Here are some one liners from a Pastor named Kevin DeYoung, who is the Pastor of the University Reformed Church in E. Lansing, Michigan. These one liners are great quotes. Read, enjoy, and learn from them. Here they are:
• The Church is Christ’s bride. And why is it that so many people think it is cool to diss Jesus’ girlfriend?
• In this day with so much postmodern squishitude people are hungry to listen to someone winsomely, humbly, wisely, say—with passion and conviction—‘Thus saith the Lord.’
• What will it profit a man if he tries to transform the culture, but loses his own children?
• As long as God is interested in his glory, he will be interested and committed to the local church. He has a vested interest in your church. Nobody loves your church more than God.
• Those of you who have issues with the church, let me warn you that disillusionment can become an idol. You can easily find your identity in being jaded.
• Our generation in particular is prone to radicalism without follow-through. We want to change the world and we have never changed a diaper.
• Can we be the young generation that loves and respects and looks up to the older generation?
• The Church is, in fact, the hope of the world, not because she gets it all right, but because she is a body with Christ for her head. So do not give up on the church. The New Testament knows nothing of churchless Christianity.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Great One Liners :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
David,
Thanks for posting this. I first saw this list over at CJ Mahaney’s blog…but we won’t tell anybody you’ve been reading those Calvinistic blogs either. :-D
DeYoung also has a book, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, which as I begin to read it looks like it would be worth everyone’s investment and time. DeYoung & Kluck first came to my attention through their first book…Why We’re not Emergent: From Two Guys Who Should Be! I love that title! O:-)
Sola Gratia!
Scott,
lol
Would George Barna’s “Pagan Christianity” qualify as the other side of the spectrum from this? I will be honest; I think my point of view is much closer to that than this. I have not read any of Barna’s material but I found Gene Edwards shortly after I found myself naturally approaching his view. Interesting viewpoints.
Byroniac,
Yes, Barna is the opposite. In fact, DeYoung mentions his book and others like, “I like Jesus, but not the Church,” etc. I am amazed that anyone who claims the name of Christ would be willing to disrespect the local church.
Sola Gratia.
Hello, Scott. I have not read Barna so I will restrict my comments to Gene Edwards (“Beyond Radical” is the only book of his I have read) and my own opinions from Scripture. I do not look at it as disrespecting the local church, because the local church is the body of believers themselves, and then only in Christ (i.e., false professors though unknown to the rest of the body are not included as part of the “church” by the Holy Spirit Himself). The local church is not the building, or even the membership rolls (waste of paper and secretarial skills, if you ask me) or even the licensing and ordination paper trails that inevitably follow the church buildings around. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I am truly am. Believing in the church as first a Universal gathering of the elect and secondly a local group of true believers is very liberating in Christ, and I believe honors Him.
Hi BYRON
you wrote this: “Sorry to sound so cynical, but I am truly am. Believing in the church as first a Universal gathering of the elect and secondly a local group of true believers is very liberating in Christ, and I believe honors Him.”
I might add a thought: the ekklesia, called the ‘universal’ Church since the time of spans through time also, and all of those who have lived and died in Christ, are in communion through unity in Christ the Lord.
People don’t think of the Church as existing ‘in all times and in all places’, but when you think of Whose Church it is, understanding comes more easily.
I don’t think that the early Christians saw themselves as being outside of their union with Christ. So, in that way, they were not ‘isolated’ from one another in faith by anything, not by distance, or by time, nor by imprisonment, or even in the end by death.
From the days of St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp the Martyr, there is record of the use of ‘universal’ to describe the Church.
So you are in good company, Byron, in your beliefs about the nature of the ekklesia.
Hey Byroniac,
I was curious about your statement, “Believing in the church as first a Universal gathering of the elect and secondly a local group of true believers is very liberating in Christ, and I believe honors Him.”
I would like to attend this gathering…when does it meet?
David,
Be careful quoting Reformed paedobaptist fellas like DeYoung lest some get the wrong idea. :)
Dear unbaptized Christiane,
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
-Apostle Peter
‘I would like to attend this gathering…when does it meet?”
Whenever two or more are gathered together in His Name,
He is there in their midst.
Be peaceful, dear David.
Don’t worry Mr. Worley, I’m not going to try and hijack this thread…those were some great thoughts…especially the fourth one.
Non-Christiane,
A gathering of two or three is hardly the universal gathering of all elect Byroniac mentioned. I say “non” because you refuse to follow Christ’s command to be baptized for the remission of sins. I cannot acknowledge you as a Christian because Christ is not your Lord. If he were you Lord, you would be scripturally baptized.
Be baptized, dear Christiane
Hi DAVID,
The ‘universal’ Church belongs to Christ. If you are struggling with something to compare it to, I think you will find reference to it in the scriptures that speak of the Body of Christ.
If your local Church no longer had a building, and the people were scattered to all parts of the Earth, and some past away (‘went to sleep in the Lord’);
then you would still in communion with them through Christ.
And in that way, the people of your local Church are also connected to all Christian people, through the Lord Christ. It is His Church, David. And it is He Who prayed to the Father that ‘they may all be one’. I think you can find some reference to that in your Scriptures, if you there.
And David, concerning holy baptism, I believe that all is well with me. And I have had the chrism: the laying on of hands to recieve the Spirit, in Confirmation in my Church. I don’t think that you all have that practice in your denomination.
I understand if you say you cannot count me as ‘a Christian’, and if you need to believe that and write that, please know that I take no offense. I know that your parameters for holy Baptism are specific to the ways of your denomination.
Be peaceful.
“And David, concerning holy baptism, I believe that all is well with me.”
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 16:25
Last post on this thread,
Presently, N.T. churches belong to Christ. The Church of the elect, Christ’s Bride, is prospective and should only be considered presently, if at all, in a proleptic sense.
“For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea” I Thess. 2:14
Christiane, first of all, thank you. You get it. I did not really think you would understand, and I underestimated you badly, because you seem to understand perfectly. That should not amaze me like it does.
David Campbell, when you truly became one in Christ, you were gathered to the Universal Church of the Elect in the Firstborn, Christ, who is God the Son. It meets wherever believers exist in the world, and because it is in Christ, never stops meeting. That is not to say I do not believe in a local church, because I do, when made up of believers who gather (whether that is in a religious denominational building, or a governmental facility, or someone’s house, and whether any of them hold any denominational pedigrees or not). I believe the Universal Church came into existence when Adam was first saved as a direct result of God’s merciful Covenant of Grace, if not before.
And, I have a word of advice for you. This is much easier for me to see as an “outsider” now that I have left the Baptist fold, than it was before. But I can guarantee you that using terms which can be interpreted as condescending at best, insulting at worst, such as “Non-Christiane” followed by hollow, affectionate pretense such as “Dear Christiane” will never magically transform someone into a convert for whatever they feel you are peddling to them. Also, spouting off loose Bible verses right and left without context as if shot out of a cannon with wild abandon usually do not prove to be very effectual. There are IRC chatbots which possess that same proficiency and can best your speed for that matter, and will probably gain no fewer converts than you do.
If you truly want to converse with Christiane, step down off your pedestal and talk to her one human to another.
Byroniac,
Doesn’t sound like the universal church you place over and above the local church actually meets. I would have a hard time pledging allegiance to something that is only a figment of my imagination. Thank you for the scriptural support used to back your position regarding the origin of the church.
“I believe the Universal Church came into existence when Adam was first saved as a direct result of God’s merciful Covenant of Grace, if not before.”
Jesus disagrees with you…he does not say “I am building” in Matt 16:18, but “I will build”.
Having left the baptist fold, you went out from us, because you were not of us, if you had been of us you would have continued with us, but you went out to make manifest that you were not of us.
Enough about me (I will not even explain how you take Scripture out of context and bend it for your own convenience), what about Christiane? I feel that you owe her an apology. I will say this, though I do not know Christiane’s thoughts on the matter, but I did not think that being free of Baptists was supposed to feel this good and liberating. It is almost like chains falling off. And I have to give Christiane credit, she puts up with a lot of abuse, and exercises genuine Christian grace and compassion, it often seems to me. Instead of treating her presence as an irritation, I heartily recommend you welcome her presence and her questions, and respond to them faithfully and truthfully, as all believers have a duty to do in Christ our Lord.
Byroniac,
You won’t because you can’t, my e-mail is w.david.campbell@gmail.com if you would like to be enlightened. I would also like to inquire your departure from the faith once for all delivered to the saints :) You are the one who owes an apology for condoning and co-signing sin. You should repent of this weak behavior and grow a backbone. If Christiane doesn’t sense the need to be baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, then she need to be saved. I will not apologize for delivering truth.
Brother Chris Poe,
Re: Comment #9,
Yes, we are considering the removal of both Brothers’ Scott and David for reading that un-adult-baptized DeYoung. They are seriously hurting our BI reputation. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Vol,
There really is no excuse for anyone being flippant with Christ (i.e.the girlfriend remark) and His work. Christ is Head of the church, and that church is only known in this world as those that do not forsake the gathering together described as the fellowship (the local body)… yet some will try to defend other positions vehemently.
It’s interesting that this post would bring about the discussion ensued by Christiane and David C. The Apostle Paul has already asked both of you the question,… “into what then were you baptized” (Acts 18-19).
Presently, I spend a lot of time in two cities; Boston and Nashville. I understand the church that I am a member of… meaning, the local fellowship where all the amazing things given by our Head, Christ, and written down by the Apostles take place. Those acts of love (amazing things) are not contained by a building, yet those amazing attributes accompany those whose intention it is to gather together with our Christ at any given moment. Anyone that is in Christ has the knowledge of what fellowship they are intentionally members of in this world. If anyone does not know,…obviously they are in sin, because they are forsaking the assembly. There are some that do show up, yet forsake the assembly anyway…(but that is quite another matter).
When I am in Boston, I participate with another local fellowship and they are very welcoming of me,…and I am allowed to teach as the overseers see such as beneficial to the body. We have great fellowship, we are one in Christ, I submit to the overseers….we are members one of another, yet it is important to realize the responsibility of the overseers at that local fellowship and submitting is an important action in the churches. They are responsible to the Head, Christ, for the nurturing and feeding of that flock.
I guess it pretty easy to get polarized into the many ditches of “local vs. universal”. Both terms do exist in our way of describing the church. It takes patience though,.. to recognize that fellowships are local and not to be forsaken in this world…. Yet when Christ appears to take all the Father has given to His home…. All fellowship then becomes local to that Home.
Blessings,
Chris
David Campbell,
Dude, “if I want to be enlightened?” Seriously, come off of your high horse and let’s talk like real people having a real discussion over real religious differences. I can guarantee you that so far you are much more impressed with your Baptist dogma than I am, and I fail to see how beating people over the head is particularly persuasive. Perhaps you have had a long track record of success using that approach, but I have long since dropped the presupposition that everything Baptist is better and anything else is worthy of scorn and derision, simply for defiantly daring to exist in opposition. LOL! Let me know how that turns out for you.
Look, I agree with Baptists concerning the proper mode of baptism, and I even agree on most things that Baptists hold that they are closest to the truth. But heaven is not Baptist, much less SBC, and all believers here on Earth are not either.
But I have to ask, do you believe that the Baptist-mode of Baptism is what saves you? Your words to Christiane seemed to imply it. It is a symbolic act of obedience to Christ, I agree. But it is no guarantee or even channel of salvation.
Then you accuse me of departing from the faith. Just because I am no longer Baptist? Really? Wow, that is a real stretch.
And, I do not know if Christiane is saved or not. I do pray for her salvation, and I do not know if you know this or not or care, but I have shared the Gospel with her, on another blog, some time back. 1 Peter 3:15 says to always be prepared to give an answer to every man who ASKS of the hope that is within you. A lot of Baptist evangelism would be fixed and cured of a bad approach overnight if certain Baptists realized the Holy Spirit really is in charge and that He will compel those He works on to salvation, giving them an interest in the things of Christ, even bringing out of them questions about salvation like 1 Peter 3:15 talks about. Do I deny evangelism in missions and street preaching? No, it has its place for sure. But personal witnessing requires more humility and reliance on God and the leadership of the Spirit than simply following pre-programmed formulas and rehearsed speeches (though these can be helpful).
So, I am not condoning or co-signing sin, sorry. That bird will not fly with me. As someone who is Baptistic, I very nearly but not entirely agree with your statement, “Christiane doesn’t sense the need to be baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, then she need to be saved.” Strictly speaking, this means that Presbyterians and the like are not saved. This is not necessarily true. Presbyterians are wrong on their mode of Baptism, without question, as far as I am concerned, but this in and of itself does not deny their salvation. They in turn extend grace to us, considering us as deeply in error over the question of Baptism as we do them, yet acknowledge our common salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord. But, I consider Baptists to have the truth in this matter, and the faith once delivered to the saints, as the Bible puts it.
Are you a pastor? If so, please rethink your entire strategy for reaching those you consider to be lost. This is part of the reason so many distrust pastors and find them inapproachable. Just some words of advice that I can offer you for free.
David Campbell,
Comment all you want to, Brother. You’re nailing it.
Tim Rogers, you can cut Scott’s pay in half. You can cut my pay by a fourth. But, get rid of us?????? C’mon, now. Scott is too sweet and cuddly to get rid of him. And, me, well, everyone needs a redneck hillbilly, or two, around. It makes everyone else look smarter! :)
Chris, I’m sorry you took offense to the first one liner. But, could you not say that its just another way of saying that the Church is the waiting Bride of Christ? I mean, what do you call a woman that you’re engaged, too…but have not yet married? I just thought it bumped up to the edge of bad taste, but did not go over the line. I’m sorry if that offended you.
Christiane, you need to listen to David Campbell and CB Scott.
David
Byroniac,
I reject just about every thought that you present about the church. THE ONLY place that the universal, invisible Church can be seen is in the local, visible, assembly of Believers. The Church is the local assembly of Christ-Followers, who have Elders and Deacons, and Church discipline, and accountability, and where they can love and serve each other. You have bought into the Armstrong Cult’s view of the Church…although you depart somewhat, I’m sure from their twisted view of the Bible….but you go right along with their way out, out there, far out, extreme view of the Church.
David
PS. I dont hate you. I’m not trying to be mean to you. I care about you. This disclaimer was brought to you by David Worley.
Byroniac,
David wasnt saying that you have to be baptised in order to be saved. He was saying that someone that’s truly saved will want to be obedient to HIS Lord, and be properly baptised. And, if someone does not want to be baptised, then that tells us something about thier spiritual condition. Would you agree to that?
David
David Worley,
I never did apologize to you for “blowing up” at your words on Peter Lumpkins’ blog and using that as my excuse for leaving the blog. I am sorry for that. I am sure I would still disagree with your words, whatever they were; I do not remember. But I should do so respectfully.
Speaking of disagreement, you have disagreed with just as strongly if not more so than David Campbell has on this post. But, I would much rather David Campbell take your approach to disagreement than continue his current method of voicing disagreement. I appreciate your boldness without insult, and I respect your views.
Would you please give me a link or two in rebuttal to Armstrong’s views? I know almost nothing about this, except from my own personal study and the book “Beyond Radical” itself. I am losing my desire to argue over this here, as I realize my viewpoint will not be accepted. I could even possibly be wrong. So I appreciate any rebuttal information you can send my way for me to study and consider (though I cannot honestly say that I believe it will change my mind).
Thanks!
David Worley, as someone who was Baptist and continues to be Baptistic, I almost want to agree with your question with an emphatic 100%. But, I cannot do so entirely because of my Presbyterian brothers and sisters in the Lord, for example. I believe that those who are true believers truly believe (wrongly) that they are following the Lord on this matter. I would even go so far to say that not being baptized properly is sin, being unintentional disobedience to Christ at the very best, but a sin which is covered by Christ’s blood in the light of true faith. But it remains a very serious error, nonetheless.
Brother Vol,
My bad…. I thought I was agreeing with you. I thought you were concerned that DeYoung “was’ being flippant.
The slang language used by some folks these days in the pulpit is a bit appalling. We now seem to prop up cussing preacher, flippant preachers, and the like. What’s next? Maybe I’m just ole fashion. But, the language of “girlfriend” is not accurate, nor honoring, much less worthy of our Lord. Maybe language like Master, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, Faithful High Priest, Great High Priest, etc., etc. is going by the wayside.
Blessings,
Chris
Byroniac,
I would agree with you that Presbyterians baptised as infants can still be saved, albeit, they have an improper view of baptism. They just believe wrong about baptism. I agree. It’s the ones that intentionally choose to not be baptised that I would be most concerned about, with regards to their salvation.
Someone, who gets saved, will want to obey the Lord and be baptised.
David
David Worley, if by Armstrong you mean the same Armstrongism that the Wikipedia article by the same name discusses, then I disagree with most of what he believed. I do not entirely agree with Gene Edwards, either. And I am currently unsure of Barna and Viola, as I have not read the relevant books yet.
David Worley, I see your distinction I think, between those baptized with an errant infant baptism and those who refuse any baptism at all, and I agree with you completely on your last comment.
Chris,
Those words are not going by the wayside from me. But, let’s just use another example. When I tell people that they need to surrender their hearts, in faith, to Jesus as Lord; I’ll tell them many times that Lord means “Master,” or “Boss.” Now, Boss may seem a little too common, or flippant to some….to call Jesus, “Boss.” But, Boss is exactly what Lord means. Just said in a different way.
Maybe DeYoung did go to the edge with this one liner. But, as far as I was concerned, it didnt cross over the line. Maybe I’m wrong. I cant always be right. :)
David
I see your point….
I guess the Boss can have a girlfriend :)
Just kinda odd language. The storytellers may love this kind of stuff though… The apostle Paul used some interesting language at times concerning people…,I’m fairly certain he approached Christ much differently.
Blessings,
Chris
Well, I think David Campbell Titus 3:10′d me. :)
Hi BYRON,
no apologies from these people are needed, they are loved ‘as they are’ and they are accepted as commenting to me ‘in good faith’. :)
I found this for everyone to help them consider the ‘oneness’ all Christian people share in Lord Christ. That ‘oneness’ in Christ forms the Church, which belongs to Him. He has overcome the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CobNWUXb1M&feature=related
Brother Chris,
Don’t back off so quickly of your concern with the first comment. I honestly have not had time to read these one-liners, but I do have some concern with the first one.
To “diss Jesus’ girlfriend”, while culturally cool is theological, completely, incorrect. One cannot argue that from a biblical theological point. (Sorry Brother David and Scott) Think through that statement from the relevance of the NT and the culture of the first century. Was Mary Joseph’s girlfriend? No, she was his wife that is the reason he had to ponder putting her away silently. Guys, I am not trying to be disagreeable, but think through this thing a little more. Dissing Jesus’ wife is the theological correct term. Why? In the first century setting the betrothal period was a time for the groom to prepare the place of the bride. They were not consummating the marriage but they were certainly married. The church is married to Jesus, it is not his “girlfriend” If we were his “girlfriend” then our salvation can be lost. Why? Because we can be put away. As His betrothed wife he has to consumate the marriage with us, in a spiritual way, and that consummation is his return to come and get us.
Thus, to refer to the church as merely Jesus’ girlfriend tears down lots of sound biblical doctrine.
Now, Brothers Scott and David, you can keep your “man-crush” on Brother DeYoung, but seriously examine one-liners for theology. See, I told you that you were damaging our BI reputation. :)
Brother Chris,
In the spirit that I help Dr. Emir Caner with his redneck grammar, let me say it this way. The “Boss” ain’t got no girlfriend, the Boss is married. :) Don’t back up from that.
Blessings,
Tim
Christine,
I am regularly dismayed by the attitude of some of my Baptist brethren who assume that because of your Catholicism, you either are not or cannot be saved, and the condescending attitude about “if” those who were baptized by sprinkling were saved, thay would want to be immersed. But the thing which impresses me more is the grace with which your regularly respond. I think of Galatians 5: 19-24, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.” The later part surely builds upon Jesus’ own words in Matthew 7: 17-20, “Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”
And a word to Byroniac also: well said, keep it up!
John
Christiane,
Thank you for the video link. Though I didn’t see a bible or the gospel being shared, I hope this was implied. Many these days, especially those of the Catholic organization, at least the one’s I’m familar with, attempt works to help the less fortunate which are absent of the gospel. These are empty works, though appearing valient through the lense of depraved mankind, the gospel should be at the forefront for these works cannot save. Regarding co-operation, I cannot disobey Christ and hold hands with those who claim Him if they do not keep his commandments. Whether one claims the baptist name or not is not my criteria for fellowship. Byroniac would more than likely be welcome to the Lord’s table at my church having placed faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross, been baptized by a N.T. church, and in good standing with a church of like faith. If one does not agree with the doctrines of Christ, I cannot welcome them. Methodists (what I was raised), Catholics, Presb., Lutherans, and all other paedo’s do not hold a scriptural view of baptism and ignore the N.T. command. Also, churches placing an unbiblical emphasis on man’s responsibility must also repent of this conditional security and believe in the finished work of Christ before I join them in gospel work. I cannot, for conscience sake, condone these erroneous sins and will not recognize one’s profession of faith unless baptized in the same way our Lord commanded; into the same faith. How can two walk together unless they be agreed? (Amos 3:3)
I challenge you, Christiane, to get a concordance and conduct your own investigation of baptism with a protestant bible, seeking direction from the Holy Spirit alone. Set aside the traditions of men and seek the Holy Spirit in this matter. Ask Him to speak to your heart. You will not find infant baptism, its a logical extension of erred doctrine. Please do this. Its important that we honor Christ through scriptural baptism. If you have a change of heart, i would be willing to purchase a plane ticket and have you flown to our area for a baptism, put you up for a couple of days while we seek a N.T. church in your area to transfer your welcomed membership in our congregation.
2 John 10-11
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
2 John 5-6
And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: THAT WE WALK IN OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDS. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
I am not a pastor, but an ambassodor of Christ. I implore you to seek scriptural baptism for (because of) the remission of sins. I love you and am demonstrating this love by inviting you to walk in obedience to His commands. I cannot welcome one whose Lord is not the Christ.
I Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you– not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience– through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
We must demonstrate our good conscience and be identified with Christ through scriptural baptism.
Byroniac,
Repent of your luke-warm, compromising position.
“What we have done: We have taken the great, sanctified Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, and made it to cover every damnable heresy that mind could imagine! It’s a tragedy–it’s a tragedy.” ~ C.A. Criswell
Brother Tim,
I think you are exactly and theologically correct concerning the “girlfriend”. I’ve heard that quip before, and it always causes me a little discomfort.
Most the time it is used for effect or provocation….but it does appear to be theologically out of place.
Blessings,
Chris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8KRHWJrRvA
Evensong
from the song of repentence of King David
Psalm 51
Christiane,
I really admire your spirit. You and I do not agree theologically on some important issues. But strangely enough, I think I could get along with you better than many of my so-called Baptist kindred. It could be that we are both spiritually defective, at best, but I think it is rather that we are both mature in our disagreements with others (or, at least you are, anyway, and I appreciate that!).
David Campbell,
I also call on you to repent of adding ecclesiastical idolatry to the finished work of Christ (if you feel this is an unfair accusation, then you are using the same process of reasoning I am using to reject your call for me to repent of something I am not guilty of having done).
I believe the most Biblical model is the Elder-led house church model, but that is just my personal opinion. That does not mean that I wish all churches would close their doors and turn into parking lots for other businesses (Freudian slip I suppose, as I cannot help but think of most churches operating similarly to restaurant franchises). It is not wrong to have a devoted parking lot and building to worship in (I love A/C myself), it is not wrong to have pieces of paper that keep track of which building you attend for religious purposes and your approximate track record of doing so, and it is not wrong to even have paper credentials that claim religious titles for all kinds of religious offices (most of which have been invented as necessary to help organize domestic religious labor).
Of course, the Scriptural support for most of it is scant at best, but I am not trying to argue that point here. My opinion is that these types of things wind up accomplishing precisely nothing in the spiritual realm unless Christ through the Holy Spirit has already both ordained and blessed it. And though I did not actually come here to argue this position (believe it or not), I did come here with an ulterior motive: to see how far out of the Baptist mainstream I am and try to figure out if I really still regret it. I find I do not. So, my purpose here is accomplished.
You may not claim me as your Christian brother, as that is your prerogative, but thankfully, my salvation is not limited to your understanding or opinions, and my union with you in Christ as a brother in the Lord is not limited to your acceptance of me or willingness to fellowship. I do wish for fellowship, but again, that is up to you.
God bless you,
Byron
Okay, okay, okay, Chris and Tim, DeYoung went to far calling the Bride of Christ His “girlfriend.” Are you happy now? No? Okay, it’s just a little too flippant. Okay?????????
whew.
David :)
Byroniac,
I exhorted you to “Repent of your luke-warm, compromising position”. This was based on the fact that you tolerate unscriptural baptism at the expense of Christ as Lord. The N.T. speaks of no other kind of Christian than an immersed, professing one. Do you really think the Apostles would have condoned baby dousing and extended the right hand of fellowship to those who practice such? This makes a mockery of baptism and Christ as Lord. If magnifying the commandment of scriptural baptism is adding ecclesiastical idolatry to the finished work of Christ, indeed then, I am guilty.
Byron,
Will the fact that you and 10,000 others people “admire L’s spirit” give her one second of hope of seeing Jesus face-to-face?
Byron, you already know the answer to that question. You and so many others who name the name of Christ should tell this poor lost woman the truth.
David Campbell,
I do not tolerate unscriptural baptism. Reread my words again, as you obviously have failed to comprehend them the first time. I do not condone it, or accept it, or practice it, or encourage others to do so. But, short of me physically overpowering the person and dunking them against his or her will in a baptismal rite, and being unable to extract a confession of faith at such a time except perhaps through torture (which being under duress would not be genuine), the unscriptural baptism for that person remains. In that case, all I can do is pray that God would open his or her eyes to the truth.
Ah, the N.T. does speak of one Christian who is other than an immersed one, though still professing, in the thief on the cross. I am thankful for that story, because it proves that Baptism though essential for obedience is not essential for salvation. Of course, I do believe, had this man had the opportunity, he would have submitted to baptism first thing, so it is not entirely an argument for my position. But correct baptism, as important as it is, is no substitute for genuine Christianity. Also, remember the disciples who were yet Christians but improperly baptized (even though immersed) and were rebaptized in Acts. Also remember that Apostles, who were infallible, are not here, but the Scriptures they leave behind are infallible and we use such to try to convince fallible men to accept the truth of right doctrine, but only with the Holy Spirit’s help. And, I was not accusing you of ecclesiastical idolatry (did you not read my point in the parentheses?).
CB Scott,
I already have shared the Gospel with Christiane. And I did so fairly recently, in fact, on this blog if I remember correctly, and you gave no mention of whether you took notice of that or not. For the record, you are correct on the Gospel and Christiane is not, because she is a Roman Catholic, which system teaches a false Gospel. I am not worried about her eventual salvation because God is sovereign, and her blood is not on my hands, because I have both told her the truth and am not compromising on it now. You continue to bring this issue up with everyone who disagrees with you except the person for whom it is most important: Christiane. Why is that?
My Church teaches that Christ is the Gospel.
CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE GOSPEL
““Our faith is a person; the gospel that we have to preach is a person; and go wherever we may, we have something solid and tangible to preach, for our gospel is a person. If you had asked the twelve Apostles in their day, ‘What do you believe in?’ they would not have stopped to go round about with a long sermon, but they would have pointed to their Master and they would have said, ‘We believe him.’ ‘But what are your doctrines?’ ‘There they stand incarnate.’ ‘But what is your practice?’ ‘There stands our practice. He is our example.’ ‘What then do you believe?’ Hear the glorious answer of the Apostle Paul, ‘We preach Christ crucified.’ Our creed, our body of divinity, our whole theology is summed up in the person of Christ Jesus.”
Byron,
Obviously you have just this moment lapsed into insanity, having asked my the following:
” You continue to bring this issue up with everyone who disagrees with you except the person for whom it is most important: Christiane”
Fir over a year, I have consistently brought the issue of L-s lostness before her.
BTW, L’s is not wrong about the gospel because she is a Catholic. She is wrong about the gospel because she is lost. Continuously, she has stated a position opposite to the Scriptural truth relating to the gospel. Being lost and being Catholic are not locked together. While it is true that Catholic theology is not biblical, it is not true that all Catholics are lost. Multitudes of Catholic people have recognized the fact of their lostness and repented of sin and embraced the biblical gospel. L’s is not one of those people. L’s is lost because she refuses to see the truth of the fact that she is a sinner before a just and righteous God in need of repentance and faith in the atoning work of Jesus and that alone for her salvation.
Christiane, that is excellent, and I agree with you mainly, except I hold to Sola Scriptura, but I think in general this is probably why I like the BFM 1963 which holds to the supremacy of Christ over Biblical interpretations.
Byron,
Got me with the theif :) Very soon after His salvation he met the prerequisite for membership in the Glory Church….glorification. I meant to say that the N.T. speaks of no other kind of church member. You are a baptist whether you like it or not. Building w/ parking lot…house with a large attic…makes no difference to me…a church is a group of baptized believers gathered together to fulfill the Great Commission.
Christiane,
You believe in Christ crucified + works
L’s,
You are right. The Apostles would direct our attention to Christ alone. They would do that. Thus far, you have not done so. You continue to place your hope in the Seven Sacraments.
CB Scott, I stand corrected.
Bryon,
If that is true, then tell the poor woman the truth and leave off saying things like you did in comment #48.
CB Scott, I do believe you genuinely care for Christiane. And I fear that you are correct, that she really does trust in works, or at least add works to Christ’s sacrifice in the form of the Seven Sacraments, in order to be saved. She has some genuine insights, however, and I do admire and respect her as an acquaintance (though we do not know each other well enough to be friends, I suppose). It is up to you how many times you will talk to her about the Gospel, however, and persistence is unlikely to succeed where the Holy Spirit does not work. Still, I never know the means that God will use to save, and He might use you and your persistence to do it, assuming she is not already saved (I doubt it, but I truthfully do not know). I think it is better to simply pray for her and wait for her to respond, after having given her the Gospel several times according to your understanding (and mine). But I cannot tell you what to do, and I am afraid that some people will look on what I just said as discouraging the giving of the Gospel, and that is not how I intend it. God is not laying it on my heart to give her the Gospel more than I have done, and more than I do implicitly with my words, so if you disagree with me on this, please pray for me as well.
CB Scott, what did I say wrong in #48? I simply said I mostly agreed, but held to Sola Scriptura instead, and that I preferred the BFM 1963 over the 2000, and gave one of my reasons for doing so. No offense, but you are very hard to figure out sometimes. You know I am not a “good” Baptist, so pressing for agreement on Baptist issues is never an expectation I will be able to meet.
Byron,
You said, “CB Scott, what did I say wrong in #48? I simply said I mostly agreed, but held to Sola Scriptura….”
Well Byron that is very good, but according to James 2:19 the demons believe in Sola Scriptura and they continue to shake in the boots. To say you believe in Sola Scriptura and tell a poor lost soul like L’s who speaks of salvation based upon an unbiblical predisposition that what she says is, ” that is excellent, and I agree with you mainly” is at best an effort on your part at being politically correct and seek approval of men and not God.
In addition, who cares about which BF&M you carry around in your back pocket? We are not talking about the BF&M. We are talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God and His atonement for the sins of fallen humanity.
You know as well as I do that L’s does not embrace the biblical gospel. I know you know that because you are a card carrying member of the Debbie Kaufman Funhouse Gang. You have read L’s comments there enough to know full well that she is an alien to a saving faith in Christ. Yet, in order to maintain your membership in good standing with the Kaufman Funhouse Gang and to get “atta-boys” from the owners of Burleson’s Wild Goose Farm you have compromised the truth of the gospel by not taking a stand with L’s.
Lastly Byron, I could not care less if you are a “good Baptist.” I am concerned with your stand on the gospel and the basic substance of biblical Christianity.
In addition Byron,
You have written a mass production in response to Debbie Kaufman’s obsessive rants against Ergun Caner to remain in good standing with your Funhouse Gang buddies, yet you fail to tell a lost woman the truth about her soul.
You think about that Byron as you prepare to write your next assault on Ergun Caner in the pursuit of truth, justice and accountability.
Volfan,
I am a baptized by immersion member of an SBC church.
Yes, being baptized by immersion is important.
But I am not reading David Campbell’s remarks the same way you are.
He sounds like Church of Christ people I know who not only believe one should be baptized by immersion, but that I am not saved because I regard my baptism as symbolic. Not all but many Church of Christ members believe that you must be baptized by immersion with the intent of being baptized for the remission of your sins. Therefore, Southern Baptists are not saved according to them.
He sure sounds like that.
I want to add that I support Debbie Kaufman in general, while disagreeing on a few minor things here and there as all people do. For CB Scott to call it a “Funhouse Gang” simply signifies to me that the conversation is over at that point, because we are no longer discussing things in a friendly manner but one that intentionally puts me on the defensive against a wall of criticism. So be it, I guess. I am still a Fundamentalist in terms of the fundamentals of the faith, but I will never subscribe to rigid SBC fundamentalism ever again. Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and that is good enough for me!
Christiane,
I believe your link to the song of Psalm 51 was an attempt to show us that since we are all brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin, we therefore must practice the unmentioned sprinkling of infants to get them to heaven. The man derived invention of infant baptism does not solve the conundrum of infant death and original sin. Verses 2 and 3 of the Psalm are quite telling. Also, you might find the baptism of Chyrsostom and Augustine interesting. A well thought work belongs to R.B.C. Howell and can be found here on this topic.
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm
Karen,
Where do I say that its necessary for salvation? Also, is a command optional? From one southern baptist to another.
Hi C.B.
Did you ever wonder WHY I say ‘Be peaceful’ so much?
It’s a blessing. The first Christians used to say it to one another this way: ‘May the Lord be with you’ and the other person would reply ‘and with your spirit’.
Right now you seem much troubled by Dr. Caner’s situation, so I found this for you.
Something to think about in the sacred space of time that share with Our Lord today:
“Jesus invites to Himself all those who labor and are heavily burdened. The phrase ‘comfort zone’ is used of the state where we feel life is under control and satisfactory. Jesus is inviting those who are NOT in the comfort zone, who feel oppressed by anxiety and uncertainty. I am often weary, Lord, and my burden feels heavy on me. When I look at Christians, some of them indeed seem relaxed and easy in Your Company. Others appear uptight and driven, not restful people to be near. You are a gentle, humble Presence. If I feel under pressure in prayer, something is wrong. It is a sign of Your Presence to me that my soul feels rested.” (Sacred Space site)
You will know that His Presence is in your life when your soul is peace-filled.
So, C.B., I leave you with this blessing, so that you may know His Presence and His Peace: ‘May the Lord be with you’
Be Peaceful,
Love, L’s
Hi DAVID CAMPBELL,
I posted this song to share it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8KRHWJrRvA
But your reason for me doing it is wrong. Your reason is also strange.
And I suspect that you wish to dialogue a bit about the ways of baptizing in the different Christian traditions.
Our Church has some Eastern Rite traditions that baptize by immersion.
(we have many traditional liturgical rites other than the Latin rite to which I belong.) The other ways accepted are sprinking and pouring. As to \’age\’, there are \’baptismal vows\’ that are taken by the parents and the god-parents on behalf of the infant. The promise is to bring the child up in the Christian faith, so that they may one day renew these vows in Confirmation of that faith, when they are older. This Confirmation is conducted before a bishop and is a public declaration of faith in Jesus Christ, at which time, the oil called \’chrism\’ is applied to represent baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It\’s complicated to you, I\’m sure. But I don\’t think you have an understanding of what we do.
The other ways of baptism? Should a catechumen (who desires to be baptized) get sick and die before they CAN go through the baptism, we acknowledge that they have been \’baptized by desire\’. (an example is St. Dismas, the Good Thief on the Cross).
The other way, a most holy baptism, is called \’baptism of blood\’, where a person who has not yet been baptized by water, is martyred for their faith in Christ. (Many early Christians went to their deaths in this way and are considered baptized \’by their own blood\’ shed in witness to Our Lord.
So, maybe this helps understanding some.
BTW, I have made a sincere effort to understand your own beliefs about baptism as you have expressed them. I think your beliefs in this matter are very, very important to you, David.
I may disagree with your concepts and ideas, but I would not do or say anything to disrespect your beliefs. Disagreement is not disrespect. Please know that.
Be peaceful.
David C.,
Thanks for clarifying.
Mr. John Farris,
You stated, “I am regularly dismayed by the attitude of some of my Baptist brethren who assume that because of your Catholicism, you either are not or cannot be saved, and the condescending attitude about “if” those who were baptized by sprinkling were saved, thay would want to be immersed.”
First off, it appears you compromise on the commands of our Lord. Are you saying that those who are truly saved are not compelled to submit to the Lordship of Christ in baptism? I never deemed her unsaved, but according to the personal adventures of Byroniac and CB, she preaches a different gospel and has not submitted to the Lordship of Christ via scriptural baptism. In light of this, you still want to come to her defense because she appears to bear some fruit of the spirit. Certainly I’m not saying that Christiane is spoken of in the following verse, but just because someone claims Jesus Christ and bears fruit does not mean that we should console them as being truly saved. Even Ghandi had this same fruit.
2 Cor. 11:15
“It is not surprising, then, if his (satan) servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. ”
All I said is that I will not recogize one’s profession of faith if they will not submit in obedience to the commands of Christ our Lord. I never said that because she was Catholic she is not or could not be saved. That doctrine belongs to her organization…Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The non-traditional interpration of this Catholic doctrine would be my position regarding those who are Catholic. There are rare acceptions of truly saved Catholics, and Christiane may be one, but based on her understanding of the gospel, we should not imply that she is saved. Non-negotiable immersion as a symbol is clearly taught; instead she chooses to follow in the traditions of men. I just found it laughable that you seem so concerned to defend someone who believes in works and sprinkling, and who also may hold the traditional view of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” meaning that you are not saved because you are not a member of the Catholic Church.
Christiane,
From the vatican website…
Therefore original sin is transmitted by way of natural generation. This conviction of the Church is indicated also by the practice of infant baptism, to which the conciliar decree refers. Newborn infants are incapable of committing personal sin, yet in accordance with the Church’s centuries-old tradition, they are baptized shortly after birth for the remission of sin. The decree states: “They are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that what they contracted in generation may be cleansed by regeneration”
Christiane,
Just to be clear on your position concerning baptism….
Are you saying that the baptism Christ commands of all of his disciples on earth “has” an effect on salvation,…or this baptism “has no” effect on salvation whatsoever. (regardless of in this life or after this life as you have intimated).
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
“just to be clear”….L’s is lost and in a hopeless state of rebellion against a holy and righteous God if she does not repent and believe the biblical gospel.
Byron,
Of what “in general” do you support Debbie Kaufman?
Also, you are very right. I am being critical of your allowing yourself to get involved with those who have so gracelessly continued to attack Ergun Caner after he has confessed his failures and repented. Your corporate conduct has surpassed that of a pack Striped Hyenas enraged by the scent of blood in the air on a hot Asian night.
Is that what you want to add in saying you “support Debbie Kaufman in general, while disagreeing on a few minor things here and there as all people do.”
Oh, I did think of one thing where I disagree with Debbie Kaufman, on her position that Ergun Caner was never a Muslim, and I have my own personal opinion on that which I may choose to share one day (but that is a very small disagreement overall).
CB Scott, there is an article by James White on AOMin.com that I strongly wish for you to read and consider. “The Caner Scandal Becomes the Evangelical Cover-Up” http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4023
Byron,
I have read and listened to James White enough. It is my opinion that James White’s stock fell long before the banks went under, the Obama administration took over or Ergun Caner was an issue.
So Byron, the only thing Debbie ever wrote that you disagreed with was her position on Ergun’s Islamic heritage?
Well Byron, I find that to be simply amazing.
Byron, do you remember a couple of months ago when I told you, you need turn off your computer, get out of that basement and meet some normal people?
Do so……And quickly.
Sister Christine,
Oh the time has come
And you know that He’s the only one
To say, Repent and be baptized
Where you going
What you looking for
You know those boys at SBCtoday
Don’t want to play no more with you
It’s true
You’re motoring
WHATS YOUR PRICE FOR FLIGHT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z92bmlcmyq0
hurry up and answer Chris’s question and approach what I posted about the Catholic Church…we are waiting.
CB Scott, OK. Thank you for responding. I am sorry for being rather forceful in my earlier comments. I can only say that we have fewer opinions in common than I supposed. God bless you, have a great week.
Dear friends,
May I say quietl;y and encouragingly, it is in Christ alone that we have salvation.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
It is not in our doctrines, not in our baptism(s) not in our church or Church, that we have salvation. The Lord Himself is our Salvation, it is our union to Him, unmediated by Church or priest or denomination, but our direct connection with Him brought to us by faith in his Word (1 Cor 15:3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,) that gives us life.
And now
In Christ alone my hope is found,
He is my light, my strength, my song;
this Cornerstone, this solid Ground,
firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
when fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All in All,
here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain:
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave he rose again!
And as He stands in victory
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me,
For I am His and He is mine -
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me;
From life’s first cry to final breath.
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand.
Grosey,
You say that as if the baptists here are in disagreement. I would never act as if salvation is the end all be all….salvation is a begining not an end. Jesus commanded us to make disciples, FOLLOWERS of Christ, baptize them and teach (indoctrinate with doctrine) them all things He commanded. Maybe ignoring His commandments is an option for your faith…but not for baptists. He didn’t say “make saved people”.
CH Spurgeon put it best “Learn next that the main matter in faith is the person whom you believe. I do not say in whom you believe. That would be true, but not quite so scriptural an expression. Paul does not say, as I hear most people quote it, “I know in whom I have believed.” Faith believes Christ. Your faith must recognise him as a person, and come to him as a person, and rest not in his teaching merely, or his work only, but in him. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” A personal Saviour for sinners! Are you resting on him alone? Do you believe him? You know the safety of the building depends mainly upon the foundation, and if the foundation be not right, you may build as you will, it will not last. Do you build, then, on Christ alone? Inquire about that as a special point.”
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1162.htm
Every religious person needs to amke sure of where their faith truly is.. in the Lord Jesus, or possibly in “doctrinal orthordoxy” or “orthopraxy”.
Gorley,
I see Spurgeon here correctly emphasizing Jesus as a Savior, but the scripture states that whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved. You present an excerpt emphasizing Him as Savior but then ask if my faith is the LORD Jesus. Jesus is LORD and Savior. In order to call upon LORD Jesus for salvation we must recognize we are handing Him the reigns to our life….for we are calling upon the name of the LORD. A disciple will be willing to follow who he has recognized and called upon….THE LORD OF HIS LIFE. This entails submitting to the Lordship of Christ through scriptural baptism and following His commands. Faith without works is dead brother….dead faith is not saving faith.
And a faith that does not reside in Christ alone is also a false faith.
I would not work my soul to save, for that work my Lord has done,
But I will work like any slave for love of God’s dear Son.
Grosey,
Unless I’m hearing David C. wrong, I think he’s just saying that someone, who gets saved by faith alone, will get baptised. I dont think he’s saying that baptism has anything to do with saving a person. But, that someone that really gets saved, will follow his/her Lord, and get baptised.
I think you two are talking past each other here. I could be wrong.
I agree with Grosey. We’re saved by grace thru faith, and faith alone. But, those people, who truly get saved, will want to obey their Lord. Yes.
David
“I agree with Grosey. We’re saved by grace thru faith, and faith alone. But, those people, who truly get saved, will want to obey their Lord. Yes.”
A-men and A-men.
Grosey,
You have hit the mark several times here my friend! Thank you.
CB,
My question to Christiane is one of perspective. Either she truly believes that salvation is of the Jews (Christ alone), or salvation is of another substance (variations in baptismal practices). Teachers of the peculiar faith that has been handed down to the Saints must never rest in any other substance but Christ unaided. If baptism has an effect on our salvation, whether before our being captured by Christ, or after our being captured by Christ,….then that baptism misses the mark of Christ’s baptism and his command to all His disciples.
I am truly interested in what Christiane understands about baptism. Because if she or anyone else, whether it be me, David Campbell or any else… believes that baptism has an effect on salvation, then those persons do not understand the faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints. So what she does understand about baptism informs the faith she confesses. It is either a faith handed down, or a faith of contemporary tradition. We must all examine ourselves.
My prayer is that all who come to Christ for shelter, know into what then they have been baptized.
Blessings,
Chris
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion wihtout confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will see all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.” -D.B
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” -Jesus
I find it perplexing that when one magnifies the LORDship of Christ and non-negotiable discipleship lived out gratefully in submission to MASTER Jesus…their doctrine of justification is questioned.
Brother David,
Grace is Grace. How much Grace does it take to save a sinner? Only the grace that He gives. So then,… how much of that Grace that He gives? Any.
It’s not a matter of degree to God (cheap or expensive). He doesn’t work that way. The Grace He gives is effective and final. How we respond to that Grace is varied and imperfect….yet it never diminishes the Grace that He gave. All teachers should be careful to count the cost of what they teach. If they teach faith as something that is cheap…they miss the mark. If they teach faith as something that is expensive…they miss the mark. If they teach that Grace is all of Christ, they teach it accurately…because that Grace is perfect, not cheap or expensive. To carry the cross of Christ is to know Grace, perfected in Christ. We run to Him,…but never depending upon our own efforts. Yet, in Him, we can do all things, through Christ (power of the Spirit) that strengthens us.
Grace is perfect, not cheap or expensive. That perfect Grace is the substance and evidence of the revealed Christ (faith, once for all delivered to the Saints….Hebrews 11). All the cost is upon Christ, not upon us. We must and do count the cost.
If we begin to thing of Grace as cheap or expensive, we easily become arrogant.
James 1:17-20 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. (18) In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. (19) This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; (20) for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
Blessings,
Chris
By the way, CB Scott, here in Southeast Texas we do not have basements. :)
Re: #87. That I know of, anyway. I do not know anyone who does.
Is their an award or medal for getting farthest from the point of a post with responses? This post is ging for the gold.
That’s a good one liner Fletcher :)
Sorry for going off-topic. I had to detour to defend myself from false accusations coming out of fantasy world. It will probably happen again, wherever I go. It seems to be the case lately.
Chris,
The woman is lost and on her way to hell unless she repents and believes the biblical gospel.
Byron,
Southeast Texas or Southeast Tennessee; Mother’s basement or Mother’s garage apartment; it makes no difference, you need to shut down that computer and go out and meet some normal people.
Go to a baseball game or something. Go to a coffee shop. Hey, I have a better idea. Get up and go to a good church in the morning and join the singles Sunday School Class.
cb, I was once on my way to hell as well… until someone was eager to preach and teach the gospel to me.
Romans 1:14-17 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. (15) So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
My prayer and desire is that she will live. Only God can convince her. I must love her and try to persuade her of the truth.
Blessings,
Chris
Hi BYRON,
You wrote: “I had to detour to defend myself from false accusations coming out of fantasy world.”
Now, now Byron, I know occasionally some people can seem just a little bit peculiar. But try to enjoy people for who they are;
and take into consideration where they are at now.
A good thing to remember is that when you feel you are being attacked and accused, the people you think are doing it are really trying to tell you their own story in the only way they can right now. If you listen, you can hear something more behind their words: they need for someone to hear them, and understand them, and take them seriously until they can find a better place to be. They are going to choose someone that they can entrust their story to; and they may ‘act out’ in painful ways, but you musn’t take it personally.
And, once you understand, you can’t be upset with them anymore.
It’s one of the secrets of the Kingdom. :)
Chris,
Have you been on Mars trying to get proper healthcare for the Martians? What do you think I have been telling her for over a year?
Too many people have given her a free pass, including many on this blog.
Thank you, Christiane. That makes sense. CB Scott, I appreciate your attempt to give me good advice, but I honestly understand how to apply it. Have a great day, though.
I meant, I don’t know how.
I was just out speaking with a few aliens :)
cb, I don’t think anyone is giving Christiane a free pass, (nobody gets a free pass)… because… she still has not answered any questions concerning the gospel and baptism.
Jesus Christ and the Apostles have made it abundantly clear that baptism does not, will not, and cannot effect salvation in any way. So, if Christiane’s testimony is that her faith is supported by baptism, then by that confession she will be confessing another gospel…not the gospel of God, lived out and spoken of by Christ, and taught by the Apostles.
But if that is her testimony, she is not alone… There are many folks that follow false gospels.
I am just thankful that she is reading,…I hope to hear her respond, if she so chooses.
Blessings,
Chris
Hi CHRIS JOHNSON,
My beliefs about baptism are found in our Creeds, which you do not have.
And I doubt I could ever explain the ‘sacrament’ we call the Sacrament of Baptism. Part of the celebration of baptism from the first days of the Church had to do with the Easter vigil. The baptism was during the vigil before sunrise, and represented spiritually dying in Christ, when He died, and rising with Him as rose. Also before the baptism, the person faced west, and turned from it towards the east: to symbolize turning away from darkness, renouncing evil; and facing east to accept the light of the risen Christ.
The best I can do for you is to ask you to listen to the words of that Psalm 51 song that I posted at Comment 40,
and then take a look at the following references . From this, you may understand something of my beliefs:
“See where you are baptized,
see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death.
There is the whole mystery:
He died for you. In Him you are redeemed, in Him you are saved “ St. Ambrose
“John 3: 5-8
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.’
6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’
8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
CHRIS, Have a wonderful holiday. Stay safe if you travel.
Don’t worry about running into aliens. We are all us ‘strangers in a strange land’ and our real Home is not here.
Remember: point to Christ from Whom all goodness comes,
and do not take your eyes from Him. He is your All in All.
Hey Chris,
Good word towards me earlier…”If they teach that Grace is all of Christ, they teach it accurately”….salvation is the Person Jesus Christ. Jesus is LORD. One cannot divorce His Lordship from Him as Savior. Grace is costly because its costs a man his life, but it is grace because by losing that he truly finds it. It is costly because we were bought at a price…to say that grace is not costly is to preach a gospel of cheap grace. Yes, Grace is Grace…and its costly. Nobody would actually call what they preach “cheap grace”…it is costly because one must follow Christ….it is grace because His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Those who preach optional baptism…optional discipleship…optional holiness…well, you are preaching a gospel of cheap grace….I’m sure you have Ephesians 2:8-9 committed to memory…but one should also add verse 10 and examine themselves…it has been determined in eternity past…Paul says that without pursuing holiness no man will see the Lord. If one cares not to obey the commands of our Lord and does not demonstrate their faith by their works…they need to approach the cross for a salvation that will bring this about.
Col. 1:23 boss…
Pingback: The Church – Oh how I love her! « …F O L L O W…
Christiane,
Thank you for trying to answer the baptism question.
One thing that is clear from the command of Christ concerning baptism is how simple it truly is. When he commanded the disciples to baptize, His command was not a mystery that required creeds (no matter the group). His command was obvious to the Apostles….therefore they obeyed it and taught it with simplicity. As you read the scriptures, not the creeds, this becomes very clear…..because as Christ explained,… it is in Him, not words that we find life.
Fortunately, not understanding the “creeds” completely is to your advantage. Because creeds have no power, and like the water baptism that Jesus commands, the earthly water has no effect on salvation. The water baptism He commands simply points us to Him and reveals the Spirit that dwells in us… that was why the Apostle Paul ask those disciples at Ephesus “into what then were you baptized?” (Acts 19). If we look to baptism as some mysterious effective means to salvation, then we confess that we do not know the answer to the question “into what then were you baptized?”. Obedience to Christ’s command to make disciples and baptize is very simple and non-mysterious. The disciples at Ephesus, when it was explained by the Apostle… that they had only received the baptism of John, were then eager to accept the baptism of the Spirit, because baptism in the Spirit identifies with the person that was living in them (no mystery)…..they reasoned that their baptism of repentance fell short because it depended upon something other than Christ (John’s baptism). You see, John’s baptism “was somewhat mysterious” because it was pointing us to the one that commands the baptism who was just arriving on the scene, …so Jesus our Savior came to explain baptism… God revealed it to us through John like this….
John 1:31-34 “I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” (32) John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. (33) “I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ (34) “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
Then Jesus dialogues with John, denouncing any mystery about baptism and the water…..
Matthew 3:11-17 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (12) “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (13) Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. (14) But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” (15) But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him. (16) After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, (17) and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
To be baptized by the command of Christ rests in the fulfilled work of Christ, not in a mysterious means where water baptism is effective for salvation. If anyone teaches or believes that water effects….that “belief” would be to deny what Christ actually did as fitting “to fulfill all righteousness”.
It is very clear …as Christ explains in the gospel letters, the water the “He gives” is not the actual water we drink or… is used in baptism. This “well of water springing up to eternal life” hears the command of Christ (Luke 10:23), just as the disciples at Ephesus demonstrated and obeyed their Savior.
John 4:13-14 Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; (14) but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
So, I brought a few of these teachings of Christ forward to help explain the verse you had used ….Jesus explained to Nicodemus this same truth. But one thing is clear,… and Nicodemus knew the connection Christ was making about “the water and the Spirit”..since he was a very religious and devout man and knew the Law given by Moses very well.
John 3:5-8 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (8) “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Would Nicodemus deny these earthly, religious, mysterious creedal means and follow Christ? Jesus again makes a very clear statement about what “is known” as he points back to his previous statement “so is everyone who is born of the Spirit”.
John 3:10-11 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? (11) “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
Being born of the Spirit is not mysterious…. That would be to miss the main theme of what Jesus is teaching and what the Apostles taught. John’s letters are replete that we do know… 1 John 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
Titus 3:5-7 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Christiane, my prayer for you is that baptism will never again be a mystery (because it was never presented that way by Jesus), and that as you respond to Jesus Christ… your response will be of the same substance as the disciples at Ephesus, as all others that follow the Savior.
Blessings,
Chris
“Those who preach optional baptism…optional discipleship…optional holiness…well, you are preaching a gospel of cheap grace”
Now that I can agree with….and would summarize it by saying anyone who teaches anything as optional about those things is not teaching or preaching the truth.
Good word, Thanks David.
Byron,
I just saw this over at Debbie Kaufman’s Funhouse and I want you to tell me if you wrote it or if there is another Byron over there?
“Jul 03, 2010 @ 13:24:26
Debbie,
I just read one of Peter’s latest blog posts, and I think it shed light on the thought process they (not just Peter) go through (before arriving at the ostrich sticking its head in the sand conclusion). It seems like it is inconceivable to them due to their gullibility and naïveté that someone could act in the name of Christ and simultaneously not be everything they claim to be or even tell lies and excuse them because they are done in the name of religion. It almost seemed to me that the thought process was 1.) Ergun Caner is a Christian leader (aka hero), 2.) He was doing “Christian leader” type things, which proves the purity of his motives because why else would he be engaged in that work, 3.) Nobody’s perfect, so he made some discrepancies and inaccuracies in speech, and repented of them (by way of a statement posted to his website and yanked not much later without explanation, but of course that still qualifies as genuine, even if its language was ambiguous and insufficiently penitent to begin with), and finally 4.) his detractors are nothing more than a crazed pack of bloodthirsty wolves powered by envy of a man of God and hatred for uncompromising Christianity (dig hole in ground. Insert cranium. Problem solved. Be Happy!)”
Did you write this Byron?
CB Scott, yes I wrote that, and I could be wrong, but it is my impression so far on this issue (primarily of Peter’s blog post).
Byron,
You make statements like that, then you are amazed and offended when sensible people call your hand.
“Did that help you to maintain your membership in good standing with the Kaufman Funhouse Gang and to get “atta-boys” from the owners of Burleson’s Wild Goose Farm?
Statements like that are why I said you have written a mass production in response to Debbie Kaufman’s obsessive rants against Ergun Caner to remain in good standing with your Funhouse Gang buddies, yet you fail to tell a lost woman the truth about her soul.
Then you come to SBC TODAY and make hypocritical statements like:
“I had to detour to defend myself from false accusations coming out of fantasy world. It will probably happen again, wherever I go. It seems to be the case lately.”
Now Byron, tell us; Who actually lives in a fantasy world? Like I said earlier: Get out of the basement. Meet some normal people. Maybe you should get a job. Yeah, that would help. Get a real job. Volunteer to work at a soup kitchen or drive elderly people to their medical appointments.
CB Scott,
Well, some of these same sensible people also believe Ergun Caner committed no wrong, regardless of any actual evidence to the contrary. People like Ankerberg and Geisler are at best being willfully ignorant on this issue, as they are not actually offering any real explanations that I can see. And when you casually drop bombs like “funhouse” and “goose club,” do you include yourself in that number of sensible people, CB Scott? Your words do not fit there.
For the fourth or fifth time (I have lost count), I have already told Christiane the Gospel. Your continual failure to acknowledge this and stating that it never occurred does not make it so. The only legitimate form of your complaint could possibly be that I have not witnessed to her as many times or as repeatedly as you have. But as I said before, every time you lecture me ABOUT Christiane, you use up an opportunity to witness TO Christiane, if that is truly what you consider supremely important, which is why I continue to wonder if lecturing me ABOUT Christiane is what is more important.
And, I am quite familiar with the SBC mantra over the last twenty-some-odd years of my life, which goes something like this, “get out of the house, go to an officially approved SBC church, vote Republican, get married, have kids, praise God.” Believe me, I get it. It is not so much about me “getting out of the basement” (never even seen one in person, LOL) and meeting “normal people” as much as it is thinking the right thoughts and filtering all behavior through some official SBC behavioral matrix. If I only followed the SBC herd (not all of it is like that, though), thought the right thoughts (whatever those are), and preached “the Southern Baptist way” then I have a sneaking suspicion that all this talk about “getting out of the basement” and meeting “normal people” (unlike myself and those I regularly spend time with, you insinuate) and “get[ting] a job” (which I already have a real part-time job) would be unnecessary and probably not even brought up. But, we have had this conversation before, and then as now, you simply do not know me, CB Scott, and perhaps you do not care to know me. I can only guess.
So, now you accuse me of making hypocritical statements, when I have had to defend myself on the Ergun Caner scandal (which I did not bring up here, you did), the Christiane issue (which I also did not bring up here, you did), and your statements directed to my person (which is a third topic I did not bring up, you did), and you obviously find fault with my answers. So be it. But, when you fail to interact with what I am saying and instead launch personal attacks in the form of advice, it really causes any complaint you fire my way less and less seriously.
Have it your way, CB Scott. I do not claim to be objective or unbiased in this, but quite frankly, your words certainly do not meet that criteria either. And I have said far more than I wanted or expect to say on these topics here. I think I have answered just about everything you have asked, but not to your satisfaction I take it.
I think the conversation has reached a standstill, CB Scott. I have my opinions. You disagree. So be it.
I am sorry, “goose farm” (though I do not understand the reference, as I am not that familiar with geese farms) is the appropriate quote.
Byron,
I need to talk to you about one statement that you made in your last little rant for Debbie’s approval. Actually, it is my civic duty as an American here on the Fourth of July.
You stated the following:
“I am quite familiar with the SBC mantra over the last twenty-some-odd years of my life, which goes something like this, “get out of the house, go to an officially approved SBC church, vote Republican, get married, have kids, praise God.”
I am willing to make the sacrifice. Therefore let me interact for the sake of all Americans and Southern Baptists.
1. Yes, please get out of the house and find a real job so I, along with so many other hard working Americans, can stop paying your way while you do nothing.
2. Please do not join an “officially approved” Southern Baptist church. Your Voodoo theology is just not needed in SBC life. Publicly declare yourself a Mormon or a Muslim. Once the Muslims and Mormons in your community find out, they will be running to Southern Baptist churches, realizing how wrong they have been seeking help.
3. Do not become a Republican. You can help us best by declaring yourself an eternal Democrat. Publish your voting record in your local paper. I am sure that when people who know you see it they will vote in opposition. Those new votes will help the GOP far more than you becoming one of us.
4. Forget about marriage and kids. One of you is enough on such a small planet.
CB Scott,
All ad hominem attacks from you aside, I need to say a few things to finish this conversation.
I apologize for the “fantasy world” comment. It was inappropriate, unfair, and uncalled for. In my opinion, the attacks I have had to defend myself have come from somewhere out in left field. I believe I can say that without intending insult. I should not have used the concept of an SBC mantra as I just did, as that was also unfair and reflected some personal frustration on my part. I am wrong on both counts.
1. I have a real (though admittedly part-time) job at which I actually make (real) money. I do not derive all of my income from this particular job, but I am self-supporting. Again, we have had this conversation before, and the points I made then do not require repetition here.
2. I am Christian and almost Baptist in my beliefs (I prefer the term, “Baptistic”). I am much closer to you in doctrine than anything non-Christian, especially Mormonism or Islam. That is the simple truth of the matter. My theology does not deserve your “voodoo” designation no matter how errant it currently could be in ecclesiology, eschatology, or the like (and I admit, I am not right all of the time).
3. I already am a Republican. I do not always vote Republican (such as in local elections for various reasons), but I almost always do in national elections (I did not, would not, and could not vote for Barack Obama with a clear conscience on my part; however, he is our President now and I respect the office while disagreeing with certain policies of his).
4. No comment is required here, and I am actually left speechless.
CB Scott, I apologize to you for speaking more out of frustration than I should have. But your latest comments to me are hardly fair. And, you seem to be resorting to personal attacks. If that is the case, so be it, but I warn you I can no longer take any complaints or criticism coming from you seriously in light of it, and should not be required to do so. You are my elder in both chronological age and the historic faith, and such is beneath you. I encourage you and respectfully ask that you review what you have written above and see if it is truly appropriate.
When you resort to ad hominem argumentation, then the other side wins the argument automatically. I have lost several conversations in the past due to this very principle. I have been guilty of it in our conversation as well. So, I am not without error or hypocrisy in this regard, but I do acknowledge it.
I am ending this on the note that I hope we can see more agreeably eye to eye in the future (whether that means my correction, yours, or a combination of both).
Byron,
You have answered well. Thou lackest only one thing. Sell all of thine stock in the Funhouse and the Wild Goose Farm and identify thyself with the BI and ye shall be normal.
CB Scott, that was actually funny (and I do not mean that in an insulting or condescending way). I actually like your humor! :)
Hi BYRON,
gosh, I wish we could pray C.B. and Joe Blackmon out of their name-calling that sounds so ‘high-school’ . . . .
it just might work.
Hey, C.B.
if you see a six-winged seraph coming after you with a live coal held in tongs, don’t run . . . help is coming from on high ! :) :) :)
“5And I said: ‘Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!’
6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, holding a live coal that had been taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. 7The seraph* touched my mouth with it . . . ” (Book of Isaiah, chapter 6)
Christiane, speaking only for myself, I helped to escalate it by my rather poor choice of words at times. That’s funny about the seraph reference, too. It’ll probably come for me first, so by your leave, I’ll go run and hide, and you can tell me when the coast is clear. LOL!
Brother Byron, I believe you may not want to “run and hide”…that stone comes from the eternal fire,… as Christ is living in us,you and I long for that coal to touch our lips!
Blessings,
Chris
Amen, Chris. I was just making a joke. God Himself sent the seraph with the live coal as an act of mercy to Isaiah, who had just cried out to God and confessed his utter ruin due to sin and God’s supreme Holiness in stark contrast. Interesting that the Scripture does not mention any pain involved if there was in Isaiah 6:6-7, and I wonder why that is? I suppose it is because that eternal fire is a spiritual fire and not a natural one, and its work is complete, and not just partial, because it is Christ who does it?
You can relax, Byron.
The seraphs (seraphim) are all celebrating the holiday and are off-duty today. So no need to run and hide. I hope it’s a beautiful day where you are and you can enjoy it with friends and family. :)
We’ll just have to wait until tomorrow to get you and C.B. and poor Joe cleaned-up properly, when those seraphim are ready to go to work again. :) Just TRY and hide from them, you silly.
Enjoy your day!
Love, L’s
L’s,
You made this Fourth of July comment over at the Wild Goose Farm. Would you mind explaining it to the fellows here. BTW, make sure and tell the fellows this is not one of your “I hate conservative Christians so much because” statements.
Go ahead and tell the fellows what you meant by:
“I am wondering this:
did anyone ever consider the consequences to the families of our Islamic citizens (husbands, wives, children and babies) of all of the ‘Islamophobia’ being promoted by so-called ‘Christian’ people?
Any response that ‘all they are doing is trying to convert Muslims to Christ’ is pure bologna. Why?
Because it involves high-profile ‘Christian’ speakers preaching intolerance to their base: other Christians, who lap it up.
Result: the seeds of that intolerance are planted in the young of those ‘Christians’ and they have acted out against innocent Islamic children in schools and in neighborhoods.
So, if families are being considered (and they should be), lets start with the victims of intolerance.
And ask: is it a great sin to sow hatred and intolerance among people and claim that it is a ‘Christian’ teaching? Is it a great sin to mock minorities and women and serve this up as entertainment to people in a ‘Christian’ audience?
I’m all for protecting families, but if someone has behaved in unconscionable ways that cause harm to innocent people, and they are confronted, and their supporters cry ‘foul’ ‘this could hurt their families’;
maybe the Christian care for ALL families in the beginning would have been more integral to the honorable service of Our Lord.
Just some thoughts.
the time to think about families is a little bit delayed.
Islamophobes are hate-mongers and spread intolerance. Those who support them and their efforts are also responsible for the harm that WILL come to the innocent targets.
Very sad, this.”
Thanks for asking NICELY, C.B. :)
I meant EVERY word.
Times ten.. . . . times a hundred . . . . Times six million.
stereotyping, prejudicial, intolerant hate-speech is a SIN, C.B.
And Christians know it is. There is NO EXCUSE for it.
If not confronted, it eventually leads to the worst possible acts against innocent people who are the first victims of this kind of hatred.
ANY ‘Christian’ leader who has engaged in this sort of intolerance needs to think about the ‘end’ result of his/her actions. A trip to the Holocaust Museum in D.C. would be a GOOD BEGINNING where they can learn what IS possible as a result of racial, religious, and ethnic stereotyping against a people who are a minority in a country.
I know YOU know this is true, C.B.
As for the ‘Christians’ who take part in the stereotyping and the intolerant speech and actions directed towards minority groups: by paying money to hear these speakers, buying their books, and cheering them on, and by teaching their children to hate.
I am truly appalled and concerned.
What TERRIBLE witnesses these ‘Christians’ are for those who do not know Our Lord. The sin of exposing the children to it is heart-breaking.
There.
Explanation completed?
Nip intolerance in the bud. You can’t control evil once you put it out there, Satan takes over.
I trust you ‘get it’. If not: think about it.
As far as I am concerned, when I see intolerance out there, I will point it out.
Intolerance has unleased hell on millions of people even within this last century. There is for me ZERO TOLERANCE for intolerance against minority groups.
The nightmares are still fresh in the minds of those whose families were nearly wiped out in the death camps of Germany.
NEVER AGAIN.’ should be the cry of all Christian people, ‘lest they make shipwreck of their faith’.
L’s,
You stated;
“Because it involves high-profile ‘Christian’ speakers preaching intolerance to their base: other Christians, who lap it up.”
Who are these “high-profile ‘Christian’ speakers preaching intolerance to their base”?
And who among us Christians are the “base” “who lap it up.”?
Christiane,
I find the comments below pure hypocrisy.
“Islamophobes are hate-mongers and spread intolerance”
Your stereotypical prejudice and intolerance is well demonstrated.
Remember your own words???
“stereotyping, prejudicial, intolerant hate-speech is a SIN”
Oh Yeah,
Almost forgot to say that the moral relativism you vomitted up on that blog is a symptom of the virus in your unregenerate heart.
CB,
How come I click on your name but it takes me nowhere???
Anyone is ‘laps’ it up?
Well, what minority group do you want to talk about?
Homosexuals, Muslims, women, blacks, Mexicans ? Who’s the minority-group-of-the-month that it’s popular to diss now?
My goodness, the knives are out for the lot in some quarters.
C.B., there wouldn’t be any of these ‘leaders’ if they didn’t have a ‘base’. It takes big money to keep these guys ‘up there’, and people are paying it.
Ever been in a crowd where a joke was made by a ‘Christian’ leader about women serving God? Did you hear the laughter?
Or maybe you’ve read about ‘Christian’ leaders who make jokes about American citizens of Mexican descent, fixing their roofs or taking care of their lawn work? More laughter?
That’s an example of ‘lapping it up’.
But the REAL problem now:
with our soldiers in the field, there are some ‘Christian’ leaders who are fanning the flames of intolerance against our Muslim citizens, using stereotypes against all of those people of the Islamic faith. This is nothing short of sickening to anyone who has a son or daughter, or nephew, or niece, serving in harm’s way.
The people that buy the ‘books’, laugh at the ‘jokes’, and mindlessly buy into the intolerance for those who are different are, at best, misled.
That ‘at best’, is for a few. Most of the ‘base’ know they are doing wrong.
Any real Christian person, on hearing a rabble-rouser at work against any minority group, will be able to discern that something is not right with the proceedings. There has been enough education over the horrendous racial atrocities in our country’s history to know that Christian people should have zero tolerance for ‘intolerance’, an any level, from the casual ‘joke’, the ‘cartoon’, the ‘funny story’ about how people of another race dress at Church, the put-down of the dignity of women in the Church;
to the full-scale lies about ‘all Mustlims’ that we are hearing now from some quarters in the ‘Christian’ far-right. Pretty sick stuff.
When the ‘base’ stops laughing, and buying the books, and listening to the hate-speech on the radio, and cheering, and forking over the money in ‘contributions’;
the ones ‘selling intolerance’ to them will disappear.
It’s the money that fuels the evil.
David Campbell,
cb scott is my blog identity. My real name is Villa Rica. I live in a small town between Wes Kenney and Robin Foster.
L’s,
I have to leave for a moment. If God grants me traveling grace and I return, I would like to discuss the subject of Islamophobes and related matters.
In the meanwhile, please inform me as to the identity od at least one of these Christian leaders you mention in your lengthy comments.
A second request would be this; Could you identify for me the most intolerant religious on earth at the moment?
Thus-saith-the-Lord-phobes like Christine are who I believe Deyoung had in mind in the 2nd one liner mentioned…
“In this day with so much postmodern squishitude people are hungry to listen to someone winsomely, humbly, wisely, say—with passion and conviction—‘Thus saith the Lord.’”
how’s that for tying it back in to the blogpost??? Seriously though, when people get off on all that minority bushwa it really makes me queasy. When I talk about the hell-spawed satan inspired followers of Allah…I’m talking about all of the real ones, not necessarily all the ones who claim to be…like the one’s who tout peaceful Islam…they aren’t really muslims….kinda of like trying to call a Catholic a Christian….
“like the one’s who tout peaceful Islam…they aren’t really muslims…”
Ladies and Gentlemen!!
Please direct your attention to the center ring!! There in comment #124 you will find the best and most accurate GREAT ONE LINER in this blog and the entire comment thread!!
It may be the most truly and accurately stated reality statement since the beginning of the Obama Campaign who is trying to blind American Christians to the truth about Muslims.
L’s,
Are you ready for a little discussion about Islamophobes now?
Well L’s,
I guess you have been caught again spewing your venom against everything of a conservative biblical Christianity. You don’t want to answer the questions because you know the truth shows you for what you really are.
” L’s In Wonderland ”
The Mad Hatter:
“Have I gone mad?”
[Alice checks Hatter's temperature]
Alice:
“I’m afraid so.
You’re entirely bonkers.
But I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”
:)
Good night, C.B.
L’s,
Do you know what is truly sad about all of this? This is not “Wonderland” and you are not “Alice.”
This is the real world and you are really lost. But with you there is more, far more.
For some reason, you hate biblical Christianity. You quote Scripture, but you do not believe it to be fully authoritative. Frankly, you are in rebellion against that which constitutes the Roman Catholicism you say you embrace so lovingly. Your true and foundational theological base is a hybrid, liberal Catholicism saturated with Liberation Theology and Mysticism with a great big dose of Humanism thrown in for good measure. You try to come off as a caring person, but you are not. You are a bitter individual. I think some of it has to do with your family situation, but I am not sure. The truth is we do not even know who you really are. But, I assure you that what you write reveals enough for some of us to see behind the “curtain” and know you are not the all knowing “Wizard of Oz” of faith that you like to portray. Lydia and Paula have seen through you as have I and a few others.
(There are some who see through you also, but are too tied up in the desire to be politically correct to challenge you. So they bite their tongue and tell you how sweet you are and how much they appreciate your heart. I must admit that I take some of the things you say as helpful. But in reality, I know it is all a facade.)
You travel through these Baptist blogs and fuel your venomous hatred of biblical Christianity on the unsuspecting hearts and minds of the biblically deprived, emotionally destitute and theologically deficient.
You make comments about biblical Christians calling them Islamophobes and various other names you have in your arsenal of hate weapons.
You are a miserable and lost person L’s. But it does not have to be so. If you realize you are a lost sinner before a just and righteous God, you have opportunity to repent and believe the biblical gospel.
I realize the weak kneed, seekers of political correctness among us will now challenge me and say I am too harsh with you. Well, I don’t really care what they say or think. I know I have told you the truth. Repent and believe the gospel whoever you actually are before it is too late.
L’s,
Your comment about intolerant Christians is very lacking in substance.
If it is Christians who are so intolerant, give me a response to the following:
1. If Islam is so peaceful and tolerant, why isn’t there even one Muslim country that will allow freedom of religion and speech?
2. Why is it that of all 55 predominately Muslim nations on earth, toleration is not practiced for Christians? In every one of the 55 nations totally under an Islamic government, Christians are persecuted.
You cannot deny the truth of this. It is fact. Yet, you call Christians Islamophobes?
I would say that I have enjoyed sitting back and watching the show, but tragedies are not enjoyable.
L’s or Christiane or whatever your true name is…
I do not know you. I suspect your noteworthiness has arisen from your commentary at the WB Network & DK Outlet Mall, and since I have only been over to those establishments maybe once or twice in the past year+, I know very little of your background with the exception of what you have said here at our place. That being said, I must concur with the elder statesman, CB, who has quite adequately stopped by to dialogue with you concerning both your egregious mis-statements concerning Evangelical Christians, specifically SBCers, and the Islamic world and your sad refusal to understand and submit your life to the matchless grace of God through which He extends the offer of salvation on the basis of the propitiatory work of His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, in substitutionarily atoning for sin…even your sin. Salvation is thus by grace alone, through faith alone, in surrendering to Christ alone, on the basis of Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. No other name and no other way by which we can be saved from sin and made righteous in God’s sight. It is, as the great English Baptist preacher, CH Spurgeon, of a previous century has well stated, ALL OF GRACE.
Thanks, CB, for taking on this dialogue. Who new that a post on simple, conservative ecclesiology would generate the discussion we currently have here.
Sola Gratia!
Oh, CB Scott, I hope you do not give up on James White’s blog, either. What he says makes a lot of sense. And I hope you will consider his latest posts with the same care that you used to. In fact, read less Peter Lumpkins. Much less. :)
Byron,
As I said in an earlier comment to you, I have read James White’s blog. I read it even before he became addicted to himself to the extent he is at the present. Something is terribly wrong in that particular cranial mass. I don’t know exactly what is wrong, but I know something is just not right.
As for Peter; Well Peter is Peter and frankly, Mr. White could not carry Peter’s water on any given day. Peter is the kind of guy who can dig into a hole and hold up an army by himself with a pellet gun and a box of M-80s.
So Byron, in a blog war, give me Peter any day. You can have Mr. White and his Legions. :-)
Gladly. I’ll take them. No offense to Peter, but I have never been able to see things his way except on rare occasions when coincidentally the stars matched a precise alignment with each other and the moon reached a particular lovely shade of blue. Peter is a good writer, intelligent, and a total mystery to me most times when it comes to the source of his opinions and his reasoned defense of the same. Maybe the blindness is peculiar to me, but I doubt it. And you are right: White could never carry Peter’s water on any given day. From what I heard, they share completely different types of hobbies, and mixing activities together would probably prove to be most dreadful for all parties concerned.
“….I have never been able to see things his way….”
And, Byron, you never will. I think that in your case, as it is for Mr. White, it is also the “water thing.”
If Peter were to hand me his water to hold, I would probably misinterpret the situation, thank him for his kindness, and drink it, so this is probably for the best. :)
I am sorry, but I am puzzled how after dumping out #110 and #132 without apology someone can afterward be called an elder statesman. I am feeling a disconnect with reality here. Seriously? Wow.
Byron,
Since both comments to which you referred are your own I am left with the understanding of your disconnect…those are not the words of CB, they are your own.
SG!
Scott, I don’t have a copy of your website, so when I last looked the comments were #110 and #132. Now they appear as of this writing to be #108 and #129. What happened? I have no idea. My point remains.
Byron,
As I review comments, it appears you reference 107 & 129 [108 was your response to CB's 107].
Numerical confusion aside, your opinion of elder statesman is tainted by being on the receiving end of reproof from the man referenced. If one will re-read the comments and castigations of great men in history, one will find the likes of Reagan referring to the USSR as an evil empire as well as Christ calling his detractors white-washed sepulchers and a brood of vipers…neither ‘kind’ but most accurate, and that which is truly loving in that error is met head-on with truth.
In my humble and rather accurate opinion, CB has quite directly hit the nail on the head concerning the actions of L’s and your defense of her, especially at the WBN & DKO. His wording is direct and strong and should serve as a wake-up call.
SG!
Byron,
Scott calls me an “elder statesman”because he has met me in person and knows I am as old as dirt. When Scott’s wife met me, she asked him if all the lines in my face were due to me being beaten with a waffle iron.
Scott told her “no.” “The lines were caused when Tim Rogers feel out of a plane at 500′ and cb tried to break his fall.” I do not know if she believed him or not, but she did go and buy me a cup of coffee so I would not have to walk to the concession stand.
So I cannot necessarily depend on anything on this blog staying put (thanks also to past experience here), I have posted a snapshot to my blog, and I will refer all previous comment numbers to it as an authoritative source. You will see that the proper numbers have indeed returned to 110 and 132. My hand was forced in this.
http://byroniac.blogspot.com/2010/07/sbc-today-great-one-liners-snapshot.html
Scott, I see that I am hypocritical in complaining about CB Scott being called an “Elder Statesman”. In comment 111 according to the snapshot captured on my blog, I said, “But your latest comments to me are hardly fair. And, you seem to be resorting to personal attacks. If that is the case, so be it, but I warn you I can no longer take any complaints or criticism coming from you seriously in light of it, and should not be required to do so.” In this light, I retract my complaint, as I cannot take his criticism seriously, until such statements are retracted and an apology is rendered, or sufficient reason is given to induce my personal motivation for doing so. Were I taking his criticisms seriously, instead of inspiring a wake-up call on my part, they would serve only to justify a vote of no confidence in CB Scott’s reasoning (for those particular words, such as #110 according to my blog’s snapshot) according to my judgment, and any who would agree with him, quite frankly.
CB Scott, and Scott Gordon, and whoever else. I am not your enemy, and I would like to end this on a good note. On the down side, I will adopt Christiane’s attitude and no longer concern myself with your opinions on my salvation, theology, orthodoxy, or orthopraxy. On the plus side, if I ever meet you in person, I hope I can someday buy either of you lunch (or for David Worley, or Peter Lumpkins, or Tim Guthrie, or Tim Rogers, or for several others), and hopefully have some sort of positive discussion on various subjects. For the meantime, I remain resolute in my opinions but it is not my desire to cause offense, or stir up division. I will refrain from empty promises, so I will not promise to be quiet or keep to myself or refrain from voicing an opinion. But I will try to listen more, though I cannot promise agreement.
This is comment #146 and will also be posted to my blog.