Discern Your Doctrine (Mark Dever)
Trevin Wax: What is at stake in this debate over justification? If one were to adopt Piper’s view instead of yours, what would they be missing?
NT Wright: What’s missing is an insistence on Scripture itself rather than tradition . . .
Kingdom People (NT Wright) or here Unfinished Christianity.)
I spent some time yesterday, a little more than an hour, listening to a speech by Mark Dever. The speech was delivered at the 2007 New Attitude conference-a conference featuring the likes of Joshua Harris, John Piper, Albert Mohler, and CJ Mahaney, all well respected Evangelical Christians. Dever’s speech, or sermon if you like, is titled Discern Your Doctrine. It is worth the hour to sit and listen to it. I will provide a synopsis and attach a few brief comments before concluding with a call to love.
As most of you know by now, or have wondered, I am a member of the so-called Restoration Movement Church of Christ (not a Capella; that is, my church uses instruments in worship). Our ‘movement’ (we have eschewed such cumbersome boxes as ‘denomination’ or ‘tradition’ thinking them too slow or stagnant; we are a ‘movement!’). Our movement has, at least at its inception, been controlled by an unofficial creed, not called a creed, but a slogan. Actually, there have been several of them along the way, but I think the one I will mention stands as the most prominent. So it was much to my surprise when listening to this speech by Dever that I heard him quoting our slogan and then wrapping his entire speech, or sermon if you like, around it: “In opinions liberty, in essentials unity, in all things love.” Why you…that’s our slogan!!! (spoken as a remarkably Homer Simpsonesque threat.)
Well, it is a fascinating idea; although, it is necessarily, as I have read recently in a history of the Disciples of Christ (Disciples of Christ, a History, Garrison and Degroot) a flawed idea. But I digress. This slogan is the hub around which Dever built his speech even though he didn’t really get to the slogan until the end of the speech and then attributed it to some Germans (!) instead of to my beloved Restoration Movement forefathers. In leading up to this fascinating announcement of what should motivate all of our discernment activities, Dever makes six rather important points. I found that the first 2 were the most important and took the longest (if I recall he spent about the same amount of time on the last 4 as he did the first 2), but I will list all six points he made and offer only the briefest of points about each.
First, he asks: Do we follow commands in order to purify or unify? Here I found Dever’s most compelling argument. He notes that Jesus himself said we must ‘be on our guard’ against all kinds of teachings and teachers. In other words, discernment is not a bad idea. In fact, we should discern because if we don’t we are likely to fall into all sorts of dangers. Dever points out, however, that discernment always runs the risk of extremes and that there are basically (I hate the word basically) two opposite, but equally dangerous, extremes.
On the one hand, some tend to be too inclusive for the sake of unity. These are folks who ramble on about things like ‘no creed but Christ, no book but the bible’ (Ha! Another RM creed…slogan.) These are folks who think doctrine doesn’t matter all that much as long as we are united, answering Jesus’s prayer for unity (John 17), etc. Dever says these folks might be just as judgmental as anyone else because they tend to ‘undervalue God’s truth.’ Ooooh. That stings.
On the other hand, some tend to be too exclusive for the sake of purity. He says, “They are ready to quickly declare something wrong, or someone wrong or maybe even declare someone not a Christian. They neglect the wideness of Gods love that he shows in Scripture. They neglect seeing examples of his work when he has been at work.” He also said, that “we threaten our humility when we become self-righteous about this.” He noted that “truth and humility are not enemies” and that “knowing the truth will humble us.” He warned about those who are so exclusively concerned about purity that they think they have a “prophetic ministry of correction.”
In his second point he asks, “What are some common fights that we Christians have?” He goes on to note many and concedes that the list is virtually endless. I won’t bore you; his list is impressive.
In his third point he asks, “What are we together for?” In this point he notes that different levels of agreement are needed for different levels of cooperation and that agreement is not essential in all areas in order for Christian fellowship or evangelism to exist.
In his fourth point he asks, “What are the things we must agree upon?” That is, what are the essentials that we, as Christians, must necessarily agree upon to be considered Christians? I thought his best point here was when he noted that all of us will be “corrected at some level.” But I think the gist here was that there are some doctrines that can be dismissed (bad choice of words here) without sacrificing Christian orthodoxy or severing Christian fellowship.
His test pattern for discerning such agreement for essential doctrines is as follows:
1. How clear is this doctrine in Scripture? (I assume here he means ‘to me’.)
2. How clear do others think it is? (that is, other Christians)
3. How near is it to the Gospel? (that is, which instructs us about salvation)
4. What would be the doctrinal and practical implications if we allowed disagreement on this particular issue?
I think this is a fine test, and when it is done Dever concludes that there are three areas upon which we must agree as Christians: God. Bible. Gospel. Of course, within these terribly vague ideas he breaks it down even further. Not only must we agree about God, but we must believe certain things about God. Not only must we believe in the Bible, but we must believe certain things about the Bible. Not only must we believe in the Gospel, but we must agree what constitutes the Gospel. (Here I think the flaw of ‘in essentials unity’ becomes apparent.) Dever narrows the Gospel down to 1 Corinthians 15:1-9:
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Corinthians 15:1-9
He notes that for 14 chapters Paul had pointed out all the unnecessary things that divided the Corinthian church and points out that here, in chapter 15, is the one thing we should stand for: ‘Contend for this truth,’ Paul seems to be saying. Here is the Gospel in a nutshell, the essentials upon which we must agree. Thus Paul reminds the Corinthians of this core of beliefs.
In point five, Dever asks, “What are some things we may disagree about?” He cites Romans 14:22: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” He also takes four test cases and notes that we can indeed disagree about some things without compromising faith, the Gospel, or Christian fellowship. Encouraging indeed. (His section about ‘egalitarianism’ is rather brilliant.)
In his last point, Dever asks, “How can we disagree well?” Again, Dever makes two solid points to consider when having a conversation with someone with whom we disagree. I should ask: 1. What can I learn from this one with whom I disagree? Well, this requires a great deal of humility, and can be difficult to navigate since we may have to finally admit that we are wrong. 2. What do I owe this person with whom I disagree or who disagrees with me? Again here is required a great deal of humility. We owe them love. We owe them respect. We owe them the courtesy of making it evident that we care about this person and that we are not just trying to win an argument with them. In other words, we should try to understand what they are saying. I think this point often gets lost on me. Much of the time, I care more about winning an argument with someone than I do about the person. This is dangerous ground upon which to tread.
So what is the point here? I think the point is clearly this: Disagreement is not bad; discernment is required. Those who point out our errors are not our enemies. “The opposite of your friend is not your enemy, but your flatterer.” So it is good, it seems to Dever (and I agree), that there are those who are willing and able to engage one another in hardy, healthy debate and conversation. Disagreement is not the end of the world, and there are some areas where our error clearly needs to be pointed out in order that we might be saved (Jude). However, it is better to engage in debate and conversation with humility, with love, with an eye and ear for learning and not just winning. Best line in the speech was this, “We want to be known for what we are for rather than what we are against.” (Hmmm…someone recently wrote a post about this very point.)
Here’s what the apostle wrote to the church at Ephesus:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. Ephesians 4:11-16
If some are given to this and some are given to that, I think this means that the Lord fully expects we will correct and rebuke one another (and often Scripture may do that very thing). Scripture may bite hard, but we should not. (Although someone said to me the other day: “I’m not nice when it comes to gross misrepresentations of the genuine Christian faith. And, I’m not supposed to be.” Indeed!) This does not mean, however, that we abandon the overarching command to love. Love. Love. Love. This is what distinguishes the church from everything and everyone else in the world (as far as organized religion is concerned). If we are not known by our love for one another, then we will be known for something else. And if we are known by something else, can we legitimately call ourselves Christians? Can we who fail to love even begin to think we have a right to do evangelism and call people into this story? (I’ll say this, there are times when I know I am loved more by people outside the story than I am by those inside the story. There are times when I love those outside the story more than those inside it.)
So, “In opinions liberty, in essentials unity, and in all things love.” It seems to me that love can go a long, long way towards correcting our errors-and who among us desires to remain in error? Dever ends by quoting from John Wesley, “I shall thank the youngest man among you to tell me of any fault you see in me. In doing so, I shall consider him by best friend.”
It remains to be seen, however, if love will win the day, especially in the world of blogs where, for example, just the other day, a couple of the writers here were called Pharisees because we “make grace too wide.” It remains to be known if love truly conquers all. It remains hidden as to whether or not we can love. Maybe there is something to this slogan after all. It remains to be seen if we will be known by our love and not our hate. It remains to be seen if love can truly bring together those who are concerned with unity and those who are concerned with purity and conclude that the two need not be mutually exclusive. Maybe Alexander Campbell and Barton W Stone weren’t wrong to adopt this slogan and hoist it high even if the opinions and essentials part is practically impossible. And maybe, just maybe, if we pay attention, close attention, to love we will see that what matters most is not our opinions, not our essentials, but our love.* After all, Jesus himself said that it was by our love for one another that the world would know we are his disciples.
Not opinions. Not essentials. But love.
And so it remains, can we disagree and still love? Can we disagree and maintain Christian fellowship? Will we love? How will we be known? Can we discern with more concern for the person than for winning? I ask all who visit and read: Can we, will we, discern with love?
Will we love?
*Which is not to say that we abandon essentials at all, but does mean that we should be far more concerned about humility. Fact is, I could be wrong. We could all be wrong. And all theology is a matter of opinion. Maybe there is something to the vaguery of Dever’s ‘God, Bible and Gospel’ regardless of how we formulate our opinions about these essentials from Scripture. Maybe there is something to grace after all and its wideness is not the real problem, but its narrowness.
**word count 2494
212 Comments(+Add)
Amen. Thanks Jerry. Beautiful.
It is most loving when we tell the truth about Christ, for He came to rescue us from sin. About this I hope we all can agree.
Jerry,
Thank you for taking the time to write this very good post.
Pastorboy,
I find myself in agreement with you and it feels … strange … We might disagree on methods and sometimes the details of the how, but the Who we agree on. It is all because of what God did through Jesus, is doing through us and the Holy Spirit and will do through all of the above. May our lives be transformed by Christ and reach the millions who need the transforming power of His love.
Jerry,
Good stuff. I found this to particularly hit home:
Words to meditate on and work out in our lives. I really want to do this, but mess it up a lot!
Rick: There you go — quoting your self again. Didn’t we have this discussion?
Also, note to those who hold to the “unity at all costs” side. If you will just make even a passing acknowledgement that the Bible does speak of discernment and doctrine and the withdrawal of fellowship in **some** cases it would go far to help people like me to listen to your side of the story. In deed feel free to share your interpretation of those passages. It just seem like many times you totally ignore those Scriptures and treat them that they are totally superceded by the call to unity. For many people, like myself, you loose all credibility. We just blow you off, because to us you rip out entire sections of scripture. So again, if you want to get your point across, at least put your own spin on these descernment, right doctrine and separation scriptures, but don’t just pretend they don’t exist. Just say’n.
It would be helpful if you actually gave an example of someone who did this, cause without seeing a specific example of what you’re referring to, it’s hard to comment.
Regarding the separation issue, I will say that historically, American Christians have made “separation” completely about externals, and they really miss the point it. The verses you’re referring to, 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 says this;
This is really a matter of idolatry – who are we serving? Are we serving God, or are we serving the powers that be? If we are serving God, we should not bow down to the inferior idols, and we should exhibit a difference in our life. Personally, though, I think the differences that matter have little to do with smoking, drinking, dancing, or the common list of fundamentalist vices. Those may be a small matter, but if there is no heart change, they’re useless. We primarily are to be known for our self-sacrificial love for our neighbor and our willingness to look like Christ -dying for enemies.
This is why someone like Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to make the impact that he did. He actually did have some pretty big moral failures in his life, but he tapped into the concept of loving his enemies, and because of that he was able to have a huge impact for the Kingdom. If he would have bought into the idea that only power can overcome power, he would not have been successful. The civil rights movement would have been put down right away.
I believe that endorsing the writings of Wilbur, Borg, Crossan, Spencer, and others is a biblically flawed “unity at all costs” example. I would find much more peace in my soul if some who seem to be alright wouldn’t quote and endorse those men.
John – there is the example you seek. You will find sometimes that those who enjoy and support certain preachers who do sometimes quote and recommend these men find it difficult to see a problem. Oh well.
John – on the other end of the spectrum you have the “everyone but me is wrong” attitude exhibited by Ingrid. In this current post she denegrates ministries such as Operation Blessing, Feed the Children, and others as “These people are victims of their own faithless, Christ-free philosophy of “ministry” that depends on the largesse of taxpayers instead of the riches of heaven to meet needs.”
So while others are “unity at all costs” some are “I judge everyone who doesn’t agree with me”. Some choice.
Rick,
What Spencer are you talking about?
Thanks,
Opus
Rick,
With respect to Borg, Crossan, et al., I don’t think that quoting them is necessarily an endorsement of everything they write, believe or say. We should read with critical eyes, mining books for gems and not merely swallowing all the dross and rock that comes along with them.
Thanks to Crossan, I understand the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000 better than if I had not read him. I’m not saying he’s orthodox or that everyone should read him (although I think we should whatever we can, whenever we can). All I’m saying is that that is what discernment is. I can make judgments about his work without making judgments about the man.
jerry
PS–their work is pretty close to heretical if not outright blasphemy and denial of the faith. Nevertheless, reading them is not a sin.
Overall, I thought this was a very good post, and I challenged by it.
This sounds wonderful in theory, but very few people can actually do this. For example, just as in the material world, marketers completely understand one thing: exposure leads to influence.
How much more spiritually?
Paul used a very interesting analogy. As Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so to do these men (false teachers) withstand the truth.
J & J basically mimicked everything Moses did so that onlookers could hardly discern the differences, leading to continued deception.
That’s a tactic well in use today.
The other thing to consider is whether this stance is even biblical. I don’t know Crossan’s or Borg’s writings at all, but if they are heretical, then their writing are not be entertained.
I liked this post a lot. Great stuff!
Frankly, that’s a pretty arrogant stance to take. I think that pastors do need to take into account the education level of their congregations, but I don’t think we need to treat people like they’re completely stupid. First of all, if a person is that dense, what are the chances of them actually looking at the endnotes in a book, yet alone taking the time and energy read one of the referenced books? Slim to none, in my opinion. I cannot imagine someone like that taking the time to read some of the more scholarly books that are by these authors.
Heck, I actually ordered that Ken Wilbur book to see what all the hubbub was about, and it’s so dense that I had trouble getting past the first chapter, and I have quite a tolerance for boring books. I cannot imagine a person who is a casual reader getting into that.
I don’t understand this at all. There are many other writers we read who don’t have a Biblical worldview. Even blind squirrels find a nut now and then.
Just read this in David Prior’s commentary on 1 Corinthians (IVP Bible Speaks Today series):
So who gets to be the gatekeeper of perfect orthodoxy? Where must I submit my writing to get the non-J&J seal of approval?
Wait a second, none of you are perfectly orthodox, you’re all influencing me by exposure!!! I’M BOUND FOR HELL ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR NON-ORTHODOX WRITINGS!!!!!!!!!!
Phil, you’re missing the point in that I’m not strictly referring to these ’scholarly’ books . And no, Phil, we don’t need to assemble a list of books that are off- and within-limits (trying to head off the foolish tendency to go to extremes in defense of a point).
The point is that if the early church was concerned about the truth being shaded with error, shouldn’t we be concerned?
How is that an arrogant statement when it is a well-known fact: exposure leads to influence. Not in every single case, but extremely often.
Sure, but the problem is that they are not claiming to represent Christ, are they? Jesus warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing, His opening comments in Matthew 24 (and then 3 times in the same discourse) warn of false teachers, and virtually every epistle admonishes to be on guard.
The analogy of the blind squirrel is a little tired and over-used.
Does this mean that we are to be paranoid? No, but their is a call for vigilance.
This seems to be the balance that Jerry struck nicely (at least in my view). Some will swallow the latest author’s renderings because it is a fad or because he mentions Jesus.
Others (Jehovah’s Witnesses for example) will not even read a book outside of their sphere.
I am not advocating either – but vigilance. And if something is false, as Rick is fond of saying, “Don’t go looking for a nickel in a spittoon.”
Seriously Paul C, you construct this ridiculous strawman constantly. You paint everyone who has a different view from you as being anti-Scripture.
Just look at this question you pose:
Do you believe that everyone here other than you is all about “truth shaded with error”?
This is what you do in most of the discussions you engage in here.
Yes Bo – I am the only one that is ever right. Your level of discernment is breathtaking…
Can you point out this strawman for me? I thought I was on topic, but it might just be me.
BTW, is there a reason why you’re always so angry? Just asking.
Bo – also, where is the fallacy in the J&J example. Was I saying anything that is incorrect or false?
Very well said!
I think that’s why the “universal call to holiness” is higher that the universal call to get your doctrine understood strait. I think the modern church is much more in need of saints than brilliant preachers and theologians. The great saints are not known primarily for the bad things or errors they avoided; they are remembered for the way in which they followed Christ.
I’m learning this reality more and more as a parent. Teaching kids not to smoke, do drugs, and have sex can only get you so far (we’re all sinners right!). A life of choosing Christ over and over again is always a positive, and the only way he will make us holy. I don’t think scripture ever talks about reading your bible until you understand it perfectly. But I remember the Lord commanded often to deny yourself-pick up the cross- and follow me.
No one said we should just accept everything that comes down the pike as far as I can tell. Even Brian McLaren, who is one of most controversial of the “Emergent” authors, clearly will state that he thinks certain things are right and certain things are wrong in his books. The fact that he cites certain authors isn’t a blanket endorsement of them – especially when there are plenty of times he disagrees with them in his own writings!
Maybe it’s because people want Christianity to become so introverted that only people we can quote or learn from are those who think exactly like us. It’s actually a very old argument that goes back to the days of Origen in the second century – he had no problem quoting Greek philosophers of his day and actually saying that their writing contained a good deal of truth.
Of course we are too discern true from false – and actually that’s what a good bit of these writings are doing. But in order to discern something you actually have to accurately know what it’s saying. In my opinion, simply saying “so-and-so is a heretic. Don’t read his books” isn’t exhibiting much discernment. Saying, “here’s what so-and-so has right and here’s what I believe they have wrong” is.
I think you’re the one that needs to check your discernment-o-meter.
What did you meant by that rhetorical question then? Can’t you see the obvious implication that you’re making here? Your plea to the early church (BTW, I wonder how much of the early church’s doctrine you’d be willing to accept, after all these were baby baptizing, real presence kind of people) is obviously meant to contrast with everyone else here who isn’t concerned with “truth shaded with error”. Why else ask that question then?
#9 – Spencer Burke.
Jerry – I am encouraged by your overall view of Borg and Crossan, and I would not want to suggest their writings to others perchance they get interested in their heresies. I will admit I have purchsed and read Pope Benedicts “Jesus of Nazareth”, however I could not recommend him to others.
You mean besides several paradigm shifts that have changed things dramatically like massive literacy rates, the new covenant itself, the Holy Spirit guiding and dwelling each individual believer?
I notice you also skipped out on verse 9 that reads “their folly will be clear to everyone”.
It’s me, Bo. And right now I’m in a generous mood. Temporarily…
Awwww crap…..
By the way, to me the one thing that I would really call a core issue as to whether someone is a Christian or not is who they say Jesus is and whether or not they affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ. Concerning this conversation, Borg and Crossan deny a physical resurrection, so I do not know how they could claim to have a relationship with a living Christ. This was Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians. If Christ is not risen, then we believe in vain.
So it’s not my call to say who’s in and who’s out, but denying Christ is risen seems like it makes it logically impossible to be in relationship with Him. I do know that Borg and Crossan would say that Christ is “spiritually” resurrected, but this would go completely against the Jewish understanding of what resurrection actually was.
#21: Brett, excellent comment. I agree.
Phil, I understand what you’re saying. You don’t advocate a wholesale endorsement of everything “christian” and leave room that there might be some good in writings, even though the premise can be largely off-base.
My comments, as I said earlier, is that this works well in theory, but is much more difficult in practice.
If you acknowledge that there is an adversary that is out to deceive, then chances are he’s not going to try to get us all Satan-worshipping. He has transformed himself into an “angel of light”. My belief is that the early church was ultimately undermined from “wolves” (see Acts 20) within as opposed to persecution from without.
Again, it doesn’t cause me to become alarmist or paranoid, but vigilant and concerned.
As Solomon said, “To the writing of books there is no end.” This constant seeking for knowledge can often be as much a distraction as… blogging.
#29
Thank you, Paul!
Phil, by picking on the “obvious” examples of people who deny Christ’s resurrection is not discernment to me. I would say that the Adversary is more subtle than that.
Without getting too deep, what would be your recommendation on addressing the resurgence of indulgences within the Catholic Church? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1881152,00.html
Bodily resurrection: check
Jesus Christ Son of God: check
I am asking this not to start a Catholic-bashing discussion but honestly trying to understand how loving discernment comes into play here (recognizing that love is not just tolerance, but also speaking the truth in a right spirit).
Brett,
I think at some level you have wandered into the very dangerous area that Dever warned against falling into. I disagre that we need More saints as opposed to preachers. I can’t lay it all out now because I am. Mobile, but maybe
Inevitably in these conversations someone brings up the wolves among sheep teaching. There’s no doubt that Jesus won’t think all that highly of wolves preying on his sheep.
I wonder what he’ll think of undershepherds who kill sheep and claim they were wolves.
I’m not sure I get what you’re asking me? Do I think it’s wrong? Yes, of course. I don’t see how it relates to the conversation. If I had a Catholic friend ask my opinion on it for some reason, I would freely give it, and I would give my reasons for thinking it was wrong.
I guess I would treat it like I would other issues I have with Christians. I have my opinions on things, and on some things I have really strong opinions that I will argue forcefully. But the fact is, if a Catholic agrees with me about who Jesus is and what He did, I can be in fellowship with him on some level.
How about a universal call to love God with all your heart and love you neighbor?
In doing that won’t we be living our doctrine and being holy as we are called to be?
Jesus seemed to think so…
iggy
Obviously, there is a huge typo in my last comment. If I am on later maybe I can spell it out better. Jerry
OK, I’ve done that, what’s the next step?
No problem, Jerry. I love to be corrected if I’m in danger.
For some insight, read Ezekiel 34.
Phil, the reason I ask is that at any point do we get beyond “opinions” and actually stand (not arrogantly, but stedfastly) on the truth? Can we know the truth?
My point is that some argue the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth, then others say, “Well, none of us can ever know the truth” distilling everything down to opinion.
I think Brett’s point is that right now there is a need for more people actually living out their faith than there is for people to tell others how to live. Preachers are necessary.
Such abuse of scriptures. Ezekiel 34 doesn’t address that situation at all.
We can only know the Truth by knowing Christ. To lay claim to some sort of abstract concept of the truth apart from knowing Christ is meaningless. The Holy Spirit leads us to the truth about who Christ is, and all these other issues kind of fade away.
That’s not to say that there’s not right or wrong in an objective sense. But I think where we get off track is how we judge the “rightness” and “wrongness” of things. Jesus’ standard was how well it enables us to live out loving God and loving our neighbor. If we follow the letter of the law, but fail to meet that criteria, than we’re wrong.
Ezekiel must be supportive, not foundational. Where is the New Testament foundation that Ezekiel supports or expands?
Phil and Paul – I would suggest that the tenants of doctrinal truths have become more specific and expansive over the centuries until we’ve left the simplicity that is in Christ and our living demonstrations of the Living Christ have been crushed under the weight of our extensive systematic theologies.
The early church had a more condensed set of core beliefs that freed them to live out Christ among each other without the constant noise of doctrinal disputes. Even their disputes wer much more substantive than most of the clutter today.
Ezekiel 34 refers to men who hold the position of “shepherd” but don’t fulfill this calling, instead taking advantage of the “sheep” for their own ends. They are destroying the sheep instead of feeding them. They are not claiming the sheep are wolves, but by slaughtering them, these leaders are themselves proving to be wolves.
Rick, I believe this concept is borne out in the NT quite often (ie: 2 Peter 2, Jude).
Yes, Rick, that’s a good summary of what I’ve been trying to get at. I think as Christians we primarily need to be concerned about building up the foundations as it were, not constructing beautiful facades around it.
Paul – I would generally agree.
They are exploiting the sheep because they are sheep. They look a whole lot like prosperity preachers, or even just lazy clergy who don’t do much all day.
They’re not overzealous shepherds who see wolves behind every sheep, and leave a wake of dead sheep bodies believing that they’ve fought off an army of ravenous wolves.
The typical construct for an American evangelical church does not lend itself easily for a tender and caring shpherd. Many times it produces an ecclesiastical CEO who runs the church and orders the sheep around without much exhibition of “giving his life for the sheep”.
Bo – this has been an age-old problem. It existed throughout the OT, the NT and it is widely exploited today. And it doesn’t only lend itself to prosperity preachers or lazy clergy (not sure how they made it in your list, but OK).
Though some lead people astray for gain, others lead people astray because they themselves are blind. In the case I brought up earlier (Catholic church with resurgence of indulgences) you can begin to see the damage that can be done when people think they can “buy” their way out of purgatory (something that doesn’t even exist).
Consider what Paul wrote: the Devil is transformed into an angel of light. The constant threat to the early church was not persecution (which caused the church to grow and spread) but undermining of the truth. It’s happening en masse today.
True on many levels.
Bo, by reading your comments you are one I would say think that we can never arrive at “The Truth”.
Others argue that truth is a person, i.e., Jesus Christ which is absolutely true. But although Jesus is The Truth (John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.), His word is also “The Truth”. (John 17:17
” Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth). To dismiss the defense of Scripture as “truth” by saying truth is found in a person and not in words is being disingenuous. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.
I agree that we each have our own interpreation of The Truth and that at times these personal interpretations can be at odds. But I still belive in the concept that there is TRUTH and that it can be apprehended although, admittedly, not perfectly on this side of Glory.
That “Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life” can readily be ascertained as this is an absolute statement either to be accepted or rejected if one ascribes to any form of logic.
On the other hand, that “Speaking in Tongues is for today” can not be absolutely determined for the Scripture does not make an absolute statement regarding the issue. In these types of examples there is room for logical debate and hince the potential for division.
Personally, I try to adhere to unity in essentials, charity in the rest. But again, I believe there **is** a Truth to be known. It’s the getting there that’s the rub.
Jerry,
I’m still curious what I’m in danger of?
To clarify my comment earlier: I do think the church is in need of great saints (not necessarily the canonized types).
And given a choice, I would prefer a holy preacher to a smart one any day of the week.
Typical.
It must be amazing to have such penetrating insights that you can make the judgments about people that you do based on a few lines of text.
I’m just really blown away anyone could say, “by reading your comments you are one I would say think that we can never arrive at “The Truth”.
At some point you’re going to have to come to grips with the reality that just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean I just don’t get it. It just means I think you’re wrong.
What an awesome quote, taken from Ingrid’s most recent post – from an archbishop no less:
Most people can’t take candor, and as a result, most people don’t deliver a message with candor, lest they become unpopular.
Is this a license for arrogance? No. But rest assured, a person who delivers a message of truth will upset terribly adherents to or sympathizers of error.
Really? Because I see just the opposite. whether its coming from secular or religious, right wing or left wing the same formula over and over: absolute certainty that everything they say is a million percent true combined with all the tact of a Bradley tank.
Somehow, all these people with conflicting views all believe they have the truth, and that gives them the right to treat everyone around them like garbage.
Paul C,
Now I’m really confused ??
How could anything true possibly come from a blaspheming, apostate, Romanist heretic?
Brett – that is almost word-for-word the exact same question I asked myself when reading!!
In that article he makes some startlingly clear statements that certain people (perhaps Bo) might find offensive. But they are true nonetheless.
Paul C,
Somebody better close the gates quick, it’s obvious that a wayward sheep has snuck in among the wolves den.
The thing is there are many people who assume they have a prophetic gifting of being able to deliver messages with candor, but in reality, they just are using that as a front to justify being a jerk. Speaking in candor does not overrule the mandate to speak in love. You can’t speak in candor to someone whom you haven’t demonstrated love.
It’s always amazing how quick we are to “amen” these types of statements, but somehow we are never the ones who need to be spoken to with candor…
If you consider the current financial crisis that’s occurring and destined to only get worse, you will find that prior to 2006 and even earlier, there were a number of voices courageously making statements that the foundations of the US economy, therefore the world, were being completely eroded.
Who listened? Not many, if any at all.
Why listen when the going is good and all appears well, at least on the surface. Those ‘hand-wringing, doom-and-gloomers’ just dampened the party with all their talk about consumer debt, sub-prime mortgages, the healthy necessity for a recession (can you imagine??) and so on.
People who could have made a difference actually paid no heed, and now they and their victims are paying for their recklessness.
I believe the same thing is happening in the church-world. If you’re not on the wagon, you’re castigated as a nay-saying, hand-wringing fundamentalist. Don’t speak the truth too loudly – we’re about conciliation, listening, tender understanding, compromise and unity at almost all costs, reducing Christianity to as low a common denominator as we can in our efforts for inclusion and to ‘win friends and influence people.’
It is no wonder that virtually every prophet died at the hands of people who just didn’t find the truth palatable or conducive to their lifestyle.
I agree.
Personally, I really do appreciate candor when it’s directed at me. So feel free to be as candid as you like.:)
Paul – I too see a continuing decline, culminating in a loose variation of the Left Behind scenario. But I also see much self righteousness among many “fundamentalists. They hold conferences about the sad state of the church, while being blind to their own substantial contribution to that state.
Just for the record – never read and never scene a LB book or movie, so not in that category.
But I agree wholeheartedly Rick. Self-righteousness (really, pride) is as virulent and destructive to Christ being formed in us as any other sin.
But there is significant pride exhibited as well when people depart from the foundation of truth while still claiming to represent the Truth.
Smugness is an character trait that is not in small supply across the theological spectrum.
I don’t see very many self-appointed, modern-day prophets willing to die for the people they’re prophesying against… if that’s the litmus test we’re going to use.
It’s easy to tell someone they’re wrong. It’s hard to love that person.
“It’s easy to tell someone they’re wrong. It’s hard to love that person.”
And there lies the core of the gospel.
Phil – the ADMs claim that telling a person he’s wrong is love.
Bo. I understand that you might think I’m wrong on various issues and I accept that people of good conscience can disagree and that is not the issue. But again, what I glean from the general tenor of your posts is that because people disagree, therefore, there is no such thing as absolute Truth. That is my (and other’s it seems) impression. If we are in error in this assumption (and more than one seems to think this way), then perhaps it is more a problem of how you convey your ideas than in how others preceive them.
So, I’ll just ask it again, in plain language is there an ABSOLUTE TRUTH out there or is it all SITUATIONAL TRUTH?
I contend there is absolute truth available to be apprehended.
Good points Phil. But regarding your last line, it is possible that speaking to someone candidly **is** showing them love. For example,
“Ingrid – you are being a jerk to people and that does not demonstrate Biblical charity or love, therefore, given the Biblical principal of sowing and reaping, people are going to be jerkish and judgemental with you in return”. That is speaking in candor but also being loving one at the same time.
I would say that as humans we can never absolutely comprehend absolute truth. That is to say, that in some sense we are always bound by are senses and the way we perceive things. That doesn’t mean we can’t have certainty about some things, or that everything is relative. It just means we can’t know everything.
Well, yes, it can be. But I would say that the vast majority of the time speaking candidly t someone is a privilege that has to be earned through some sort of relationship to that person. Would it be loving of me to go up to a complete stranger who I see smoking and say, “those things will kill you” even if I meant it in sincerity? Most likely not.
It depends on your definition of “candidly”.
Speaking of candid prophesies of modern relativism:
OK. Ken and others have castigated the Roman Catholic Church with much derision and name calling, including apostate. But when one of their leaders says something Ingrid agrees with, she posts this.
And after printing his entire statement against abortion, Ingrid says this to this apostate leader:
So now the leaders of the “apostate Church of Rome” have their moral compass intact and are now moral leaders. There is too much duplicity and double mindedness to unpack in one comment.
I must invent new words.
Duplicity.
Triplicity.
Quadicity.
Quinticity.
Sextisity.
Septisity.
Octicity.
Etc.
This ridiculous, and stupid teaching that there’s all these postmoderns out there who don’t believe there’s such a thing as truth makes so many Christians look stupid.
This simply isn’t the case.
The difference between postmodern and modern sensibilities is what is considered a source through which truth can be known. Postmoderns reject the notion that truth is only a scientific, top-down, authority driven project. Sadly, so many Christians (such as Paul C and yourself) are so embedded into modernism that the rejection of modernism is seen as the rejection of truth.
Yes, there is absolute truth in situations, and situations where there is absolute truth.
This modern/post modern gibber jabber is tedious to me.
So how did I get lumped in here Bo?
That’s right, Paul, come out from among them and touch not the unclean thing!
John Hughes lumped you in when he said “and others get that impression too”, in which he was referencing your assertion that I could never know the truth.
Bo: #76
Huh???
I think I’ve been insulted, but I’m not sure.
Rick, have I been insulted?
And Bo, way to sidestep a straightforward question.
I bathed today.
Bo, are you asserting that situational ethics is not a viable world view held by many today?
Me sidestepping? You’re the one who moved from talking about people who believe nothing is true to talking about situational ethics.
Can absolute truth be absolutely discerned by the finite, vacillating, multi-faceted, evironmentally molded, and substantively subjective mind of a sinner?
Here is an observation. Those who vehemently propose that there is absolute truth and it can and should be known, disagree on many elements of that absolute truth.
Now what?
Now we accuse each other of not believing in truth.
I just discovered – I am emergent!
I happen to love and appreciate all you guys and the exchanges we have. And I will deny I ever said this, but I am often challenged to reconsider certain positions and attitudes I once locked away as settled law, all because of something one of you guys has said.
(even Iggy – but not Chris L.)
* I am a hacker writing this, we all know Frueh has everything figured out.
You know, I was driving home this afternoon and I thought the same thing: many times I have been challenged to reconsider my stance on things and readjust my interactions with people in ‘real-life’ as a result of my interactions on this blog.
- and this is the same guy who hijacked Rick’s alias so please treat accordingly
74:
Yes, she’s so right. As if the RCC just stopped being a force for moral good in the West after Luther.
Talk about needing a reality check.
Paul – you know what? If we all got together for a barbecue at night around a campfire and spoke about our conversion experiences and our journey with Christ, we would probably have a great time in the Lord. Christ is the tie that binds, and many times we get caught up with issues, some even important, and we let that create a breach in the body.
Three years ago I would have thought all these guys were heretics, now I only thing most of them are!
How does Ingrid reconcile this statement:
“Franklin Graham [is] largely AWOL on the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life.
With this story?
http://www.christianpost.com/church/Politics/2008/12/franklin-graham-speaks-against-abortion-at-calif-megachurch-02/index.html
Ingrid’s disregard for absolute truth is disheartening. There is a truth war going on, and Christians need to fight people like Ingrid in order to protect the truth.
Abortion is Ingrid’s gospel as it is with the Roman Catholic Church. But like shouting at a leaking pipe, she seems to eschew almost all methods of evangelism except caustic rhetoric aimed at sin and sinners.
The answer for abortion is redemption. I believed in abortion and drugs and violence at one time. What changed? I became a believing follower of the Lord Jesus. Ingrid’s heavy brand of “evangelism” is counter productive to the gospel itself.
The issue is not abortion per se, it is “Who is Jesus?” Most women who have had abortions and regret them were not changed by the power of the sonogram, they were changed by the power of the gospel. As long as you keep your eyes fixed upon the sin of others, you will be blind to your own sin, to say nothing of the eternal need of the sinners you castigate.
There are many “thought murders” who particpate in anti-abortion marches.
Careful Tony Rose will either brand you a heretic or call you insane for comments like that…
I mean, Plato started “absolute truth” as an abstract reality that was more real than this plain of reality… and that is Christian? Plato did not even believe that Absolute Truth could be derived and all over Christians are claim that by their own reasoning they have received the source of Truth…
How arrognant and how Gnostic of these who hold that we mere humans can come to the the purity of Absolute Truth by our own reasoning… worse is that we reduce Truth to some abstract concept that is more real than reality and makes reality its shadow. Sadly we exchanged the Person of Jesus who is Truth Incarnate and reduced Him to an abstract concept of Gnosticism…
I prefer to read the bible as Truth without a qualifier to make if more Truth… as I see it to say that there is absolute truth means there is lesser truth… and as for me I see anything lesser than truth a lie… at least that is what I get from the bible. I prefer biblical truth as opposed to man made, philosophically Gnostic humanistic, Absolute Truth.
iggy
Don’t laugh Rick, this is how it started for me…
The interesting thing is this:
Ask five orthodox preachers to put down on paper the complete, but concise, gospel. You will get in essence the same truth, but all five will be different in length, scope, specifics, and detail. So what does that tell you about absolute truth as processed and communicated by a human believer?
Bo, I’m not accusing you of anything **yet**
I’m trying to ascertain your position and yet again you avoid a direct answer.
P.S. I am not your enemy.
Jesus: “I am the Truth”.
Jesus: “Thy [the Father's] word is Truth”
There. Truth with a capital T.
And BTW there are shades of truths and there are partial truths.
“I attended class yesterday” – True.
“Well actually I just stoped in and signed the attendance roster” – True.
“I really didn’t attend class yesterday” – True.
We could all give 1000’s of examlples of less than the absolute truth
But there is an absolute Truth, i.e., Jesus and His Word. Further, this word of truth instructs us that we humans can only ascertain this truth through a glass darkly and that certain parts of this true are difficult to apprehend. (2 Pete 3:15-16)
P.S. Plato did not necessarily **start** anything. He may have discovered ** some ** truths through logic and observation, but that does not mean he started them or these concepts didn’t exist outside of him and are independent of him. (Not that I think the majority of his theory is necesarily correct).
But Iggy, that “Jesus is the Truth incarnate” has to mean something. It has to have applicablility and utility or it is just a philosophical concept like plato’s forms which you seem to so detest.
Well, who is saying that we can come to this knowledge on our own. Are even the ADM’s claiming this?
But we don’t have to do this because this truth as been provided for us. We just have to accept it.
JOhn H,
You say: You’re one of those people who don’t believe there’s such a thing as truth.
I say: No one believes that, Christians looks stupid when they continue to assert that there’s an entire generation of people who say that.
You say: you’re sidestepping the issue.
How am I sidestepping the issue? Am I not a person? Do you think I’m some sort of AI who doesn’t fall into the category of human so the declarative statement I just made doesn’t apply to me?
Its no wonder Christianity is declining in the US. You’re all busy tilting at windmills.
Bo. I said I
that you seemed to think this way and asked you to clarify your intent, to which basically I just get insults back. If I came across rude I apologize. My request for clarification was sincere.
Everyone believes in truth, even some whose “truth” is there is no truth. I do find it interesting that discussions can sometimes matriculate into the philisophical rather than the practical. For instance:
A big and aggressive argument can ensue over whether God’s truth includes feeding the poor, while no one is feeding the poor. So in essence, we debate rather than obey the truth, and if we do not demonstrate truth than we actually do not believe it is truth. (James)
Iggy, when I look at Jesus’ claim to be The Truth I extrapolate this to mean that He is the source and the fountain of all truth and that everything He says is true because truth is intrinsic to His nature and an integral part of His being. This is juxtaposed with Satan who is the Father of Lies and everything he says is a lie as that is intrinsic to his nature. Therefore, that Jesus is the Truth (and correspondingly, that Truth is a person) is not just a philosophical abstract but has very practical applications in that I can trust everything that Jesus has said. To study Jesus I study His word. It is true there is a mystic component in all this in the indwelling Christ which is not to be dismissed, but that is apprehended through the senses and those senses can be deceived and feelings can lie. God’s word cannot. So the mystic element must always be governed by the written element.
JH,
Then why when I answered the exact same way I did in #99 did you claim I was sidestepping? Can’t you see how its insulting for you to sit there and tell me I’m sidestepping the issue? You’re essentially saying that I’m lying to you when you do that.
Bo was not sidestepping (to me), he was just making a point about some claiming being “post modern” means you do not believe in absolute truth, which seems to implictly indicate he does.
Or we “believe” it, but just don’t care, or we just flat out rebel against it.
Again, I come to balance. There is justifiable debate but there is a point where it becomes the unproductive (and sinful) wrangling over words. But the Bible covers all those contingencies and has something to say regarding both ends of the spectrum.
I know the truth that God is omnicient and yet when I sin I experience practical amnesia else how could I be aware of God’s presence and continue to sin in the moment?
So where are we? Oh yeah, I agree that many of the ADM’s have taken their understading of the truth to be THE TRUTH and bash everyone who does not agree with their understanding and that is bad. Very bad.
JH,
I understand what you mean, but why use an unbiblical term that originally was and is an abstract concept from Plato thus a Gnostic term to add too Truth…. Can you add to truth? Truth is truth or it is not… One cannot make truth more truthier…
Now the issue is that when we begin to talk of things like Truth, Grace, Mercy and et al… And we do not see them as The Person of Jesus but a concept we diminish truth.
Yes, Truth is the Person and Jesus is the Source of all Truth as all things were created through Jesus… yet again, these are no longer perfect in the form of right and wrong as man can see right and wrong and even do right at times, yet man cannot sustain right in his being, he is corrupt and fails in righteousness at some point… (As Paul states, “no one in is righteous”)
Again, a qualifier does not make Jesus more Truthier or does it make the purity of truth that flows from Him more truthier… again, to say truth needs a modifying qualifier then there are lesser truths… and again, the bible calls anything less than truth… a lie.
Read up on “Absolute Truth”… what it is… modernists began to uses it with… it was to combat the philosophy of relativism… which is a “lesser” truth…
Yet, in reality because we are corrupt man cannot without Jesus see or conceive of truth in its purity. We corrupt is somewhere some who by our perceptions… in reality we are all relativist in our finiteness and cannot see beyond our finite being… we only can see what our limited knowledge allows us to. Yet, when we meet the Person of Jesus who is the source of all truth, we begin to see Truth in its purity in the Person.
I have a discussion with my pastor at times… and he states that we know absolutely that if we drop this pencil it will fall… that is absolute truth because of gravity… and I say that Jesus not only walked on water and gravity did not take him down… but he also ascended into heaven regardless to gravity absoluteness… he just smiles… but my point is that Jesus is not subject to elemental “absolutes” that we are limited to as He is infinite… and un corrupt… so what is “absolute” to us is no longer absolute to Him and thus… no longer “absolute” as Jesus broke the absoluteness of it by His Being.
When we use terms like Absolute Truth, we lose sight that man is fallen and sinful and in need of release from the corruption of sin… we fool ourselves into thinking we can reason ourselves to heaven and understand the Spirit without His revelations
As far as the mystic/written aspect… I do not see one as subject to the other… one does not rule the other, but I see they flow in relationship to the revelation of the Person of Jesus. As we have relationship and in our “mystic union” (thank Calvin for his mystic influences) these flow and work together as our own body does… Jesus is the Head and all parts work together doing their part… so as I read the Spirit works with my spirit and renews my mind and becomes reality in my body… (Corrupt still as it is) of course this will come in its fullness at the Resurrection (unless you are a pure preterist who does not believe in the bodily resurrection but that is another topic.)
iggy
I believe in Jesus who is Truth Absolute Incarnate.
just to be clear…
Sorry, for not having an original idea to offer; but I love the way Chesterton addressed the conversation of liberals vs. “ADMs”. I get the idea that there may not be a middle road, but a 3rd way altogether.
Please explain to me what a “person” is. Be specific, and please define it as it applies to God.
It is the composite that makes up the “self” of ones being…
God is a composite being, each having a “personage” representing Who He is as a Whole Being. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each may have composites of their own individually as in Jesus has a Body… though I do not think the bible tells us much about the Father and Holy Spirit to boldly proclaim each composite (as Benny Hinn has tried to do in the past)
Simple enough huh?
Again not an original idea; but I’ll take a crack at it. A person is a being possesing intellect and free will. God is a “personal” God, having infinite use of the divine intellect and will, which are his very essence. Each of the three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a “person” having full use of the divine intellect and will but distinguished by mission in relation to one another. Angels are persons, each having intellect and free will. All humans are persons:
“Yet without the light of Christ, the light of reason is not sufficient to enlighten humanity and the world,” … For this reason the words of the Christmas Gospel: ‘the true Light that enlightens every man was coming into the world’ (John 1:9) resound more than ever as a proclamation for salvation.” – from Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas homily 2005
Brett,
Sorry it took so long to get back. Here’s what I wrote:
Brett,
in response to this:
Dever warned against those who are extreme in one way or another–either too inclusive or too exclusive. My response to you was directed at this very point: That in suggesting you would rather have more ’saints’ than ’scholars’ (which I take it you meant) you might be dangerously close to one extreme or the other.
I don’t think there needs to be a distinction. Saints yes, but who are you thinking of that is not? Scholars, yes. Because it is the scholars who protect the sheep from all sorts of false doctrines. And Paul warned Timothy to be both. He told him to ‘guard his life and teaching’ (1 Timothy 4:16) and reminded Timothy of his own (2 Timothy 3:10).
My point was that there doesn’t need to be such a distinction drawn between scholar and saint. I wonder if the person who is not the ’scholar’ can adequately model the ’saint’ life you are asking about?
Maybe I read too much into your statements, and if I did, I am sorry for this long explanation. But if you are making such a distinction then in the words of DA Carson, who is a little more caustic here than Dever, ‘Damn all such false-antithesis to hell.’ (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church)
jerry
I will be offline, except mobile, until 2 PM. So I’m sorry if I don’t get right back to you.
To get back to the original article, there was one point that piqued my interest yesterday, but I didn’t bring up. It’s from this paragraph:
My question would be what does he mean when he says all Christians must agree about the Bible? To me that’s a pretty loaded statement. What exactly does he think all Christians must agree on about the Bible?
Thanks Jerry,
I was worried, because I pretty much agreed with you and most of Pastor Dever’s talk ( I did actually listen to it).
I agree that preachers and saints are both required; and placing our faith in either is an extreme.
But there are no shortage of preachers in the world today (using the same bible), and they are not all preaching the same thing. Some of them really could be labeled as false preachers.
I still think there is a greater “danger” in following a false preacher, because I don’t think there is such a thing as a false saint.
Brett, can you give me a sense of how you would determine whether or not a preacher is true or false? Not asking you to name names.
When you say “being”, are you saying a living “existence” that has an intellect, etc.? And if that “being” “possesses those things, exactly what is THE divine being? Is it an existence that reveals itself in terms we understand, and is it a Spirit? Yes, it’s a Spirit (the Scriptures teach).
What is a spirit?
Paul – that is a very profound question that some seem to enter into with shallow certainty. Some would consider you a heretic and false teacher because of your view on the Holy Spirit, so you can see why we must be painfully careful and uncomfortably humble.
Anyone who writes a blog that claims to be the sole arbiter of truth is a false teacher… That’s my main criteria.
Paul C,
Honestly, it not that big a deal to me. It’s not really my calling to critique preachers. I figure that if more Christians would pray for their preachers half as much as they gossip about them we would all be a lot better off. I like listening to a lot of preachers, although I don’t agree with everything they say.
I thought Pastor Dever’s talk was mostly true, but I am curious why when he was discussing “unity” (and quoted Acts 2:42) he mentionted the aposles teaching, and fellowship but he conveniently left out “the breaking of the bread”. The bible doesn’t leave it out.
I think one qualifier for trusting a preacher is in Romans 10:15 “And how can men preach unless they are sent?” For people that aren’t that mentally skilled in discernment there has to be some level of trust in who is sending the preacher.
Rick, in fact I have been called a heretic (though in different terms) for my belief, and yet, when I actually discuss the belief (in this case you brought up, the Trinity), it quickly becomes apparent that the doctrine of the Trinity is even more murky than previously admitted. They quickly retreat to it being a “mystery” instead of backing it up with any “theology” from scripture (even on our discussion here at .info).
So, if something is heresy because it conflicts with a traditionally held, but very weak, stance, then I’m not too concerned.
In Comment #120, you see Brett pretty much retreats (even though asked not to name names) because it might be difficult to define what he said in Comment #115 and not condemn the RCC which openly and brazenly promotes false concepts.
Our “Romanist” speaks true!
I agree, however that staement is rife with an array of subjectivisms.
Paul C,
You lost me, Paul! And just when I thought we were actually communicating
If I can’t completely explain or understand the Trinity, I’m guilty as charged. I don’t think I’m the only one in 2000 years that has failed to do that am I? Is that an essential for salvation now?
Rick: But so is a doctrine like the Trinity itself (among others), maybe even more so, because people belief it for no other reason than it is widely held as one of the foundational tenets of the faith – not to be questioned, just embraced.
Brett – enjoying our interaction as well (honestly).
This is not where I’m going (the Trinity: this was brought up by Rick as a case-in-point). More so I was pointing to your comment at #115. You commented:
All I was asking is how would you deduce truth from error when an institution like the RCC is rife with extra-biblical and outright false teachings. Not trying to nail you here at all, but understand your thinking on an important matter like this.
BTW, I don’t disagree with your statements in #115.
The doctrine of the Trinity is actually probably one of the most questioned and debated in church history. It took nearly 500 years for it to be pounded out to a point where there was consensus about how it should be written. The concept was being discussed hundreds of years earlier, though. It’s been continually revised and tweaked throughout history.
I just don’t think you can fairly portray it that it’s never been questioned.
You’re right Phil. What I’m saying is that today if you question it in certain circles, you are outright condemned without even being given a hearing. But my point was not to make this a discussion around the Trinity (though I would love to do so as it is an area worth exploring for all of us).
Paul C,
OK sorry, I’ll try again to just answer the question.
The bishop (no name included) sends him to my local parish to preach on Sunday.
I particularly enjoy it when a young african missionary priest shows up on Sunday morning. Although they are usually finished with the short homily by the time I can adjust to the accent and understand what he is saying; there is something about them I really love.
I might be tempted to visit Pastor Dever’s church and listen to one of his sermons one Sunday; if he had a catholic or orthodox priest offering eucharist after.
Crystal clear answer Brett (??).
Paul C,
That’s my answer Paul. I’m assuming you disagree with me, but I’m not sure what else you expect me to say.
Brett – I actually thought your answer was sarcastic as it doesn’t give me a sense at all in terms of how you would define a “false” teacher.
You may not want to give a clear answer – and that’s fine – or maybe my question wasn’t clearly stated/understood.
For example, do you consider the teaching of indulgences or purgatory – both concepts that are false and extremely dangerous in my view – to be representative of false teachings? I’m just using these as an example because I know you can relate to them somewhat.
Paul C,
Call me a retreater, but I don’t want to offend others by dicussing those off topic concepts in THIS forum.
I thought my answer to that question was obviously, NO. Your view is wrong.
Not sure I get you. My view of what is wrong?
God’s view is right, but somehow He doesn’t like blog threads.
Paul C,
Your view of the 2 concepts that you brought up, that I’m assuming you consider Time Magazine? to be an authority on.
I think it wise, judicious, and actually gracious not to denegrade a man’s church in front of other’s while he is among the conversants. From what I have read and experienced, Brett is a brother and I have no need to fulfill some need by placing him in a defensive mode.
He reads some of the discource here when he is not engaged, and he knows our positions, but we should not come to convert him to Protestantism just like he isn’t offering us Catholicism.
You are gracious, Brett, and by many of your comments that are spiritual and meaty I sometimes cannot believe you are Catholic. (please take that as a compliment!)
Rick,
Thank you, compliment gladly accepted!
Brett – as I said earlier, I am simply using this (purgatory/indulgences) as an example. The real question (which hasn’t been answered) is how you would define a false teacher?
Rick, no one is denigrating Brett’s church. We are simply having a conversation (as we briefly did about my belief in the Trinity). I, too, enjoy interaction with Brett. Brett, if you see me as denigrating / harassing you here, please let me know and we’ll leave it alone.
“The real question (which hasn’t been answered) is how you would define a false teacher?”
Anyone who disagrees with me on pretty much everything.
False teaching is anyone who takes a core doctrine (God, Jesus, Salvation (justification, redemption) and has a false or incomplete view.
The core is the important stuff; if you view baptism differently than I do no big deal. If you believe in a different Jesus….well that is all important.
Paul – you are usually gracious and thoughtful, even when taking a committed view on an issue. I benefit from your perspectives as well. And I have listened to and read things on your website.
Paul C,
No offense taken, I enjoy your company as well.
I tell you what; since you indicated way back in the discussion that in some sense you consider Archbishop Chaput (of Denver) to be a “true teacher”. It’s my understanding that Bishop Chaput is a prolific writer as well as a common TV/radio personality. I could do some research and provide some of his teachings on the 2 concepts you mentioned.
If you like I could discreetly get that info to you; or would it just be a waste of legwork on my part??
Let’s not go that far. I said he made a profound comment that I think was bang on.
But I appreciate your offer – it wouldn’t be a waste in the least and I would read it if you keep it within my mental capacity (less than 5 pages) and include no Latin.
Bang on?? I thought you said no Latin
Brett – the blatant hypocrisy of that subject is when SoL and CRN use demeaning labels for Roman Catholics and the church itself when it serves their purpose, but when the Archbishop attacks abortion all of a sudden he is a great leader.
As I have said, I have read the current pope’s book but I have never called him the antichrist. I might have, though, 5 years ago. But now, “without love…” and all that jazz.
I enjoy Chaput as well; He has taken some moral stands in particular against politicians who are Catholic and support abortion, for example. It makes me sad that more protestants do not take this hard of a stand.
However, where he stands on Catholic doctrine of Justification etc. in relation to salvation as well as some other side (idolatry) issues is where we would part ways. Like Mitt Romney and others, I appreciate their moral stand on issues, unfortunately, morality never saved anybodys soul, except for the perfect morality of Christ.
Most evangelicals disapprove of abortion and believe it is wrong. However most do not make it a crusade because Jesus called us to spread the gospel, not combat issues.
Being against abortion is really no big display of courage. Going into war torn Congo and dressing wounds, ministering to AIDs sufferers, and being a witness for Christ – that my friends is real courage and in reality an authentic moral crusade!
God bless the real frontline warriors, as opposed to the “I’ve been saying for years” kind of self elevating virtual reality home game warriors.
Uh, really? I thought we were saved by his death. This smacks of some Reformed stuff and it is where you and I would part ways.
Bottom line is, anyone who is saved will be saved by the grace of God. Even a person who works all their life thinking they are saved because they do good things, if they are saved, even they will be saved by grace. I think they will be surprised to learn how much wasted energy they expended.
In my comment #146 I lumped in CRN with Ingrid concerning quoting that RCC bishop. Ken politely e-mailed me and he is correct, he would never quote a RCC leader on anything.
Why is Ken blocked from commenting here, even not allowed to be on moderation?
Just asking.
He’s not blocked from commenting here. He may be on moderation still, and that for the same reason anyone is put on moderation. When he was commenting, his comments were little more than drive-by attacks that had little to do with the topic at hand.
Ken comments over at my satire/parody blog all the time… he is rather boring so far in one thread he has told me has told me to “grow up” about 6 times in stead of engaging in conversation and the latest comment was this…
Ken is a coward who will not even show his face on the internet… let alone engage in any real conversation with anyone… he is childish and his comments which are rude and put-downs mean nothing. This is how Ken Silva the “Pastor” edifies others.
Oh we were talking about Grace and Chris Pajaks recent comments here about Rwanda… for context.
iggy
Pastorboy,
I’m curious how you arrive at that conclusion. I have never found where the bible teaches that baptism is not important.
Do we call this verse the GREAT commission because it’s not “important stuff”?
Where does the bible teach that baptism is no big deal?
Baptism is a sign of inward regeneration by the Spirit – hence why it is always attached to faith and/or repentance. Baptism, in and of itself, doesn’t save anyone – in that case, we have loads of folks here in the UK who have been baptised as babies who are saved, even though by their works and profession, they openly hate the Lord Jesus.
Baptism is important: what it represents is symbolic. It is the outward display of a believer declaring they are dying to their old life (going down into the water) and resurrecting in Christ.
Brett – the challenge to you would be 2-fold:
1. critical: baptizing babies is absolutely fruitless and baptism is the believer declaring their decision (not just a little ceremony to make mommy-and-daddy feel happy)
2. less important: the concept of sprinkling is really not baptism in the scriptural sense
Sorry Paul,
The only 2 fold “challenge” I’m taking is to love God with my whole heart, mind, and strength; and to love my neighbor as myself. I have enough challenge taking care of my wife, 4 kids, and a dog every day.
I realize different traditions have beliefs concerning baptism. I’m just asking how you guys can make these authoritative statements about what’s important/or no big deal in the bible. Should I just take your word for it that baptism might be important, but only symbolic; or Pastorboy who says baptism in not even important. My basic literal reading of the bible text (where baptism is mentioned) indicates that Christian baptism is very important and not merely a religious ritual.
What authoritative statement am I making diminishing what’s in the Bible. I am a very strong advocate regarding baptism as it is important (I don’t agree with PB that the methods don’t matter). When I say symbolic, I mean like the marriage ceremony is symbolic. That doesn’t reduce its importance. So I don’t reduce it to ‘merely a religious ritual’ when I say symbolic.
What the RCC does, however, is just that when it promotes baby baptism, no? I say that because the entire premise of baptism is that it represents a believer making a decision.
Baptism is important, but not salvidic. The Incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection are in an important class all by themselves.
Baptism is symbolically important and indeed an act of odedience.
How come there’s no good Lutheran brothers around here when you need one?
The quandry is this: The RCC teaches through baptism sins are forgiven including original sin. But they are not alone, the Church of Christ, Discples of Christ, and some others teach some form of baptismal regeneration. Many members of these denominations believe what their church teaches, but don’t consider baptism a fellowship breaker which, in fact, means they do not actually believe what their church teaches.
This directly from the RCC catechism:
Please tell me why this is not an important issue, not just about baptism, but about the issue of salvation as warned against in Galatians chapter five.
Baptism is not important in the sense that I will not argue with you or anyone else’s salvation because they have a different view of Baptism than I do.
I believe baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. I believe that it should be immersion rather than sprinkling. I believe that infant baptism is worthless but also harmless (and I know many who are believers who feel that infant baptism is representative of a covenant and the children will come to Christ)
So, while baptism is important, it does not save anybody, and does not send anyone to hell.
And yet Rick at the end of chapter 3 Paul affirms baptism. It is only in the minds of reformed/covenant theologians that baptism and circumcision are linked. I will stick with Jesus’ command in Matthew 28 concerning how important it is or is not.
If you consider that verse to mean that water baptism is the act that saves us, then Galatians five gives additional direction so that mistake would not have been made. And when asked what must a person do to be saved, Paul says “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
You would think, that if baptism was part of the salvation equation, Paul would have dealt extensively with it including it in his many justification by faith teachings.
And if baptism is indeed an indispensible part of being forgiven for your sins and being saved, then those who say they believe that are faced with the reality that men like me are heretics. That must be the conclusion, because you cannot have it both ways, which is what some actuall attempt to do.
If baptism plays more than a symbolic role in the conversion experience, then those that deny that are serious heretics. You cannot teach that baptism is extrememly important, but it’s not really important if others teach otherwise.
That is being duplicitous.
Rick, I believe that baptism is very important as it is a response to a commandment.
On the day of Pentecost, when the hearers of Peter’s message we convicted in their hearts, he said: “Repent and be baptized.”
So it is a critical step that every believer should make. I would not be comfortable at all making it optional or a nice-to-have. That would be deceitful.
I will also say it holds absolutely no value for the infant who has not made a decision him/herself. The danger posed by the RCC is that if people fulfill sacraments (ie: baptism, confirmation, etc) they are doing the things necessary – kind of like check boxes on a questionnaire – to warrant salvation.
All this being said, like the thief on the cross, if baptism is impossible, then the Lord will overlook it I’m sure, based on the sincerity of a person’s heart.
Water baptism does not actually save us.
That’s not what I said at all. I said is that Paul affirms it. You are going too far to the extreme in order to justify your own theology. Paul does treat baptism in a number of places as does Jesus.
166 seems to contradict something Peter said in his letter.
“Paul does treat baptism in a number of places as does Jesus.”
That is nebulous. Is baptism just a symbolic step of metaphorical obedience, orn is it a means of grace.
I too treat baptism as does Paul and Jesus, so what do you mean by that since I have openly expressed my view?
Duplicitous is an awfully stupid choice of words to use in a post about discernment with love. Thanks Rick, I appreciate that you got the heart of the post.
“166 seems to contradict something Peter said in his letter.”
If baptism does save us then comment #166 it would clearly contradict the extensive teaching of the New Testament, not just “something Peter said in his letter”.
Here’s a parallel… let me know if this makes sense.
When it comes to communion, the RCC actually teaches transubstantiation – the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ as the event is taking place.
However, the Bible teaches it as a “remembrance” – nothing metaphysical is occurring at all. That does not reduce its importance.
Likewise, in baptism you are not undergoing a metaphysical change, but you are declaring (similar to the marriage ceremony) a vow/decision to abandon your old life for a life in Christ.
Does this analogy make sense?
Jerry – how would you explain the salvation of the thief on the cross who was not baptized after repenting?
Duplicitous in the sense that you cannot view baptism as a means of grace and fellowship with those who deny a means of grace. To relegate a means of grace to just a symbol is serious business, unless nothing is serious and everything is just dialogue.
I think this confusion about baptism has to do with our insistence of thinking of salvation as state of being rather thinking of it as entering into God’s family. Baptism existed in Judaism before Jesus came on the scene, and it was part of the way a person outside of the Jewish bloodline became a Jew. So when you look at it like that it becomes less confusing. It’s not merely a symbol – it’s an act of commitment to God and His people. It’s saying, “I am entering into this story”. The conversation of how it relates to whether a person is “saved” would seem like a non sequitor to a Jewish reader.
Jerry – I hope you are not getting from my comments that baptism is unimportant or optional. I am not arguing this at all. What I am arguing is that – as demonstrated with the thief on the cross – the Lord can still save when situations make baptism impossible.
A good explanation, Phil.
Phil – is there any biblical reference to baptism occurring in Judaism before John the Baptist?
The act isn’t explicitly called baptism in the OT, but if you compare what John the Baptist was doing with the ceremonial washings described in Leviticus, it certainly square quite well. The reason the authorities were so upset with John was that he was performing these rituals apart from the Temple and he was offering it to Jews. It was as if he was saying the Temple had become too corrupt for God to work through it any longer.
A one-time act (baptism) is not the same as ritual washing as prescribed in Leviticus. The Essenes were also into ceremonial washing – several times a day – but I would not liken that to baptism.
Would Naaman washing in the river count?
If a bridge takes five segments to completely cross the gorge, then one cannot be ambivalent about someone building one with only four.
If baptism is an essential means of saving grace, one cannot be ambivalent about someone rejecting it as such.
Well, it’s a common theme in Jesus’ ministry. He took stories and rituals that were familiar to the Jews and tweaked them. Communion as we know it is a variation on the Passover meal.
I read somewhere (wish I can remember where) that rabbi’s baptised their disciples symbolising that they were leaving other teachings and teachers and were now following this rabbi… If this is true I think it gives a fresh perspective of being baptised with the baptism of Jesus don’t you think?
#183 – Exactly.
Does anyone know of any proof for #183?
172–I would say that he was dying for his sins on the spot and that his salvation has nothing to do with a test case for baptism or not. I would say that Jesus was right. His death was his baptism. Just like our baptism is our death.
174–with all due respect, I’m not confused at all. It may seem non-sequitor to a Jew, but it it is not to a sinner who is being instructed in answer to the question (Acts 2): “What must we do?” As a preacher, I have no authorization to answer that question any other way than the apostles answered it.
172–if nothing ‘happens’ in baptism, then it is unnecessary. But if God is doing something at the time..well, then no your analogy makes no sense because you have made baptism merely an act of man. I don’t believe baptism is a mere act of one human on another.
Rick, it only contradicts the new testament in your mind. read Acts again. Read the Old Testament, for example Naaman or the Exodus and the Red Sea baptism.
My point here is not to argue with what you or anyone happens to particularly believe happens at the time of baptism. I suppose salvation is possible apart from baptism, but that’s not my call to make. I don’t think conversion is completely possible without it. And in the NT baptism is always a passive act, something done to us by another.
My point, rather, is that as a preacher I am constrained to teach the entire word of God. So if you think that I, as a preacher given a charge and an ordination by the elders of my church, have a right to stand up and declare something that Scripture does not say (”you can be saved apart from baptism” or “baptism is unnecessary”) then you have missed the point. I am under constraint. (And I know that the legalists among us will say something absurd like “Well, then do you make women wear head coverings” or “do you greet one another with a holy kiss” etc.) But again, this to miss the point of what Dever is saying in the post.
Some things are clearly cultural (Such as Jesus’ command to demonstrate our love for one another by washing feet; John 13). I don’t see baptism as a cultural idea. I see it as an integral part of what the New Testament says I am to teach. If your conscience instructs you differently, if your theology constrains you differently, so be it. But I cannot mitigate the teaching of Scripture to a lesser place just because someone else doesn’t think or believe the same as I do. (Like Rick or Paul C).
Besides, if I tell someone they don’t have to be baptized, then I am telling them it is ok, from the start, to ignore the clear teachings of Jesus (Matt 28, Mark 16, John 3 Romans 6, Ephes 4, Gal 3, etc). Why would I teach someone it is ok to be disobedient?
I’m done for a while because I have to go have tea with a friend and then to the school. Please know that I do love you guys, even though I think you are blockheads when it comes to your pet theological aberrations. See, I’m discerning with love!!
(Seriously, I’m just joking about that blockheads thing. Hey, it’s Friday. Lighten up a bit.)
jerry
non-baptismal regenerationist but strong believer that sinners meet God’s grace in the waters of baptism and one who is under constraint to teach it thus whether Rick agrees or not.
180–YES!!! As would the Red Sea experience. And others. Like Jonah. Moses in the river.
I can see the headlines: Church sued by Green Peace for using whales in ceremony!!!
Rick,
If your saying that the symbolism, and ritualistic baptism as practiced by RCs, EOs, Anglicans, Lutherans, and (I can’t keep track of all the others) lends itself to the danger of being understood as superstitious magical hocus pocus, I agree with you. But that does not make the sacrament wrong or not from God. I could keep my boys locked up in their room all weekend (which I am tempted to do at times), but they would never learn the joys of climbing that big oak tree in the backyard.
Catholic teaching does not swap the cross for baptism. Salvation is all ultimately Grace, a purely free gift of God given in generosity, unmerited and impossible to merit. There can also be a danger in seeing the Word of God as merely written words on a page that jump into my mind because I’m really spiritual, made a decision, or to show others I’m happy and faithful, and have perfect understanding The eternal living Word of God is an action that took on flesh to redeem us (Incarnation), the supreme Word of God to men was Christ, all he said and did particularly (the Cross), and for his eternal state of glory the (Resurrection) and gift of the spirit to men. The same living Word of God speaks in baptism no matter what fancy robes the minister might be wearing, or how many candles are lit.
For the 3rd (or maybe 4th time?), I am not saying that baptism is a nice-to-have. It is a command by Christ that we are to obey, and it does has significance (though nothing metaphysical happens, just like communion). Not sure how my message here is being missed…
Then, by logical conclusion, I am an heretic since I deny a Scriptural command indispensible to salvation.
Wow, you use “I suppose” concerning the most important truth God has ever given? And you “completely converted” remark is, as I said before, duplicitous (double minded). This is the dialogue I have had with Chris, if baptism is necessary for salvation then it is, period. It can’t be for some and not others.
And if you are concerned about being true and committed to the Scriptures, you certainly cannot compromise on that point simply to make peace. (unity at all costs)
I was save for two years, led people to Christ, witnessed to hundreds, was delivered from drugs and alcohol, and was not baptized until 3 years later in the Gulf of Mexico by myself. So I assume I was completely converted.
But I teach that baptism is totally symbolic, however if it is not, I am a heretic. We cannot have it both ways.
Whats the importance of infant Baptism, anyway? According to your boy Tony Jones, there is no original sin!
Rick,
I have been drunk in the Gulf of Mexico a few times in my life. I was baptized as an adult in a Roman Catholic church. I wouldn’t call you a heretic simply because you don’t understand the mysteries of the bible completely because I don’t either.
I think that baptism is just as “real”, whether or not a man is baptized by a Baptist revival preacher in a Florida swamp, or if an 8 day old baby gets baptized by the Pope in the Jordan river. That’s even if both the preacher and the newly baptized believe it’s only symbolic. I’m not sure (and I’m not trying to make light of it); but I don’t know if technically you can baptize yourself.
And that relates to this conversation how, exactly? Seriously, try not to derail a conversation for once…
Phil,
The teachings of Baptism in the RCC and even in Anglicanism (to an extent) is that is removes original sin. We are discussing baptism here, are we not? And we are discussing different views of baptism. All I said was Tony Jones, one of CRNI’s heroes, says there is no original sin. What effect does that have on this conversation? I hope it would mean that we would discern that statement and we would determine, with love, that it is false, and that words mean things.
There. Hope that helps.
The only difference?
The Baby cannot believe. The scriptural call is to ‘believe and be baptized’
First of all, Jones never said that anyone is without sin, but again this conversation isn’t about Tony Jones. I also never remember anyone here claiming he was their hero.
I have no problem talking about how baptism relates to the remission of sin, but to bring Tony Jones into the conversation is just you trying to derail the conversation with your own weak GBA attacks.
197
Not at all… I want to know, a see demonstrated, how one would discern, from scripture that view being wrong, and address it in the context of the conversation about infant baptism and the purposes of it. And I desire to see it done with love.
Pastorboy,
Why do you care whether babies or adults get baptized? Aren’t you the one who pronounced baptism to be unimportant?
Who is Tony Jones? My hero is Eugene Peterson and William Willimon and Karl Barth and…….etc. Via mobile.
Geesh, Jerry, you would think you would have at least one non-heretical hero…
Who is Tony Jones indeed. My heroes are Jesus Christ, obviously, but I’m also quite fond of Saints Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas. I tend to have spot for C.S. Lewis as well.
I like Hank Handygraff (whose name I cannot spell) take on the subject.
Baptism is the first task of obedience for the believer. It a symbolic way of saying that we have died to this world and are alive in Christ.
It’s also important, I think, because man demands tradition to validate emotion or any sort of change. The baptism ritual is merely a public means of declaring that you are a new creation.
My spiritual “heroes” are these:
Charles Finney, D.L. Moody, Joni Erickson Tada, Charles Spurgeon, and Billy Graham.
But in reality, these follow the ONLY hero, the Lord Jesus Christ. Besides Him there is no other, praise the majesty of His Name.
I like Walter Martin, founder of Christian Research Institute. I also like Augustine and Roger Hargreaves.
my hero is my wife
I also like NT Wright. DA Carson. David Wells. Rick Frueh. D Bonhoeffer. W P Young. David Crowder. Johnny Cash. Bono. Jack Cottrell.
Jerry – there are a few heretics in your list, one I have known personally and he is no hero!
Paul C,
Something tells me you really are not interested in any RC related teachings; but I am curious what you think about this Lutheran pastors teaching on baptism:
http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/173022509H1S2.mp3
Jerry,
I apologize if external links are frowned upon in the comments.
Yes, I didn’t think you’d be able to find much in the Bible (or through Chaput) that would be valid
Regarding the audio clip – a couple observations…
1. I find it odd that the program opens up with an advertisement of some sort for “Lent”. Then the first thing out of the pastor’s mouth is a challenge to the phrase “The Great Commission” not showing up in the Bible and then building his premise on this. Where is there support for “Lent”? It’s just a Catholic tradition that the Lutheran church has embraced (along with other things).
2. He claims that people only quote a portion of the “Great Commission” (leaving out baptizing and teaching). That’s never been my experience. When I was a missionary in Africa, the teaching and baptizing was as important as the going. It’s a false construct he uses to attack the evangelical church. I might be considered evangelical, but I do not consider myself in that category (just a plain old Christian).
It would have been wise if he used an example to show how people short-end this commission by Christ.
Also, what are all these missionaries overseas doing? Just “going” and then doing nothing? No, many (though I can’t stand the concept of short-term missions) are going, preaching, teaching and baptizing. Many are false teachers too, but that’s another story.
Again, who is IGNORING teaching and baptizing? He is saying that this is what evangelicals are doing.
3. I find it odd that you would suggest a teaching that actually speaks of correct doctrine when you still believe in Catholic teachings that are completely anti-biblical and extra-biblical. That’s a mystery to me.
He emphasizes that the problem that evangelicals are “pietist”, emphasizing action over doctrine, deeds not creeds, and I believe that to be true. They don’t like RW’s PDL – I don’t subscribe to it either.
4. I like his straightforwardness and delivery, but they built a strawman and the destroyed it.
5. I fully believe in the importance of baptism
As he says, it’s “not that complicated!” At the end of the day though, I’m not all that sure about the validity of the forced baptisms on pain of death that occurred at the hands of the RCC throughout the ages.
Paul C,
Whoa, I didn’t mean to let all of those worms out of the can. I didn’t agree with everything he said; I just thought that it was relevant to the discussion on whether baptism does anything and who does the doing.
For the record: I’d rather be listening to Johnny Cash that a boring Lutheran preacher
Brett – it is somewhat relevant, but I’ve personally never come across someone who says the baptism isn’t important, just “GO!” So I found their entire premise a little off-base though a few good points were made, especially regarding the validity of PDL doctrine.