<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Communion for Sinners?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-communion-for-sinners</link>
	<description>A forum for Baptists to dialogue about how best to fulfill God’s calling in our lives.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:33:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Calvinator</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9920</link>
		<dc:creator>Calvinator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9920</guid>
		<description>Malcolm Yarnell:  &quot;If LifeWay sells a bad product, and the jury is still out on this one, they are subject to critique.&quot;

Didn&#039;t Jimmy Draper go to Paige Patterson with a complaint after LifeWay recieved similar criticism by Ben Cole?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Malcolm Yarnell:  &#8220;If LifeWay sells a bad product, and the jury is still out on this one, they are subject to critique.&#8221;</p>
<p>Didn&#8217;t Jimmy Draper go to Paige Patterson with a complaint after LifeWay recieved similar criticism by Ben Cole?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: volfan007</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9919</link>
		<dc:creator>volfan007</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9919</guid>
		<description>interesting.

DAvid</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>interesting.</p>
<p>DAvid</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim G</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9918</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9918</guid>
		<description>Bart,
Thank you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bart,<br />
Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bart Barber</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9917</link>
		<dc:creator>Bart Barber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9917</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been engaged in these battles for three years now (although less and less these days). I&#039;d like to make a procedural observation rather than one on the particular topic in question (although I certainly have opinions about the topic).

1. There is the standard of the courtroom, which we rightly embrace when people seem to be on trial. Can you prove that this is what they meant? Are they &quot;guilty&quot; beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Then there is the business of theology, which is very often—much more often than we might like to admit—a matter of nuance. Theological movements often turn as much on what is overlooked or minimized as they turn on what a theologian explicitly says. For example, Rauschenbusch never really denied the gospel, I don&#039;t think; he just was so captivated with other things that he didn&#039;t have much to say about individual salvation. The movement that he fathered, following his lead, completely lost the real gospel in the quest for the social gospel.

Thus, it is not inappropriate for one of our most qualified theologians to take note of the theological tone set by omissions. Nuance is important in theology. If Malcolm were calling for somebody to be fired or something, then we&#039;d need something more than nuance. But he didn&#039;t even know that it was a Lifeway product. He&#039;s watching theology and evaluating it and offering a critique. That&#039;s what he does. That&#039;s what Southern Baptists pay him to do. That&#039;s what he&#039;s great at doing.

I can&#039;t offer any personal opinion about the video, for the site seems to be down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been engaged in these battles for three years now (although less and less these days). I&#8217;d like to make a procedural observation rather than one on the particular topic in question (although I certainly have opinions about the topic).</p>
<p>1. There is the standard of the courtroom, which we rightly embrace when people seem to be on trial. Can you prove that this is what they meant? Are they &#8220;guilty&#8221; beyond reasonable doubt?</p>
<p>2. Then there is the business of theology, which is very often—much more often than we might like to admit—a matter of nuance. Theological movements often turn as much on what is overlooked or minimized as they turn on what a theologian explicitly says. For example, Rauschenbusch never really denied the gospel, I don&#8217;t think; he just was so captivated with other things that he didn&#8217;t have much to say about individual salvation. The movement that he fathered, following his lead, completely lost the real gospel in the quest for the social gospel.</p>
<p>Thus, it is not inappropriate for one of our most qualified theologians to take note of the theological tone set by omissions. Nuance is important in theology. If Malcolm were calling for somebody to be fired or something, then we&#8217;d need something more than nuance. But he didn&#8217;t even know that it was a Lifeway product. He&#8217;s watching theology and evaluating it and offering a critique. That&#8217;s what he does. That&#8217;s what Southern Baptists pay him to do. That&#8217;s what he&#8217;s great at doing.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t offer any personal opinion about the video, for the site seems to be down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Rogers</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9916</link>
		<dc:creator>David Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9916</guid>
		<description>Tim,

OK. I drop it. This is a silly thing to be arguing over, anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim,</p>
<p>OK. I drop it. This is a silly thing to be arguing over, anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Rogers</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9915</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:11:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9915</guid>
		<description>Brother David,

If this were a cultural based bookstore promotion, I could possibly overlook their lack of covering the theological perspective.  However, for a theologically sound entity to use this as a promotion clearly should be criticized.  Notice that the Scripture they used was taken so far out of context it isn&#039;t even funny.  The Scripture they used, Luke 14:15-24, concerns those that desire worldly acceptance over our Lord&#039;s invitation.  Thus, theologically sound people made a decision to promote something pulled completely out of context and thus promotes a theological flawed concept.

Blessings,
Tim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brother David,</p>
<p>If this were a cultural based bookstore promotion, I could possibly overlook their lack of covering the theological perspective.  However, for a theologically sound entity to use this as a promotion clearly should be criticized.  Notice that the Scripture they used was taken so far out of context it isn&#8217;t even funny.  The Scripture they used, Luke 14:15-24, concerns those that desire worldly acceptance over our Lord&#8217;s invitation.  Thus, theologically sound people made a decision to promote something pulled completely out of context and thus promotes a theological flawed concept.</p>
<p>Blessings,<br />
Tim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Rogers</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9914</link>
		<dc:creator>David Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9914</guid>
		<description>Tim,

See comment #38.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim,</p>
<p>See comment #38.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Rogers</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9913</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9913</guid>
		<description>Brothers,

I have watched the promo but have not seen the entire video.  I will say that from the promo it advocates for us to go and get all in the street to come and dine at the Father&#039;s table.  While we all understand that to mean repentance in order to get to the Father&#039;s table, the video promo does not say any such thing.  Thus, if you are going to promote something like this in a bible study it would appear that we should at least cover a sound theological practice.  As I recall Lifeway, while desiring to appeal to a uninformed theological culture, is not headed up by uninformed theological personnel. Thus, it appears the criticism, while not being vitriol, is needed.

Blessings,
Tim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brothers,</p>
<p>I have watched the promo but have not seen the entire video.  I will say that from the promo it advocates for us to go and get all in the street to come and dine at the Father&#8217;s table.  While we all understand that to mean repentance in order to get to the Father&#8217;s table, the video promo does not say any such thing.  Thus, if you are going to promote something like this in a bible study it would appear that we should at least cover a sound theological practice.  As I recall Lifeway, while desiring to appeal to a uninformed theological culture, is not headed up by uninformed theological personnel. Thus, it appears the criticism, while not being vitriol, is needed.</p>
<p>Blessings,<br />
Tim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cb scott</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9912</link>
		<dc:creator>cb scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9912</guid>
		<description>David,

Who said we were talking about the idea of sinless perfection here? &quot;Pursuing a life of repentance&quot; implies that one understands there is no perfect repentance this side of heaven.

David, if you were a Black and Tan Coon Hound, I would give $50.000 for you and enter you in every Grand Night Champion Coon Hunt in America. We would become billionaires in just a few years, because you never would give up the hunt. :-)

See you later. Got to take little girls to Karate practice.

cb</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David,</p>
<p>Who said we were talking about the idea of sinless perfection here? &#8220;Pursuing a life of repentance&#8221; implies that one understands there is no perfect repentance this side of heaven.</p>
<p>David, if you were a Black and Tan Coon Hound, I would give $50.000 for you and enter you in every Grand Night Champion Coon Hunt in America. We would become billionaires in just a few years, because you never would give up the hunt. :-)</p>
<p>See you later. Got to take little girls to Karate practice.</p>
<p>cb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly Randolph</title>
		<link>http://sbctoday.com/2009/10/06/is-communion-for-sinners/#comment-9911</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly Randolph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:15:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sbctoday.com/?p=1826#comment-9911</guid>
		<description>Though I believe I would find myself in close agreement with Dr. Yarnell on the question of the Lord&#039;s Supper, I&#039;m not sure I agree with him on the intent of the video. My take is that the video was emphasizing the wonder of grace that such sinners would be invited to commune with Christ. I don&#039;t think the point was to establish &quot;open communion&quot; or to suggest that unrepentant sinners should be welcomed to the Lord&#039;s Table.

If we assume that the disciples (with the exception of Judas) were repentant sinners who in spite of their sin (self-promotion, betrayal, etc) were welcomed by Jesus and saved by His sacrificial death, perhaps the point was to emphasize the amazing grace of Christ in saving just such sinners and welcoming them into fellowship with Himself.

These kinds of presentations are subjective by nature and liable to being &quot;spun&quot; in one direction or another. That&#039;s why I am so thankful for objective words given by God to clearly reveal Himself and His purposes. I wouldn&#039;t use this kind of video without providing some Word-centered explanation to guard against erroneous understandings of the Supper. With that said, I didn&#039;t sense any intention to diminish the importance of communion. Rather, it seemed to me to emphasize the wonder of grace.

Regards to All,

Kelly Randolph</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though I believe I would find myself in close agreement with Dr. Yarnell on the question of the Lord&#8217;s Supper, I&#8217;m not sure I agree with him on the intent of the video. My take is that the video was emphasizing the wonder of grace that such sinners would be invited to commune with Christ. I don&#8217;t think the point was to establish &#8220;open communion&#8221; or to suggest that unrepentant sinners should be welcomed to the Lord&#8217;s Table.</p>
<p>If we assume that the disciples (with the exception of Judas) were repentant sinners who in spite of their sin (self-promotion, betrayal, etc) were welcomed by Jesus and saved by His sacrificial death, perhaps the point was to emphasize the amazing grace of Christ in saving just such sinners and welcoming them into fellowship with Himself.</p>
<p>These kinds of presentations are subjective by nature and liable to being &#8220;spun&#8221; in one direction or another. That&#8217;s why I am so thankful for objective words given by God to clearly reveal Himself and His purposes. I wouldn&#8217;t use this kind of video without providing some Word-centered explanation to guard against erroneous understandings of the Supper. With that said, I didn&#8217;t sense any intention to diminish the importance of communion. Rather, it seemed to me to emphasize the wonder of grace.</p>
<p>Regards to All,</p>
<p>Kelly Randolph</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

