mind. Poison the minds of the flock, and they're easy prey.
Be watchful, Christians. Do you sense any hidden motives?
I do.
Jessica said...
Karen and Junkster (if you are out there),
Against my better judgment I made a visit to the other side tonight. They (and you) seem to see such evil in the Prayer Guide.
Jessica,
I appreciate your concern. But what was I said that makes you think I "see such evil in the Prayer Guide"? To save you the trouble of looking them up, here are my 3 posts on the topic:
-------------(1)-------------
Junkster said...
Lin said...
Should we pray for pastors, elders, etc. You bet. But all the prayer in the world is not going to make one ounce of difference until there is confession and repentance.
Confession & Repentance are the prayer topics for months with Days 32 & 33.
8:25 PM, October 17, 2007
-------------(2)-------------
Junkster said...
I noticed that "the scornful" are mentioned twice (Day 11 & Day 24). I wonder who those folks are?
9:01 PM, October 17, 2007
-------------(3)-------------
Junkster said...
We'd all be better off if more folks in more churches would regularly pray many of the things in the prayer guide for their pastors. But I have concerns about what seems to be an overly strong focus on one man (SG) for the efforts of the BBC prayer ministry thus far. Somehow I doubt that this was created and sent out without the blessing of the powers that be.
It's sad that the trust in leadership has been so damaged that people have to be wary of a prayer guide for the pastor.
10:57 PM, October 17, 2007
(1) was a tongue in cheek response to Lin's post (which was pretty obvious if you read her subsequent response).
(2) was commenting that "the scornful", as used in the guide, seems to refer to those who are critical of SG. Not unlike your claim that I "see such evil in the Prayer Guide".
(3) Sounds a lot like what you said about the guide, plus my personal concern about the primary focus of the prayer ministry thus far being one person (SG). Not exactly an indication I see the prayer guide as evil.
It's funny to me that people on NBBCOF see the tone, attitudes, and words expressed on this blog as so unpleasant that they cannot bear to read it, and folks here feel the same way about NBBCOF. Like you said, "I guess that is a matter of perspective."
Well Junkster, before you get too bent out of shape, I didn't really mean to imply that you expressly said you thought it was evil. But there seems to be a lot of general acceptance for whatever is said over there.
Repeatedly there are comments about the "cult"- do you really and truly believe that or consider how it feels to those that remain? That being said, I am not saying you are the one that said it, just that no one bothers to even question such comments.
It just seems like a sad way to spend time. What can be gained from continuing to attack the people of BBC? I get that no one will let go of their feelings on SG, but I am fascinated by the animosity shown to the people that they used to be a church family with.
I really hope you will take my comment for what it was, I really do think enough of you to hope that you would consider what I had to say in the spirit that I meant it.
My first movie was "Frankenstein". I spent the week with my cousin in Woodbury, Tennessee and since our family did not attend movies my aunt let us go see a movie.
It was about 1956 or earlier and for a boy who had hardly watched any TV to see a very large screen with a black and white monster stalking a little child was a scary scene. It was enough to make me get down between the seats and hide my eyes, I was scared to death!
I was taken in with the monsters' name, FRANKENSTEIN, I learned to hold my arms out and walk like him. I was FRANKENSTEIN.
The other day our neighbor put up one of those big blow-up halloween
figures that was large enough to surround the front door of his house. I thought that it was a green Garfield the cat. My neighbor laughed and said it's FRANKENSTEIN.
It is still hard to get used to the truth that the scientist with the nice suit and genius mind was FRANKENSTEIN.
He arranged for the assembled body parts to be put together and placed on a table then elevated through a hole in the roof where from the heavens the body would be exposed to "strange fire". Fire from the altars of heaven would give the monster life. This would prove to be the greatest breakthrough in modern day technology. Man could create life.
It is not hard to contemplate spiritual truths here!
So you already know what I am going to post. You knew it!
The Calvinist/Arminian argument again.
Was it in God's providential and sovereign overesight that my first movie was Frankenstein and that in Oct of 2007 I would be posting this? (50 years later) Did God know already in 1956 how the situation would unfold at Bellevue.
Did He know that there would be the creation of a terrible monster
worst than anything that a 19 year old girl, Mary Shelly, could envision in 1818?
Or was it just coincidence? If Paul Williams was given free choice to sodomize, was God helpless to stop it? Did He limit His own sovereignty inorder for PW to do what he did? How could God let this happen in the Flagship Church of the SBC under the capable leadership of a man like Adrian Rogers?
Can't you see the setting for a divine mockery taking place here?
How could it be coincidential? Does God have His way in the whirlwind?
Charles A. Page
Collierville, Tennessee
I sincerely hope that anyone who has read the Bible and worships in Spirit and Truth is able to tell the difference between expressing disdain for someone's perceived sinfulness and condemning someone as a satan worshiper and accusing them of knowingly conspiring along with demons and the enemies of God. That's an incredibly bold statement, and it's nothing to joke about. It's something to be swiftly called and rebuked if it's said untruthfully with malicious intent.
Charles: "If Paul Williams was given free choice to sodomize, was God helpless to stop it?"
Answer: no. And this side of heaven you and I are unaware of all God was doing. Was God unable to stop children from being murdered in bethlehem? No.
Charles: "Did He limit His own sovereignty inorder for PW to do what he did?"
No again. God's choice not to act the way you would have him act is not a limitation of his sovereignty.
Charles: "How could God let this happen in the Flagship Church of the SBC under the capable leadership of a man like Adrian Rogers?"
Here's what you're missing: There will come a judgment day.
Your entire theology seems to miss this, Charles. On THAT day, God will right the wrongs. He will hold men eternally accountable. Men will answer for sin and recieve full punishment.
It's like you're asking why Judgment day hasn't already come.
God has sovereignly chosen a day on which he will judge sin.
However, by too radically defending God's sovereigty and saying everything is the will of God, we risk making God the sinner. Sin is not the choice of God, it is the rebellion of man.
I don't blame God for PW's sin. I don't blame rogers for PW's sin. And far too often I do blame others for my own sin! But turth is: We stand responsible and accountable individually for our sin.
Our Sovereign God has ordained a day of judgment, it's not for us mortals to tell us how he will execute it or blame him if he doesn't act the way we want.
Jessica,
The prayer guide is out there and it is what it is. I don't even really care all that much about it - I won't be praying it because it makes me uncomfortable. Not much has bothered you about the changes to Bellevue (by changes I don't mean the music and you know it). When something happens at Bellevue that is so fundamentally sinful, you let me know. I'll be there for you when your spirit is crushed by the church you love. My spirit was crushed a long time ago (people's tolerences for abuse by their church are diffent) and I have moved on. Just because I comment on NASS's blog, doesn't mean I'm bitter or have ill will toward Steve Gaines. The thing I'm worried about now are folks that are so in love with Steve Gaines that nothing he does will EVER make these people question him. Jess, please know I am not speaking about you - you have enough discernment to know when something's wrong. My "something's wrong" turned on a long time ago. To me, Steve Gaines is little by little heating the water to boiling. Jessica, please have enough sense and discernment to jump out of the pot before you get boiled. I have no idea where your "tolerence" is - but just know I will be there for you when you're ready to jump out of the pot.
I welcome you to come with me to Ellendale - you may or may not feel a different spirt there, such as I have found. I'm just saying don't get wrapped up in the flashiness that is now BBC and forget your 1st love - Jesus.
You know me well enough through email to know I mean no nastiness to you by the words written here - we're just have different perspectives. Maybe if you step back from BBC yourself some Sunday you'll see exactly what I mean.
Karen
Jessica said...
It just seems like a sad way to spend time. What can be gained from continuing to attack the people of BBC? I get that no one will let go of their feelings on SG, but I am fascinated by the animosity shown to the people that they used to be a church family with.
That animosity gets pointed both ways, Jessica. You know it and I know it. Not between you and me, but I've been on the receiving end of nasty. When we say it's "cult like" it's because there is no other way to describe it - you can say "Invasion of the Body Snatcher" or "Stepford Wives" - whatever you call it, when you encounter someone you've know over 20 years that doesn't like me anymore because I've come out against Steve Gaines and tells me I must not love God , what would you call it?
You don't like "cult-like" - so give me another description and I'll use that instead.
Karen, there are actually quite a few things I would change about Bellevue if given the chance.
I have seen the sin and hipocrosy there for years before SG- some of the businessmen there are some of the most prideful and mean people I have ever know. It has never been perfect and I think people forget that.
I don't need to step away because I have never expected BBC to be anything it isn't.
It is insulting for people to act like we are all idiotic, ungodly, cult members. I don't see how any Christian can see that as being in line with being Christ-like. I don't think that is a matter of perspective.
I hope the next time you see people talk about the people that are "still there"- you will replace those words with my name and see if you still think the sentiment is true and fair and Christ-like. Because it might as well have my name- that is how I feel when I read it.
Karen,
Honestly, if those people have treated you that way and you know they were people you loved- I don't think you should be talking about them at all. If you care about them, pray for them, reach out for them, but don't insult them on the internet.
Go and make peace with them, tell them how you feel... but talk to those people and don't talk about them.
Jessica,
Thanks for the advice - but been there, done that. Didn't do any good.
I've got a 2 day migrainse, sweetie. I'm back to the couch and the relative dark in my living room. :)
This address hopefully will take you to a Lenord Ravenhill website. Scroll down a little bit and on the right is a video clip: "Come on, what are you saved from"
This is an example of good preaching from a consistent Arminian (Reformed Arminian) My criticism is of inconsistent Arminianism as represented by Adrian Rogers and much of the SBC.
Compare Leonard Ravenhill to Adrian Rogers and you should not find any comparison unless you are personally biased. You will not find this kind of preaching in the SBC, with perhaps a few exceptions.
A.W. Tozer is another consistent Arminian uncomparable to any preaching you will hear today by inconsistent Arminians.
Both of these men have theologies compatable to Wesleyan Arminianism.
Ravenhill gives a splendid compliment to Wesley in this video clip.
Just so you don't think that I am blindly loyal to Calvinism. I am devoted to unashamedly to Calvinism especially the wise counsel of the men of Dort who rejected Arminianism.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=83972260
Charles
Watching,
Does it really matter? Seriously, I do not see the point of arguing between Arminianism and Calvinism because in the long run, its irrelevant.
Leonard Ravenhill in "Sodom had no Bible" printed in 1971 said:
"A phrase from the pen of the great revivalist, Jonathan Edwards, is biting viciously into my spirit right now. WhenEdwards describes the justice of God as pointing its arrow at our hearts, he adds that ours is 'an angry God without any promise or obligation at all'
"How right Edwards was! What obligations has God to a people like us whose aggregate sin as a nation in one day is more than the sin of Sodom and her sister city, Gomorrah, in one year?"
He list seven points each beginning with - what obligation has a Holy God to a people/nation
I would like to add to that list an eighth point - What Obligation Has a Holy God to a Church (not a people nor a nation or a city) that has raised up in it's ranks an ordained SBC monster. Amonster who sodomized his own young son for 18 months seventeen years ago and remained undetected for 17 years.
Like Ravenhill, that thought is biting me right now. I cannot push it off nor brush it nor wash it off. It is biting on the inside.
Where is the outrage, Church of the living Lord Jesus Christ? That so called open blog has no clue as to the outrage that God has
"an angry God without any promise or obligation at all"
Jessica said...
Well Junkster, before you get too bent out of shape, I didn't really mean to imply that you expressly said you thought it was evil. But there seems to be a lot of general acceptance for whatever is said over there.
I wasn't bent, not even a little. :)
My quote of my own posts was for the benefit of those who may have only seen your comment and not what I had actually written over there, so there would be no misperception of what I said. Since you had said "they (and you)", I wanted it to be clear that not only did I not expressly say that the prayer guide is evil, I didn't even imply it. There's quite a difference, in my mind, between having questions and concerns about something, and thinking it is evil.
Repeatedly there are comments about the "cult"- do you really and truly believe that or consider how it feels to those that remain? That being said, I am not saying you are the one that said it, just that no one bothers to even question such comments.
I suppose wouldn't like it if people referred to my church as a cult, even if it was! (I once asked my Jehovah's Witness neighbor what she thought of others calling her religion a cult, and she said she didn't care what labels others put on her, but I could tell from her expresion and body language she really did care.) There may not be as much questioning or challenging of statements made as you'd like, but that doesn't mean "no one bothers". And a lot more gentle private correction takes place offline between friends.
It just seems like a sad way to spend time. What can be gained from continuing to attack the people of BBC? I get that no one will let go of their feelings on SG, but I am fascinated by the animosity shown to the people that they used to be a church family with.
I don't get that either, except that I recall a phase one of my previous pastors used to say: "Hurt people hurt people." Not that it's any excuse for bad behavior, but it is sometimes a reason.
I really hope you will take my comment for what it was, I really do think enough of you to hope that you would consider what I had to say in the spirit that I meant it.
I appreciate that you care, and that you took the time to speak your mind -- and I don't think you had anything but good in mind.
WatchingHISstory said...
My criticism is of inconsistent Arminianism as represented by Adrian Rogers and much of the SBC.
You've said that before, and I've let it pass, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. Why is some error (acceptance of 1 or 2 points of Calvinism) worse than more error (denal of all 5 points)?
junkster
When you listen or read Ravenhill and Tozer (as well as your previous reference to Wesley's hymns) you see the difference to their passionate preaching vs the popular preachers today. Today sermons lack the power of the gospel that produces fear and shame in the sinner.
There is a difference and it is a matter of consistency. I look at it this way (I am not a theologian, rather an armchair, non academic theologian) God says to us Rev 3:15,16 I would that you were cold or hot but you are lukewarm. I admit that this is a loose translation and the textulist will have a field day but I believe that God wishes we were either Presbyterian or Methodist but because you take the predominant view of the SBC you are lukewarm and I will spew you out of my mouth.
You could also say " I would that you were Calvinist or Arminian but because you are Amyraldianism, I will spew you out of my mouth.
The modern day SBC tries to embrace eternal security along with a modified depravity (not prevenient grace but a divine enablement or prompting) and calls himself a moderate Calvinist if he claims to be Calvinist.
The Arminian in all his variations denies eternal security and it does seem to me that this works in the favor of preaching producing fear and shame at the thought that one can loose his sakvation. An error but consistent with the theological views of Arminianism.
This could explain the cooperation of Spurgeon and other Arminians allied against Unitarianism and Arianism. Something Fundamentalist can't seem to do today.
Inconsistent Arminianism/Moderate Calvinist/Biblicist are Amyraldian who are really Arminianist.
From my personal perspective you are 5 point or 0 point The modern baptistic views of eternal security are not really Calvinist but are Arminian views of grace and free will. ES is a strong willful determination to hold out to the end.
For me ES is preservation of the believer by the enablement of the Holy Spirit in a way that only a five pointer could claim. I believe four,three two and one pointers don't have a leg to stand on.
Though they don't exist "one and two pointers" do a subtle sabotage of the truth in an effort to make God and his purposes pleasing to the sinner who is at enmity with God. Not only is the sinner confident in his approach to a loving God he is told he is eternally secured in his approach.
Now can you understand how Paul Williams could sodomize his son for 18 months and sit in a chair beside AR at Monday morning staff meetings week after week.
That would likely not happen for long if he had to live with the fear that he was not saved but backslid!
His only worry was going to jail not hell!
“What Obligation Has a Holy God to a Church (not a people nor a nation or a city) that has raised up in it's ranks an ordained SBC monster. Amonster who sodomized his own young son for 18 months seventeen years ago and remained undetected for 17 years.”
Once again you go too far. The church did not raise raise up PW. His sin was his choice. Guess what, there sinners in every church! Don’t mean to shock you there, but in any community of faith there is sin in the ranks.
You are obsessed with using a young mans pain. Not using his pain to bring reform, but to prove some theological point. You are focused solely on laying this sin at the feet of Dr. Rogers because you disagree with him theologically. Of course, you go further. Not only using his pain, but announcing you’ve had visions of Dr. Rogers judgment and that you so superior in your faith that you can’t even find a church to fellowship with. You are using the crisis at Bellevue to throw stones at people who are truly hurt.
Charles: "I would that you were Calvinist or Arminian but because you are Amyraldianism, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
Well, Charles, you could also say: I follow Calvin. And another says: I’m Arminian. And another says I follow Luther. Is Christ divided?
WAS CALVIN CRUCIFIED FOR YOU? Were you baptized into Calvin? I am thankful I did not baptize you! You cannot ay you were baptized into my name. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Well Karen, I all know is that I learned a long time ago that you should talk TO people not ABOUT them. And that includes SG, members of BBC, friends.
That is why I really try to refrain from posting about the other blog- I addressed this last post to you and junkster instead of just making general remarks about what I read.
I am certain that most of the people on there would not accept such behavior in their children, so I am surprised they accept it in themselves.
Jessica said...
Karen, there are actually quite a few things I would change about Bellevue if given the chance.
I have seen the sin and hipocrosy there for years before SG- some of the businessmen there are some of the most prideful and mean people I have ever know. It has never been perfect and I think people forget that.
I don't need to step away because I have never expected BBC to be anything it isn't.
Jessica, you have taken offense at me before by my saying you were walking after your own lust (I'm not sure I directly implied that you were).
Bu you have made a statement that bothers me, You said: "It has never been perfect and I think people forget that.
I don't need to step away because I have never expected BBC to be anything it isn't."
The first step in the process of being a scoffer (I Pet 3:3) is to say "..all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." v.4
Prideful and mean people should not rule. They should not be tolerated. We don't need to resign ourselves but align ourselves with God and His Word and take a stand against them even if we are the only ones. "Oh well, the Lord is comming sometime in the future and when He comes He will reign in judgement."
Continue that and you will be a hard core scoffer like our Pastor friends David and Jon. Am I judgemental? Absolutely!
The open forum is full of later day scoffers walking after their own lusts. There needs to be a forum attacking the men you mention who were there a long time before SG was there!
Let me see if I can name one, Oh yes, Paul Williams. Did you know he sodomized his son 17 years ago before AR died? He was an associate pastor I believe. A good start is let the Lord get you really angry about that. The last thing you need to ask the Lord is "do you want me to get angry about that." You don't want him angry with you!
Lynn said...
Watching,
Does it really matter? Seriously, I do not see the point of arguing between Arminianism and Calvinism because in the long run, its irrelevant.
Lynn, what is relevant? Let me give you a hint which I am sure you will take, ha ha.
What ever is relevant must be different than the gospel that Adrian Rogers preached. I mean look at the current mess at Bellevue.
So what is really relevant?
Should the construction crew that repairs the Bellevue sign be all Arminian or Calvinist or a mix consistent with the SBC; one Calvinist and four Arminians?
Actually the one Calvinist would be an Arminian wearinga puritan coveralls.
Now there is relevant conversation.
Oh and to get Mike back one of the Arminians would have to be appointed by Willie Herrenton!
The following is a post (maybe not word for word since I'm going from memory, but VERY close) that I posted on the NBBCOF. Unfortunately it never saw the light of day. Also my inquiry of blog hostess as to why it was censored went unanswered. Can anyone tell me why the following post would be censored? Anyone (besides Watchinghistory) disagree with my post?
~~~
I think God does love us, just the way we are. When I think of Jesus, I think of Jesus, the friend of sinners.
To anyone who is lost or out of fellowship with him I'd say, perhaps you think you’ve sinned too much — that there is no hope for you. But Jesus has always reached out to sinners.
God loves you! The good Shepherd is seeking you; the Holy Spirit is shining His light on you; and God the Father has His arms open wide. Come home!
Charles: "Jessica, you have taken offense at me before by my saying you were walking after your own lust"
To clarify, Charles: I took offense that you said that about Jessica. I don't remember her stating any offense.
That I don't buy your theology doesn't make me a scoffer.
By the way, Charles, our Bible study tonight is on Romans 9. Fun, eh.
Charles: "What ever is relevant must be different than the gospel that Adrian Rogers preached. I mean look at the current mess at Bellevue."
You take a cause and effect approach to the truth. Meaning: If Bellevue is suffering, it must be the result of their not preaching the Gospel. Could it be that Dr. Rogers faithfulness for all these years drew the enemies attention.
What if someone said: Paul's Gospel must be wrong, after all, look at him! He's in prison about to die. Or Peter. Or any of the apostles. Since when was success the judge of the Gospel's truth?
barabas,
Look at the last post in the current thread - nothing's been posted since 11:30 last night. Be patient - when NASS goes ice fishing, the blog plays 2nd fiddle. If you posted it today, it's just not up yet. NASS has the moderator on so that no hijinx can happen while the blog's not monitored.
Good post, by the way! :)
karen
What a difference an 'n' makes!
Barnabas: son of encouragement, associate of Paul.
Barabas: the murderer who was released by Pilate instead of Jesus.
God loves us just the way we are...
For God so loved the world... the fallen sinful, Savior needing world --- just the way they were... that He gave His only begotten Son so that whoseover believes in Him will not perish but will be given eternal life... yet that love was so great it comes with a promise to better us for eternity
Which means, Charles, God loved me just as I was but love me so much He did what was necessary to help me become what I could not on my own.
Jon,
Isn't it interesting that people who believe so strongly that there is NO FREEWILL... all of them also believe they are among the ones who are chosen to be saved.
But what if God chose them to understand, attempt to repent... but did not choose them to really receive Salvation?
Get into a lot of what if's when you nose dive off the Bible and into philosophy.
But if there is no freewill, it is possible for them to know about God, understand his election, try to repent, cry out to God... and yet even still not be "chosen."
You never find a guy who says: "I'm lost, and that's because God chose me to be lost." Strange, the ones who subsribe to this theology are also... amazingly... all among the chosen.
Karen,
My post was made around 5:00 PM last evening.
My inquiry as to the censorship was made fairly early last evening although I do not recall the time.
Make no mistake, the post is being censored by the blog hostess.
WatchingHISstory said...
Lynn said...
Watching,
Does it really matter? Seriously, I do not see the point of arguing between Arminianism and Calvinism because in the long run, its irrelevant.
Lynn, what is relevant? Let me give you a hint which I am sure you will take, ha ha.
What ever is relevant must be different than the gospel that Adrian Rogers preached. I mean look at the current mess at Bellevue.
So what is really relevant?
7:45 AM, October 24, 2007
If your focusing more on Calvinism and Armenianism than you are Christ, your focusing on Manmade theology.
When the day comes and Jesus returns, I highly doubt he will concern himself with who's calvinist and who's an Armenian
But thats just the opinion of someone who looks at the big picture.
Check out my new posting at website Watching His Story
Charles
lynn said
"If your focusing more on Calvinism and Armenianism than you are Christ, your focusing on Manmade theology."
I disagree with you completely.
you said: "When the day comes and Jesus returns, I highly doubt he will concern himself with who's calvinist and who's an Armenian"
I couldn't agree with you more! 100%
one exception: Jesus doesn't care which country you are from.
Why are we not outraged? A SBC ordained monster sodomizes his 10 year old son!
Did Moses ever envision a priest/father forceably sodomizing his own son when he recorded the law against man lying with another man as with womankind. Lev 18:22
Did Paul envision an SBC associate minister of the gospel molesting his own son when he wrote about men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another?
Did Paul ever believe that a thing worst than a man sleeping with his stepmother would take place in the Church.
How can we hold our head high and preach Jesus if we are not outraged about this?
Charles,
who is it that is NOT outraged over this?
jessica
For starters you and I are outraged.
Charles
jessica
I just finished watching Criminal Minds amd my heart is broken over what children are suffering at the hands of adults.
Jessica, I've spent the night in the emergency room because my family doctor thought that I was having a heart attack, only to be told that my heart is good.
I've discussed my spiritual feelings about Bellevue, Dr Rogers and Paul Williams with four doctors and all four say I am sane and it is about time that someone cares.
I've went to dozens of people at work and they say I should be outraged and not feel crazy.
I've walked up and down my street and ask neighbors should I be outraged. They say I should be outraged.
I've ask a Jehovah Witness, Church of Christ, Muslim, Hindu, converted homosexual, my mother, father, daughter, wife. They say I should be outraged.
Is anyone at Bellevue outraged? I don't know but I feel alone in this.
Most people I know at Bellevue were/are outraged over what PW did to his son. I do feel that some people have misplace their outrage- they are focusing it on SG and the leadership at BBC (and yes, Dr. Rogers) instead of where it should be- on a man who did a horrible disgusting unspeakable thing.
I don't think you are insane or evil or any of the things you have been accused of- I do think your passion is misdirected. If your vision is true, there is nothing this side of heaven that we can do it change it. Even if you convince everyone here that SG is preaching the same thing as Dr. Rogers, and that is is "wrong", it won't change SG's heart and it will not stop him from preaching as he feels led. Only God can do that, and last time I checked God answers us through prayer, not blogs.
jessica
I prayed several years ago asking God to tell me what is wrong with American Christianity. I served in a ministry for 13 years in Turkey Italy and Germany.
I told God I did not want any surprises in heaven. I wanted to understand now and since that prayer incredible things have happened.
Yes you are right people will not listen. People will not change. God told Isaiah that in the sixth chapter. That does not relieve us of the responsibility to speak and a blog is a good place to start.
Charles
Charles,
I've not brought this up before, but I do so now. I pray that you will read this and accept the correction therein.
The scriptures teach us that we are to believe the word of God vs. putting our faith in dreams and visions. Not every dream is from the Lord.
If you will receive it, I have proof that your dream is most certainly not of the Lord.
Were your dream of the Lord it would not have contained error. Your dream did contain error.
I happened to be in Bellevue the day you refer to when the woman interrupted Dr. Rogers. He hushed her up in accordance with the scriptures about order in worship, I might add. I forget exactaly what you thought she was saying/doing but it was something like she was rejoycing or agreeing with the sermon, and that God was going to use that to bring revival.
Here is the error. I was very close to that woman and could hear what she was saying. Dr. Rogers was speaking against abortion, and this woman was standing to argue against him and speak in favor of abortion.
I know you have a lot invested emotionally in your dream. But your dream is not of the Lord because that woman's outburst was not of the Lord. She was speaking in favor of the slaughter of the innocent and was violating scripture by being disorderly in worship. Both of those things were from Satan.
Charles,
What I was wanting to communicate to you was that God has a ministry and a purpose outside being consumed with rage at the church. a purpose beyond theology.
God gives us knowledge while on earth for us to use it to further the kingdom. Your being angry and ending up in a hospital isn't going to further your ability to move for the Kingdom.
I encourage you to get deeply involved in a local church. Involved in ministry. Helping the poor. Teach Sudnay School. Hosting a home group. Discipling new believers. Witnessing. You can't change what happened with PW.
On the Great Day, God will right those wrongs. If it is a burden from God on your heart, then perhaps he is leading you to participate in a ministry that helps churches make their grounds a safe place.
Anger without purpose is deadly. However, a passionate man like you was not created to simply burn in rage for God. You were created to touch lives.
I do love you, Charles.
david
WatchingHISstory said...
jon
When I tried to give Mike my answer he intrepreted my response as a pi**(bladder strength) contest! Which sorely indicated he dosen't witness as much as I.
Arrogant ain't I?
...
Like Paul's expression about speaking in tongues, I witness unto Christ more than you all...
No, Charles, "arrogant" doesn't begin to describe those remarks.
The next post I write just might address the only logical conclusion that can be reached when people regularly refuse to say, do, and/or publish anything that's in some way constructive.
Be they Democrat, anti-Bellevuer, or an advocate of "Calvinism uber alles"...
--Mike
P.S.: I used to go out with a girl in high school named Alice Uber, but that's a different story altogether.
Mike
Give me your commentary as to what Paul meant by this verse.
1 Corinthians 14:18 (King James Version)
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Charles
barnabas
wrong service I have no ideal what you are talking about.
The Wed night I was there with friends Adrian Rogers was preaching an emergent growth sermon and he mentioned how many baptisms Bellevue had that year 9meaning they could baptize many more that that)
A lady in the audience misunderstood him and began clapping spontaneously (only she - she said nothing)
AR put in hands up in a guester to stop her and told her to listen to him.
I felt her embarrassment and knew she would go home feeling horible for the interruption.
Charles
Matthew Henry comments on I Cor 14:18
"He alleges his own example, to make the greater impression, concerning which observe, that he did not come behind any of them in this spiritual gift: "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all (v. 18); not only more than any single person among you, but more than all together." It was not envy at their better furniture that made Paul depreciate what they so highly valued and so much vaunted of; he surpassed them all in this very gift of tongues, and did not vilify their gift because he had it not. This spirit of envy is too common in the world. But the apostle took care to guard against this misconstruction of his purpose, by letting them know there was more ground for them to envy him upon this head than for him to envy them.
Paual almost sounds arrogant here.
My use of this phrase was to make a point that if I was a true Calvinist the practical implication is that I am "touching lives" I am bold, Spirit Filled and evangelistic.
Mike knows where I work. It is the Memphis FedEx Hub, a hostile and dangerous environment. 80 to 100 planes go out a day and countless trucks are loaded with freight. This is just the day sort. The nightside almost doubles that.
There are 300 miles of conveyor belts, enough to streach across the state of Tennessee.
God has made this a sanctuary for me and not a day goes by that I don't have a meaningful conversation with a new person about Christ. I have never experienced this kind of response outside of the Church setting.
Now Arminians generally use evangelism against Calvinst. They say we are "wine and cheese" Christians. I've been working out there for 12 years and the last two years have been the most exciting years of my life. The Holy Spirit has proven that there is no environment too hostile. In fact the greater the hostility the more obvious He is at work.
I am involved at my Church but when I share with them my excitement and success mostly all I get is blank stares. They are excited in Church when we put all our folding chairs around in a circle and swap our Bible knowledge but when they are challenged to be bold at work you get the same old lifestyle evangelism cliche instead of the out-spoken boldness for Christ.
Where has your Biblicism (Arminianism) led you? Boldness in the Church Building or in the market place?
Pardon my arrogance.
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike
Give me your commentary as to what Paul meant by this verse.
1 Corinthians 14:18 (King James Version)
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Charles
My personal commentary is remarkably unimportant. What God has to say in the Bible itself, however, is really the only thing of importance.
1 Corinthians 14
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
Paul doesn't "sound arrogant" here, not in the slightest. He sounds like someone who's been given an undeniable gift from God, yet far prefers cogent enunciation of the things of God to slithering self-aggrandizement.
Likening oneself to Paul in that guise isn't a bad thing; believing that the Bible excuses arrogance is another matter entirely, since it is a wrong belief.
--Mike
Mike
If this is not your commentary on the Bible but God's Word then does He think that the gift He gave to Paul is slithering self-aggrandizement.
My commentary is that the gift of tongues is a gift to all the Christian community including us and Paul exercised it more than we all. I wish I could be so arrogant to say that!
Paul is sying the misuse or denial of tongues is slithering self-aggrandizement.
Perhaps my choice of the word arrogant is wrong. I shoul say Paul is sapient and erudite.
If these words are acceptible I would like be like Paul!
Mike
You may think your personal commentary is remarkably unimportant but God thinks your commentary is extremely important.
Preaching is commenting on scripture under the annointing of the Holy Spirit. The sinner reads but dosen't understand. The preacher sent by God gives the meaning of it. The Holy Spirit gives the washing of regeneration and the Word is alive in the new believer!
Our dialog is important so that we both arrive at a clear commentary of scripture.
Charles
Post a Comment