Liberty Theological Seminary?????

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
Is this the same Rod Bell that stepped down from his church because he was an alcoholic?

Yes, it is. He is also the same Rod Bell who brokenheartedly confessed and repented publicly for his sin. He faced his church, confessed and asked forgiveness. He resigned his pastorate and the numerous leadership positions that he held. He appeared before groups and begged forgiveness. He wrote and published public letters of confession and begged to be forgiven. He moved to G’ville, SC and put himself under accountability to Dr. John Vaughn. He has been very humble and contrite in the whole matter. He was no Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker.

The man is forgiven. What more do you want? Has God forgiven your sins? If so, why did you bring this up about Rod Bell? What did this have to do with the question under discussion? Rod Bell’s sin was drunkenness, not lying. You cannot necessarily correlate the two. Were you trying to question his veracity because he fell into another sin? Smudging a brother’s character is sin. Impugning another believer’s character without observable evidence is wrong. This is worse than any of those rabid Fundamentalists who give you dyspepsia.

Your question bothers me. If it means what it seems to mean, I am very disappointed in you. Although we seldom agree, I did consider you healthily skeptical, reasonably fair and honest. However, your question appears highly biased and weighted to one side. If you are, in fact, slamming Rod’s character to gain a point in discrediting Borek’s Catholicism charge, it is despicable and unworthy of you. Shame on you if this is true. You may want to consider this before you step into the pulpit before your people this Sunday morning. Now, tell me it ain't so. </font>[/QUOTE]I was just wondering if the Rod Bell of Calvary Contender was the same Rod Bell that was an alcoholic. Nothing more.

I had heard that a "Rod Bell" in fundamentalist circles stepped down from his church, but when I searched the internet, I found no mention of it. I thought I must have been mistaken, because I'm sure if Rod Bell of Calvary Contender had been the alcoholic I would have read about it in the Calvary Contender, since this is where he exposes the "sins" of compromise and shortcomings of other ministers.

Since I didn't find any mention of it in the Calvary Contender, I was sure that I was mistaken. Thanks for clarifying for me that this indeed is the same Rod Bell.

I'll let the reader determine who is demeaning, despicable and unworthy. </font>[/QUOTE]Rod Bell was not part of Calvary Contender published by Calvary Baptist Chruch in Huntsville, AL. Jerry Huffman is the editor of Calvary Contenderand Greg McLaughlin is the pastor of the church. Rod was the Pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church and President of Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary in Virginia Beach, VA. Also, he was President of the FBF (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship) and editor of Frontline magazine among other things. He had close connections with the Jones and BJU. Check out Frontline magazine published by the FBF. Check the year old issues--they will have the information you seek.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Paidagogos,

Taking your ball and going home?



Charlie, you did wrong and I challenge you to be man enough to admit it. Otherwise, you can’t walk that high road of pious non-judgmental love and spirituality that you are proclaiming.

First of all my name is Charles.

Second, I quoted from your post, no ellipses or parentheses. I merely said that the difference between you (Christian) and a lost person is Christ, and NOT your works. I assume you agree with that statement.

Given that Christ has given you such a wonderful gift how should you respond?

By showing others the same love Christ showed you. If you do this then good for you.

The rest of my post is dead on. You needn't respond to it. It was merely intended to reprove some of the error of your last rant.

Well Charles, you have sidestepped the issue. You changed the point of my posts by deleting essential statements. That is unethical. This is the issue under discussion presently. Don’t make me say something that I didn’t say by leaving out parts. Give me a chance to speak for myself. Quote me, by all means if you like, but quote me fully and let me say what I mean, not what you think I mean or what you want me to say. Be fair!

Again, I say your statement is not accurate. Pertaining to salvation it is all of Christ but my works are different from a lost sinner’s since I am empowered by the Holy Spirit unto good works (Eph. 2:10). On the other hand, the lost sinner, who is dead in sin, can do nothing that is good and pleasing to God. All his actions are sin. Get your theology together instead of spouting sentimental mush. Furthermore, perhaps you would like to consider and explain exactly what it means in action to show Christ’s love and how it applies to your post and the matter under discussion.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paidagogos,

There was nothing deceitful about my quoting of your post.

I merely pointed out that the difference between you and a lost person is Christ, and not your personal holiness.

You said that that statement sounded a little judgmental. I said that it is 100% fact.

Regarding the "love of Christ"...

You have often referred to the "non-judgmental crowd". I think that Jesus would have been part of this crowd.

The Bible tells us to separate from sin. In truth we cannot serve two masters. Thus as Christians we should not be keeping regular company with those who live lives steeped in sin.

But I absolutely reject, make that REJECT, the hyper-fundamentalist insistence on separation from everyone who is remotely nonfundamentalist. I will glady fellowship with a more liberal baptist, with a baptist who is sympathetic to catholics, or with a catholic himself! These people can still be Christians despite having some suboptimal doctrine.

Indeed there is quite a difference between fellowshipping with a more liberal Christian and keeping regular company with an unbeliever who openly disregards the law of God.

God knows the hearts of men. And by men's heart will they be judged and not by whether or not they befriended catholics, went to movie theaters, or had long hair.

As a Christian we show the love of Christ by treating everyone with kindness, and not reproving them every time they break one of our pre-conceived notions about what they should be doing. "Lady if you want to be welcome here you need to show some respect for God by wearing a dress and bringing a real Bible, not that devil's NIV."

Now that doesn't mean we don't challenge the churchman who is sleeping with his neighbor's wife or getting drunk in the local bar every Friday and Saturday night.

So I am a conservative Christian, whos is a staunch member of the "nonjudgmental crowd".

 

[Paul33]

Thanks Paid,

I'll check it out.

Do you have any idea why Bell's resignation and confession wasn't printed in Calvary Contender?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Paidagogos,

There was nothing deceitful about my quoting of your post.

I merely pointed out that the difference between you and a lost person is Christ, and not your personal holiness.

You said that that statement sounded a little judgmental. I said that it is 100% fact.

Regarding the "love of Christ"...

You have often referred to the "non-judgmental crowd". I think that Jesus would have been part of this crowd.

The Bible tells us to separate from sin. In truth we cannot serve two masters. Thus as Christians we should not be keeping regular company with those who live lives steeped in sin.

But I absolutely reject, make that REJECT, the hyper-fundamentalist insistence on separation from everyone who is remotely nonfundamentalist. I will glady fellowship with a more liberal baptist, with a baptist who is sympathetic to catholics, or with a catholic himself! These people can still be Christians despite having some suboptimal doctrine.

Indeed there is quite a difference between fellowshipping with a more liberal Christian and keeping regular company with an unbeliever who openly disregards the law of God.

God knows the hearts of men. And by men's heart will they be judged and not by whether or not they befriended catholics, went to movie theaters, or had long hair.

As a Christian we show the love of Christ by treating everyone with kindness, and not reproving them every time they break one of our pre-conceived notions about what they should be doing. "Lady if you want to be welcome here you need to show some respect for God by wearing a dress and bringing a real Bible, not that devil's NIV."

Now that doesn't mean we don't challenge the churchman who is sleeping with his neighbor's wife or getting drunk in the local bar every Friday and Saturday night.

So I am a conservative Christian, whos is a staunch member of the "nonjudgmental crowd".

The windmill beat you again, Don.....uh......Charles!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Paidagogos,

There was nothing deceitful about my quoting of your post.

Yeah? Why did you cut out the most important part of my argument?

I merely pointed out that the difference between you and a lost person is Christ, and not your personal holiness.

You said more too. Go back and read your original post again!

You said that that statement sounded a little judgmental.

No, I did not! I have already pointed out that this was NOT the part with which I was disagreeing. Read my posts!

I said that it is 100% fact.

Then you cannot separate fact from your fantasy.

Regarding the "love of Christ"...

You have often referred to the "non-judgmental crowd". I think that Jesus would have been part of this crowd.

Sounds a lot like WWJD to me. How do you know? You have no Biblical support--this is your unsupported supposition (read: imagination).

The Bible tells us to separate from sin. In truth we cannot serve two masters. Thus as Christians we should not be keeping regular company with those who live lives steeped in sin.

Including liberals, heretics, fornicators, divisive individuals..........

But I absolutely reject, make that REJECT, the hyper-fundamentalist insistence on separation from everyone who is remotely nonfundamentalist. I will glady fellowship with a more liberal baptist, with a baptist who is sympathetic to catholics, or with a catholic himself! These people can still be Christians despite having some suboptimal doctrine.

Are you saying that Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by grace through faith? Or, do they teach a man-centered works doctrine through the RC? Would you send new converts into Roman Catholicism to wither and die on the vine? You understand neither the rationale nor the practice of Scriptural separation. You're talking about some theoretical hyper-fundamentalists. I don't know or care who they are. You're not speaking of anything that I believe or practice. Methinks it's a strawman for you to blow down.

Indeed there is quite a difference between fellowshipping with a more liberal Christian and keeping regular company with an unbeliever who openly disregards the law of God.

God commands us to separate from certain disobedient Christians for testimony sake.

God knows the hearts of men. And by men's heart will they be judged and not by whether or not they befriended catholics, went to movie theaters, or had long hair.

Who's talking about movie theaters or long hair? Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with befriending Catholics. It does have to do with endorsing and send folks to a Roman Catholic church.

As a Christian we show the love of Christ by treating everyone with kindness, and not reproving them every time they break one of our pre-conceived notions about what they should be doing. "Lady if you want to be welcome here you need to show some respect for God by wearing a dress and bringing a real Bible, not that devil's NIV."

God said that He reproves and chastens those He loves (Heb. 12). Shouldn't we do the same if we love our brother? Would you rather let him continue in his sinfulness and broken fellowship with God?

Now that doesn't mean we don't challenge the churchman who is sleeping with his neighbor's wife or getting drunk in the local bar every Friday and Saturday night.

What about gossiping? lying? cheating? stealing? lusting? backbiting? heresy? moderate wine drinking? smoking? chewing and dipping? Where do you draw the line? Give chapter and verse.

So I am a conservative Christian, whos is a staunch member of the "nonjudgmental crowd".

Fine! Then, you cannot judge me for having opinions that you do not accept. However, you have already judged me when you said: "I've got news for you Paidagogos - the difference between you and the biggest sinner in town is that you have Jesus - it has nothing to do with the fact that you have more "personal holiness". It's human nature to find fault with those who are different than we are. We must NOT use the Bible to justify our own selfish behavior." The bold parts are judgmental because you are insinuating that I am simply finding fault with those who are different from me and I have used the Bible to justify selfish behavior. I charge you with judging me by these two statements. You are judging my mental processes that you cannot observe and you are attributing motives to me that are not true. In other words, you are questioning my sincerity, impartiality, and my motives and you are charging me with misuse of the Bible. All these insinuations are wrong and you are wrong to use them especially in light of your advocacy of non-judgmental principles. This is called hypocrisy. You are wrong friend.

[ July 17, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

[Paul33]

Paid,

I've spent the afternoon looking at Frontline Magazine.

Unless I missed it (highly possible), I could find nothing about Bell's resignation as President of the FBFI. I found a resolution praising how repentant he was, etc.

Same goes for Calvary Contender. They cite news from all over the world appraising us of "foibles," "sins," and "faults" of others, but no mention of our dear friend Rod Bell's alcoholism and deceit in covering it up these many years.

Since I can't find a record of what led up to his confession, perhaps you could share why he confessed. How did his problem come to light?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Paidagogos,

Taking your ball and going home?

Charles, my man, I'm still here and still pitching. You really haven't seen all my stuff yet. If you can't hit my fast ball, how in the world do you think you can handle my curve ball, knuckle ball and slider? Do you know what the strike was that just fanned past you leaving you standing there and blinking with that silly grin? Better get ready for strike three! One more strike will send your losing team to the showers. I've got the feeling that you'll be fanning the breeze on this one. (BTW, I don't need a Graemlin because I am articulate enough to say it with words.

)

 

[Paul33]

Come on, Paid,

Give me the inside scoop!

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paidagogos,

It's human nature to find fault with those who are different than we are. We must NOT use the Bible to justify our own selfish behavior..

This was not directed at you personally. Sorry if it came across that way.

I live in Cabell County in western WV. I play violin and guitar in a small gospel group - and through this I have had the pleasure of being in services in nearly every fundamentalist church in the county (except the ones that don't allow our instruments).

I am sad to report that the spirit I find in most of these churches is one of self-righteousness. If you're not IFB or independent missionary baptist then you're in bad shape. I want to puke every time I hear an entire sermon about "watering down the King James Bible" or the evils of CCM, or how women are not submissive enough. These sermons were all preached under the banner of "fundamentalism". I would rather have been in a catholic church than in half of those services!

You (being the bright fellow that you are) certainly realize that it IS human nature to persecute those who are different. I am disheartened to see people trying to stamp God's authority on their own human weaknesses and prejudices.

So where do I draw the line? I look at the person. Does his/her life exhibit Christ? A Christian who drinks a glass of wine now and then with dinner is not committing sin, as long as he/she is not violating a personal conviction in doing so. I choose not to do so but there is no commandment.

And what about the RCC? I know several catholics (not the majority however) who are definitely Christians. I disagree with many of their doctrines - but they are still Christians if they believe in Jesus for salvation (which some do despite the caricatures of catholics in fundamentalist circles). Once again it is what Jesus does for them and not what THEY DO or what their doctrines are that determines salvation.

And the proof is in the pudding. Look at the reputation of evangelical Christians in general in the USA. Do we ever hear Jesus called judgmental or hypocritical? Yet he was no softy when it came to sin. In fact was He not criticized for associating (eating and drinking) with sinners. I see the ultrafundamentalists in my mind when I read about Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees.

I think that we (yes we) as fundamentalists should try a little harder to expunge the weak elements of human nature from our churhces, a process which does not involve being tolerant of sin, but rather tolerant of people.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Charles, my man, I'm still here and still pitching. You really haven't seen all my stuff yet. If you can't hit my fast ball, how in the world do you think you can handle my curve ball, knuckle ball and slider? Do you know what the strike was that just fanned past you leaving you standing there and blinking with that silly grin? Better get ready for strike three!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Paid,

I've spent the afternoon looking at Frontline Magazine.

Unless I missed it (highly possible), I could find nothing about Bell's resignation as President of the FBFI. I found a resolution praising how repentant he was, etc.

Same goes for Calvary Contender. They cite news from all over the world appraising us of "foibles," "sins," and "faults" of others, but no mention of our dear friend Rod Bell's alcoholism and deceit in covering it up these many years.

Since I can't find a record of what led up to his confession, perhaps you could share why he confessed. How did his problem come to light?

I did a quick perusal of Frontline and could not find it either. I may have been mistaken about the open letter being published in Frontline. It may have been through some other venue such as a FBF meeting, etc. But, I was certain that it was published in Frontline. Oh well, I must be slipping a cog here and there.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Come on, Paid,

Give me the inside scoop!

Rod has always been a high energy, driven sort of guy. A decade or so ago, he worked himself almost to death. He developed severe health problems with a serious ulcer condition. He underwent extensive surgery with most of his stomach being removed. Rod’s life hung in the balance. His eating habits and life were forever changed. His doctor recommended that he take a glass of wine before bedtime. Apparently, he resisted the idea at first but he followed his doctor’s advice considering it parallel to I Timothy 5:23. It happened that Rod couldn’t handle the situation and began drinking more. The story came out when he was stopped for DUI. I’m not sure but I think a newspaper reporter found the DUI on the police blotter.

Paul, you may say that he only confessed when he was caught and confronted. True but such are the most of us. Except for the grace of God, this could have been me—or you. Realizing my own sinfulness, I can do no other than forgive others because God has forgiven me. Though some would question Rod’s sincerity because he confessed upon exposure, we are wrong to do so. According to Luke 17:4, one does not have to prove his repentance is sincere; he must only say that he repents and we are obligated to forgive him. In fact, the Luke 17 context would cause us to humanly question his sincerity if he repeated the offense seven times in a day, yet Christ commanded us to forgive. Biblically, there’s no finger that we can now point at Rod because he is forgiven.

Of course, this is off topic for this thread.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Dr. Bell published his resignation in his then front of the magazine column over a year ago. As I am away from my stash of Frontline back issues, y'all will have to take my word for it. The resolution, you read, comes after a year+ spent on the backside of beyond as it were. And as it has been said this is off topic for this thread.

 

[Paul33]

Thanks guys.

I know this is off thread, but given his circumstances, none of which I knew until Paid filled us in, do you think that it was necessary for Rod to resign?

Couldn't he confess his sin, ask for forgiveness, seek physical help, and continue to minister?

Or was the "DUI" symptomatic of something else?
Workoholic?

What sins are so grave that they force a minister to resign? What sins can we harbor and still remain a pastor?

I know about the prohibition, "not given to wine."

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
Dr. Bell published his resignation in his then front of the magazine column over a year ago. As I am away from my stash of Frontline back issues, y'all will have to take my word for it. The resolution, you read, comes after a year+ spent on the backside of beyond as it were. And as it has been said this is off topic for this thread.

Thanks Squire Robertsson. I could not find it in the online back issues but I did not search the print versions. You confirm what I remember.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Considering the circumstances, yes. Though as I understand it Dr. Bell was getting ready to retire anyway. This mess just moved the date up by a year or so. The key to this is the problem didn't drag on (unlike other situations which will I won't itemize). It was dealt with by the FBFI's leadership in a timely manner.

 

[Paul33]

Thanks Squire,

I trust that wherever we serve and with whoever we serve, we will be gracious and forgiving.

Our God is merciful, and when I start to feel self-righteous, I need only look in the mirror or in the faces of my wife and children to know how many times I fail.

But they forgive me again and again! God is truly merciful.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Thanks guys.

You're welcome.

I know this is off thread, but given his circumstances, none of which I knew until Paid filled us in, do you think that it was necessary for Rod to resign?

All things considered, yes.

Couldn't he confess his sin, ask for forgiveness, seek physical help, and continue to minister?

He did and he is, just not in as public a manner.

Or was the "DUI" symptomatic of something else? Workoholic?

God knows and I won't venture a guess about it.

What sins are so grave that they force a minister to resign? What sins can we harbor and still remain a pastor?

I know about the prohibition, "not given to wine."

Considering Dr. Bell was the Fellowship's "public face", we need to keep in mind the positions the FBFI has taken over its seventy year (under various names) history.