In my evangelistic travels I have always enjoyed the opportunity to meet and visit with people and to hear about life in the communities where they live. Strange stories about how some people think have always caught my attention and stayed with me. One man related to me that he knew a man in his community that had a prized axe that had been in the family for many years. The man viewed it as an heirloom. It was said that as the old man reminisces about the axe, he includes a story about how he had to replace its handle after it had broken. Then there is also the story about how years ago during the time his father used it the axe head itself had been lost and replaced. The implication and significance of those two merely incidental replacements were lost upon the old man because in his thinking he had the axe his family had always used.
When the present presidential leadership of Central Baptist Theological Seminary speaks of continuing the heritage and vision of that institution, he can only do so in the same way that the above old man did of his “family’s” axe. There was nothing original left of the old axe, but since the individual parts had been changed out separately with much time elapsing between the events it was possible to think that the axe was something that it no longer was. So is the case with CBTS.
Since the institution was founded upon a separatistic Fundamentalist foundation and firmly set by its founders to maintain that same course, any current claims of continuing in that heritage coupled to an attached statement that expresses a desire to have “careful, limited fellowship” with Evangelicals, albeit those who believe that they are somehow conservative, is nothing more than imaginative thinking.
A quick review of the “changed out parts” of Fundamentalism at CBTS by Dr. Bauder
It is generally acknowledged that Fundamentalism has three essentials. The first is Biblical doctrine, the second is Biblical militancy, and the third, is Biblical separation. In each of these three vital areas, Dr. Bauder has made alterations that are inconsistent with and subvert CBTS’ Fundamental heritage. In order to make these changes seem necessary, he has set on a course to systematically redefine Fundamentalism by changing its history and terms and maligning many of its leaders. I covered many of the historical issues in my nine part series entitled “Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism” [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9] so I will refrain from repeating that material in this post.
I subsequently followed up that series with two articles covering his replacement definition of ecclesiastical separation as he narrowed it from being church-purity focused to instead being Gospel-purity focused. The first of these was “Is Ecclesiastical Separation about a Pure Church or a Pure Gospel?” which was an introduction at my blog to my article “A Pure Church or a Pure Gospel: Does it Really Matter?” guest published at In Defense of the Gospel blog. The second piece was “There Is a Difference and It’s a Name Changer.“
Fundamentalism’s position on personal separation has greatly suffered as well falling victim to Dr. Bauder’s declared inability for the Scriptures to have any direct application to anyone not personally addressed in the Biblical text thus making any and all of the Bible’s applications totally and undeniable dependent upon the relative strengths or weaknesses of extra-Biblical means. There is more detail about this further down in this post.
I will not be taking the time in this post to examine what changes Dr. Bauder may have made to CBTS’s educational approach or its understanding of revival or spiritual power. [BTW, Don Johnson has posted an article which includes a discussion about CBTS’s ethos statement on “revivalism” at his blog an ox goad, eh? in “A New Fundamentalist Manifesto?“]
I do want to add some pertinent remarks concerning a change in emphasis regarding leadership qualities. Dr. Bauder views with contempt the strong leadership represented by many of Fundamentalism’s leaders and promotes instead servant-leadership. Dr. Rolland McCune commented on the rising servant-leadership issue within Fundamentalism in his review of Dr. Doug McLachlan’s book Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. About this leadership issue Dr. McCune wrote,
The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance. [Emphasis added] 1
A closer look at some other strange “cuts” left by Dr. Bauder’s new axe
Here are some strange “cuts” left from what is supposed to be a Fundamentalist axe.
1. I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe speaks of the Gospel as having assumptions and implication as part of its essence.
What is the gospel? Paul described it as the message that Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-8). The gospel assumes that we have sinned, that our sins have placed us under God’s wrath, and that we cannot save ourselves. It assumes that Christ is returning to execute God’s judgment upon the living and the dead. It assumes that Christ is a qualified sin-bearer, i.e., that He is truly divine and truly human, born of a virgin, sinless in His person, and righteous in all His acts. It assumes that we have an authoritative, inerrant source from which to learn all of these things. The list of truths that are assumed in or implied by the gospel is quite long, and we do not yet know everything that belongs on it. What we do know, however, is that these assumptions and implications are extremely important, so important that to deny any one of them is to deny the gospel itself. These necessary assumptions and implications of the gospel are called the fundamentals. A fundamental doctrine is precisely a doctrine that is essential to the gospel. 2
With all due respect given to whom it is due, but making such statements in regards to the Gospel on the assumed basis that 1 Corinthians 15 provides the singular, limited, definition of the Gospel reveals an incredibly, ineffective exegesis ability for a seminary president. The Gospel of Mark itself begins with these instructive words, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Let it be stated without equivocation that the assumptions or implications concerning the Gospel, as Dr. Bauder speaks, are themselves a part of the actual Gospel.
Fundamentalism rejects a theology that says that the Bible contains the Word of God. It should also reject a theology that places the Gospel on a slippery slope of assumptions and implications.
2. I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe would come to these conclusions about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ in response to the Da Vinci Code.
Getting married and begetting children are human activities. If Jesus had married, He would have been a husband according to His human nature. If He had begotten children, He would have been a father according to His human nature. Since the properties of the divine nature do not display themselves in the human nature, Jesus’ children would not have received anything from His divine nature. They could, perhaps, be called “children of God” in the same sense that Mary can be called “mother of God,” but their nature and constitution would be purely and simply human. They would not have been miraculous beings. Since they would have been born from a purely human mother, and since they would not have received Jesus’ divine nature, they would have been sinners, standing in need of salvation.
Some might find it odd to suggest that Jesus’ children (if He had begotten any) would need Him to be their Savior. Is that really any more unusual, however, than the fact that His mother, Mary, needed Him to be her Savior? Yet the Bible explicitly states that she acknowledged her need of a Savior (Luke 1:47).
The conclusion seems to be inescapable. As a genuinely human being, Jesus could have married. Nothing about His deity would have made a marriage unthinkable. No moral precept would have prohibited it. A married Jesus would not be incompatible with biblical Christianity in any way.
Neither would Jesus as a parent. As a true human, Jesus could have fathered children. Parenthood would not have contradicted His deity. No moral precept would have prohibited His fatherhood. His children would have been ordinary human beings, sinners like all others, standing in need of a Savior. A Jesus who begat children would not contradict biblical Christianity in any way. 3
My Bible tells me,
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Hebrews 10:5-7
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. Titus 3:9
Years ago while I visited a prominent Washington DC area IFB church, the assistant pastor who led the Sunday School class substituted a video portrayal of the life of Christ in place of a lesson. The “Christ” in the video was a laughing, prankster type who stepped back out of the reach of a women coming to touch him for healing only then to smile and laugh as he came back close enough for her to be healed. In the discussion that ensued I noted two important comments. The first was from a wise old man who said he was offended at such a light, profane portrayal of Christ. He reminded the class that according to the Scriptures Christ was the Man of Sorrow and also that we are never told in the Scriptures that He laughed. The second remark was that of a foolish women who retorted, “In my own mind that is how I like to think of Jesus.” To that retort of hers and to what Dr. Bauder has written I say, “None of us are allowed to think of the Lord Jesus Christ other than as He is revealed in the Scriptures.”
It was not God’s will for Christ to marry; therefore, it is foolishness to discuss its pros or cons.
Furthermore, while Christ was in the flesh, in no way was He given to the experience of being in the flesh. Being in the flesh was for Him a humiliation not any what a fulfillment. Yes, He ate food like we must eat food, but I doubt that He ever remarked that anything He ate was exquisitely good. Things which pertained to His flesh were things to be endured not things to be sought after.
Finally about this subject, there is a direct contradiction in thought to assert as true both that Christ had to be born of a virgin to be sinless and that if He were to reproduce His offspring would be sinful. If the second part is true, then Christ’s own sinlessness is brought into question because the same thing that would make His own children sinners would have made Him a sinner though He were born of virgin with no earthly father. If the first part is true, then stating that He would produce sinful offspring likewise brings direct questions against His own sinlessness because that sinful nature in His offspring could only come from Him.
3. I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe would opine like this on same-gender attraction.
As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality. Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.
The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.
and this
My response is that same-sex attractions by themselves are no disqualification from church membership. They are no disqualification from church office. They should be no disqualification from the friendship of God’s people. In fact, same-sex attractions by themselves should not even hinder Christians from entering the marriage covenant and bearing children.
Attractions are things to be managed. They can be rejected, or they can be dwelt upon and acted upon. They can be learned and unlearned. Those who reject them and seek to unlearn them are not to be judged as if they had acted upon them. 4
The Bible clearly states that to arrive at such a place men have first walked a long way from God and so corrupted themselves that God has given them up to a reprobate mind to do things they otherwise would not do.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Romans 1:26-28
Dr. Bauder appears to be giving credence to evolutionary science whose consensus is that people are born with same-gender attractions. The Scripture gives no support to the notion of natural same-gender attraction.
Furthermore, sin is not to be managed and indeed it cannot be. It is a master over men, and never mastered by them. Christ’s death and resurrection are the basis for present victory over sin for believers because the power of sin has been broken.
4. Finally, I do not believe that a Fundamentalist axe denies the ability of the Scriptures to be authoritative in respect to its applications.
Without second-premise arguments, we would not be able to apply Scripture at all. Because our names do not occur in the text, the applicability of virtually every biblical promise, command, prohibition, and principle depends upon some version of the second-premise argument. This is true even in the matter of salvation. Here is an example.
Biblical principle: God commands all humans everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
Outside premise: I am a human.
Conclusion: God commands me to repent.This argument is so natural for us that we do not even realize that we are making it. Unless we did, however, we could not apply the text to our own situation. The strength of the argument depends upon the certainty of the assertion that we are humans. Since our confidence in this assertion is unshakable, we regard the application of the text as certain.
Precisely because they do not come from Scripture, second premises are always subject to evaluation. To question a second premise is not to question biblical authority. Second premises can and should be examined. 5
Let us pay strict attention to what is being said. If the Scriptures cannot be applied at all without some second premise arguments, if all second premise arguments are formed extra-Biblically upon mere human frameworks whether that is our faulty human reasonings, our imperfect human sciences, or our deceitful human experiences, and if all applications made thereby are necessarily always subject to human re-evaluation, does it all amount to nothing more than a novel way of undermining Biblical authority? Confessing that the Scriptures are authoritative but then hedging all of its applications upon human weaknesses makes the confession useless in the end. Where is the “old axe” whose “cut” left a confident “Thus saith the LORD” in its preaching and teaching?
The failure of the second premise argument can be seen even in the simple, undisputable example provided by Dr. Bauder. Being a human according to extra-Biblical standards is not as certain as he suggests. African-Americans (and Native Americans among other groups) were not viewed as humans during a shameful period of American history. The Constitution did not view them fully human. There was published science which affirmed they were not. Sadly, many churches and Christians felt the same way, If African-Americans were to have relied on Dr. Bauder’s second premise argument to know whether they could be saved, they would have had no confidence in the matter. (By the way, even today evolutionary science teaches men that they are only a type of animal rather than created in the likeness of God.) As for me, I am completely confident in my own humanity but not because of science, the testimony of others, or even self-awareness. I know beyond a shadow of any doubt that I am human in need of salvation because the Bible itself and the witness of the Holy Spirit to the Bible’s truth tell me that I am.
What do all these strange “cuts” by his axe reveal concerning its nature?
Affirming that the Scriptures have absolutely no authoritative application is a “cut” left from an axe, though eerily familiarly to me, it is definitely not the axe of Biblical Fundamentalism. I remember who it was that taught that the Scriptures were to be subjected to human reasoning, do you? I also remember what the reaction to that premise was, do you? Now that some men, who desire to creep in unawares within Biblical Fundamentalism, are attempting to attach a sanitized human reasoning to a novel “ideal” Fundamentalism and promote its prudent use in theology, discerning men see it for what it really is. It is not the axe that used to be wielded at CBTS and there are more than a few people who knew that this is true.
My brethren, these are serious matters that the faithful Christian cannot ignore. A fervent and robust defense of the Biblical Faith is still in order especially in light of certain men now publicly declaring that they want the pens and voices of the critics to be silenced.
- Dr. Rolland McCune, “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992),” Detroit Theological Baptist Seminary, Allen Park , MI, November 1994.
-
Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “The Importance of Separation,” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 4 August 2006. Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20060804.pdf.
-
Dr. Bauder, “The Da Vinci Code, Part Eight – Could Jesus Marry?” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 28 April 2006. Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20060421.pdf.
-
Dr. Bauder,”A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing,” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 2 July 2010. Viewed then at http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/222-reflections-on-an-outing. Updated link: http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/267-a-brief-interruption-reflections-on-an-outing
-
Dr. Bauder, “Now About Those Differences, Part 7 -Second Premise Arguments,” In the Nick of Time, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, 16 July 2010. Viewed at http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/226-now-about-those-differences-pt-7.
August 30, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
Thanks Gordon for the article.
August 30, 2010 at 9:57 pm |
Yes, Gordon, thanks. If ever I doubted Dr. Bauder, I doubt him no longer. As a result of your essays, I am seriously considering increasing my financial support to the seminary under his leadership. Rest assured that he is the primary reason I’m giving the support in the first place.
Good grief, man, if you’re going to disagree with somebody, at least try to understand him first. Either you don’t understand Dr. Bauder (which just makes you look silly) or you do understand him but you are constructing straw-men to knock down for the benefit of those with more interest in fighting than thinking (which makes you look insidious).
You are unwittingly making Bauder’s case even better than he can. I thank God that he is standing between men like you and the students there at Central.
August 30, 2010 at 10:43 pm |
Lamentans,
I am not so much interested in gaining a greater understanding of Dr. Bauder as I am of Scriptural truths. If my meeting and getting to know Dr. Bauder is all it would take to change my mind about what he is promoting, I would be a respector of persons rather than faithful to God and His Word. Truth not men’s person is the element of conviction for me.
Please refrain from derogatory labels in the future as it reveals less than sobermindedness.
September 2, 2010 at 10:08 am |
Gordon:
I have been immensely busy of late, but I do want you to know how much I appreciate your efforts here. This is a needed discussion and uncloaking of what is coming from Kevin Bauder.
LM
April 19, 2011 at 9:55 am |
Update:
I am aware that since January 2011 this post has been getting renewed attention with most reading it via RSS syndication.
Just today there was an article in the New York Times on MSNBC.com entitled “Gays fight for identity at religious colleges.” There are some important things to note from that article.
First, the SBC’s largest university Baylor allows open homosexuals to be enrolled.
So much for today’s SBC being a place of conservative evangelicalism where the liberalism of the past has been driven out.
Second, I find it very telling that the exact principle that Dr. Kevin T. Bauder of CBTS advocates is the same universally recognized and practiced principle of evangelical educational institutions which is that there is a real difference between attractions and behavior.
How long will it be before “Fundamental” academic institutions that have adopted this unbiblical evangelical principle on homosexuality which attempts to make a distinction between same-sex attraction and behavior have the same problems now facing the colleges and universities mentioned in this article?
1. Erik Eckholm, “Gays fight for identity at religious colleges: Students worry if holding hands could jeopardize scholarships or risk expulsion,” The New York Times, updated April 19, 2011. Retrived on April 19, 2011 from The New York Times on MSNBC.com at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42656837/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times
2. Ibid.
April 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
Gordon:
Thanks for keeping this updated along with the trends.
Lou
June 17, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
Update 2:
Here ia a link to an AP story about Dr. Albert Mohler of SBTS speaking about homosexuality at a SBC meeting in Phoenix recently- “Mohler says Baptists must repent of homophobia.”
and
How do these two statements go together? “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.” and “We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice.” How is his statement that homosexuality is “more than a choice” a change in Biblical application towards homosexuals rather than an actually change of the Biblical truth about homosexuality? Where did he and any other person learn that homosexuality was clearly more than a choice? The Scriptures or “science”?
November 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
I believe your comment about black people considering their humanness actually strengthened the point that Bauder was making. Maybe you should read that again, and try to think logically.
November 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
I disagree.
I did not suggest that because of a previously faulty second premise African Americans or any others should now consider their humanness on the basis of a different second premise that now affirms it. I said that they should look at the Scripture and rely on the Spirit.
Let’s think Biblically instead of logically.
Its the Holy Spirit that affirms God’s truth and its proper personal application to us not our human reasoning of it all.
November 8, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
I stand corrected. I guess I should have read your comment more carefully!
Nevertheless, I believe Bauder’s point was that we often make decisions with the text too quickly, subconsciously using second-premises that may or may not be accurate. In the case presented, the second premise WAS accurate on the authority of the BIble.
Bauder’s purpose was not in any way to undermine the authority of the Bible, but to help us accurately interpret and apply it’s authoritative message. Not understanding the fact that we often make subconscious second-premise decisions can lead us to mistakes in application. I think it is silly to call it a “novel way of undermining Biblical authority.” Just saying, “thus says the Lord” is not very helpful if we are misapplying what the Lord says.
November 8, 2011 at 11:11 pm
I must disagree again.
Let me be clear, I completely reject the idea that second premises are the means to apply Biblical truth. I affirm that the Holy Spirit is the singular means for arriving at the proper application of Scripture.
You said, “Nevertheless, I believe Bauder’s point was that we often make decisions with the text too quickly, subconsciously using second-premises that may or may not be accurate.” If it is freely admitted that we often make decisions with a text using a second premise that may be inaccurate, what confidence could there ever be that we are now making the right decision with a text in light of a different second premise? If one can be faulty, isn’t it admitting that the next one could be too? When does it end with complete assurance that this time we’ve got the application right because we are finally using the right second premise?
I do not believe that the application of the God-breathed Scriptures is left to the faultiness of human logic. The Holy Spirit witnesses to the truth and its application.
My pointing out the serious error of certain men who are directing believers away from a dependence upon the Holy Spirit to human reasoning is by no means “silly”.
November 8, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Your position seems rather idealistic. People misinterpret and misapply Scripture everyday. Even Spirit-indwelt, Spirit-led people. I agree that it is through the Holy Spirit that we can come to understand Scripture, but He does not illuminate it in a mystical way, but through the human use of thought (logic).
2 Tim 2:7 “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.”
I believe this “thinking” includes investigating what second premises we are using, and whether or not they are false. We are told to think; to use our minds to find the correct understanding/application of God’s words. Yes, that is subjective, and opens the door for error in our thinking, but it is necessary. That is why God so strongly tells us to THINK throughout Scripture! Logic in interpreting is unavoidable; the question is, how good will your logic be?
“I do not believe that the application of the God-breathed Scriptures is left to the faultiness of human logic.” It will be to some extent whether or not you want it to be. Even your understanding of interpretation is based on (possibly faulty) logic.
November 9, 2011 at 12:48 am |
“Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things,” means quite obviously to consider the Scriptures not anything else including man’s useless, extra-biblical second premises.
Timothy was not to waste his time being consumed with his own personal thoughts about what was written, but he was to be consumed with thinking God’s thoughts as there were revealed in the very words Paul wrote.
I encourage you and all others to do the same.
Finally, (and I do mean finally) thanks for helping others see and understand with clarity that the second premise means is unequivocally a means that accepts error and a lack of confidence as normative and the best Almighty, Omniscient God could do when it came to how believers, though indwelt by God’s own Spirit, would arrive at the proper applications of His plenary verbal inspired, inerrant, preserved Word.
November 9, 2011 at 10:22 am |
Mike,
My “finally” in my previous comment was meant to be a polite way of informing you that I considered the conversation between us on this subject over. I am not going to allow the comment feature of this blog to be a means for others to promote their unbiblical ideas. You don’t seem to be interested in learning but instructing. I did not begin this blog as a means for me to interact with others and learn from them. It is meant as a place for me to teach some of the things that I have learned to be a help to others.
For the record again, no matter what example you want to bring to bear upon the subject I do not concede the acceptability of the second premise means as the God-intended means for properly applying His Scriptures. Your subtle juxtaposing of sugar and tobacco in advancing your argument obviously would beguile some to accept that human reasoning is unavoidable, but you err in it. A believer doesn’t need “science” to know whether or not to use tobacco. Isaiah 65:5 makes it fairly plain that smoke is an unwelcome irritant not a sought after pleasure to the nostrils.
If we want to be honest about the use of second premises as it pertains to applying Scripture, let’s find its actual use in Scripture. I find that it is the means that led Eve through the beguiling and urging of the subtle serpent to err in her application. When she turned her thoughts away from the simplicity of what God commanded and began to judge it by other means, she sinned. (By the way, could it be said that the best “science” of her day assured her that eating the fruit wouldn’t result in her death? How did that work out for her? Applications can have consequences for people that can leave them scarred which is exactly why God would not leave it up to us!)
I believe that in the New Testament the Corinthians would be a good example of a church where second premises would be promoted. It was by this fleshly-puffed-up-knowledge means that they convinced themselves to eat things offered until idols and accept fornication in their midst among many other things.
The use of the second premise means while stated as necessary to protect God’s people from error is actually a means to promote error and to cause believers to depart from the proper application of Scriptures in regard to separation from worldliness.
The Bible is a spiritual book-the very words of God and, therefore, not in any way like the rest of literature produced by man. The higher critic rejects this truth. Second premise advocates, in my estimation, are promoting the same kind of error. This means promotes man’s place and his wisdom and diminishes the place and wisdom of the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:10-14:
June 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
Update 3
The issue of an evolving position on homosexuality within Evangelicalism continues unabated.
Here is a link to an AP news story about another change this time with Exodus International. Here are a few important excerpts:
It is impossible for a man to cure himself or another person of homosexuality, but nothing is impossible with God. There is a reason why things in the Bible don’t work for people, but the problem isn’t the Scriptures. The problem is a lack of faith in what God has said. It is so predictable for men to make God at fault for what is solely man’s lack of faith.
August 20, 2012 at 11:08 am |
I read an article today at the FBFI’s blog about homosexuality. The author referenced material from Life Ministries of NY. Here is an article written by Joanne Highley on the subject on homosexual desire. You can read it here. Here are a few snippets for your consideration.
Further down in the article she wrote this.
Not being any what knowledgeable of Life Ministries beyond what is presented here, please don’t take from this a recommendation of them. I included these quotes to show that there is a real and distinct difference between the position this article sets forth and that of Dr. Bauder and Dr, Mohler and a growing chorus in “conservative” Evangelicalism. However, what matters more to me is the difference between this growing chorus of voices and the Scriptures.