Monday, March 8, 2010
Choking On The Briars
I am posting about something that really concerns me. It's a widely-used saying: "Spit out the briars." One of the reasons I bring attention to this is a conversation on Facebook that I made a comment on. This is the gist of a comment made by one of our dear brethren about another brother who has gone off "the deep end" doctrinally: I respect your views. I don't agree with everything he does, nor does he agree with everything I do. Another dear brother that we know ended the conversation with this to this same fallen brother: "I would enjoy a good conversation as well as fellowship". It's one thing to have a civil conversation (which we all need to be reminded to do at least from time to time), being respectful of the person, and even to pray for a brother who has fallen that he will return to the truth, but it's quite another issue to say that you respect their views. It's also one thing to hang out with a person: you can hang out with anyone and even be their friend, but having fellowship means we hold things in common. When someone leaves the truth on salvation or the church, you can't have the same fellowship that you once had. I wish our older brethren that I have the deepest respect for would quit giving this admonition to "spit out the briars" and would only recommend writers who are at the minimum sound Baptists if they are not ABA. I'm afraid our younger brethren may read after too many emerging church authors and may wind up choking on the briars because some of these guys are way out in left field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you want a perfect book, read the Bible and the Bible alone. If you want people's opinions and views, read books that originated with men. Just about every book I've read contains enough errors that I can point out to make it seem heretical. This includes ABA books about the 21 doctrinal statements. While I agree whole-heartedly with the 21 doctrinal statements, I can tear about a book about them by being overly analytical. My point is that books are written by men, and ALL of them, therefore, contain lies. Also, you can make something an author said into an issue, when the author didn't even write what you think he did.
ReplyDeleteFor example: Many brethren last year were OH so upset about a statement in the Ordering Your Private World. The statement said something like not one of Jesus' decisions for who would be the 12 disciples was exempted from being impeached, with the exception of perhaps Judas. The brethren got so upset, saying that this author was calling Jesus' decision of Judas as a disciple wrong and impeachable. If you read the paragraph before, however, and if you know the English language, you find quite the opposite. The author of the book was saying that in man's eyes, EVERY DISCIPLE chosen by Jesus was a bad choice, except for Judas because Judas was actually a sensible, logical choice. Judas was obviously good in the ways of the world, therefore, Judas was the ONLY logical choice (from man's view) for Jesus. Every other one chosen, from Peter to John, etc, would be an impeachable decision b/c they were NOTHING but lowly, every day common people. The author was obviously trying to say that men would not have chose these twelve except Judas. But JESUS did, because he looks on the inside, not the outside. Jesus made the right decision based on the order in their PRIVATE world. Yet the brethren who were SO upset trashed this book. Why? They wanted to find an issue when there wasn't one.
So the point is, you should be overly analytical. But, be fair to the author. Don't find things that aren't really there. And remember, ALL BOOKS, ABA or not, are written by men. This is why we find errors in our own Sunday School lessons (no offense intended to ANY writer).
Another thing. If you KNOW the Bible, you won't have a problem recognizing error. If seminary students, and other preachers, and other church members, study and study and study the Bible... if they know it inside out, they won't have a problem reading other books.
ReplyDeleteFor example: I'm currently reading "Things to Come" By Dwight Pentecost even though I believe in end of tribulation coming. I know what the Bible says, so I am finding many good things in this book about literal interpretation, and finding his pre-trib arguments lacking. It is because I know the Bible. It has nothing to do with how accurate or inaccurate he may be.
I'm also trying to witness to a Catholic (devout) and have been trying to do so for three years. I am, therefore, currently reading "The City of God" by Augustine, "Selected Writings" by Thomas Aquanis, "The Idiot's Guide to the Catholic Church," "The Idiot's Guide to the Catholic Catechism," and the "Catholic Catechism" itself. I have learned a LOT about the Catholic Church and its views. I have also found a great many contradictions and errors I can use to help win Catholics to the LORD. This is my purpose in studying this book, and it has fully worked towards that end.
I also read the Koran/Qu'uran. I found in this many contradictions also. I now feel confident in helping one of Islamic belief to see the possibility of error in their system, thus having potential for an opening of the mind to Christianity.
You see, reading these books has not choked me, or harmed me. If anything, these books have re-affirmed my faith in the truth of the Bible. It encourages my study to greater depths to disprove logical and persuasive arguments given by the enemy - Satan.
Finally, I close with this. If you wanted to know how to fix your car, would you use an ABA book? If you wanted to know about the Catholic Religion and all its practices, would you really find all about today's catholic church in an ABA book? No, you wouldn't. You'd find many bits and pieces about the lack of salvation in Catholics, and a few damnable heresies. But you wouldn't know what they are doing or why they believe what they believe. You wouldn't know that the reason they "pray" to Mary is to ask her to pray for them, just like we ask others to pray for us. While this is totally a WRONG and HERETICAL thing to do, you wouldn't understand the truth without studying their works. You'd go on thinking they "Worship" Mary as god.
My last point was about this. If you don't study someone's beliefs from their point of view, then you use very offensive language when talking to them. You use all the false-assumptions you've been told by others without studying for yourself. This is damaging if you truly care about their souls.
ReplyDeleteMB need to study the truth - not what others say from a wrong point of view. Counterfiet money is recognized by people who have so carefully analyzed and inspected the real thing they can spot the false. Those that study the false for whatever reason would better spend their time studying the truth.
ReplyDeleteYou don't believe that 100% do you? You recommend books that don't contain 100% truth.
ReplyDeleteWe should spend MUCH time studying the Bible (the only full-proof truth) and still study the teaching's of men. After all, most ABA authors disagree with one another on many things. Many important things too.
I guess my strongest argument would be that most of these bloggers read points that disagree with their own point of view. I know for a fact that brother Young Landmarker reads (or used to read) on a forum where many people disagree. If you only want to read truth, you wouldn't be a part of the blogging world. If you are, you wouldn't allow comments.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge gained is good. To get me to say that reading and studying books is a waste of one's time would be a difficult task.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I reject the thinking that one must study and know heresy in order to be an effective witness for God's truth.
See, you are STILL misreading the book because you WANT to find error with it. I just explained it totally. The author was clearly saying that every disciple chosen was impeachable by the world's point of view. By the point of view of ungodly heathen men, every choice (except possibly Judas) would be impeachable. Don't you agree that this is the way the world sees things? If so, then you agree with the author. Stop making him out to say something he isn't saying.
ReplyDeleteThe 'launching' is another term you are picking apart for no good reason. They DID indeed launch it. I can launch a rock. It does not mean I created it.
For example, I can say the apostles are the foundation of the church, therefore, the launched it. This doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus is the empowering behind it, or the chief corner stone. Notice, Ephesians 2:20 states, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" If you read it again, you'll see the author was simply saying that by the apostles allowing Jesus to work in their lives and making sure they were right with God, the church sprang forward. This statement is VERY TRUE. Just as the statement that the world sees Jesus' choices of disciples as impeachable is true. You are HUNTING and SEARCHING for errors so hard, that you are finding them where they don't really exist. The author, in the proper contexts of those sentences, did not mean what you are forcing upon him. This is unfair, and biased against anything non Missionary Baptist. Don't get me wrong, I believe 100% that the Bible is the best book to read and we should spend most time in it. I also believe ABA books are the next best thing for learning truth concerning church and spiritual matters. But I am also not ignorant enough to believe that nobody produces good books outside of the ABA.
After all, Brother Arch Bishop suggested a GREAT book that contained much truth on the subject of returning to biblical church practices, such as preaching one's own sermon instead of finding them on the internet, and genuine connection between all age groups, instead of leading the youth to their own style of worship which causes division between the elderly and young. This book was written by two Southern Baptists who very possibly are universal church people (though I don't know it by reading their book). The Book, however, focused on something about which I am not sure any ABA writer has gone into depth. The Franchising McChurch is the name of the book. It was a great book (Thanks for recommending it Brother Arch). Just because it wasn't perfect doesn't make it evil. And how do we know if a book is wrong on key issues, if we don't end up reading it? Do we judge it by its cover?
Actually you are the one who doesn't understand the paragraph. Clearly the author said that HE would not have picked any of them. Nothing whatsoever is said about the opinions of others. The last sentence says that: "But Jesus did, and HIS CHOICES, JUDAS EXCLUDED, ARE UNIMPEACHABLE." The sentence clearly says that Judas was the impeachable choice. I could understand if perhaps he had said he did not understand why Jesus did it. We do not have the mind of God but we accept it by faith. However, he took it to a whole new level when he says the choice of the Lord WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT or justifies accusation against.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the author may not have meant the apostles "set going; initiate"d the church. However, neither did the "introduce to the public or to a market" the church, or "begin a new...(worldwide) phase" of the church. It was by Jesus Christ sending the Holy Spirit upon the church to empower it. It's very possible, perhaps likely, that he holds to the Protestant view that the church began on Pentecost.
Also, you're correct that no perfect book exists outside of the Book. No one here is looking for a perfect book. We are discussing fundamental issues here. Does this hint of a bit of sarcasm?
Yes, the "sentence" does "clearly" say that. But you have to read it in the paragraph. A word, outside of a sentence, has no specific meaning. Likewise, that sentence, taken out of the paragraph, does not have its proper meaning.
ReplyDeleteAre you truly looking only for "fundamental issues" in that book? Do you really think George MacDonald wrote an entire book about how Jesus is the Master, the perfect God, the One Who should be allowed to control us, and then all of the sudden changes his tune and says "BTW, Jesus makes bad decisions that need to be impeached"??? Surely, in keeping this sentence in context of the paragraph around it, and the entire book, you KNOW that this man isn't claiming Jesus made a bad choice. If that is what he was saying, then the ENTIRE rest of the book wouldn't make any sense. The most you can fault the man for is not wording the sentence more clearly. And if you are going to attack a book and author just because he doesn't always use the clearest choice in words, then attack me instead. I make far more errors in how I word things than he does.
Now, as to this idea that he holds tot he "Protestant view", prove it. There is nothing else in the book that suggests such a thing. And even if he did, it wasn't contained in the book. If you want to go after using books or writings that have heretical authors, then first turn a finger at the majority of hymns. They were written by people with all kinds of false beliefs and ungodly ideas ranging from works for salvation and universal kingdom.
Concerning
Gordon, not George***
ReplyDeleteFor more of the quote, "There is not one of them (with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, who, it has to be admitted, appeared to have a mind for practicality) I would have picked to lead a movement like the one Jesus clearly had in mind. No, I would not have picked any of them. But Jesus did, and His choices, Judas excluded, are unimpeachable." page 28, Ordering Your Private World by Gordon MacDonald.
ReplyDeleteNow, notice what the author was saying. Gordon was saying that HE (in his logical, worldly, physical point of view) would not have chosen ANY of these disciples, except for Judas. In his opinion, Judas is the only one separate from the group, separated to a higher standard from his worldly and logical mind. In this statement, he is more or less saying Jesus was justified in choosing Judas, even in his own logical, worldly point of view. YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS THE WORLDLY VIEW OF IT.
Then, he excludes Judas since the world already considers him a good choice. From this point, he approaches the question the reader might be asking, "What about the rest of the disciples?" The answer is, now with Judas out of the way (or excluding him, since we've already said he was a good, unimpeachable choice by our logical viewpoint), EVEN ALL the 11 others were unimpeachable.
He did not exclude Judas as one to be impeached. He was excluding him, because he had already clarified that the logical view is he is not impeachable. All Gordan here is saying, is that the man Judas was a good logical choice, and even though the rest don't seem to be, THEY ARE STILL UNIMPEACHABLE!
And I know to readers who do not know me, it appears as though I am defending this Gordon fellow as though I have an appreciation for the man. I want it known that I do not. I do not think the fellow is fit to be a pastor due to his own spiritual decisions in life. This book was written before those actions, however. And the book was chosen by the seminary professor (VERY WISE, and VERY CONSERVATIVE MAN) for a purpose. It contains mostly good points, with very little error.
ReplyDeleteSo I do not believe Gordon is a good man, or even a saved man. For all I know, he is lost and a heretic. But this book was a good book, and it was chosen by a respectable man to be used for class literature, and for a good reason. This is why I am defending the specific points argued against (dealing with the general topic of this subject). The arguments I hear against certain quotes (such as this book) are often taken out of context and attacked despite the fact that the author really didn't mean it the way it came across. We should probably be more fair to our doctrinally strong brethren, and give them the benefit of the doubt. If we do find they are in error, we would do better to encourage them than to tear them down and talk about them behind their backs.
AND BY THE WAY!!! To my knowledge, Brother Arch Bishop has never torn any brother down, or talked about them behind their backs. The comment was not made in reference to him. Merely to an attitude some I have heard.
"Ordering Your Private World" by Gordon McDonald, page 28, "The twelve men who followed Jesus Christ and later launched the church that bears His name were a curious and unpredictable group." The "later launched the church" refers to the origin of the church on the day of Pentecost, after Christ's death, burial, resurrection and ascension. On the same page, in the same paragraph, "No, I would not have picked any of them. But Jesus did, and His choices, Judas excluded, are unimpeachable." No matter what else the writer is saying, he did refer to Jesus' choice of Judas as impeachable. The truth is, Jesus chose Judas to fulfill the prophecy of being betrayed by his own familiar friend. Under any stretch of the imagination, Jesus' choice was not impeachable. BTW, that paragraph is the first in the chapter, there is no paragraph before it.
ReplyDeleteThe chapters before it contain paragraphs before it. I'm sorry for the confusion on this whole thing. Be honest. Do you really think an author who has just written an entire book to letting Jesus make choices for you would then claim Jesus makes bad choices we would want to impeach?
ReplyDeleteBrother Arch, I guess I just haven't noticed it before. I've rarely heard anyone use quotes of other men except those men I mentioned before. I don't think quotes are much for sermon material... except Scripture quoting.
ReplyDeleteA note of explanation for comment #8: First of all, I have refrained in the past from using names on my blog or in commenting on the blogs of others simply because of the difficulty of proving what is alleged. Secondly, the reason that I called the name of the brother and his church was not to slander but to give a real-life example of one who once was a steadfast defender of the faith but through corrupt associations came to depart from it (in doctrine and practice and not in leaving the ABA. I never said that he left the ABA nor intended to say so because I knew that not to be accurate). I used his name because if one knows who his family is, they know that his father was a Gribalter of the faith. Thirdly, I had seen partial evidence of what I had always heard and had myself claimed in my comment on the website of the last church that he pastored (that you would be receieved for membership if you had been immersed by a "Christian evangelical church") However, although it is still on the church's website that they believe that the Spirit baptizes believers into the body of Christ at salvation and that the church is made up of all saved persons, the specific aforementioned statement no longer appears there. Finally, because of the unavailabilty to me at this time of concrete proof of my claims (although it is common knowledge in the ABA and even more so in Texas that at least to a great degree they are true) and because of the ill-timing of these comments, I deleted all name-specific references to the man and the church that he last pastored. Because I had deleted my comments, I felt it therefore legitimate to also delete Bro. Freeman's.
ReplyDelete"So I do not believe Gordon is a good man, or even a saved man. For all I know, he is lost and a heretic. But this book was a good book, and it was chosen by a respectable man to be used for class literature, and for a good reason."
ReplyDeleteJust curious Bro. James,
So even if the man is lost, it would be good to use his writings as a seminary textbook? Just had to throw that out there. lol
How do you know your teachers are saved?
ReplyDeleteBefore someone jumps on that last statement, lemme clarify. I believe they all are saved. But I do not KNOW b/c it is between Jesus and them. The same with Mr. Gordon who claims to be saved by grace through faith.
ReplyDelete