Lets start with the High Priestly prayer in John 17:
20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
Now reading this section of Christ’s prayer can only lead to one “logical” conclusion. There is a word and a theme that is frequently repeated here. I think it is quite obvious that oneness and unity is the prevailing theme of this section of the prayer. If this is the case, we are not only refusing to pray like Christ, we are throwing road blocks in the path of unification. I pray that Christ will be merciful to us!
Christ prayed that His disciples be one, this is essential! If these men fail the church that Christ said He would build fails. If they are not in the upper room praying and as Luke puts it like this in Acts 2:44 “And all who believed were together and had all things in common“. Now I would be hard pressed to believe that these believers didn’t have doctrinal differences. This is evident in Acts 10, when people were concerned about Peter with Cornelius and then it is even more evident in Acts 15 when the Church met together to discuss which of the laws applied to believing Gentiles. So doctrinal differences has always existed but what is the biblical response? The answer is found in John 17 and it is spelled U-N-I-T-Y!
How is that we are so self-righteous, so pious, so holy, so mature, so doctrinally sound, so biblical, and so correct that we ignore the BASIC principle of Love? How is that God being fully Holy, fully just, fully righteous, sends Christ to pay the penalty for our sins, His righteousness is credited to us, not because God saw something good in us. Not that we had even a flicker of goodness. We were totally depraved, totally without God, totally condemned to hell, but God sent His Son to redeem us from the curse of death. How is that Christ values His elect enough to lay down His life for them so that they may have fellowship with Him and the Father, but we in our low estate, worthlessness apart from Christ refuse to fellowship with the same individual? Get out of here!!!!!!!!! How dare we value someone less than Christ!!! How dare we with nothing to offer God receives grace upon grace, but extend someone we disagree with doctrinally the middle finger. In essence we are extended this finger to God. Christ says “whatever you do for the least of these you do for me”! That is a serious statement.
When Christ returns will we be found among the goats? I pray not Father, be merciful to us “sinners”! Read the parable found in Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”We refuse to even dialogue with one another, how is that we can feed, clothe or visit one another, oh this drives the knife of conviction deep into my heart brothers and sisters! It is time out for playing doctrinal and theological games, while at the same time refusing to love one another of doctrine (unless that doctrine is damning). So what they speak in tongues, so what they sprinkle, so what they hold to synergism, so what they believe in a second baptism, so what they have a woman preacher on staff, so what they hold an over-realized eschatology, so what they eisegete the text, so what they believe you should wear certain clothing, so what they vote differently, and so what they don’t preach expositorily! Christ has placed infinite value in them by shedding His own blood for the remissions of their sins! He loves them, communes with them, answer their prayers, HE LOVES THEM and we must also, unless we be found among the goats and hear the dreadful words “depart from me”
It is the very grace of God that we have what we have. Paul asks the Corinthians “what do you have that was not given to you and if it was given WHY DO YOU BOAST AS IF IT WAS NOT”? Why boast in our theological “soundness” when it is the very grace of God that you know what you know. We are much more like the Corinthians than we think brothers and sisters. Know we aren’t dividing over gifts, we are dividing over knowledge. We are saying to our brothers and sisters “I am smarter than you and since you refuse to agree with me, I must divide (schisms) from you”. I will speak more on this issue as I write about my devotion in 1 Corinthians. Paul’s who premise of election in the first 9 verses leads up to him saying “now” in verse 10. Read verse 10 and look how many times the word divide is used. It is amazing the way the Holy Spirit opens our eyes at time.
Anyway, if we are of Christ we must love. John says in his first epistle “we love because He first loved us”. We should be overflowing with love, mercy, patience, grace, forgiveness, and long-suffering. Why? Because when the lights are out and no one is around you know how much you fail and how much you are in need of the very things you refuse to extend. We can’t skip to the deeper things of God and refuse to obey the very basics of Christian faith “LOVE”!
And I thought that I was the only one who felt this way…
Again (and I’m very emotional in saying this), many thanks for sharing this Brah. It’s more than needed…….
Honestly, have you ever wondered why there seems to be such a CAMP Mentality (i.e. “It’s US verses them….and THEY ARE THE ENEMY!!!”) when it comes to issues of doctrines that aren’t essential?
I’m reminded of what happened with the disciples in Mark 9:38-41. In this case, Jesus was saying that neutrality toward Him was possible…..but nevertheless, his followers will not all resemble each other or belong to the same groups. People who are on Jesus’s side have the same goal off building up the kingdom of God and they should not let their differences interfere (providing those differences aren’t essential). Those who share a common faith in Christ should be cooperated with…….& People don’t have to be just like us to be following Jesus with us.
The same thing can be seen whenever people (folks in the Pentacostal Camp) try to call out issues of rebellion and yet people from differing camps who don’t hold to their doctrinal stances completely shut him down….along with others who aren’t from the same camps as they are (i.e. you’re Charismatic, I’m Cessationist/Conservative….and therefore, even when you recognize an issue, I refuse to support you and will blast you instead)
Often times, people’s reactions against them seemed akin to the disciples, who were jealous. Prior to them seeing the man cast out a demon, nine of them together had been unable to drive out a single spirit (Matthew 17:14-21, Luke 9:37-43, Mark 9:14-29)….but when they saw one man who was not of their group driving out demons, they told him to stop. Our pride is hurt where somone else succedds where we have failed…..but Jesus says that there is no room for such jealously in the spiritual warefare of His kingdom. Share Jesus’ss open arems attitude to Christian Workers outside your group…..and when people come to Christ, rejoice.
This again doesn’t seem to happen enough….and I question how effective we can be in destroying the Works of the Enemy when it seems in the Christian World the Kingdom’s divided….
http://emissary7.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/blast-from-the-past-old-post-humble-orthodoxyunited-4-christ/
Brother Lionel,
As an overall push for us to love one another, I must say that I agree with the sentiment whole heartedly. But there seems to be a “don’t disagree or you’re causing division” element to this post. It also smells of ecumenicalism (which has never worked), universalism (which I know you know is not a true doctrine), a touchy feely emotionally based love (which is unbiblical) and post modernism (which devalues and even questions the ability to arrive at truth). I’m concerned about this statement (among others):
(B&R) “So what they speak in tongues, so what they sprinkle, so what they hold to synergism, so what they believe in a second baptism, so what they have a woman preacher on staff, so what they hold an over-realized eschatology, so what they eisegete the text, so what they believe you should wear certain clothing, so what they vote differently, and so what they don’t preach expositorily!”
(BLD)
1. Those that speak in tongues have an elitism all their own! Are they wrong for it?
2. Those that sprinkle have no biblical basis for it and thumb their noses at those who disagree. Isn’t that elitism? Are they wrong for it?
3. The second baptism only makes two levels of Christinity that don’t exist, the haves and the have-nots. Tell me that’s not as bad or worse than doctrinal correctness.
4. A woman preacher on staff. This is a contradiction in and of itself. I thought your last post was about doing church correct. That was a quick 180.
5. Eschatology is only debatable until someone claims Jesus has already come back. I know we debaters usually reject “guilt by association” but come on: LDS, Seventh Day Adventist, The Watch Tower Society, etc. all claim the same thing. I’m dividing over this one.
6. And eisegesis has actually benefitted whom?
7. Certain clothing? Modesty. When was the last time you suggested your wife wear a bikini to church? Why not? Because it does matter.
8. Voting? I don’t vote so I’m with you on this one to a point. Anybody that is pro-abortion is a non-Christian.
9. Expository preaching? If as you have affirmed/demanded over and over again that all gifts be for the building up of the body, how in the world could this suddenly not matter to you? Are you serious?
When you did the underlining and bold texting of John 17:22 I notice you included this portion “that they may be one we are one”, but why not the “even as”? I have to ask myself if it is just coincidental or was it because then you would have to explain the doctrinal differences that the Father and the Son had. Jesus wanted us to be one “even as” He and the Father was. Now, of course, I know this had specific implications and I’m not suggesting that it means we should all work the same job, wear the same color, have the same amount of children, etc. But I definitely don’t believe it rules out striving to have a uninamity in the things that we profess as believers. We may appear out of uniformity with one another but it doesn’t mean we can’t have uninamity in our profession of faith and beliefs. The one who is departing from the written word of God is the one who is “throwing up roadblocks” to the unity and oneness that Christ desired.
This next statement is really troubling and not supported by scripture at all:
(B&R) “If these men fail the church that Christ said He would build fails.”
(BLD) The failures of men have never came close to destroying the church that Christ said He would build. On the contrary, Christ is quoted by Matthew as saying the exact opposite, that even the very gates of Hell could not prevail against it. The success of Christ’ church was never dependant upon the actions of men alone. Never! Does this statement comport at all with your views on the sovereignty of God?
In the case of the disagreements that existed in Acts 10 and Acts 15, the word of God (a vision in Peter’s case and the testimony of two relieable witnesses along with the authoritative decision by James in the case of the council) was the deciding factor because ignorance was at the root of the disagreements. There was no “we’ll just agree to disagree but continue to fellowship”. The issues were resolved by the word of God and should be today.
The Corinthians schisms were over allegiance to men not to the truth of God’s word. So that’s not applicable to doctrine.
I agree with this statement:
(B&R) “Anyway, if we are of Christ we must love. John says in his first epistle “we love because He first loved us”. We should be overflowing with love, mercy, patience, grace, forgiveness, and long-suffering. Why? Because when the lights are out and no one is around you know how much you fail and how much you are in need of the very things you refuse to extend. We can’t skip to the deeper things of God and refuse to obey the very basics of Christian faith “LOVE”!”
(BLD) However, I believe that this love should be defined biblically. And in anticipation of your response let me say from I Corinthians 13:
1. “Love is patient, love is kind”. But this does not mean that if we disagree and decide that it’s best to part that we have suddenly lost patience and have stopped being kind.
2. “Love envieth not.” Someone who decides to part from those who reject God’s truth is not being envious of anyone.
3. “Love does not brag and is not arrogant.” To stand on God’s truth strongly, so much so that there are certain group with which you have to part company, is neither bragadocious (did I even spell that right?) nor arrogant. If that is the case, then you should never be found warning anyone about the prosperity preachers. I want those churches to either repent or empty out.
4. “Love does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered”. Defense of the truth is not supposed to be a case of “one-upmanship”. I agree with you there. It is also not supposed to be retailiatory in a personal nature. It is in fact God’s truth and not ours. I agree with you there. But to be angered at God’s word being denied and twisted is a righteous anger and should be balanced with love not eliminated by it.
5. “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;” All false doctrine is unrighteousness. If I desire to part ways because of it, I’m fulfilling both requirement here.
6. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Here “all things” has a specific connotation and that is whatever is not contrary to God’s will. “All things” does not and could not refer to a non-chalant attitude towards sin of any kind.
7. Love never fails. True biblical love never runs out. It may weaken at times when not cultivated in our hearts but it never empties out completely.
Now, it could be that I have missed your point. But I think that it’s another case where I agree with your premise but not the outworking of what you have proposed.
Hey BLD I am going to address your issues as you present them.
1. Ecuminicalism is a funny word that is used totally out of context. For example I would fellowship with someone who is A Covenental guy or a dispensational although we disagree on some rather heavy points of theology. The very fact that you call me brother is ecuminical. Be very careful not to take the word out of its context. We all agree to the Apostles Creed which is an “Ecuminical” creed.
2. You are not starting to stoop low in making your points again. No where am I condoning Universalism so it should not even be alluded to. I used Christian scripture and add to that Jesus’ high priestly prayer which would exclude anyone who does not profess faith in Christ. It is quite funny that you went there.
3. Next you stooped even lower by saying this post was post modern. A post modern believes that everybodys truth is truth. I never even hinted at such a position.
4. Lets address you first set of numbers.
a. Not all who speak in tongues hold to some form of elitism. This is an unvalidated statement and is stereotypical which we as Christians should try to avoid after educating ourselves. Add to that I have seen just as much elitism on the cessasionist side as I have on the charismatic side. Come on with that.
b. Brothers Sproul, Duncan, Horton and other great theologicans don’t thumb their nose at baptist or other credo-baptist, once again another unvalidated statement. You are starting to worry me. I have seen more Credo-baptist call paedo-baptist heretics than vice versa. Check the available material.
c. I didn’t say it wasn’t wrong, I wouldn’t divide with them, just like I wouldn’t divide with someone who believes they are called to be a Bishop. He or she is still my brother and so is a woman who believe she is called to preach. If you want to divide over doing church “correctly” you may want to divide with every other denomination that exist outside of your own set of dogma.
d. It is hilarious how you go to extemes bro. I wouldn’t consider two out of three groups you mentioned to be Christian. Why such an extreme. They aren’t Christians so they are not the focus of this post. You must hold to the essentials of the faith to even be considered here. Once again you know my post history and my doctrine, you can at least base my writings off of that dude.
e. It hasn’t benefited anyone but each of us are guilty of it. Either Covenant, New Covenant, or Dispensational or all three are wrong. One is guilty of an unfaithful hermaneutic pick one for me and then we can discuss this in more detail.
F. As it relates to clothing I am referring to those of the Holiness movement. Maybe you should ask me to clarify. By the way I think a bikini is inappropriate for chuch. Thanks for asking though.
G. To call someone pro-abortion a non-christian is a stretch I am not willing to take, but that is between you and God.
H. Never said none of these issues matter especially the preaching of the word. But many of our brothers and sister don’t even know what expository means, I wouldn’t divide nor split from anyone who preached differently. This isn’t about mattering this is about loving those who are part of the faith.
5. Nope didn’t mean to leave the latter. I meant to underline the whole deal. But your statment strikes me as puzzling. Who within the body of Christ actually agrees on every doctrinal distinctive. When you find them let me know please.
6. Never said that the church depended upon man alone. However, and I am speaking more hypothetically than literally. Paul does this when he says “I wish that I could be cut off” he knew that was an impossiblity just like the Disciples not fulfilling their calling. I am Calvinist so I believe in the totaly sovereignty of God in all things. Christ built His church upon the confession of Peter; however, the disciples were instrumental in getting this word out. Who knows what we would like without them.
7. The problem with the resolution in Acts 10 and 15 is that they came together. The thesis of this post is the fact that we tear away instead of bringing our doctrinal differences to the table and resolve. They didn’t divide they came together. Once again the premise of this post.
8. Actually you are wrong about your assessment of Corinth. They had many schisms. Some was due to following man, the other one was gifts of the Spirit, another could be on being okay with the lifestyle of the wicked, there were divisions on head coverings, roles of women and all sorts of things. So read the book again and come back and talk to me.
9. I will answer this question in the letter format again.
a. I never said disagreeing was being unkind, I said splitting and causing divisions over these disagreement (unless they are detrimental) was unloving. You have put words into my mouth.
b. Depends on what that truth is, if it is gifts of the Spirit, baptism modes, what type of music, or any issue of liberty then I would disagree wholeheartedly
c. I would believe those to hold to a prosperity deal may not be brothers and would call their faith into question thus dividing with them would be over the gospel not a small doctrinal issue.
d. Once again it depends on what you are angry about. Is it eschatology then I disagree, is it justification by faith then I agree. Look at the things I listed again. These are things that I would not be angry over. I disagree with a lot people as it relates to certain gifts, eschatology, systems of theology, doctines of Grace but I wouldn’t be angry with someone who disagreed. We could agree to disagree.
e. Depends on what the false doctrine is. I believe rapturist to be a false doctrine I would dare not call it unrighteousness I also believe in monergistic salvation I wouldn’t call synergistic salvation unrighteousness. Depens on what you mean.
f. Who metioned sin? I don’t have a nonchalant attitude. Look at my post about a New Heart. I am a Lordship guy
I am glad to see you disagree. Maybe some things needed to be clearer. But for someone who has read my previous post and understands what I believe I though you of all people would fill in the blanks. Furthermore you said something that was striking to me here it is in quotes:
“a touchy feely emotionally based love (which is unbiblical)”
Now I am going to list some things for you and I want to see how you respond to them.
1. John lays his head on Jesus’ chest. Is this not touch feely?
2. The redeemed prostitue washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair!
3. Mary Magdalene embraces Jesus when He ressurects and didn’t want to let Him go. What about that.
4. Paul uses the word “affection or “long” which is translated “epipotheō” in the greek which mens to long after or to desire with love. If that isn’t touch feely I don’t know what is brother.
There are many other scriptures used throughout the old and new testatment about God’s affectionate love for His people. Before you make such a huge assertion please be sure to back it up with the text. Paul and Peter uses strong language that refers to their “touchy feely” love. Read Galatians and see how Paul talks about his fatherly love for them, or his deep love for Timothy in both epistles to him. He says he loved him as a father loves his own child. This is the same love we are to have for one another brother. Not just a theoretical love but a practical family love . Thanks for you input though.
Bro. Lionel,
I consider it an insult for you to say that I’m stooping to lows with my comments. I feel that if you disagreed, that’s fine. I explained clearly in the beginning of the post that I agreed in principle but that I sensed another element. Obviously all I wanted was some clarification. I would think that with a post like this one, and your last few actually, that you would finally be comfortable with me having a different personality and perspective than you on certain things. I guess not. It seems that when I agree with you we’re cool. But when I disagree with challenges that you don’t like you can’t stand it. And to think I only said “it seems” or “it smells”. I didn’t say “it was” or “it reeks”. I used unaccusatory language. I could go point by point and respond but that would probably take away from the discussion so I’ll try to focus on what counts.
1. When I said ecumenicalism, it was in the way in which it is commonly used and that’s all. But thanks for the education anyway. The universalism was not a charge against you personally. I was intimating that I picked up that sense in the bent of the post. Obviously I was wrong but that could have been stated without saying I had stooped to any lows. By the way, you have to consider yourself “high” in order to make this statement about me or my views.
2. If there is very little to divide over and only the essentials are left (which themselves are not universally accepted in the church), then eventually it leads to post- modernism. That wasn’t me being extreme, it was me taking things to there logical conclusion.
3. If we can agree that there is elitism on all sides, then that was the point of my statement. You didn’t stress that in your post. By the way, your “I’ve seen” is no more substantiated than my generalizations. Their both a matter of our respective opinions, only you don’t seem to think that I am entitled to mine because of what you’ve seen. Hmmm?
4. I was attempting to denote an instance where eschatology becomes an issue over which to divide. I would divide from fellowship with a group that taught that Jesus has already come back. That’s heresy, period. “Would I hold a conversation with someone who believed it? Yeah but I wouldn’t hold back on telling them that it was a heresy if the subject came up, all in the name of “unity” and “love”.
5. If I think that what you profess to believe and what you write has differences, then I will call it into question in order to give you the opportunity to speak for yourself. It would be haughty for me to “feel in the blanks” for you. You’re quite capable of that task for yourself.
6. Eisegesis should at least be challenged and it should be avoided if possible. That’s all I saying.
7. At least you understood the point that I was making about the dress.
8. Give me an instance where God is so powerless that it causes an abortion to be justified and I will change my opinion. Rape? NO! Incest? NO! Give me one instance.
9. When you stated your succession of emotionally punctuated “So What”’s you were saying that it didn’t matter. I don’t say “so what” (except in jest) about things that do matter and I suspect you don’t either.
10. I said that we should strive to agree doctrinally. Don’t you believe that I should agree with you on the “love” issue?
11. God used man, agreed. The church would have failed had these men failed, disagreed. A God who is able to raise up seed to Abraham with stones, surely could preserve His church inspite of the failures of men.
12. They came together in Acts through AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUE. Not by agreeing to disagree and just love one another.
13. I was not wrong about Corinth so far as the point I was making. I was incomplete so far as the totality of the issues that abounded there. Thanks for the critique on that one.
14. Define “detrimental”. For example, I believe women pastors and preachers and leaders for that matter is detrimental to the proper worship of a church.
15. I was talking about God’s truth, not individual liberty in all my references to love as found in I Corinthians 13.
16 The touchy feely love that I am against is the emotional yet without substance love that we hypocritically pass back and forth instead of dealing with issues as mature adults. I suspect you knew this but you probably felt better by challenging me with “John laying on Jesus’ chest”.
Bottom line Brother Lionel, we cannot have true love without a committment and agreement on God’s truth. If truth is debatable, then why isn’t the definition of love also. In other words, how do you know these people that you are challenging aren’t loving? This is why truth is paramount to biblical love.
My responses again Lawrence.
1. You said it hinted of Universalism and Post Modernism both of which are not acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy. I believe to even challenge me on such a thing is a low blow. Don’t like it, well sorry. I would never accuse someone of being a non-christian especially if I know what they believe for the most part. But if that is your way of communicating differences that is fine.
2. Once again you go to the extreme. Post Modernism in its essecence says “all truth is truth”. Not once did I insuinuate such a thing. The essentials are laid out in 1 Corinthians 15 read them and get back to me please.
3. You didn’t say there was elitism on both sides you said “those who speak in tongues tend to be eliete”. If you would have said both sides there would be no need for a response. You have changed your statement midway.
4. Once again your statment didn’t say that. Your statement inlcuded Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons both who are non-christians. I don’t even want to be remotely affiliated with such groups or that I consider those groups Christians. This was a post about CHRISTIANS loving one another. Not Christians loving cults.
5. You know I am not down with Jehovah Witnesses or other cults so that shouldn’t need to be clariifed. That would me coming into the house after work and asking her if there is a man in the bed while she is preparing dinner for the family. It is an extreme are ridiculous jump.
6. No one is not saying it shouldn’t be challenged. I don’t think you read the post based off of your statements. This wasn’t about not disagreeing, this was about loving our brothers and sisters in spite of our disagreements.
7. Great.
8. Never said it was justfiable. No sin is justiable, however to say someone is not a Christian because they are not pro-life is something I will not agree on. Once again if you feel that way talk with the Lord bro. Christians do many grave sins, doesn’t disqualify them from the faith bro.
9. No I wasn’t I was saying I refuse to divide over these issues. They matter thus I wouldn’t allow some to preach at a church if I were an Elder there; however, I am still required to love them and to strive for unity at best possible.
10. I do, but I wouldn’t divide with you if you disagree like you currently are.
11. Actually God could use roaches to covert the lost. He can use aliens also if they exist. The problem is He chose to use men and Christ chose 12 for the purpose of starting the Great Commission. Once again a hypothetical just like God not using roaches.
12. What does that have to do with what I said? I said they came together. Most of us refuse to do that. But in the event that we come together (one key is that they had the Apostles there who were qualified to write doctrine we don’t) and we don’t agree what should be the end result? Division? No!
13. You are welcome.
14. I disagree. I believe teaching works based salvation, different gifts as evidence, promoting sexual immorality as just cultural and the like are detrimental, not women preachers. As long as what they are saying does not impede on the Gospel then I can disagree but I am still required to love them as a brother or sister.
15. That is fine with what you are talking about but that isn’t what Paul was talking about.
16. Just like you want me to clairfy, you should also. You said “touchy feely” and I disagree I am to be as touchy feely with my spiritual brothers and sisters as I am with my natural family, to make matters even greater I am to be more in love with my spiritual brothers and sisters than I am my natural family because they hold a higher position in my life.
17. To answer your last question. If they are not doing what Paul commanded them to do in 1 Corinthians 13 then they are not loving! Plain and simple. If there is name calling, mud slingling, unreconcilable relationships, unforgiveness, envy and the like you are not loving. So the test is there in 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4, John 17, Colossians 3, 1 John 3-4 (which is actually a good platform for what you are talking about on biblical truth and where I get my statment I am not required to fellowship with those who preach a different Jesus).
Hopes this answers your questions.
Brother Lionel,
1. Regardless to what you have professed to believe over and over and over, it does not give you a pass on the next thing that you say. So if you use language that sounds a certain way, then it is totally legitimate for me to question it. I see with you I have to ask you first how I should seek clarification from you and then seek it. That’s the perfect way to protect yourself from challenges, I guess. If I were to make statements or even quote Brian MacClaren in a post, wouldn’t that make you question why? Would it matter up until then what I have previously professed? Check out these names and tell me if former professions give anyone a free pass: (I’m not comparing you to any of these people, I’m just making a point that I tend to consider what is being stated now divorced from a person’s history. And I shouldn’t have to say this in the first place.) Again, if I feel you are saying something that does not comport with what you have professed in other posts then you will be challenged on it.
Dan Kimble (formerly orthodox now emergent),Dr. Frank Beckwith (former president of ETS now Catholic), Carlton Pearson (former Pentecostal now universalist), Dr. J Budziszewski (Catholic), etc.
2. What does “read them and get back to me please mean”? You understood my point. Since you like challenges so much, go to any of a number of websites where they list the essentials and tell me how many agree down the line. Better yet, go to sermonaudio.com and listen to John MacArthur’s sermon “How can we preach the gospel if we don’t know what it is?”. In it he tells of being locked in a room for seven hours with some of the biggest names in evangelicalism debating this very topic with no resolve. Now before you hit me with your super spiritual comment about not caring what these guys say, you know the point that I’m trying to make.
3. I didn’t say that “those who speak in tongues TEND to be elite! I said those who speak in tongues HAVE AN ELITISM ALL THEIR OWN. Thank you.
4. In my original post I used the “guilt by association” clause to clarify this particular point on eschatology. It’s there, you just have to read it. So I did say it in my original post. I wasn’t calling you a cultist. But yes, I will agree that it veered away from the topic of Christians loving one another.
5. No one who is okay with 4,000 babies being murdered everyday could possibly have the “love” that the bible commands in their heart nor be of Christ. It’s one of the test in I John. This isn’t a voting issue, it’s a moral issue. What is the result of being pro-abortion? The death of millions of babies.
6. So what you wouldn’t divide over these issues! Now tell me, does that sound like division matters to me? That’s what I got out of your “So what”’s. That those things did not matter at all. I see now you were saying that they didn’t matter ENOUGH to divide over. See, just another need for clarification. Which one of us do you think too highly of that you would believe that I should understand everything that you say? Are you so articulate and clear? Or, am I so intelligent in your eyes that you expect more out of me? I have my suspicions but you give me your answer.
7. I agree with you on the love issue and I made it clear from the beginning. There were some points that I needed clarity on and you’ve provided them. I thank you! Next time I will read your post 5 times first and then I’ll just reply to your personal e-mail and ask permission to post it on this blog. Okay?
8. I believe there is a term in logic when someone uses what they know to be an impossibility to prove a claim. I don’t think it’s logical but I’ll get back to you on that.
9. We have the bible so we have the apostles here to clarify. The most that we have to stretch on is if any teaching had just a cultural connotation.
10. I guess the women preachers debate will go on until it is settled in heaven. If you believe Paul was wrong or that we misunderstood him, then as you like to say, that’s between you and God.
11. All in all, this was about clarification. You gave it, I received it and we can move on. I’ll give you the last word. That’s my new gift. Giving the other person the last word. Hope that’s not stooping to low for you.
Thanks for your clarification Lawerence. No need to ask permission to post. I appreciate your insights and challenge. Thanks a bunch.
Brothers b an r and LD,
Righter has enjoyed reading this verbal exchange and thinks that you two have had a most engaging dialog; iron sharpens iron and this is what I like–:-)
I challenge any and all to be able to defend any positions as these two brothers have done, without having to get personal or sarcastic because it shows weakness. Thus, those with opposing views are able to detect this (desperate attempts when orignal arguments fail) and will subsequently take full advantage of it.
Never let em see you sweat…