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:
1 – 200 of 311 Newer› Newest»It was a depressing night. The majority of Memphis did not want Willie as their mayor- unfortunately we couldn't decide on a single candidate to get behind!
We still live in the city limits, we were annexed shortly after we bought our house. I have come to believe that even though I was disappointed at the time it was a blessing. The people in "power" in Memphis have a huge effect on the surrounding areas (esp. through MLGW and the threat of school consolidation) and at least I am in a position to vote.
If more people would stick around, we would have a lot more control over the the leadership of our city and perhaps would be a position to change it for the better. As it is, we are at the mercy of those who believe that Willie still has something to offer this city.
I called a radio station earlier this week and asked Herman Morris if he thought he or Carol Chumney would consider dropping out of the race - so all the votes for both would go to one. He said he was "in it to win it". Well, OOOPS! I guess not. My thoughts now about Morris and Chumney have changed quite a bit over the last few days - Like any other politician, they are in it to win, not in it to change Memphis. If they truly wanted to change Memphis, they would have banded together, one of them would have dropped out and the combined totals would have beaten King Willie.
I wouldn't be surprised if some redneck here doesn't take a shot at Willie in the near future - no, I'm not gonna do it and I don't know anybody that's planning it, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm in the city limits too and just bought a house less than a year ago, but I am ready to hightail it outta here soon! Hopefully my husband will get the sales job he wants and we can relocate to Houston. We'll see.
Thanks for the prayers for my dad - his surgery was rescheduled to this Monday. QUITE frustrating.
I agree that if they really cared about the city they way they say they do, one of them would have thrown in their support for the other. I would have preferred it to be Carol Chumney throwing in the towel- I think that she has a lot of bad history with a lot of other politicians and Morris has a fairly clean slate.
From the song Push It To The Limit, off the soundtrack of the Disney Channel movie Jump In:
Yeah
Come on now
Here we go
Let's do it
Yeeaah..
Push it push it to the limit limit
Cause we're in it to win it in it to win it
Oh yeah
I realized that this is where my heart is
Now is the time to finish what i started
Can't worry bout what other people might say
It's who i am
Gotta live my dream my own way
A long-distance dedication to Herman and Carol...
--Mike
Mike,
has anyone researched what theological views Carol and Herman hold. Wouldn't it be something if one was a Calvinist and the other an Arminian!!
How is that for being slightly on subject?
Ahhh..the very reason my family and I live in the glorious area of Horn Lake, MS! Our auto tag fees may be ridiculous, but at least there's no Mr. Potato Head!
(Word verification...opewk!)
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike,
has anyone researched what theological views Carol and Herman hold. Wouldn't it be something if one was a Calvinist and the other an Arminian!!
How is that for being slightly on subject?
You know, Charles, I wish I were close enough to give you a laurel and a hearty handshake. Way to dig in there and try!
michelle mann said...
Ahhh..the very reason my family and I live in the glorious area of Horn Lake, MS! Our auto tag fees may be ridiculous, but at least there's no Mr. Potato Head!
No, you live in the glorious Horn Lake area because there's no limit to the number of birds you can own! :)
Hey, the in-laws are coming down this weekend--when will you guys be making the trip?
(Word verification...opewk!)
Just make sure there's a bucket by your bed. :)
--Mike
Mike, this is way off topic, other than your post to Michelle made me think of it...
We visited Birmingham on our way to Florida and I have to admit that it was VERY nice. We stayed in the Inverness area (I don't know if it is an area or town, but whatever) and I literally do not think the people there could have been nicer. We went to the Botanical Gardens and a few restaurants and the Whole Foods market out there and I swear people went out of their way to be helpful and nice. The guy at Whole Foods even gave us the contact information to encourage them to build a Whole Foods in the suburbs of Memphis. The hotel even gave us an 3 hour early check when we arrived in town early.
That is my glowing review of Birmingham. Not much could tempt me to live in Alabama, but I have to admit that it was nice there.
Mike Bratton said...
Only bad thing can come from that, and I'm sorry to see it happened.
Hmmmm ... Charles, do you want to provide a "Calvinistic" response to such a statement? :) (I'm thinking Romans 8:28....)
junkster
In a small Pentecostal Church in Arkansas a fellow was prophesying about how Moses built an ark....
When he finally finished he sat down and suddenly realized it was not Moses but Noah he suddenly jumped up, resumed his prophesy and said, "I the Lord thy God was in error, yea, even the Lord thy God gets confused sometime!"
So sometimes, though rarely, even a Calvinist gets confused!
Mike, this is way off topic and I rarely do that but my wife was born in Vinesville and her grandmother lived in Ensley around 3rd Street. We got married at a church on Pike Avenue in 1971.
Strap on a piece and go down there to check it out!!!
Charles
Jessica said...
Mike, this is way off topic, other than your post to Michelle made me think of it...
We visited Birmingham on our way to Florida and I have to admit that it was VERY nice. We stayed in the Inverness area (I don't know if it is an area or town, but whatever) and I literally do not think the people there could have been nicer. We went to the Botanical Gardens and a few restaurants and the Whole Foods market out there and I swear people went out of their way to be helpful and nice. The guy at Whole Foods even gave us the contact information to encourage them to build a Whole Foods in the suburbs of Memphis. The hotel even gave us an 3 hour early check when we arrived in town early.
That is my glowing review of Birmingham. Not much could tempt me to live in Alabama, but I have to admit that it was nice there.
We agree. Sorry we didn't get to hook up with you guys while you were down here.
Junkster said...
Mike Bratton said...
Only bad thing can come from that, and I'm sorry to see it happened.
Typo? What typo?
Hmmmm ... Charles, do you want to provide a "Calvinistic" response to such a statement? :) (I'm thinking Romans 8:28....)
Darkness makes even the slightest light seem brighter by comparison.
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike, this is way off topic and I rarely do that but my wife was born in Vinesville and her grandmother lived in Ensley around 3rd Street. We got married at a church on Pike Avenue in 1971.
Strap on a piece and go down there to check it out!!!
Charles, I know the area decently now. Upon reading that, I cackled like I was breathing helium!
Phew... the best medicine, indeed!
Two words for you, dude: Body armor.
--Mike
When I heard Willie's Racist rant last night, I really wanted to take a pencil and shove it in my ear. I wound up scaring my parents after I yelled at Willie through the tv like a lot of football fans do on Sunday afternoons. I can't repeat here what exactly I said. But It would make a "Sweet" Lou Pinella meltdown look tame.
If it wasn't for the fact that my mom is in bad health, I would be getting out of this area faster than a Roger Clemens fastball.
Karen--
"Sorry bayoubaptist, no harm intended with "redneck" remark! consider myself a bit of a "pinkneck" (meaning I don't own a gun or cheer for Dale Jr.!)"
No problem Karen, and BTW, I cheer for Jeff Gordon, though I can't state that publicly.
Karen--
"And just so you know, I will be cheering for LSU tonight!" :)"
Your wisdom knows no bounds!!
Bayouman--Truitt West
LSU is trailing by 10 pts at halftime...meanwhile, bayouman prepares to put the crows on the BBQ pit
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Fortunately, the crows are safe...LSU 28-24 over Florida!!!
MMMM, gator meat sure is good
Memphis is in deep need of prayer. We have a new ministry at Bellevue called, "Bellevue Loves Memphis" We are being encouraged to pray for Memphis and we collected a special offering this past week for the purpose of purchasing some basic school supplies for the city school teachers. Please be in prayer for our church as we attempt to make a bridge for better communication between Church and the school system.
Mayor Willie H. is in authority and regardless of how some may feel toward him, his office deserves respect. We need to cover him with prayer trusting God to move his heart and as Christians we are to love him.
The real test of faith comes when someone in authority who we do not agree with tells us what we can or cannot do. The authority rules; so we had better be in prayer for them and learn to love through Christ.
Billie
STOPTHEMADNESS said...
I watched the memorial service for Doctor Rogers again; I wanted to compare him to preachers in this area. NOT JUST to SG, but, well, I am STRICKEN by Brother Adrians Glow, his conviction, his steadfast spreading of GOD's WORD. The world has become a darker and more sinister place without his direction.
I was in attendance at the memorial and have watched the video several times and the part that amazes me is the on-screen cut to Paul Williams giving Dr Rogers a glowing report.
I wonder what was he thinking? He should have turned down the opportunity to make a video. This is a man without shame! What did his wife and son think? Why didn't he make a live speech?
Any way SG is here and PW is gone. Life is a little brighter for Bellevue.
Since AR had a certain degree of Landmarkism, as indicated by Billie then in my thinking that changes the picture a bit about the Cal/Arm debate. That somewhat explains the disconnect from Armininism he had, though he was adamantly against Calvinism.
It explains Billie's strong statements against the state influences in Church life.
Both Billie and Adrian trace their linage back through Anabaptist back to the early Church. The whole Protestant/Reformation debate is avoided somewhat and the terms "Christian" and "Bible Believing" take on a different meaning than what would be rather obvious. Man made doctrines are those of the reformers to a degree.
As a Pentecostal I heard speech about the Church of Christ and Baptist thinking that they were the only ones going to heaven, now fifty years later, for me makes sense.
Strangely my memories of preaching showed an appreciation of Luther (absent Calvin) and the reformation leading to a Wesleyan/Pentecostal revival. We really didn't think we were the only ones going to heaven.
The ones going to heaven were expected to achieve a rigorous sanctified life, which was positional and practical.
While my background was not Biblically based it was better than the Baptist/Landmark/inconsistent Armininism that Adrian Rogers preached. It would have been difficult for PW to hide in the assemblies I grew up in.
Believe me if a young man with my "struggles" to yet remain sane (which many of you question) then PW would go "nuts" a long time before 17 years.
We don't have to be doctrinely correct for the Holy Spirit to move in the midst of uninformed people.
Comments
Charles
When Bellevue and the Paul Williams' family needed an intersessor such as Abraham or even Lot, they didn't have one! They had a well-known and likable pastor but not an intersessor. Why didn't God confide in Adrian about what was comming to pass. Adrian was busy defining to the SBC what a dead-beat dad was and and his associate was a sodomizer. How dead-beat can you be? AR was an absentee-pastor when his "family" needed him most.
Matthew Henry comments on Gen 18: 17 "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?"
Abraham must know, for he is a friend and a favourite, and one that God has a particular kindness for and great things in store for. He is to become a great nation; and not only so, but in the Messiah, who is to come from his loins, All nations of the earth shall be blessed. Note, The secret of the Lord is with those that fear him, Psalms 25:14,Pr+3:32. Those who by faith live a life of communion with God cannot but know more of his mind than other people, though not with a prophetical, yet with a prudential practical knowledge. They have a better insight than others into what is present (Hosea 14:9,Ps+107:43), and a better foresight of what is to come, at least so much as suffices for their guidance and for their comfort.
Abraham must know, for he will teach his household: I know Abraham very well, that he will command his children and his household after him, Genesis 18:19. Consider this, [1.] As a very bright part of Abraham's character and example. He not only prayed with his family, but he taught them as a man of knowledge, nay, he commanded them as a man in authority, and was prophet and king, as well as priest, in his own house. Observe, First, God having made the covenant with him and his seed, and his household being circumcised pursuant to that, he was very careful to teach and rule them well. Those that expect family blessings must make conscience of family duty. If our children be the Lord's, they must be nursed for him; if they wear his livery, they must be trained up in his work. Secondly, Abraham took care not only of his children, but of his household; his servants were catechized servants. Masters of families should instruct and inspect the manners of all under their roof. The poorest servants have precious souls that must be looked after. Thirdly, Abraham made it his care and business to promote practical religion in his family. He did not fill their heads with matters of nice speculation, or doubtful disputation; but he taught them to keep the way of the Lord, and to do judgment and justice, that is, to be serious and devout in the worship of God and to be honest in their dealings with all men. Fourthly, Abraham, herein, had an eye to posterity, and was in care not only that his household with him, but that his household after him, should keep the way of the Lord, that religion might flourish in his family when he was in his grave.
Charles: "We don't have to be doctrinely correct for the Holy Spirit to move in the midst of uninformed people."
Response: I believe bad doctrine can hinder the Holy Spirit's working in our lives. After all, it is Doctrine that teaches Jesus is the only way to God... etc.
Charles: "While my background was not Biblically based it was better than the Baptist/Landmark/inconsistent Armininism that Adrian Rogers preached. It would have been difficult for PW to hide in the assemblies I grew up in."
Response: To say that problems would not have occured in the faith background you are from is simply untrue. Even Moses dealt with people hiding sin (buried in a tent). And they were God's people. With God moving among them as fire! Still, sin abounded.
Charles, you seem to further throw accusations at Rogers because he didn’t supernaturally know what was happening in the church.
Because God chose to appear in human form and speak to Abraham about the destruction of Sodom does not mean he does that for every pastor. It is not normal to speak face to face with God in bodily form.
I am concerned for you: You are throwing stones at dead men while standing on a theological foundation of sand. Your disdain for sound doctrine shines through in your post.
David
Who is doctrininely correct? I went to your webpage and you are not doctrinely correct. "man is sinful" give me a break! LOL! Man is totally depraved. (That is Biblically based)
You said:I believe bad doctrine can hinder the Holy Spirit's working in our lives. After all, it is Doctrine that teaches Jesus is the only way to God... etc.
Now David, that is exactly my point. While we are not doctrinely perfect bad doctrine can be of such a nature that we hinder the Holy Spirit from working as He wishes. Either God chose not to reveal to AR the sin of his associate (my opinion) or AR tied the hands (limited his sovereignty) of God from revealing the sin of PW This is the sin created by cessationist views of dispensationalism and Semi-pelagianism.
You said: "To say that problems would not have occured in the faith background you are from is simply untrue. Even Moses dealt with people hiding sin (buried in a tent). And they were God's people. With God moving among them as fire! Still, sin abounded."
That sin wasn't buried in a tent for 17 years. Yes there were many sins in my faith background but none that I can recall for that duration. This was sodomy. I have never met a man that sodomized his son for 18 months, have you?
You said: "Because God chose to appear in human form and speak to Abraham about the destruction of Sodom does not mean he does that for every pastor. It is not normal to speak face to face with God in bodily form."
Pastor, pastor, pastor, have you heard about the Holy Spirit? Why Jesus himself said it would not be good for him to stay on this earth and teach you things that you could not even bear but he would go away and send the advocate to teach you all things."
I'm getting the ideal that you are a cessationist Armininian that is on his way to unitarianism. You don't need the Holy Ghost and that leads to a meaningless savior and eventually all you have is a Father.
David, I am a true disciple of Jesus who is not ashamed, not afraid and unable to ever return to a normal life. I have been forever changed by the Cross and the power of the resurrection itself lives in me!
Charles: “I went to your webpage and you are not doctrinely correct. "man is sinful" give me a break! LOL! Man is totally depraved. (That is Biblically based)”
Response: I stand by the statement that man is sinful. I am sorry you need a “break” when told man is sinful. This is the most basic of doctrine, Charles. You are rejecting the most basic teaching that man is sinful and choosing instead to cling to some more enlightened doctrine that fits your theological puzzle. If you need Scriptures attesting to the truth of mans sinful nature, they can be provided. However, please don’t say “GIVE ME A BREAK” when I state that man is sinful.
Charles: “Pastor, pastor, pastor, have you heard about the Holy Spirit? Why Jesus himself said it would not be good for him to stay on this earth and teach you things that you could not even bear but he would go away and send the advocate to teach you all things."
Response: I did not deny the Holy Spirit. I did say that what happened with Abraham was unique. You can’t blame Rogers for not knowing someone on staff was immersed in sin.
Charles: “I have never met a man that sodomized his son for 18 months, have you?”
Response: I don’t know. And neither do you. Sometimes the Spirit does reveal something about a person. Other times he chooses to hold it for judgment day. He does not reveal every mans sin to me or you.
Charles: “I'm getting the ideal that you are a cessationist Armininian that is on his way to unitarianism. You don't need the Holy Ghost and that leads to a meaningless savior and eventually all you have is a Father.”
Response: you are resorting to what Scripture calls idle chatter.
“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.” 1 Tim. 6:20-21
David, I misread your statement "man is sinful" and thanks for the theological correction.
"Man is sinful" sounds like he is partially incappable/cappable of finding God. It sounds like man is sick or marred and Dale Carnegie can help resolve his predicament.
Man is totally depraved and dead in trespasses and sins and in need of quickening. (not a pre conversion prompting) Eph 2:1-5
Listen, SEVENTEEN years is a long period of silence, even without the help of the Holy Spirit, cessationistically, human wisdom would surely prevail.
Is it idle chatter when you preach against Calvinism? or just when I post against Arminianism?
Charles: "Is it idle chatter when you preach against Calvinism? or just when I post against Arminianism?"
What did I preach that was against Calvinism? I don't preach for or against Calvin, I preach the Bible. We just started through Colossians. Want to join us?
You can see much of what I preached in the last year at the website.
Our series this year were:
Spring: UpRising (Nehemiah)
Spring: Shepherding My Family
Summer: Shipwrecked (Doctrine)
Summer/ Fall: Dead/Alive (Church)
Fall: Christianity 901 (Colossians)
Sorry, not sermons "against calvin" in any of that. Oh, and last year I preached through the Book of Luke.
I see you are trying to bait me into an argument about Calvinism. I most respectfully decline.
I do fail to see your frustration at a doctrinal position that states man is sinful. ?
Charles: "Man is sinful" sounds like he is partially incappable/cappable of finding God.
Response: It’s a Biblical Word. I didn’t make it up.
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5
“Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.” Gal. 5:24
that you would prefer the word “depraved” as opposed to “sinful” is interesting. The Bible appears to prefer “sinful.” Please note:
Paul used the word “depraved” 3 times.
Paul used the word “sinful” 34 times.
Charles: It sounds like man is sick or marred and Dale Carnegie can help resolve his predicament.
Response: I’m sorry if “sinful” doesn’t “sound” good to you.
By the way “sick” is another term for the unsaved condition. As are the terms “lost” “dead” “separated” “blind” “hopeless” “condemned”... etc.
David said: "I do fail to see your frustration at a doctrinal position that states man is sinful.?"
You want to make it sound like I am frustrated with a doctrinal position, when actually I am frustrated with what I preceive to be your doctrinal position. We need to get on the same page of the Bible!
Here is my position: From the Heidleberg Confession (I am an old fashion Christian who dosen't take a fancy to these fancy new ideals)
Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?
Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a) hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)
(a) Genesis 3. Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom.5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Rom.5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (b) Ps.51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Gen.5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Question 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?
Answer: Indeed we are; (a) except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. (b)
(a) Gen.8:21 The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water? Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit. Isa.53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (b) John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1 Cor.12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 2 Cor.3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
And sorry if I baited you, however I have taken your bait, but what is the topic? O yes, "man is sinful"
I am relieved that you don't preach against "Calvin"
Charles
Charles,
why do you need all that, and a confession, to come to the conclusion man is sinful? We have no Creed but the Bible. The Bible says man is sinful.
By the way “sick” is another term for the unsaved condition. As are the terms “lost” “dead” “separated” “blind” “hopeless” “condemned”...
Aren't "sick", "lost", "separated","blind", "condemned" grey, wild card words that can shift in discussions? But "dead" and "hopeless" are set in concrete. Man is sinful beyond repair.
David, did you read all the scriptures that back up the creed?
Charles: "Aren't "sick", "lost", "separated","blind", "condemned" grey, wild card words that can shift in discussions? But "dead" and "hopeless" are set in concrete. Man is sinful beyond repair."
Words have meaning, Charles. If the Bible aid "lost" I suspect it means we are "lost" without Christ. Or Hopless or "blind." They all descirbe the unsaved condition.
Man is not sinful beyond repair. I believe Christ died and in the end we are glorified to a state where we no longer sin. thus our sinful nature is destroyed. So I believe Christ did "repair" sinful man on the cross. What do you think?
David, I've got your creed right here!
BF&M: By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.
"inclined toward sin" - weak statement of sinfulness
"as soon as they are capable of moral action" - denial of original sin
"enable man to fulfill" prevenient grace, promptings prior to conversion
Jesus said, "You must be repaired"
Nicodemus said, "Well I don't see a problem with that"
Naw, that don't even sound biblical!
Charles,
I seldom encounter somone so afraid to use the word "sinful" or to hold simply to Scripture.
Baptist have no creed but the Bible. Stop turning to human words to explain divine truths.
The bible says man is sinful. It says it over 50 times. I won't debate creeds with you. Or statements of faith. I simply believe man is sinful. got a problem with that? I believe the problem in this world is SIN. And I believe Satan will do anything to keep us from using the real "S" word: sin.
Okay, I'll bite: Man is not simply "depraved" and out of his mind. The problem is he has willfully sinned against the Living God. It is open rebellion. It's what the Bible calls SIN.
Is sodomy (another S word) a sin? Did an associate of Adrian Rogers sodomize his son for 18 months (540 days) Yes man is sinful! The people of Bellevue are seared from the sinfulness of this ordained SBC monster. They are sensitive to the sinfulness of Steve Gaines and dismiss the sodomy of Paul Williams, as though it should be swept under a carpet.
Now how do you feel about sin? Does it make you angry? David, in so many ways we owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology!!
Charles,
Don't lose sight of the fact that you earlier laid out a wacky theology that if Dr. Rogers were really in tune with the Holy Spirit he would have known what PW was doing.
And we don't owe Sodom an apology. We don't owe Babylon an apology. Goodness, we don't even owe Rome an apology. Our sin is against GOD, not other ancient civilizations. "Against you and you only have I SINNED."
David
My whacky theology is that God withheld the knowledge intentionally from AR, others may say if AR was intune with the Holy Spirit he might have known.
BTW I will not refer to anyones theology as whacky. This is a cheap shot that you as a pastor should refrain from.
I have throughly enjoyed our exchange today and you are right that sin offends God.
Charles
charles,
"Wacky" is tame compared to what Paul said to the Galatains about their false doctrine.
Brother, sincerely: You are accusing a man who is DEAD of failing to protect his flock based on knowledge he did not have.
Your statement: "God withheld the knowledge intentionally from AR"
Your website: "The mess AR left at Bellevue."
And your bothered that I call your theology wacky? I stand by that, also. You are promoting an unBiblical view of a serious church conflict and in the process dishonoring a Man of God. Your theology is not based on Scripture but your own opinion and creeds.
When confroned, you stir things up with Calvinism.
What you are accusing Rogers of (and indirectly GOD) is wrong. Neither Rogers nor God are responsible for PW's sin.
I do not see how you can be offended if I call your theology wacky, while you openly attack Dr. Rogers in the way you do. Truth is: Your theology is wacky. Get back to the Rock.
David,
I had hoped that we were finished, but seems that you want to continue dialogue.
"Neither Rogers nor God are responsible for PW's sin." Please in all honesty defend that statement Biblically.
On the surface there is the obvious fact that individuals are responsible for their own actions. (sins)
Couldn't there be an underlying reason for the event that may be explained by judgement. Has God ever allowed a sin or sinners to effect his judgements?
Would your loyalty to AR hinder your objectivity? Would your devotion to the SBC get in the way of your view?
Watchinghistory said...
"My whacky theology is that God withheld the knowledge intentionally from AR, others may say if AR was intune with the Holy Spirit he might have known."
Lynn's response:
In the words of an NFL Referee...
Flag on the play....false statement...15 yard penalty...repeat first down.
Seriously though, its not others that said what you said above. It was you that said that if Dr. Rogers was in tune with the Holy Spirit he would have known about Paul Williams.
Lynn
At the first I was saying that but now I believe that God withheld that from AR
I love it when preachers and teachers say things like this:
Stop turning to human words to explain divine truths.
Gives me a good chuckle.
WatchingHISstory said...
At the first I was saying that but now I believe that God withheld that from AR.
I'm glad to hear about that change.
Charles: "Neither Rogers nor God are responsible for PW's sin." Please in all honesty defend that statement Biblically."
No need to. I don't believe preachers are accountable for sin they would have no way to know about. That's your position. It's yours to defend; not mine.
You have now changed positions. Hard to keep up with. Now it is God who withheld information from Dr. Rogers. Since God is allknowing, what he reveals to us is his business. It is not for us to judge why God wouldn't reveal something to a person.
For instance: Is it Paul's fault God did not reveal to him that John Mark would abandon him before they left on the trip? Was Paul unspiritual? Paul should have seen the insecurity in John Mark's heart (by your logic).
Your theology doesn't hold water. I think you must realize that, so you try to either shut the conversation down or change to an argument about Calvinism.
I think you are missing the point that God usually directs us by Scriptures, not supernatural revelation of who is committing what sin within the church.
Junkster,
What I meant by "Stop turning to human words to explain divine truths" was that we shouldn't turn to creeds to understand the Bible. I'm glad I can make you laugh.
David said...
What I meant by "Stop turning to human words to explain divine truths" was that we shouldn't turn to creeds to understand the Bible.
I knew what you were getting at; was just being my usual sarcastic self. But two things: (1) How is using a statement of faith to summarize and explain scriptural truths any different from preaching a sermon, or writing a lesson or commentary? And (2) there is a difference between a Confession and a Creed, and while Baptists generally do not have Creeds, they have historically used Confessions as a means of expressing their common beliefs. The BF&M is a current example.
I'm glad I can make you laugh.
I am easily amused. :)
Junkster,
BF&M is becoming alermingly "creedal." Missionaries are being asked to sign it as are seminary and college teachers.
However, Baptist churches are independant. What Charles did was cite BF&M and argue its weakness insead of what I had said. I am not responsible for the wording of BFM! (though I am in agreement with it, I feel Scripture better defines my faith)
Creeds are different from sermons in that sermons aren 't usually used to define faith, they are meant to move people. Either move them to encounter Christ, move them to right doctrine, move them to right living. Creeds are usually agreed upon summeries of doctrine.
David said...
BF&M is becoming alermingly "creedal." Missionaries are being asked to sign it as are seminary and college teachers.
Agreed. A disturbing turn of events.
However, Baptist churches are independant. What Charles did was cite BF&M and argue its weakness insead of what I had said. I am not responsible for the wording of BFM! (though I am in agreement with it, I feel Scripture better defines my faith)
Charles also quoted other, older confessions, along with the supporting Scriptures, and asked if you believed them, but rather than addressing whether the statements accurately reflected the teachings of Scripture, you dismissed them as irrelevant because "We have no Creed but the Bible". I just think it would have been better to respond directly to his questions about whether you agreed with those statements of faith, since the whole conversation regarding doctrinal beliefs and statements came from Charles questions about your own doctrinal statement ("Mankind is sinful").
Creeds are different from sermons in that sermons aren't usually used to define faith, they are meant to move people. Either move them to encounter Christ, move them to right doctrine, move them to right living. Creeds are usually agreed upon summeries of doctrine.
Yes, I understand the difference between sermons and Confessions -- my point was that both are "using human words to explain divine truths." Unless you want people to dismiss your sermons out of hand without due consideration, you might not want to be too quick to dismiss the attempts of others to explain the teachings of Scripture.
Junkster,
I guess when I start using sermons to support my theology, you can correct me.
I avoided Charles scriptures enbedded in the Creed because he was wanting to debate Calvinism and distract from his unBiblical statements. None of the Scriptures cited in the Creed supported the statements he was making. If you really want an exposition of those Scriptures, I suppose one can be given at length. However, the Creed was literally a cut and paste. Anyone can create a pile of Scriptures and detur a discussion by demanding you deal with each one... not the issue at hand.
I stand by the simple statement: Man is sinful.
David said:
"No need to. I don't believe preachers are accountable for sin they would have no way to know about. That's your position. It's yours to defend; not mine."
"I think you are missing the point that God usually directs us by Scriptures, not supernatural revelation of who is committing what sin within the church."
David, if preaching were a human vocation what you are saying would be true. But it is not. When a preacher, called of God, preaches, it is a supernatural impartation of the otherwise unknown Word of God to hearers whose ears are quickened by the same Spirit to hear it! Were you taught that in seminary?
When that preacher stands before God he will not be judged by what he knew by human wisdom (that will condemn him) he will be measured by his obedience to what the Holy Spirit led him to preach. Yes, they will be responsible for what they didn't know. That is why ev ery sermon must be drenched in prayer before it is preached. Did they teach you that in seminary?
Or did they just teach you textualism and exposition?
You said: "It is not for us to judge why God wouldn't reveal something to a person."
Try telling that to Daniel!
You said: "For instance: Is it Paul's fault God did not reveal to him that John Mark would abandon him before they left on the trip? Was Paul unspiritual? Paul should have seen the insecurity in John Mark's heart (by your logic)."
David, David, insecurity is not sodomy. I can't use graphic language here to describe the difference (Mike won't let me) I ask one minister, did he know what sodomy was, he said yes, then I said, tell me. He did not know.
You also assume that AR is equal to the Apostle Paul (by your logic)
AR is no Paul, he lacks the qualities. Paul and Steve Gaines are more alike!! I'll assume you don't understand that. AR and Barnabas are closer to each other.
I'm sure you will indulge my speculations since you used the example of Paul and Mark.
Do you realize the insult you have directed to Mark! "May he rest in peace"
I am in pursuit of answers to the mess at Bellevue and by extension all of American fundamentalism.
It seems that you have offered a smidgen of evidence by your seemingly indifference to PW's sodomy. Something, I can't quite put my finger on, is wrong with your theology, as well as most of the posters on the Bellevue issue.
That dosen't exclued me since I confess to not fully understanding it. I am seeking God for the answer and line upon line is being laid to my understanding.
You said: "Your theology doesn't hold water. I think you must realize that, so you try to either shut the conversation down or change to an argument about Calvinism."
The only one shutting down the conversation is your accusations of arguing Calvinism.
I am a bold, Spirit-filled evangelistic Calvinist, what else would you expect of me?
When a bold Calvinist and a closet Arminian, who calls himself Bible-believing, converse, you have interesting dialog.
Charles,
I will not dialogue with you further. Your desire to smear a man of God who didn't know about something (and who is now with the Lord) is unGodly. You have made up an unBiblical argument (that Dr. Rogers should have known about the abuse if he was really spiritual. Or that God withheld the information) and seek simply to stir people up.
It is unfortunate men give you websites to promote attacks on the Church. What you say should not be tolerated by Godly men.
Charles, the church is God's Bride. You are not simply concerned about a young man who was molested, you have decided to use his pain as a means of attacking a pastor who knew nothing about it. Why not blame Charles Stanley... why, if he were spiritual God would have told him what was going on at Bellevue. You can't judge a MAN for what God didn't choose to reveal to him.
Your dependance on revelation outside of the Scriptures is leading you to unBiblical conclusions. God speaks through his WORD. The Scripture says that JESUS knew the hearts of all men; not us.
You go on attacking dead pastors and making up theology as you go. I'll get off your case. But as you attack the church and make up theology, let me ask you simply: Do you think God will honor what your are doing?
To those of you who say: Just give him a chance to say it... I would ask you: Why don't you have a deeper desire to protect the church? This man isn't simply "debating" theology, he's leveling attacks. this is the very thing we are commadned to first OPPOSE and then have nothing to do with.
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."
Titus 3:9-11
David said...
I guess when I start using sermons to support my theology, you can correct me.
That sounds rather defensive and abrupt. Perhaps you meant it differently than I took it. Are you not open to correction and examination of your positions? Or are you fully confident that you already understand all truth? Or is it just people with certain theological views that you dismiss, or just certain individuals to whom you consider yourself superior in some way? I hope you are not just another pastor whose ego is bigger than his heart. The world has too many of those already.
Also, if your sermons do not teach and promote and defend and proclaim and support what you believe to be Biblical theology, I'm concerned about the spiritual health of your sheep. Feed His lambs.
I avoided Charles scriptures enbedded in the Creed because he was wanting to debate Calvinism and distract from his unBiblical statements.
Charles suspected from the totality of your communications (on here and on your web site) that when you say "man is sinful" you have a meaning in that phrase that does not reflect his own understanding of the depth of the impact of sin on the human race. I think I know him (from his writings) well enough to know he was not trying to distract from unbiblical statements; he was trying to demonstrate that the Bible supports his statements on the issue of the impact of sin on humanity. I also think he was not arguing just with the words "man is sinful" but with what he perceives to be your meaning when using those words. But he can correct me if I assume incorrectly about his meaning.
What you call "debating Calvinism", the one called a "Calvinist" would simply consider discussing the meaning of Word of God. A well-know and respected Calvinist Baptist (Spurgeon) said of his views that Calvinism is just a nickname for biblical Christianity.
None of the Scriptures cited in the Creed supported the statements he was making. If you really want an exposition of those Scriptures, I suppose one can be given at length. However, the Creed was literally a cut and paste. Anyone can create a pile of Scriptures and detur a discussion by demanding you deal with each one... not the issue at hand.
As I recall, the issue at hand was just how sinful is sinful, i.e., what is the impact of sin on the human race. That's exactly what Charles was dealng with by citing the Confession (not Creed) and the Scriptures (contained within the Confession as support for the veracity of the Confession). Surely as a preacher you know the value of making a strong, bold, even controversial statement to provoke thought, to confront people with whether their ideas are Biblical. Jesus most certainly valued that approach.
I stand by the simple statement: Man is sinful.
So also says the Jehovah's Witness, the Mormon, the Onness Pentecostal, the semi-Pelagian, the Arminian, the Augustinian, Calvinist, the Lutheran, the Catholic, the Wesleyan, the Campbellite. And all say their view is the "Biblical" view. Do all mean the same thing by those words? No. It's fine for you to make a statement, but when challenged as to its meaning and how it compares to the statements of others related to the same topic, do you not see the value in making a careful, reasoned, and kind response?
David said...
Charles: "Is it idle chatter when you preach against Calvinism? or just when I post against Arminianism
There comes a time when a Christian must wake up without an agenda of his or her own. A time to move forward with the angenda
of Jesus Christ. To remain in an debate over Calvin's theory of salvation becomes a stumbling block for not only the one who is stuck there but also for those who feel compassion and want to help them. Jesus calls us to, "Get up and leave everything behind and follow Him"
Everything is what? There is something wrong with us when we can not walk away from a issue, regardless of what the issue may be.
I have had some issues to detain me spiritually. One is Calvinism and the other is the BBC Open Forum where anti Steve Gaines people congregate to make fun, call names, and support one another in their evil actions.
A clean spirit, walking in the Truth is what God desires for me and is the most valuable testimony that the Lord has upon this earth.
There comes a time when it is necessary to give Jesus, "everything" and walk on in His steps. Forgiveness/wiping the slate clean!
Those who we feel have done an injustice to the world, to the people we love, or to us directly are simply, "let go"
To some it is a simple thing, to others it is a sacrifice we do not wish to make but afterwards there is a clean refreshing feeling of freedom that brings joy to the soul/ a sacrifice worth making!
Our precious pastor's wife, Donna Gaines has given me very wise counsel encouraging me to regain my focus for walking on with Christ.
This week I have recommitted my mind to do what God called me to do, "Get up leave everything behind and follow Him"
I want to encourage those who may be hindered by an unclean spirit, regardless of the issue, to regain your focus and let us unite to do the work that God has for us to do through our home church.
I came here today in the name of the Prince of Peace to share from my heart what Jesus is doing in my life. We are in spiritual warfare the battle is between an unclean spirit and a clean Spirit. Who we are cooperating with rules over our mind and like Mike Bratton said, "Words means something"
Words are actions of walking with Jesus or actions of remaining in issues.
I pray that the readers will fully understand what I am saying as I leave these two issues in the past.
Sister In Christ,
Billie
David
I too am glad our discussion is over! It was obvious that you were not reading anything I wrote, only reacting emotionally to your perceptions.
However give me honest response to what I wrote: (you said)"Neither Rogers nor God are responsible for PW's sin." Please in all honesty defend that statement Biblically.
On the surface there is the obvious fact that individuals are responsible for their own actions. (sins)
Couldn't there be an underlying reason for the event that may be explained by judgement. Has God ever allowed a sin or sinners to effect his judgements?
Junkster: "Charles suspected from the totality of your communications (on here and on your web site) that when you say "man is sinful" you have a meaning in that phrase that does not reflect his own understanding of the depth of the impact of sin on the human race."
No, that's incorrect. Charles was upset that I said his view that AR should have known sin was in the camp was unBiblical, and his response to me was that my statement "man is sinful" was unBiblical.
So it was:
Me to Charles: You're unBiblical to say that if Dr. Rogers was spiritual God would have revealed PW's sin to him.
Charles Response: Well, don't talki to me about being Biblical. You say man is sinful, and that's unBiblical.
All discussion after that is cunningly distracted from the issue put on the table. Why is a man allowed to make such alligations? Why is the church not defended? Why is Dr. Rogers not defended? Instead you want to debate the depths of the depravity of man. At what point are you engaging in idle chatter?
Lynn
I said:
"At the first I was saying that but now I believe that God withheld that from AR"
Matthew Henry comments on Gen 18: 17 "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?"
"Abraham must know, for he is a friend and a favourite, and one that God has a particular kindness for and great things in store for. He is to become a great nation; and not only so, but in the Messiah, who is to come from his loins, All nations of the earth shall be blessed." -MH
Jesus said to his disciples: "Henceforth I call ye not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." John 15:15
If God holds back information from you there is likely a reason and that is He lacks trust in you. You are his servant and you get indirect guidance from Him but there is that lack of personal confidence. Many are called but few are chosen. "I have chosen you"
There are so many ways God could have let AR know. Accidental discovery, many could have confided in him, slip in a conversation, dream, vision, etc. etc. But it never happened. For seventeen years! Then after AR's death it happens.
David says: "You go on attacking dead pastors and making up theology as you go. I'll get off your case. But as you attack the church and make up theology, let me ask you simply: Do you think God will honor what your are doing?"
Yes David I believe that God will honor what I am doing. I am confident of that. Such that I will not allow anyone to detract me from being obedient to God.
I have no earthly authority to restrict me, no fear of man, popularity or fame, I live as a tentmaker minister. Yet God gives me favor in the sight of all men I make face to face contact with at home, work and Church.
I prayed a simple prayer several years ago asking God, "what is wrong with American fundamentalism?" I said, "When I stand before you I don't want any surprises as to what was going on in America."
Dec 22, 2005 He started laying out the answer to that prayer and so goes my oddessy.
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
Charles,
So your attacks on Dr. Rogers are the result of some estatic revelation you recieved from God?
Yes David, Isn't God great!
Well I guess estatic is a little understated. As I was standing in the street at 6am in the front of my house with my dog Roscoe I got a glimse of just a chair being shoved forward in heaven and a very angry God ordering Adrian Rogers to sit in this chair and watch your beloved Bellevue be destroyed. He repeated it twice.
It took my breath! It stays in my heart and mind day after day.
Are you serious?
By what Scripture did you confirm this thought?
By thought you imply that it was a product of my mental capacity. It was a vision freom God. I was awake and standing outside, fully dressed! It came quickly and unsuspecting.
Acts 2:17 I am 60 yo so I must be a young man, since it was a vision.
Charles,
I am not implying anything about your mental state. I constantly have thoughts go through my head. My question is: How did you discern that particular thought or image to be from the Lord? Was it confirmed by other believers? Was it varified in Scripture?
David said...
So it was:
Me to Charles: You're unBiblical to say that if Dr. Rogers was spiritual God would have revealed PW's sin to him.
Charles Response: Well, don't talk to me about being Biblical. You say man is sinful, and that's unBiblical.
All discussion after that is cunningly distracted from the issue put on the table.
I understand what you are saying; it is unfortunate that you do not understand what I am saying. Yes, what you have outlined is the larger context -- but I was not addressing that, only your response of rejecting Charles' statements out of hand as distractions, rather than addressing whether the Confession he quoted was Biblically accurate. As you will soon discover if you continue dialoging with him, Charles was not at all attempting to distract from from his statements regarding Dr. Rogers by bringing up his views on sin & depravity. He brought up those matters because they go to the heart of his concerns about Dr. Rogers teaching and ministry.
Why is a man allowed to make such alligations? Why is the church not defended? Why is Dr. Rogers not defended?
Mike allows a broad range of expression on this blog. But be assured that many have challenged Charles on his claims and views and many have defended Dr. Rogers and the Bellevue Baptist Church. I have chosen generally to refrain from discussing certain matters with him because the discussions seemed unfruitful and contentious (and because I felt he made assumptions about my own views based on my challenge to his), but I am certain that Charles' intent is to promote and defend what he believes to be true and to proclaim what he believes to be a message that God has given him. While I may not agree with all his presuppositions or conclusions or tactics, I am convinced that he is a fervant believer who seeks to honor his Lord, not just someone trying to be contentious.
Instead you want to debate the depths of the depravity of man. At what point are you engaging in idle chatter?
Now you wish to dismiss me, too. I find it very telling that you chose not to respond to my questions regarding your openness to correction. I have my answers now. Thanks!
I went to my pastor (I am not a member there) and shareed it all with him. He is a very conservative SBC and he believes that God does give revelations. We talfed scripture and he gave me a book to study (title and author I can't recall right now) but it was about the judgement seat of Christ and the judgements Christians would receive in heaven. While he was wisely uncommital to me about my vision, I shared with him that I believe that I Cor 3:13-15 implied and he nodded agreement.
There is a lack of our understanding of the reality of this judgement. Many tears will be shed in heaven by people who presently think that they will be amply rewarded for their service on this earth and multitudes who will be surprised by their abundance of rewards.
Jesus understood this so clearly when he so sternly rebuked the religious leaders who thought highly of themselves. I have no axe to grind with AR. This is about his theology and the serious misunderstanding he clung to about the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners.
So don't get me going about the errors of Arminianism again.
Watching said:
So don't get me going about the errors of Arminianism again.
I think this is excellent advice for everyone here ;)
junkster: "While I may not agree with all his presuppositions or conclusions or tactics, I am convinced that he is a fervant believer who seeks to honor his Lord, not just someone trying to be contentious."
So you're willing to let a man say that he had revelations about another pastor adn openly condemn that pastor, without rebuke from you because... well, that's his opinion.
Charles has made two clams. You test the Spirit.
First claim: Dr. Rogers left a mess at Bellevue. this is a result of his not being spiritual (or a result of God's lack of revelation... Charles hasn't decided yet).
Second Claim: That he had a vision in which he saw Dr. Rogers in heaven forced to look at the mess he had created in Bellevue.
How did this mess get created, in Charles view? Dr. rogers didn't act on information God didn't give him.
Charles, if I have misrepresented your view, PLEASE correct me. I would be glad to understand this better. But this isnt' just something you're promoting on this blog, you've built your own blog promoting the same thing. If what I've summerized represents the truth of your argument, I am concerned no one is speaking up. If I am misunderstanding, please clarify.
Thank you charles,
david
David said...
junkster: "While I may not agree with all his presuppositions or conclusions or tactics, I am convinced that he is a fervant believer who seeks to honor his Lord, not just someone trying to be contentious."
So you're willing to let a man say that he had revelations about another pastor adn openly condemn that pastor, without rebuke from you because... well, that's his opinion.
Did I say that? No, I did not. I was simply saying that you appear to be attributing evil motives to him that I do not believe are there.
I have countered Charles claims in detail, but I cannot control what he says on this blog or his own. I chose to disengage from conversations or attempts at correction because I saw them as unfruitful. But you have represented his actions to be "divisive" and "idle chatter", citing Titus 3. And you have insinuated that I am guilty of the same. You have condemned what you have perceived to be arrogance and contentiousness in others, but have done so in an arrogant and contentious manner.
Romans 2:
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
Junkster,
While you demand others not "judge" you will refuse to simply test the spirit. Is what you are hearing from Charles consistent with what you know of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, or our God?
You actually have a man on this site saying he had visions of Dr. Rogers in heaven enduring serious accusation. And he uses this vision as his grounds to attack the Lord's church on earth.
I simply ask you to test the Spirit. Apply this to what we know of Scripture and our God; does it line up?
David, your post states: "And he uses this vision as his grounds to attack the Lord's church on earth."
When you use the term, "Lord's church on earth" are you refering to the universal Church, the body of Christ, holy catholic Church, which Church?
Charles
David
First claim: Dr. Rogers left a mess at Bellevue.
True. Of coarse you don't need a revelation from God to see that.
Second Claim: That he had a vision in which he saw Dr. Rogers in heaven forced to look at the mess he had created in Bellevue.
Well I actually didn't say I saw DR. Rogers just a glimse of a chair being shoved forward and heard God ordering him to sit and watch.
I have no clear idea what your summaries are (you've given some to junkster) but this is my case:
(recorded earlier which you probally haven't read)
" If God holds back information from you there is likely a reason and that is He lacks trust in you. You are his servant and you get indirect guidance from Him but there is that lack of personal confidence. Many are called but few are chosen. "I have chosen you"
There are so many ways God could have let AR know. Accidental discovery, many could have confided in him, slip in a conversation, dream, vision, etc. etc. But it never happened. For seventeen years! Then after AR's death it happens." (PW was revealed)
Charles
NO CANCER!! My dad has NO CANCER!! The mass was a glanduloma (sp?) left from an infection of some sort. He's doing very well and his spirits are up.
Thanks for all who have and are praying for us!
Karen
Charles,
You make lots of claims against Dr. Rogers. When challenged you first try to distract. When that didn't work, you suddenly have new evidence for your claims: A vision! Have you published anything about this vision before?
When speaking of the church, I meant the LOCAL church.
The Scripture tells us to test fruit. Dr. Rogers fruit was tested. God blessed and honored him.
You create almost an untestable situation. You throw stones at Dr. Rogers, then when someone objects you claim divine revelation. Suddenly you've had a vision. A vision you haven't written about before. A vision that neatly gets you out of the jam you were in. A vision that would greatly discredit what we know to be a Man of God.
That's wonderful news, Karen.
Thank you for sharing.
David,
Which LOCAL Church are talking about?
Charles
If you are refering to the Lord's Church, the LOCAL Church then here are loyal followers of Adrian Rogers blogging on New Bellevue Baptist Church Open Forum criticizing The Lord's Pastor, successor to AR and the LOCAL Church. By extension they are the ongoing fruit of Adrian Rogers' ministry and talk like this goes on day after day.
READ THIS:
"I feel you speaking to Steve (Gaines-successor to AR) would be like teaching a pig to sing - it's a waste of time and it annoys the pig - so don't waste your time with Steve Gaines. He's not worth it - and it won't do any good. But I do understand XXXX's heart on his request - others have tried and failed and you couldn't hurt anything by trying. Just know it's been done already.
11:46 AM, October 10, 2007
Folks: I hope no one is holding their breath waiting for God to remove SG from his throne at BBC.(Bellevue Baptist Church) God is not in that business and history is proof.
Man put him there and if man doesn't get rid of him, he will grow old and rich at BBC. After all, a $450,000 yearly income and no one to answer to is close to a perfect setup.
What is your judgement?
David
Lynn is the ongoing fruit of AR's legacy. He sits and weeps! Soon God will wipe the tears from his eyes. His wood hay and stuble is consumed before his very eyes.
And on earth we see what he sees.
WatchingHISstory said...
David
Lynn is the ongoing fruit of AR's legacy. He sits and weeps! Soon God will wipe the tears from his eyes. His wood hay and stuble is consumed before his very eyes.
And on earth we see what he sees.
7:03 PM, October 11, 2007
Uh...No. I just use common sense and the brain God gave me.
Folks: I hope no one is holding their breath waiting for God to remove SG from his throne at BBC.(Bellevue Baptist Church) God is not in that business and history is proof.
Wow, I wish I was powerful enough to tell God what he can and can't do.
"So God, since you haven't removed dictators in the past (other than those in the Bible) you can't do it now. Why not? Because I said so!"
David said...
Junkster,
While you demand others not "judge" you will refuse to simply test the spirit. Is what you are hearing from Charles consistent with what you know of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, or our God?
Did I demand others not judge? No, I did not. I quoted a Bible passage that says that we are guilty of the things we condemn in others, hoping that perhaps God's Word would show you that's what you were doing. Believe me, there is a huge difference between my demands and God's exhortations.
And how exactly do you know whether or not I have tested the spirit? You don't know what you are talking about. I don't expect you to go back and read all the posts Charles and I have exchanged on this subject on this blog or on the NBBCOF, but I do think you shouldn't make incorrect claims based on ignorance of the facts.
So far you have shown evidence of an unteachable spirit, arrogance, ignorance, and being quarrelsome. Didn't you say you are a pastor? Do you think you meet the qualifications of 1 Tim 3 for that office?
Lynn
an impressive Arminian statement
"Uh...No. I just use common sense and the brain God gave me."
You are a good disciple of AR, however did he tell you about John 16:13?
Lynn said...
Here is why we are voicing our objections to Steve Gaines
1. The guy is a worse tyrant than Idi Amin.
Lynn, my friend, I fear some will take you literally. Idi Amin was responsble for the deaths of an estimated 300,000 of his subjects, and uncounted acts of human rights violations, racial and religious persecution, political oppression, etc. What SG has actually done (and not done) speaks loudly enough; no need for hyperbole.
WatchingHISstory said...
Lynn
an impressive Arminian statement
"Uh...No. I just use common sense and the brain God gave me."
You are a good disciple of AR, however did he tell you about John 16:13?
7:44 PM, October 11, 2007
Watching,
To be quite honest, I don't care about Calvinism/Armininism. I don't know nothing about that. Don't really care about the symantics.
Reposting to Correct a comment:
Lynn said...
WatchingHISstory said...
If you are refering to the Lord's Church, the LOCAL Church then here are loyal followers of Adrian Rogers blogging on New Bellevue Baptist Church Open Forum criticizing The Lord's Pastor, successor to AR and the LOCAL Church. By extension they are the ongoing fruit of Adrian Rogers' ministry and talk like this goes on day after day.
Lynn's Not So Polite Response:
Here is why we are voicing our objections to Steve Gaines
1. His leadership tactics make Richard Nixon look clean.
2. He totally disrespected Jim Whitmire. Yes, as Sr. Pastor Gaines has the right to bring in who he wants, but it would be logical to at least respect those in the previous administration
3. He lies to the congregation. Tells people he doesn't preach on Wednesdays to spend time with his family but instead goes out of town for mega buck speaking engagements.
4. He harbored a Pedophile. And watching, don't even start with your psychosis induced hallucinations, you've already said it I don't want to hear it again. We're talking about the present. Not the time before Gaines became pastor.
5. Hires a bunch of goons to protect him from the congregation. Maybe Gaines and Willie Herenton should council each other on their playbooks for avoiding accountability.
If Gaines did not commit these acts of treason against the sheep he serves as shepard of, the blog would not exist.
5:35 PM, October 11, 2007
Delete
Junkster said...
Lynn said...
Here is why we are voicing our objections to Steve Gaines
1. The guy is a worse tyrant than Idi Amin.
Lynn, my friend, I fear some will take you literally. Idi Amin was responsble for the deaths of an estimated 300,000 of his subjects, and uncounted acts of human rights violations, racial and religious persecution, political oppression, etc. What SG has actually done (and not done) speaks loudly enough; no need for hyperbole.
7:50 PM, October 11, 2007
Your right. I went back and edited that comment.
David, I want you to see the kind of people AR discipled and his on-going fruit. Is she attacking the LOCAL Church, God's Church?
Lynn's Not So Polite Response:
Here is why we are voicing our objections to Steve Gaines
1. The guy is a worse tyrant than Idi Amin.
2. He totally disrespected Jim Whitmire. Yes, as Sr. Pastor Gaines has the right to bring in who he wants, but it would be logical to at least respect those in the previous administration
3. He lies to the congregation. Tells people he doesn't preach on Wednesdays to spend time with his family but instead goes out of town for mega buck speaking engagements.
4. He harbored a Pedophile. And watching, don't even start with your psychosis induced hallucinations, you've already said it I don't want to hear it again. We're talking about the present. Not the time before Gaines became pastor.
5. Hires a bunch of goons to protect him from the congregation. Maybe Gaines and Willie Herenton should council each other on their playbooks for avoiding accountability.
If Gaines did not commit these acts of treason against the sheep he serves as shepard of, the blog would not exist.
Hey Watching...
you know nothing about me. One, Dr. Rogers did NOT disciple me.
And second, I'm a guy thank you
Lynn
I apologize, sorry 'bout' that
Charles
Junkster,
Brother, you're the one calling names. "arogance" "quarrelsome" "ignorance" and so on. I am simply asking you to test what you are reading. Is this Biblically sound? Do you intend to oppose it? ou jumped in to defend Charles without correcting some pretty serious alligations he was making.
yes, I am a pastor. You know that because unlike you two (Junkster / Charles) I'm not hiding behind a screen name. In fact, that's how you guys found my church's website and got SO VERY OFFENDED I actually said "man is sinful." Why! Of all the things for a pastor to say! In fact, Charles even called the statement "man is sinful" "Unbiblical." (whis was before reports of his visions).
So, simply: I continue to hold that man is sinful. I continue to believe it is wrong to attack dead pastors based only on the "visions" of a guy you talked to on the internet. And I believe the church deserves a level of respect charles is not giving it.
David,
I believe that the Sovereign God deserves the level of respect that you and (very sadly to say it) the Church aren't giving Him. My apologies to the Churches preaching the truth. There are few of you.
Charles,
You declare God is sovereign, then say God did not put S.G. in the pastorate at Bellevue. ?
I believe God put Saul on the throne as well as David.
offline
3. He lies to the congregation. Tells people he doesn't preach on Wednesdays to spend time with his family but instead goes out of town for mega buck speaking engagements
It is a fact Dr. Gaines was out because he had already scheduled the speaking engagements prior to moving to Bellevue.
I personally doubt any of these accusations are true from what we have learned Dr. Gaines is a top notch preacher
Micah,
The most serious one, the harboring of a pedophile is true. It was all over the news.
Top Notch? Top Notch Sheep Beater maybe. I don't call a pastor that uses his sermons to attack critics as a good pastor. In fact I question his heart as a pastor.
David
Did you read this (you don't seem to read post objectively)
"Top Notch? Top Notch Sheep Beater maybe. I don't call a pastor that uses his sermons to attack critics as a good pastor. In fact I question his heart as a pastor."
The LOCAL Church is under assult! The Lord's man is being attacked!\
And Steve Gaines is not dead, he is alive.
Lynn (who I previously confused with lin/lindon on the "open forum")
"Top Notch? Top Notch Sheep Beater maybe. I don't call a pastor that uses his sermons to attack critics as a good pastor. In fact I question his heart as a pastor."
Did you ever read Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, a letter that was canonized. Talk about attacking his critics. And he harbored John Mark, an insecure follower. Barnabas couldn't tolerate some of Paul's harshness.
That part about John Mark was tongue-n-cheek directed to David.
Jesus used calvinistic language when speaking to Nicodemus, who thought like an Armininian.
Centuries later an Armininian who thought like Nicodemus wrote a song with the words "I know not how the Spirit moves..."
Jesus was saying you know not when or where the Spirit chooses and Nicodemus was saying "I know not how the Spirit moves."
Honestly, the Cal/Arm war has gotten so intense, I had to click back and forth a few times to make sure I was posting on the right thread.
The only segue I could think of that might get us anywhere close to back on topic would be ... these verbal volleys between folks who have no interest in or intention of finding common ground remind me very much of race relations in the City of Memphis. Recipe for the rhetorical round-and-round goes like this: Start with your own pet peeve (SG, AR, visions, Calvinism, Arminianism, PW, credit cards, deacons, black-on-black crime, black-on-white crime), then find some basis for your argument in your own perception of truth (Scripture; what your husband heard a co-worker's best friend's aunt, who's the wife of a deacon, say; what any of the regular "post-heads" on NBCCOF believe and post ad nauseam; the Civil Rights Act; the preamble to the Constitution; Jena 6 ...), which is largely based on your own cultural and ethnocentric assumptions or, often, the reporting of a biased, sensationalistic press.
Next, find someone whose ideas and beliefs are the diametric opposite of yours, and instead of having civil discourse about the topic which (gasp!) might actually serve to open each other's minds and hearts just a tad so that common ground CAN be found, just go on and go toe-to-toe with each other, and keep screaming the same ol' tired saws at each other, over and over. Do this blindfolded and with plugs in your ears, so you won't be tempted to observe body language or nuances of speech that might actually give you a glimpse of the humanity of the other side or how much like you they really may be, and you certainly won't ever notice that neither of you has budged 1 cm closer to your own goal line.
Might as well take a couple of cats, tie their tails together, and throw 'em over the clothesline for all the good any of this arguing is doing.
Meanwhile, there's a world that's out there made up of real people who are hell-bound, or they're baby Christians who were never properly discipled and long to be right with the Lord again -- and all they can see Christians do is fight with each other. Because that really is all we seem to be doing. (I don't like your billboards and advertising, so I'll throw an insult about the preacher's wife's hair ... there!)
To tie this back into the topic, tax-paying citizens who feel shortchanged regarding city services and the basic protection of a safe community because of crime have very little confidence in city government to do anything about the situation. Our leaders are living in their own fantasy land, wasting warehouses full of our tax dollars and, at the same time, driving more and more wedges into the vast chasm of racial divide and putting us so far away from each other we may never come back together.
Similarly, those church members who long for healing and restoration (whether we have chosen to stay or to leave) hear the din of argument ringing loudly in our ears and find ourselves wondering if we will ever see this horrible breach mended. There are too many "deal breakers" in too many of our minds. Too few of us are willing to say, "Whatever, Lord -- we'll work till Jesus comes." It's become all about one side making the other holler, "Calfrope!"
Maybe we weren't so off-topic after all ...
Miriam Wilmoth
Miriam read this (coffeetrader-news&views)
WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, DON'T SPEAK LIKE THIS:
"Roughly two thousand years ago, Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus' mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was often mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted the crazy story to cover the fact she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom." --MARK DRISCOLL
SPEAK LIKE THIS:
"We know that it is our good, our joy and rest to be united with the Son of God. As He is our Head, we are His body, so also from Him we hold our life and our salvation and all good. In fact, we see how miserable our condition would be unless we had our refuge in Him, to be maintained under His keeping. However, we could not reach so high (seeing that scarcely can we crawl upon the earth), unless from His side He approached us, and already He had approached in His birth, when He clothed Himself in our flesh and He made Himself our brother. We could not now have our refuge in our Lord Jesus Christ’s being seated at the right hand of God His Father in heavenly glory, unless He were abased as far as being made mortal man and having a condition common with us. That is also why, when He is called “Mediator between God and men,” this title “man” is especially attributed to Him. As also for the same reason He is called “Emanuel,” that is, “God with us.” --JOHN CALVIN
To tie this back into the topic, tax-paying citizens who feel shortchanged are not able to enjoy the pure simple bliss of Calvinism because this is what they hear about Calvinism. Miss- conjectors that appeal to the elite
and blindly educated! Memphis needs to know God.
I have to go to work at FedEX where I have about 20 or people I will joyously relate this morning about Christ. They will not hear a quote about Calvin but in the language of Mark Driscoll, which dosen't mean I approve of all he said. The common people gladly hear! The arrogant righteous will toil all day on the "open forum" about Steve and Donna.
Charles
As often happens, I got lost somewhere in the belletrism of your post. Are you saying Driscoll is or is not communicating effectively to the lost folk of our time? B/c if you're saying he's not, I am officially telling you not to be hatin' on Driscoll.
TG
Charles,
Is "arrogant righteousness" on all of our part not exactly the crux of the problem?
Sometimes, in the heat of a marital argument or in a loud discourse with my teenagers, I have found it helpful to say, "Don't forget, guys -- we're on the same team here!"
When did we stop being on the same team, and why do we continue to allow these issues to polarize us so? Especially if all we end up doing is throwing dirt clods at each other.
WatchingHISstory said...
Jesus used calvinistic language when speaking to Nicodemus, who thought like an Armininian.
Centuries later an Armininian who thought like Nicodemus wrote a song with the words "I know not how the Spirit moves..."
One of my favorite hymns says this:
Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
An excellent, biblical ("Calvinistic") description of salvation. And written by an Arminian! Perhaps Charles Wesley was a "closet Calvinist".
WatchingHISstory said...
Jesus used calvinistic language when speaking to Nicodemus, who thought like an Armininian.
Brother Charles,
You need to step back and take a deep breath. Jesus did not use calvinistic language. Never, not at any time.
Follow this...
When and only when Calvin got it right, he used Jesus language. The same applies to us.
Every word that came out of Jesus' mouth were the words of His Father.
Brother, you need to quit being so legalistic and begin to love your brothers and sisters in Christ. You, Calvin, myself or any one on this forum has cornered the market on Truth.
Your legalism is as ugly as liberalism.
WatchingHISstory said...
Jesus used calvinistic language when speaking to Nicodemus, who thought like an Armininian.
Brother Charles,
You need to step back and take a deep breath. Jesus did not use calvinistic language. Never, not at any time.
Follow this...
When and only when Calvin got it right, he used Jesus language. The same applies to us.
Every word that came out of Jesus' mouth were the words of His Father.
Brother, you need to quit being so legalistic and begin to love your brothers and sisters in Christ. You, Calvin, myself or any one on this forum has cornered the market on Truth.
Your legalism is as ugly as liberalism.
Please accept this correction to my post, I left off the word in bold.
You, Calvin, myself or any one on this forum has notcornered the market on Truth.
To tie this back into the topic, tax-paying citizens who feel shortchanged are not able to enjoy the pure simple bliss of Calvinism because this is what they hear about Calvinism. Miss- conjectors that appeal to the elite
and blindly educated! Memphis needs to know God.
I hate to agree with Charles (or anyone else, for that matter) but he does have a point.
David said...
Junkster,
Brother,
Thanks for that!
you're the one calling names. "arogance" "quarrelsome" "ignorance" and so on.
It was not my intent to call names; I was careful not to say "you are arrogant" but to say "you have shown evidence of arrogance". There is in my mind a big difference. What really matters, though, is not my opinion of your actions, but God's. That's between you and Him, and if your conscience is clean before Him, then you have nothing to be concerned about from how your words come across to me.
I am simply asking you to test what you are reading.
I have.
Is this Biblically sound?
I do not believe it it.
Do you intend to oppose it?
I have.
You jumped in to defend Charles without correcting some pretty serious alligations he was making.
I think you mistook my questioning of your response to Charles citations of a Confession for a defense of Charles' statements about Dr. Rogers.
yes, I am a pastor. You know that because unlike you two (Junkster / Charles) I'm not hiding behind a screen name.
My "real" name is totally irrelevant to anything I have said. You chose to reveal you are a pastor, but you seem to have a problem with being asked if you consider yourself qualified.
In fact, that's how you guys found my church's website and got SO VERY OFFENDED I actually said "man is sinful." Why! Of all the things for a pastor to say! In fact, Charles even called the statement "man is sinful" "Unbiblical." (whis was before reports of his visions).
I was never offended by your statement that "man is sinful", and I never said it was unbiblical.
So, simply: I continue to hold that man is sinful.
Good. I only got into this when you started dismissing the Confession Charles quoted out of hand, calling it a Creed, and "turning to human words to explain divine truths", rather than dealing with whether the Confessions statements were Biblical.
I continue to believe it is wrong to attack dead pastors based only on the "visions" of a guy you talked to on the internet. And I believe the church deserves a level of respect charles is not giving it.
I do not disagree with those statements.
Speaking of arrogance ... Dr. Herenton (aka "King Willie"), in a rare appearance yesterday on Mike Fleming's radio program, announced that this would be his final term as mayor.
Not that there's that much credence in his words, but thought you 'Bama high-tailers might be interested.
Junkster: "Good. I only got into this when you started dismissing the Confession Charles quoted out of hand, calling it a Creed, and "turning to human words to explain divine truths", rather than dealing with whether the Confessions statements were Biblical."
Charles wanted to use the Creed to argue that my view of man as "sinful" was unBiblical. I'm not willing to argue a Creed. the Bible plainly says man is sinful. No debate. No arguing. No disussion.
FYI: Yes, the confession is Biblical. Charles was wanting to build his own point off of those. He plainly said our church's statement of faith was "unBiblical" because we said "man is sinful." I do have a teachable spirit. It is not going to be taught by men who can't figure out if man is sinful.
I do understand that you and Charles differ on all points. Please understand why I refused to deal with his creed. He wanted to use a Creed to declare our statement that man is sinful as UnBiblicla and claim that I had a low view of human depravity.
What We Believe
Palms Baptist Church has no creed other than the Bible. The Bible is our statement of faith. That means we believe:
1. The Bible is completely the Word of God.
2. There is one and only one God.
3. God is expressed in 3 persons: The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
4. Man is sinful.
5. Jesus, came as a Messiah to free us from sin. He died and was raised back to life.
6. Faith in Jesus leads us to salvation.
7. Because salvation is a gift of grace, it cannot be lost. The Bible teaches “once saved always saved.”
8. Believers should publicly express their faith by being Baptized by immersion. (They should go under the water and come back up, not simply be sprinkled.)
9. The church was created by Jesus for 5 reasons: To worship God, to reach out with love to the lost and share the good News, to disciple believers in a growing relationship with God, to equip the family of God to do the work of God, and to encourage members to deeply connect with one another in true brotherly love. (Worship, evangelism, discipleship, ministry, fellowship)
10. Jesus will return to earth to gather his people to him, punish evil and usher in a new creation.
This is an Armininian creedal statement. Can you point out the Biblical weaknesses if you are not too embrassessed or ashamed?
hint: it has an inconsistency similar to Adrian Roger's Arminianism. Come on give it a try.
jon
stepping back...taking a deep breath...
Calvin's language was reflective of Jesus' in John 3 when he was speaking to Nicodemus, who thought like an Armininian.
Ah that is better, and feels so good. Thanks
a fellow Calvinist
Charles
David
You are deceptive, dishonest and divivise.
You said: "It is not going to be taught by men who can't figure out if man is sinful."
I am not interesting in teaching you anything. The Holy Spirit does that.
But you know full well I can figure out that man is sinful. You know what you mean and you know what I mean and you know why we differ. You are a pastor and so you know a little about theology.
So your dishonesty and deceptiveness is showing. Do you use this tactic in everyday pastoral duties?
You said to junkster: "I do understand that you and Charles differ on all points."
Divide and conquer is the tactic. You ignore my comments and discuss with junkster. That dosen't bother me but should bother junkster, if he don't mind me speaking for him. Junkster and I do not have to agree on anything.
But you are playing a game and you are a divisive person. Do you practice this in your daily pastoral duties?
You are a very insecure individual and need some help in dealing with people.
Now people on these blogs dump on me and say I need help including...well everyone..almost.. So get use to it. You need help. We all need help.
our help cometh from the Lord
Charles
“You are deceptive, dishonest and divivise.
You are a very insecure individual and need some help in dealing with people.”
You’re probably right, charles.
David
David said...
Charles wanted to use the Creed to argue that my view of man as "sinful" was unBiblical.
It is still a Confession and not a Creed, and you calling it a Credd won't make it one. But apparently my telling you it is not a Creed won't keep you from calling it one, either. :)
I'm not willing to argue a Creed. the Bible plainly says man is sinful. No debate. No arguing. No disussion.
That is not an unreasonable approach on your part.
FYI: Yes, the confession is Biblical. Charles was wanting to build his own point off of those. He plainly said our church's statement of faith was "unBiblical" because we said "man is sinful." I do have a teachable spirit. It is not going to be taught by men who can't figure out if man is sinful.
I am glad to hear you are teachable. And I do not blame you for resisting teaching from those whose doctrine you consider suspect. But I still do not think Charles intended to distract from the discussion or that he is some sort of heretic. Not that he is losing sleep over my opinions ... and neither should you. :)
WatchingHISstory said...
What We Believe
Palms Baptist Church has no creed other than the Bible. The Bible is our statement of faith. That means we believe:
...
This is an Armininian creedal statement.
It is neither a creed nor Arminian. Nor Armiminian, nor Calvininist.
Junkster,
Would be willing to give me your understanding of the difference in a Creed and a Confession?
My personal experience is that they are pretty much the same.
Charles: “This is an Armininian creedal statement. Can you point out the Biblical weaknesses if you are not too embrassessed or ashamed?”
Earlier you declared our church's statement "unBiblical." That's why the statement starts by clarifying that the Bible trumps anything we write.
I’m not embarrassed or ashamed of what I put on our church’s website.
--The statement says simply that we believe the Bible is inspired. That is using the same Biblical term Paul used.
--It says that we are monotheistic and that we believe that God is Triune.
--I also state that we believe “man is sinful.” I’m sorry you don’t think the wording is strong enough there. Do a Bible search of the word “sinful” and the word “depraved” and you’ll discover which word the Scripture prefers to describe mans unregenerate condition.
--The statement goes on to say that faith in Jesus leads to salvation. Meaning you don’t get saved by any other means. Only the atoning death of Jesus is enough to save us. We put our faith in him.
--And then we state that salvation can’t be lost. (Need I argue that with a Calvinist?)
--We openly empress that we expect the believer to be Baptized by immersion and that The church is on earth for five reasons. (Although I have recently become convinced of a 6th reason for the church: Prayer).
--Finally we state that Jesus is coming back.
I didn’t write it using my secret Armininian handbook.
David said...
Junkster,
Would be willing to give me your understanding of the difference in a Creed and a Confession?
My personal experience is that they are pretty much the same.
It's not uncommon for the terms to be used interchangeably. Some use the term Creed for the earliest formulations of essential doctrines developed in the first few centuries after Christ, and the term Confession for the more detailed statements of faith developed after the Reformation.
But Baptists have traditionally used Confession to mean a non-binding statement of commonly held beliefs and Creed to mean a binding statement of required beliefs. As you indicated previously, the Baptist Faith & Message, historically considered by Southern Baptists as a Confession (or Statement of Faith) has more recently started to be used in a more Creedal manner, to enforce doctrinal conformity.
Here is an article that discusses the differences.
Junkster,
Interesting. I didn't know that. Thank you.
McBeth, who is quoted in the article, wrote a MASSIVE book on Baptist history. Our prof forced us to read every single word of it... and I did. It read like a Baptist phone book (just name after name). We thought we'd come to the begats of Baptist history!
Where's Mike Bratton?
David,
good morning!
I concede to you "man is sinful"
I did like you said and searched 'Strongs' and depraved is not even mentioned in the KJV.
The words 'total depravity' are redundant so 'sinful' suffices!
Now I am stuck with SULIP.
I use the words 'absolute sovereign' around people who I suspect limit God's sovereignty.
That also is redundant.
Charles,
I am pleasently stunned.
david
SULP... (:
I don't think to say man is "sinful" removes our understanding that he is also "debraved." God gave man over to depravity. That is: Depravity appears to be the result of a sinful state. Esp. a "depraved mind." (I'm writing at home, not looking at strongs, so this might be wrong).
Anyway, I suspect we've so toned sin down that it doesn't ahve the meaning Scripture has for it. The result of sin: God gave them over to depravity.
The further result of "sin" is spiritual "death."
Charles,
You got it wrong again, brother.
Nicodemus thought like a lost man, nothing more, nothing less.
Again, I ask you to be careful to not be legalistic. Calvin left a mighty good mark on Christian history but nothing compared to the Lord, Jesus. Using Him as your reference instead of Calvin or whomever, will help a whole lot.
junkster said
"One of my favorite hymns says this:
Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee."
Charles Wesley was a consistent Arminian, stressing personal holiness and morality in a modified episcopal polity.
Thanks for the beautiful words.
My greatest struggle is with inconsistent Arminianism and the dangers it portends.
jon
If you don't mind I'll remain leagalistically Calvinist. That way you know exactly what I believe and stand for.
I personally long for the day when I can just be a follower of Christ and believe in the Bible without futher elaboration.
You and your 'kind' (inconsistent Arminians - moderate Calvinist wantabes) have hackneyed Christ and his Word to the point of trite commonplace, almost vulgar to the world. Rom 2:24
I perfer separation from you and your world.
love, Charles
WatchingHISstory said...
junkster said
"One of my favorite hymns says this:
Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee."
Charles Wesley was a consistent Arminian, stressing personal holiness and morality in a modified episcopal polity.
Would that more believers, whether called Calvinist or Arminian, had as good an understanding of the nature of salvation as reflected in the words of that hymn.
Just an Off Topic Note:
My great neice had a baby girl a couple days ago! This makes great great neice/nephew #2!!!! AND I"M ONLY 27 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ay Yi Yi!!!
David, you wrote:
"4. Man is sinful.
5. Jesus, came as a Messiah to free us from sin. He died and was raised back to life.
6. Faith in Jesus leads us to salvation."
"The result of sin: God gave them over to depravity."
"The further result of "sin" is spiritual "death."
How can a sinful, depraved spiritually dead and unregenerate's faith in Jesus lead him to salvation?
Charles,
“How can a sinful, depraved spiritually dead and unregenerate's faith in Jesus lead him to salvation?
Answer:
Because it’s not based on our “works” it’s based on Christ Work on the Cross. I don’t have faith in myself (that would be dead and hopeless) but I do have faith in the Savior. “FAITH” is not a work.
Notice that the Bible says man is "justified" by FAITH.
If you don't like that, don't attend Palms Baptist.
“For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith ." Rom 1:17
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” Rom. 3:28
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast .” Eph. 2:8-9
David
You said: "I don’t have faith in myself (that would be dead and hopeless) but I do have faith in the Savior."
...but DID you have faith in the savior when you were unregenerate (dead and hopeless) that led you to salvation?
Charles
jon said:
You got it wrong again, brother.
Nicodemus thought like a lost man, nothing more, nothing less.
Couldn't a lost man think like an Arminian, Calvinist or maybe even a Baptist?
Charles,
When I was lost I at a specific point in time placed faith in Jesus. I believed and it was credited to me as righteousness.
Do you hijack every conversation with this college debate?
Hey Michael - Just in case you check your blog before you check your email, I sent you the link to the fund raiser website that we talked about the other day. And just so you are aware, the orders have to be done by Thursday, 10-18-07.
MUCHAS GRACIAS, MI HERMANO!
David
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast .” Eph. 2:8-9
You Said: "When I was lost I at a specific point in time placed faith in Jesus. I believed and it was credited to me as righteousness."
Was this specific point in time before or after your regeneration?
I do feel guilty about highjacking this conversation, so please don't rub it in.
I am resorting to college debating because you as a college educated pastor already know what I am leading up to and you could cut to the chase by just answering the question and let the chips fall where they may.
But no, you'll bypass again and I who am obnoxious will not back down.
Regeneration is part of salvation.
"He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7
Regeneration ("renewal")is mentioned twice in Scripture, both times with different slant. First time (matt 19:28) it is discussed Jesus speaks of the renwal of all things (the regeneration... he is speaking of the Resurrection of the final state). Paul uses the word to refer to partof what God did in the Salvation process.
I do not believe we first have to be renewed BEFORE we can be saved. It is part of the same event. that is: When we are saved, then we are renwed. It is part of new birth.
Strange: We have fundamentalist who want to make regeneration a separate act from salvation. And pentecostals who want to make the infilling of the HOly Spirit a separate act. I think Christians are losing the true awe of what it means to simply be saved. We're complicating that which God made simple.
I do not believe we first have to be renewed BEFORE we can be saved. It is part of the same event. that is: When we are saved, then we are renwed. It is part of new birth.
6. Faith in Jesus leads us to salvation.
How did we come to having faith in Christ that led us to salvation?
Can the unregenerate exercise faith in Jesus?
Charles: "Can the unregenerate exercise faith in Jesus?"
"faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Rom. 10:17
Can unregenerate exercise faith? If they hear the message.
Obviously a person turning to Christ does so at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. This isn't some indipendant decision, it is in response to God's calling.
Hey, everyone.
I am a proud grandpa for the fourth time as of 1:30 PM today. I have two daughters and three granddaughters and NOW one grandson!
Thank God from whom all blessings flow!
Charles
charles,
You must really be OLD!!!
Does Fred know your real age?
Congrats, anyway.
David
"Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God."
The BF&M did not have this statement in 1925 but in 1963 this was inserted and continued in 2000.
This statement provides a modification of 'sinfullness' that prior to 1925 troubled Baptist because the orthodox belief in 'sinfulness' rendered the sinner incapable of producing a good thought or desire toward God.
The historical orthodox beliefs in saving grace held by the Church were contrary to what the new orthodoxy proclaimed.
The new orthodoxy proclaimed a message friendly to the sinner's reasonings. The sinner reasoned that his will must be free and his sensibilities insisted on it.
For the sake of creating an evangelistic environment appealing to this sensibility the sinfullness of man was modified to the point that man's free will was perserved.
Though men are depraved God provides an enablement that modifies sinfullness to the point that he can be capable of saying yes or no. Under the old way he was sovereignly chosen. In the new way God's sovereignty is self-limited by this provision of enablement or prompting.
This and your statement is nothing less than a variation of Arminianism. pure and simple.
Arminians believe in conditional election because they believe that is what the Bible teaches.
Gen.8:21 The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.
Isa.53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
None of these verses have loop holes for any enablement or prompting. They clearly indicate that if we are to be saved at all it will have to be grace outside of ourselves and by divine election else we have to modify the Bible.
Charles
Charles,
Your theology ultimtely causes God to reject himself in the heart of the sinner.
In your system, sin isn't really all that bad since sinners aren're responsible for their sin... God is. God does the accepting, rejecting, the sinning, the saving. I don't buy it.
I believe man is sinful by birth and by choice. Because of that sin we are doomed to eternal hell. We stand under the judgment of God. Why? Not because God chose sin for us, but because we offended his holy nature by turning to sin instead of God.
Charles,
"This and your statement is nothing less than a variation of Arminianism. pure and simple."
Quote me on this, Charles: I don't care about your labels. You take people who have honest convictions about the Scripture and want to dismiss them because they don't fit your box. Sorry, I'm not trying to get in your box. Or Calvin's box. Or Arminian box.
Perhaps God has forordained you to stop tearing my statement of belief apart and go enjoy a grandchild. Could it be? Ask Him.
David
I am enjoying my grandchild!! Thanks
Your system has one gigantic fatal flaw and his name is Paul Williams.
He is an elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore. He demonstrates how bad sin is in your system.
Quote me on this, David: I do care about your labels.
I gave you my best argument, and a good one for an armchair theologian, with strong, very strong corroborative scripture which in my mind can not be refuted.
But you did not respond back in kind but with emotive language.
You stooped to the level of Adrian Rogers by MISLABELING my argument.
You responded to a straw-man, created to misrepresent my views.
AR said, "God did not take a little tender child and say, 'I'm going to harden your heart and then I'm going to cast you into hell'."
That is a statement from a man who has no foundation for argument and resorts to a misleading statement to distract from the opponents view.
In man's justice system no judge would allow such weak statement. It would be objected to and the jury would be strongly advised to disregard the statement. But the problem is the jury has already heard.
So most everyone who reads your response will say, WOW, Charles believes that!
Charles: "Your system has one gigantic fatal flaw and his name is Paul Williams."
Is that what your're resorting to?
Charles: “you did not respond back in kind but with emotive language.”
So you want me to call you names and put labels on you?
Charles: “In man's justice system no judge would allow such weak statement.”
I’m not the one using visions to support my argument for God’s judgment against A. Rogers. Interesting, you refer to a “straw man” argument. Yet what you do is discuss what Rogers believes, then attack him as if you were attacking me.
Charles: “[PW] is an elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore. He demonstrates how bad sin is in your system.”
You appear to feel very free in using the pain of a child to advocate your theological position.
David
Call me right names and put correct labels on me. Don't misrepresent me.
Yes, what I do is discuss what Rogers believes, then attack you because you both embrace the same fallacy. Yes, clearly I am the one using visions to base my arguments of judgements against Dr. Rogers. If you have a problem with visions you will have to take that up with God.
You said: "You appear to feel very free in using the pain of a child to advocate your theological position."
The democrats use your tactic to try to make the republicans look bad. "Look at what those mean republicans are doing to our poor children."
David, there is a power issue when a rape occurs. The rapist likes to taunt their victim while raping them.
When a religious person rapes they like to talk theology to their victim. They talk of grace, forgiveness and love which sears and cauterizes the heart of the victim from ever experiencing these things from God.
There is a string of events connecting PW, his son, AR and Bellevue to the fate of American fundamentalism today.
Charles: "David, there is a power issue when a rape occurs. The rapist likes to taunt their victim while raping them.
When a religious person rapes they like to talk theology to their victim. They talk of grace, forgiveness and love which sears and cauterizes the heart of the victim from ever experiencing these things from God."
So having failed theologically, you now accuse me of some form of rape?
Why does mike allow this on his blog?
Please do not discuss with me how a rape takes place again. They are images I don't want in my mind. Worse, don't accuse me of spiritually doing what PW did physically. You are crossing lines.
David read this.
about 15 paragraphs down to understand what PW did to his son. It is a personal account in italics. You can't afford to ignore this. It won't go away.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_06_30_Spragens_RapeOf.htm
This is what an ordained SBC monster did to his son.
So having failed theologically,
let me refresh:
This and your statement is nothing less than a variation of Arminianism. pure and simple.
Arminians believe in conditional election because they believe that is what the Bible teaches.
None of these verses have loop holes for any enablement or prompting. They clearly indicate that if we are to be saved at all it will have to be grace outside of ourselves and by divine election else we have to modify the Bible.
Gen.8:21 The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.
Isa.53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Charles,
I know what PW did to his son.
I have never been accused of rape; physical or spiritual. You're the first.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_06_30_Spragens_RapeOf.htm
David, this is the correct link. The other was wrong.
Charles
BishopAccountability.org Rape of Faith
Do a search of this.
Charles: "let me refresh:
This and your statement is nothing less than a variation of Arminianism. pure and simple."
Perhaps we should do a total "refresh" on your stand:
•Charles states that Dr. Rogers is to blame for the "mess" at Bellevue.
•Charles claimed Dr. Rogers was unaware of the situation because of a spiritual failure on his part.
Though there is nothing to confirm this
Charles: “If God holds back information from you there is likely a reason and that is He lacks trust in you.”
•Charles accused me of being doctrinally incorrect because I teach man is sinful.
Charles: “Who is doctrininely correct? I went to your webpage and you are not doctrinely correct. "man is sinful" give me a break! LOL! Man is totally depraved. (That is Biblically based)” (Oct 9)
•Charles then decided that I participate in idle chatter when I preach against Calvinism. (Oct 9)
To clarify: I do not preach against Calvinism. I do preach against heresy.
•At some point Charles changed positions.
He decided that maybe it wasn’t Dr. Rogers fault directly that he didn’t have knowledge of the sin, maybe it was God who hadn’t revealed it to him.
Charles: “At the first I was saying that but now I believe that God withheld that from AR.”
•Charles proudly points out that he submits to no one. (Heb. 13:17 , Eph. 5:21)
Charles: “I have no earthly authority to restrict me”
•Charles stated that his attacks on Dr. Rogers were based on a vision.
Charles: “As I was standing in the street at 6am in the front of my house with my dog Roscoe I got a glimse of just a chair being shoved forward in heaven and a very angry God ordering Adrian Rogers to sit in this chair and watch your beloved Bellevue be destroyed. He repeated it twice.” (Oct. 10, 6:59)
Charles: "Yes, clearly I am the one using visions to base my arguments of judgements against Dr. Rogers. If you have a problem with visions you will have to take that up with God.” (Oct 16, 6:39)
•Charles decided to attack the faith summery posted on palmsbaptistchurch.com.
He added his own conclusion that the statement was not only wrong because it taught man is sinful, but because we teach faith in Jesus leads to Salvation.
Charles: "This and your statement is nothing less than a variation of Arminianism. pure and simple."
•Charles accused Jon of having hackneyed Christ and Hi Word.
Charles: “You and your 'kind' (inconsistent Arminians - moderate Calvinist wantabes) have hackneyed Christ and his Word to the point of trite commonplace, almost vulgar to the world.”
•Charles said the flaw in my theology was Paul Williams.
“Your system has one gigantic fatal flaw and his name is Paul Williams.”
•Charles compared those who disagree with him as spiritual rapist.
Charles: “David, there is a power issue when a rape occurs. The rapist likes to taunt their victim while raping them. When a religious person rapes they like to talk theology to their victim. They talk of grace, forgiveness and love which sears and cauterizes the heart of the victim from ever experiencing these things from God.” (Oct 16)
•Charles states that Dr. Rogers is to blame for the "mess" at Bellevue.
True. God didn't show me Paul Williams so apparently God thinks that AR is responsible for the mess at Bellevue.
•Charles claimed Dr. Rogers was unaware of the situation because of a spiritual failure on his part.
Though there is nothing to confirm this
Dr Rogers' preached an Arminian gospel. How many different ways can I say it. This is a spiritual failure.
Yes, I believe that God withheld the knowledge from AR.
•Charles proudly points out that he submits to no one. (Heb. 13:17 , Eph. 5:21) “I have no earthly authority to restrict me”
If I submit to you will you allow me to be obedient to the Lord? Will I have to submit to you and your summaries and not the Bible?
I have gone to the pastor of the Church where I am not a member. He wanrts me to join the Church but I think he knows why I am reluctant.
I am submitted. I am a branch in the vine. I am not proud that there are few men that I can trust, yet there are a few.
*He added his own conclusion that the statement was not only wrong because it taught man is sinful, but because we teach faith in Jesus leads to Salvation.
Now here you are stepping over the line with your dishonesty which I have previously pointed out. You are a trained pastor who understands opposition views and you are intentionally misrepresenting me.
* Charles: “You and your 'kind' (inconsistent Arminians - moderate Calvinist wantabes) have hackneyed Christ and his Word to the point of trite commonplace, almost vulgar to the world.” (you must have read Rom 2:24 because you failed to paste it.)
*“Your system has one gigantic fatal flaw and his name is Paul Williams.”
An obvious truth that does not need futher elaboration.
•Charles compared those who disagree with him as spiritual rapist.
Does the flaw in this statement have to be pointed out. All but the theologically trained will understand!
*Charles: “David, there is a power issue when a rape occurs. The rapist likes to taunt their victim while raping them. When a religious person rapes they like to talk theology to their victim. They talk of grace, forgiveness and love which sears and cauterizes the heart of the victim from ever experiencing these things from God.” (Oct 16)
and....
maybe a religious rape victim will explain this to you. (a person raped by a SBC pastor, priest, music minister, SS teacher, any denominational minister, Mormon or Jehovah Witness elder)
Charles,
When is the last time you stopped advocating Calvin and presented the saving grace of Jesus in a way the person you shared with understood and by the grace of God alone and in response to this offer of forgiveness they placed their faith in Jesus and became a child of God?
How do you, as an armchair theolog interpret whoseover will may come... --- in context?
Charles,
There is much proof that anyone of us can think like a lost man but that is the foundational reason Nicodemus thought as he did. It had nothing to do with anything else.
He was lost.
Everything does not hinge on Calvinism and its opposing views. You need to get over this and simply use scripture.
Jon,
Amen! Doesn't it seem strange that in todays theology Calvin has become more important than Christ?!
Mike, did you hear that King Willie was just voted to receive over an $11,000 raise?
He now makes over $170,000 a year! Wish I made that kind of money and had no responsibility!!!
Sorry to intreupt you fellas, but figured it was a good place to stick a topical sentence in there amongst the three fo you.
Continue on......
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?
First of all how could I stop advocating Calvinism in order to tell someone about Jesus? Is there an insult implied in your question? In fact telling someone about Jesus is Calvinism. You apparently have no clue about Calvinism.
If I ask you when will you stop advocating free-willism (Arminianism) in order to tell someone about Christ? Of coarse you will reply, why Charles, free will is in the Bible.
So we both believe the Bible supports our views.
You posted 10:33 and 10:38 and David posted at 11:29. I was working for a living then and had already handled about 20,000 lbs of freight. I sure wish I could have been at my computer to reply!
Like Paul's expression about speaking in tongues, I witness unto Christ more than you all. I don't have any ideal how many had the grace of election, however more than I could imagine. I believe that God is extremely merciful and giveth liberally!
jon
in context: three problem passages that Arminians expect that Calvinist can't answer are John 3:16; I Tim 2:3,4 and II Pet 3:9 consistent with all three is that the elect are the whosoever.
The elect are the ones Christ died for and are not perishing with the world.
The elect are made up of all sorts of people from all walks of life.
God is not willing that any of the elect should perish.
All three verses stand in contradiction to universalism. All are not going to be saved. Some will perish.
Your Arminian interpretations contradict Isiah 55:11 "My word shall not return to me void."
Atonement is limited and grace is irrestible! God accomplishes what He decrees.
jon, since David will not respond to these scriptures, let me ask you.
None of these verses have loop holes for any enablement or prompting. They clearly indicate that if we are to be saved at all it will have to be grace outside of ourselves and by divine election else we have to modify what the Bible says about the sinful condition of man.
Gen.8:21 The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.
Isa.53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Doesn't that make Willie the highest paid mayor in the country now?
I Googled mayor salaries, here's what I found from a couple of sites:
Nashville $160,000
Seattle $153,000
St. Louis $122,000
Chicago $170,000
New York $165,000
Newark $147,000
Detroit $157,300
San Francisco $146,889
Don't know if Herenton's salary is the nation's highest, but it's sure up there. Bound to be the highest in terms of % of city budget.
Charles: "jon, since David will not respond to these scriptures,"
Just citing Scriptures without context leaves nothing to discuss. Sorry. I don't know what you want me to say. Yes, I believe those verses you cited are in the Bible. And... you offered no argument.
I offer Ephesians 3:12! Please, no comlaints, if you don't respond to Ephesians 3:12 it means I have whooped you. Now I'm not telling you WHAT I'm arguing from Ephesians 3:12... I just offer it. See, it proves whatever I'm trying to prove because you didn't disprove it! (Great logic, eh Charles)
But, to humor you:
1. I do believe man is sinful from birth. (Gen. 8:21)
2. I do believe that which is born of flesh is flesh, and Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)
3. I do believe man’s every imagination and thought of his heart is continually evil. (Gen. 6:5)
4. I believe you should be careful with the context there in Job. (Job 15:14, 16, 35)
5. I believe we have all gone astray, turned our own way, and that God laid on Christ our iniquity. (Isa. 53:6)
You be very welcome.
jon or david
From Wikipedia
"Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will, Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality."
Agustine disagreed
Semi-Pelagianism modified Pelagius- Adam's fall did not totally corrupt the race.
Through a lengthy process the synod of Dort rejected semi-Pelagianism as heretical in all points. Strangely, this decision became known as "Calvinism"
Though banished from Holland the views prevailed in other groups in Europe.
John Wesley modified sem-Pelagianism by saying that Adam's fall did totally corrupt the race, but moral ability was restored to all the race by Christ's death in order to enable lost sinners to freely choose or reject salvation.
This is prevenient grace.
This led the way for Finney and Moody's revivalism. Today it is the major evangelical position of American fundamentalism rooted deeply in the heresies of the seventeenth century.
The BF&M 2000 states: under III. Man "Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and ENABLE man to fullfil the creative purposes of God."
So as I have ask before, comment on this statement I previously wrote:
None of these verses have loop holes for any enablement or prompting. They clearly indicate that if we are to be saved at all it will have to be grace outside of ourselves and by divine election else we have to modify what the Bible says about the sinful condition of man.
Gen.8:21 The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; (Is man's will free?)
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (how can flesh be modified to make a decision?)
Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (where is pre-regeneration enablement?)
Job 14:4 Who can bring a CLEAN THING out of an UNCLEAN? not one. (HOW CAN THERE BE A PRE-CONVERSION PROMPTING?)
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.
Isa.53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
I'm leaving Job 15:14,16,35 in there because even Job's so called friend had more theological understanding than Adrian Rogers' about total depravity.
david
your post of 12:44 AM, October 18, 2007 ask me to read your mind
I have ask you how pre conversion/regeneration enablement or promting can be explained by these scriptures? I suggest that they greatly contradict any enablement or prompting.
How clearer can I make it? You have a seminary degree I don't.
I worked for five years to get a BA degree in Biblical education in a pentecostal/wesleyan institution.
You went to Baptist universitities where the Bible was taught!
junk,
The City Council just approved Herenton's salary bumped up to $171,500. Must be nice to be King!
karen
Charles,
This is pretty simple: When you give a Scripture, you're supposed to express your point. I see NOTHING there proving the Holy Spirit cannot move on the heart of the lost. There is no verse that says man is unable to repent before God.
You're using a portion of Job to build your case. Problem is that the center of Job is a conversation between Job and men who don't get it. You are quoting one of themen (Eliphaz) who don't get it! So you're using his argument against Job as a text to prove your case. So be careful with the context. (That is not a rebuke, just check the context.)
To quote Eliphaz and say: See, the Bible says it! Well, I could say: Job only loves God becuase God blesses Job. Is that in the Bible? Yep! But WHO said it? Makes a difference.
Also, is Scripture at that point meaning to build or teach Doctrine? I don't get that feeling from Job 15. It's not quoted later (the best commentary on Scripture is Scripture).
Here's an earlier quote from Eliphaz in the SAME passage. He is speaking to Job: "Your sin prompts your mouth; you adopt the tongue of the crafty. Your own mouth condemns you, not mine; your own lips testify against you." (Job 15:5-6)
Eliphaz agenda is to make Job think the trouble has come because of his sin. But we know the story they don't know: God has divinely allowed something they can't see.
Point: When quoting Scripture you also have to be careful WHO you are quoting within the Scripture.
Charles: "I have ask you how pre conversion/regeneration enablement or promting can be explained by these scriptures?"
So I have to explain a doctrine you have decided I believe based on Scriptures you have decided I will use?
Sorry to interrupt the playful banter, but I just dropped by the good blog to see what was up. Is it just me, or is brainwashing reaching new heights over there?
Or have I read so much Rick Warren that my mind is darkened beyond the point of no return?
Brainwashing is reaching new heights over there!
fogmachine said: "Sometimes I think it is God's will for the SBC to fall."
Now I agree with that statement also.
The long spiral downward began at the turn of the century and three men are credited with leading the downfall.
Three pastor theologians each led the 1925, 1963 and 2000 revisions of the long held historic orthodox views of the Baptist. E. Y. Mullins, Herschell Hobbs and Adrian Rogers chaired the committees. All three held views contrary to classical Calvinism.
On the other blog they would havce you believe that Steve Gaines has authored the demise of Bellevue. The SBC led by Page should sit up and take notice.
Adrian Rogers left the mess that SG inherited. Adrian Rogers left this earth thinking he had fought a good fight and kept the faith rather when he lifted up his eyes he discovered for himself he left a mess. He is sitting and watching his beloved Bellevue and all that has his fingerprints on it being destroyed. His wife and family now are members of Faith Baptist.
God held back the seeing and hearing from AR about the destruction that Paul Williams was doing to Bellevue's reputation. This has to be the only answer to the puzzle of a seventeen years secrecy under AR's watch.
Isaiah 6:10 (New American Standard Bible)
10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."
God made the heart of AR fat; and removed from him the means of correcting this situation. He left prematurely and then SG quickly discovered the situation.
In reality the SBC has sabotaged the truth of the gospel in an effort to make God and his purposes more palatable to thoes at enmity with God. "Seeker/sinner friendly"
They have so long abused the message of salvation and Dr. Rogers is now giving an account and the wood, hay and stuble is burning and he is experiencing the sorer punishment. That which is precious and permanent remains for his reward.
This should be a warning for us who remain but are our hearts fat? Are our ears heavy? Are our eyes covered over by the hand of God?
Often we think of a God who is eager to save and deliver but there are strange ways that God takes pleasure in withholding salvation and deliverance. If an Oak tree is rotten at the core he will cut it down while men beg him to give it another year, another chance. A remnant of people will remain. Other people will enjoy the rewards denied Adrian Rogers.
david said: "I see NOTHING there proving the Holy Spirit cannot move on the heart of the lost. There is no verse that says man is unable to repent before God."
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
You toss verses out there from Job claiming them to PROVE that man is unable to turn to God. Of course, this is all a big sideshow anyway, since you decided not to discuss your visions.
When your smoke screen is cleared and your shown to be abusing the text, you return to slamming Dr. Rogers. based on what? Your visions of course!
And your knowledge that Rogers left this mess for Gaines is based on... a thought you had (from the Lord...?) standing outside your house. That's the basis of your attack. Great foundation there!
As far as I can see in the N.T., I cannot think of a SINGLE instance of a mans sin being revealed AFTER his death for the purpose of rebuking the church. But you have taken the throne of God, decided who is guilty and decided to call day dreams the visions from God. And to support this? You quote: Your young men will see visions. I don't think it's saying they will see visions of Dr. Rogers being rebuked in heaven.
Your kind of vision casting allows for you (the wonderfully elect and chosen special child of God) to decide who is spiritual and who isn't.
Your kind of vision casting allows you to decide ANYONE ON EARTH is wrong just based on: You had a vision. Not Scripture, but you are now the standard.
So I answered you concerning your verses. what did you have to do? Go find new ones! Perhaps you would like to answer why you were quoting Job's friends in defense of your theology...
More Charles: "Often we think of a God who is eager to save and deliver but there are strange ways that God takes pleasure in withholding salvation and deliverance"
(David Rolling his eyes in disbelief... I know why this guy can't find a pastor HE trusts!)
There was a Hebrew Prophet with the same attitude as yours. Only problem: he knew in his heart he was wrong. His heart was wrong toward the lost.
Notice any similarties in this verse and the quote from Charles above?
He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." (Jonah 2)
Interesting read ...
Why I am not a “Calvinist”
John Mark,
Glad to see you.. the nice thing is between the fact that I have forsaken that other blog altogether and the fact that I have nothing to contribute to the current conversation over here, is that I get a lot more done around the house. I am learning to bake bread from scratch (I am not a cooking type person so this is a big feat). This endeavor is still in the research phase, but I am going to give it a go!
It is kinda liberating.
junks,
I am still working through the Grace Awakening- I think it should be a "must read" for everyone that grew up in a Baptist church- going through teenager-hood with the mixed messages of what sins are acceptable (gluttony, every good Baptist does it) and which are not is what sends most people running from the church at 18.
I esp. enjoyed the part about not playing the role of the Holy Spirit for others. I think a few people over "there" could use a refresher on that.
jessica,
Wow! If you can figure out how to make your own bread you'll be free from Wonder bread's yoke of slavery!
I haven't been reading the other blog a whole lot (it's just not as much fun anymore). I was just amazed today at how a guide to pray for the pastor of the church ended up being condemned as a tool of black magic. I don't think they really believe it, it's just that in their immaturity they can't stand the thought of people praying for a man they hate and will say anything. Still, I hate to see the brainwashers back in action.
Well, I figure it I am going to do this whole stay at home mom thing I might as well do it old school!! I might even get an apron. Tomorrow I buy yeast!
As far as the others go- it is much like good old fashioned pessimism, if you want to find something bad or evil in anything you can do it. Look at the Salem witch trials or Disney movies (with their hidden Satanic symbols), etc. I will clarify that I am not saying what they are doing is as bad as the Salem witch trials, just that when you open the door to vilifying every little nuance and word it becomes a way of life and that is not how Christians are called to spend their time.
Here's an article from a former 'Calvinist'. He brings up some very good points, such as the impossibility to harden our hearts if we're born totally depraved.
Here's a good quote from the article: Any Christian who dissented from my soteriology was "an Arminian," regardless of whether that person subscribed to the issues of the Remonstrance (or even heard of them).
Deja vu?
Junk and Jessica,
I did hear thta Willie is the highest paid Mayor in the country now.
John Mark,
I do not believe that they believe everything they type either. I still believe that the regulars are a group that has alot of free time on their hands. 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.
Wonder when it will stop? If it will stop??
They say they have all found other churches to attend, which is great if that is where they are lead, but I hope they know they are welcomed anytime!
Memphis
jm
good link. I am studying it and is a good safeguard from being a close-minded Calvinist.
thanks
Charles
john
My parents are Wesleyan Arminian as well as a lot of my friends and former associates. They are consistent in their Arminian faith.
My beef is with the inconsistent Arminians like Adrian Rogers. All those who fall in line behind him are susseptible to the same fate as his. That is freightening!
Believers can be blind and refuse to hear and reach a point that it is useless for us to even pray for them. I john 5:16
david
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
"There was a Hebrew Prophet with the same attitude as yours." I see visions that God shows me and you read minds (attitudes) Does your mind reading come from God or a 'spirit'?
David, Do you know the difference between punishment and chastisement? Is Dr Rogers being chastised or punished in heaven. He resisted chastisement on earth and his heart was hardened in the resistance of it. God hardened his heart.
"(David Rolling his eyes in disbelief... I know why this guy can't find a pastor HE trusts!)
I think I said there are few pastors...you represent those I couldn't trust but you don't represent the few.
"There you go again" (Ronald Reagan)
My thoughts about punishment and chastisement come from my SBC pastor.
watchman to junkster on the 'open forum'
" I thought they were supposed to have been led by The Holy Spirit...not trying to make GODS Gospel into a man pleasing , unbiblical, non-seeker offensive counterfeit?"
Exactly my thoughts about Bellevue under AR's inconsistent Arminian leadership.
Charles,
It is my opinion that you are dangerous to the gospel of Christ. You demonstrate little to no grace towards anyone who has an iota of belief difference than you. Jesus did not even do this. He offered everyone grace. What you offer through your words are not irresistible, they are unappealing and vile.
I truly believe Christ can and wants to use you but all we do as Christians is to be tempered with mercy and grace.
Mike, I know your policy on letting anyone post --- but for me, Charles - in his current and previous track record for inability to discuss can not be trusted to participate in any dialogue or any topic you bring.
Saddened that a very good blog has to have a verbal assault participant, taking drive by shots (in length) at anyone who questions Calvin, not scripture or Jesus.
From poster to lurker to ___________ . Where do we turn for healthy dialogue?
I agree with Jon. Why is Charles being allowed to dishonor Dr. Rogers and abuse the Holy Spirit on this blog?
It goes beyond just ranting against Calvin, it is his insistance that he has visions about Dr. Rogers "chastisement" in heaven.
Charles,
There is no Biblical foundation for what you are doing. Never doe sthe Scripture describe visions being used to reveal someones chastisement in the heavens.
In Revelation the murdered saints sit under the altar not being chastised for their life on earth (they are given white robes) but are left watching adn waiting for God's moving on earth. They are left saying of the wicked, "how long O Lord..." not left regretting their work on earth.
Charles, you never addressed the fact that you claimed to have verses with NO LOOPHOLES... mix-contexting Job! Do you withdraw those verses?
Charles: "I am studying it and is a good safeguard from being a close-minded Calvinist." !!!!!!!!!!!
Charles: "David, Do you know the difference between punishment and chastisement? Is Dr Rogers being chastised or punished in heaven. He resisted chastisement on earth and his heart was hardened in the resistance of it. God hardened his heart."
1. I do know the difference in punishment and chastisement. FYI: Punishment takes place in the AFTERLIFE and chastisement takes place here so we can correct our behavior.
2. So you have a few new claims, Charles?
--Rogers resisted chastisement on earth. Hummm... and you know this how?
--"His heart was hardened" While I hate it when people misquote the verse "do not judge" you are actually judging another man in a way that is not appropriate. You are not Dr. Rogers judge to decide the condition of his heart. He bore good fruit while on earth. It is not for you to come and taste of the good fruit and on your own declare him a bad tree.
--"God hardened his heart." Oh really?! Do you have any evidence of this?
David,
I applaud your efforts in trying to have a decent conversation with Charles. Give up, David! :) Your work with SNAP is so much more important than trying to prove or disprove any of Charles' claims. You're not the 1st one to bang your head in frustration on this topic.
Charles,
For the most part I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, but I have to admire your tenacity. Right or wrong, you're in it win it, so let it go. Whatever your beef is with Dr. Rogers, take it up with him personally when you get to Heaven. You truly believe what you believe and I have to admire it - like I said, half the time I'm totally lost in your arguements, but I truly believe you believe them.
Now, let Mike have his blog back! :)
Karen,
Wrong David.
Post a Comment