Different Gospel

So we can't believe the first 11 chapters and we all know you cannot except much of Pauls writings, especially where he deals with divorce, women preachers and homosexuals. So can we really believe John 3:16? Who do we need to check with on this question?

Murph

 

Sorry Joshua,

I did not get to finish everything that I wanted to say in my earlier post. I had to leave quickly. So I would like to continue the discussion herein.

Earlier I said:

The problem with your "opening our hearts means submitting to..." definition is that in our post-modern culture hardly anyone even comes close to grasping the concept of biblical submission. The post-modern culture teaches people to believe that they are completely self-sufficient autonomous individuals with no need for anyone or anything outside of themselves. Likewise, the post-modern culture teaches people to believe that they are absolutely free from all "old fashioned" moral constraints and traditional Christian beliefs. Because of this generally people in our culture have no desire to or understanding of what it means to submit to anyone, anything, or any particular philosophy or system of religious belief. Likewise, your definition will have absolutely no impact on those who maintain the post-modern/new age belief that, "What is right for you may not necessarily be what is right for me, and that is okay because it works for us both."

Now couple the post-modern "completely self-sufficient autonomous individual" belief with your weak definition of repentance, and your willingness to overlook significant traditional biblical teachings regarding specific sins (the ones that I and others have noted) and you have a "different Gospel" where sinners have wiggle room to remain in their trespasses and sins and simply, but quite erroneously, feel good about themselves because they attend church and listen to a watered down sermon presentation filled with "God talk."

Try telling people that they are all sinners (dying, lost, evil, going to hell) and in need of a Savior(someone to save them from their present condition)(Rom. 3:23), and that they have hope in the fact that God loves us so much that Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8; John 3:16). Then point out that the problem is that their sin earns death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ (Rom. 6:23). However, to receive this gift from God they must repent of (turn away from) their sinful ways and confess such turning away from sin to God, and claim their belief in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior (Rom.10:9-13).

[ November 27, 2002, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Sorry Joshua,

I disagree with you again. I have spent the last four years of my life reading nearly everything that has ever been written regarding western thought and philosophy. Post-modern thought does not simply "reject the scientific method and rationalism as a sufficient means for determining all truth." It rejects the very idea that absolute truth even exists. Be that as it may we did not engage in this conversation to discuss post-modern philosophy. We are talking about the Gospel.

I disagree. You don't spell out the fact that people must turn from their sinful ways. Your definition makes this turning away from sin look simply like a favorable option.

Granted. But, when you don't preach the whole Gospel you leave some sinners dead in their sins. Liberal theology is famous for winking at sin. You want to talk about loving people and being kind to them. I say love them enough to give them a clear picture of the whole counsel of God so that they may be saved from the sins.

I beg to differ. You are weak or watery on repentance and preaching against certain sins that God's Word clearly calls sinful.

I hope so; however I don't see it in your preaching or your posts.

___________________

You may well be saved. I cannot answer that question. But I can tell you that you stand for some very strange believes and I believe that you teach false doctrine. By the way, the Kingdom of God is not about being in a "tent." The Word of God teaches us that the path to destruction is easy and broad, and that the path to salvation is very narrow. Please be careful not to make Christianity too easy, inclusive, or whatever you want to call it. You may just be making people feel good about themselves as they continue right along the path to hell.

[ November 25, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Bibleboy II I like the way you think. Amen!!!!

Sincerely:
Narrow minded Murph

 

Joshua,
I am sorry, but it must be difficult reading a Bible that has parts cut out. You can't just ignore the fact that the Bible SPECIFICALLY calls certain things sins, that you are rejecting, and you know it.

You accuse BBII as being in the process of being indoctrinated, well how does it feel to be completed with yours. All your arguements try to convince others that you are completely biblically grounded, but then you skip around Scripture that you don't like.

I can love the person with out loving the sin, and I will not ignore certain parts of Scripture or the truth they hold.

There are things the Lord says are sins. Things many of us wish weren't, but that doesn't change the fact that they are sins. My feelings, your feelings on matters are meaningless when it comes to whether something is right or wrong in the eyes of God. Your beliefs may be out of compassion for others, but that does not help them out in the long run. If someone believes they are ok in their actions because of what you taught them, when they stand before God, pointing their finger at you won't save them.

Preachers and teachers are held to a higher level of authority. We must not be a stumbling block.

 

Hello Joshua,

Shall we continue our discussion? Remember, you started this thread with a presentation of what you consider to be the Gospel and asked us how it was/is different from what others on these boards preach. I am not attacking you personally; however, I am disagreeing with you on some theological points. So let's remain civil and continue the discussion as two intelligent gentlemen should.

I'm not quite certain what you are driving at here. In point number 2 above I was addressing one's need to repent in order to be saved. When you say, "That's because they don't have to do it" are you saying that sinners do not have to repent of their sins to be saved? Likewise, when you say, "Salvation is not an obligation, it's an option" are you making the case that people are not obligated to be saved?

If you are saying that people are not obligated to be saved I would agree with you. However, if one wishes to be saved one must come to God on His terms. That means that one must confess one's sinfulness to God, repent of (turn away from) one's sinful ways, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Generally, people don't understand that in order to be saved they must come to God on His terms. It is our responsibility as ministers of the Word of God to make it clear that if one does not repent there is no salvation.

I disagree. If, for example, you do not preach that homosexuality is a sin then you are leaving the homosexual dead in his sinful ways. Furthermore, if you preach and teach in such a way that leads this homosexual to believe that God has created him as a homosexual and that there is nothing sexually immoral (sinful) with his chosen manner of sexual expression, then you are teaching something that is directly contrary to the Word of God (see Leviticus 18:22). Therefore, not only have you left this poor individual dead in his sins, but you have also encouraged him to remain as such.

Not at all, it just means that we must make doubly sure that what we teach is in line with the Word of God. If we present the Word of God in a clear, understandable, and undiluted manner, agreeing with God that what His Word calls sins are actually sins, then how the people respond to that message is between them and the Holy Spirit. If they reject the clear teachings of the Word of God they reject the free gift of salvation offered through Christ. However, we will have done all that God has asked of us as preachers/teachers of His Word. However, if we distort His Word and teach things that are directly contrary to it then the Bible says that we are/will be held to a greater responsibility because as teachers of the Word we were supposed to know better.

I agree with you. However, in "nurturing that relationship," discipling them, as teachers of God's Word we are to give them the whole counsel of God and not lead them to believe things that are directly contrary to God's Word. We are to teach them sound doctrine.

Here is the "rub" between you and me. You say, "I am not weak on any sin that I think is sinful." In making this statement you have demonstrated that you place yourself, the interpreter, as an ultimate authority above the authority of God's Word. When one does this one passes the Word of God through the sieve of one's thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experience, rather than passing one's thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experience through the sieve of God's Word. If what we think, believe, or feel is contrary to God's Word then it is we who must change to conform to the Word--not the Word that must change to conform to us.

When one places himself as an authority above the Word of God he does not allow the Bible to shine the light of truth upon issues where he considers his own opinion more correct or valuable than what God's Word has to say on the subject. Finally, what Jerry Falwell does or does not preach is not the focus of the discussion at hand and I cannot answer for him. So, let's stick to the issues.

Thanks for trying to make the discussion a personal issue. I am not attempting to judge you. Remember, you started this thread and asked for discussion regarding what you consider to be the Gospel. If you did not want to hear my honest thoughts and engage in a theological discussion then you should not have asked the initial question. I am sorry if you don't like to hear what I have to say; however, you did ask and I will not compromise the truth of God's Word just to make you feel better about yourself or what you teach. I would venture to say that the frustration that you are focusing toward me is actually the result of conviction from the Holy Spirit and from the truth of the Word of God working out through our discussion.

What in the world are you talking about? The lost people of the world are lost simply because either they have not heard the truth of the Gospel or because they have heard it and have chosen to reject it. Again, the Christian message is not about covering as many people as possible with a "tent" named Christianity. It is about sharing the truth of the Gospel in a clear and effective manner so as to cause people to understand their desperate need for salvation through Christ Jesus and then giving them the message of eternal hope. Yes, we have our work cut out for us, but let's not try and see how many people we can make fit into some loosely defined definition of Christianity just so we can feel better about how many we have supposedly reach with the Gospel.

As Fearnot indicated above when a lost sinner stands in judgment before Holy God and says, "But Lord, Rev. Joshua said that I was born a homosexual and that it was a perfectly moral and right mode of sexual expression in yours eyes” his answer will not save him from God's righteous and holy judgment of sexual immorality. Please give these issues some serious thought and prayer.

[ November 26, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Joshua
You do seem to teach a little diffrent from most pastors I have met. If you would allow me to ask some qusetion. What would you say the following is saying.

1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

And

Ezekiel 36
25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

 

You may want to reconsider that statement given:

a) Your professed teaching on homosexuality (and God knows what else),

and,

b)

By your teaching that homosexuality is not a sin, when the scriptures plainly and unequivocably confirm that it is, you insult the Spirit of grace and trample the sacrifice of Christ underfoot. This is a very serious offense. It is one thing to teach error in ignorance. It is altogether something else to teach it intentionally. Because of your rationalism and postmodern theological interpreting methods, both which ultimately lead to unbelief, you have placed yourself outside the pale of orthodox christianity in a number of theological areas. Given the stern warning in the scripture above, coupled with your willful false teaching, a day might come when you may well wish that "seminary students in the midst of their indoctrination" were in fact your judge.

It has been said that postmodernism is merely an old enemy in a new suit. This is a true statement. Following is a link to an article that exposes this philosophy for what it really is, which of course is an enemy of the gospel.

A wolf in sheeps clothing.

Russ <><

 

Wow!!! Josh these guys have you nailed good. But I am certain you will wiggle free, they have stated good arguments but being that you have ignored the Word's of God Himself why would anyone think you would listen to mere mortals.
Were it not for the damage I fear you do and have done to people who sought Biblical council from you this would be funny. But seeing the importance and gravity of a person's understanding what is sin, your teaching is far from funny. I am praying for you.

Murph

 

See I knew you would slip away, but please spare us the history lesson. It is not history you should be concerned with but the future. If we can be certain of history how much more sure should we be of God's Word which so clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.
Murph

 

Hello Joshua,

While we are discussing your understanding of the Gospel and that is a very "personal" thing to you, I am not attacking you regarding who you are. Like I said we are disagreeing on theological issues and hermeneutical methods of biblical interpretation. I did not enter into this discussion with the intent to insult or attack you personally. If I came across as such I am sorry, please forgive me.

You are correct in that I am at seminary. However, I must ask what you mean by "academic freedom"? I don't know why you say that I have come across as being smug. I went back through the pages of our discussion and I believe that I have stated that I agree with you on certain things, and when I have disagreed I have done so in the most clear and forthright terms. Perhaps what you interpret as being smug is my unwavering confidence in the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God. Anyway, I accept your apology and I do wish to continue the discussion at hand.

Now that you have made your point regarding your view of fundamental Christianity I think that we should return to our discussion of the Gospel and how it applies to our lives and the lives of the people to whom we seek to minister. With that in mind I notice that you have not addressed the other statements that I made in my last response to you. So I'll quote the relevant material below:

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:

I'm not quite certain what you are driving at here. In point number 2 above I was addressing one's need to repent in order to be saved. When you say, "That's because they don't have to do it" are you saying that sinners do not have to repent of their sins to be saved? Likewise, when you say, "Salvation is not an obligation, it's an option" are you making the case that people are not obligated to be saved?

If you are saying that people are not obligated to be saved I would agree with you. However, if one wishes to be saved one must come to God on His terms. That means that one must confess one's sinfulness to God, repent of (turn away from) one's sinful ways, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Generally, people don't understand that in order to be saved they must come to God on His terms. It is our responsibility as ministers of the Word of God to make it clear that if one does not repent there is no salvation.

I disagree. If, for example, you do not preach that homosexuality is a sin then you are leaving the homosexual dead in his sinful ways. Furthermore, if you preach and teach in such a way that leads this homosexual to believe that God has created him as a homosexual and that there is nothing sexually immoral (sinful) with his chosen manner of sexual expression, then you are teaching something that is directly contrary to the Word of God (see Leviticus 18:22). Therefore, not only have you left this poor individual dead in his sins, but you have also encouraged him to remain as such.

Not at all, it just means that we must make doubly sure that what we teach is in line with the Word of God. If we present the Word of God in a clear, understandable, and undiluted manner, agreeing with God that what His Word calls sins are actually sins, then how the people respond to that message is between them and the Holy Spirit. If they reject the clear teachings of the Word of God they reject the free gift of salvation offered through Christ. However, we will have done all that God has asked of us as preachers/teachers of His Word. However, if we distort His Word and teach things that are directly contrary to it then the Bible says that we are/will be held to a greater responsibility because as teachers of the Word we were supposed to know better.

I agree with you. However, in "nurturing that relationship," discipling them, as teachers of God's Word we are to give them the whole counsel of God and not lead them to believe things that are directly contrary to God's Word. We are to teach them sound doctrine.

Here is the "rub" between you and me. You say, "I am not weak on any sin that I think is sinful." In making this statement you have demonstrated that you place yourself, the interpreter, as an ultimate authority above the authority of God's Word. When one does this one passes the Word of God through the sieve of one's thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experience, rather than passing one's thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experience through the sieve of God's Word. If what we think, believe, or feel is contrary to God's Word then it is we who must change to conform to the Word--not the Word that must change to conform to us.

When one places himself as an authority above the Word of God he does not allow the Bible to shine the light of truth upon issues where he considers his own opinion more correct or valuable than what God's Word has to say on the subject. Finally, what Jerry Falwell does or does not preach is not the focus of the discussion at hand and I cannot answer for him. So, let's stick to the issues.

What in the world are you talking about? The lost people of the world are lost simply because either they have not heard the truth of the Gospel or because they have heard it and have chosen to reject it. Again, the Christian message is not about covering as many people as possible with a "tent" named Christianity. It is about sharing the truth of the Gospel in a clear and effective manner so as to cause people to understand their desperate need for salvation through Christ Jesus and then giving them the message of eternal hope. Yes, we have our work cut out for us, but let's not try and see how many people we can make fit into some loosely defined definition of Christianity just so we can feel better about how many we have supposedly reached with the Gospel.

As Fearnot indicated above when a lost sinner stands in judgment before Holy God and says, "But Lord, Rev. Joshua said that I was born a homosexual and that it was a perfectly moral and right mode of sexual expression in yours eyes” his answer will not save him from God's righteous and holy judgment of sexual immorality. Please give these issues some serious thought and prayer.

By the way, I'm going away for a few days of vacation to celebrate my 10th Wedding Anniversary with my beautiful wife so I will likely not be on-line until after December 3, 2002.

[ November 27, 2002, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

One "small" difference here. Nowhere does Scripture say it's a sin to be black or a woman regardless of how the Baptists historically felt about them. But, Joshua is being faithful to his relativistic postmodern belief system by allowing culture, history, and society, not the absolute truth Scripture, to shape his moral paradigm. These are poor analogies anyway. There exists a scriptural "tension" on slavery and women's roles in the Bible. There is no tension whatsoever regarding homosexual behavior.

This is true. It is a matter of slipping in.

Please feel free to introduce us to a bible version that is translated in a manner that portrays homosexuality in a positive light. It would be much more intellectually honest for liberals to just admit that they don't believe what the scriptures say rather than vainly attempt twisting them into what they want them to say. If the bible, as alleged by liberal "scholars," is unreliable in it's opposition to same sex relationships, logically there would be little reason to put any stock in Scripture, or Jesus, or for formulating any but the vaguest ethical positions.

In the Father,

Russ <><