So I finally started reading the Shack...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree we should be careful in calling our impulses 'judgments of the Spirit'. Absolutely. Do you deny that it is possible to make a judgment in the Spirit?

Well, I'm Reformed now, so I guess my answer is 'it depends on how we define these terms'. I believe that there is such a thing as illumination--that we pray, ask for wisdom, etc, and in some sense God will help us, grant us wisdom, etc. BUT I do not believe in revelation--the idea that we can just empty out our minds and wait for a guiding impulse to strike us or speak words into our minds.

My experience with these things is that 'I feel a leading from the Lord' and 'I'm stepping out on faith' are the two most common phrases people utter before they do something really stupid. (Well, the second and third most common maybe. The top one is probably, "Hey, everybody watch this!")

And the reason is that these things are treated as infallible. If I get an urge to do something weird that I can't explain, I might tend to think that it must be from God, and so I say to you, "dr_parsley, I really feel led by God to jump in front of this train" or whatever. And at that point, there probably is no way to stop me. You can say, "Sister, that is unwise." And I would say, "But I am led by God." It is the ultimate conversation-stopper, because no one would dare to argue with God, nor am I free anymore to even change my mind (now that I have said God is leading me) lest I disobey God.

Do results prove whether it was 'from God'? As I always tend to say, things are complicated. It is rarely a straight if-then premise on anything. Question #1 would be, "How do you define results?" It is quite easy to 'convert' people if you make God out to be whoever they want Him to be, but in that case, you haven't really converted them so much as given them a false god to worship. There are people who feel quite blessed by the sight of the image of the Virgin in a grease-spot on their driveway, but I don't know that this indicates real spiritual progress.

Question #2 would be, "Are positive results always the indicator of God's approval?" The response to Stephen's preaching was that he was stoned, whereas there were many false prophets who swayed the hearts of Israel. There are many small churches that are faithful to the gospel and yet Benny Hinn can draw huge crowds.

On the other hand, I have known people to go through stages in their spiritual walk. For example, one of my dearest friends is a pastor who was converted in a Oneness (meaning they don't believe in the Trinity) Pentecostal church. Up to that point, he had been an atheist and a dreadful sinner, but his conversion was instant and profound. But it was not until many years later, as a pastor of a Oneness church, that he came to a better understanding of the Bible and the Trinity. He was baptized in the Trinity in front of his congregation and turned his church into a Reformed church (although, admittedly, a slightly unusual and eccentric one). He and I both would fully agree that his original conversion was a real work of God, even though it was based upon incomplete and faulty knowledge at the time. In the end, it served as a stepping-stone to a better understanding.

BUT I think my friend and I would also both agree that it is NOT (as a general rule) a good idea to introduce people to God that way. Neither my friend nor myself would ever say to ourselves, "I think I'll take Fred over to Oneness Church of the Crazy Heretics so that they can convert him, and I'll just explain about the Trinity at some later time."

However, at this point, what is done is done in regard to your father. So I'll just say, "May God indeed use it for good." I have known God to use weirder stuff than The Shack to turn someone in the right direction. BUT if God does indeed use it for good, let it not be said that it is because The Shack is a good idea ... but just that God is a merciful God.

_____________________________

As a side note to another line of thought here .... after thinking this over ....

I'm not really sure that the 'strip-club' analogy is appropriate (although it does make sort of a point). I think that it would be very difficult for any normal healthy adult male to avoid breaking commandments at least against adultery in one's heart in that type of an environment. However, I think most mature Christians can avoid blaspheming God even while reading something blasphemous. In other words, the sin is not in READING the blasphemy and saying, "What dreadful blasphemy!" The sin would be actually blaspheming.

This is just to reflect what I said earlier about how I am uncomfortable with people being very restrictive in regard to what Christians are allowed to read. I think one is at liberty to refuse to read blasphemy and say, "I'm not going to waste my time with that." But there is no sin in reading it either, and one might even have good cause to do so (for example, to explain to others why it is blasphemous). My two cents.
 
Last edited:
Caroline,
What a well written post...I'm going to steal much of it if you don't mind. :eek:


But one comment on something you said:

In other words, the sin is not in READING the blasphemy and saying, "What dreadful blasphemy!" The sin would be actually blaspheming.

My only point was that reading those blasphemous, incorrect, disrespectful, things about the God that I love, made me want to puke.

I just cannot see why a Christian would want to read that any more than a person would want to read a book full of insults about their own mother.... :confused:
 
On a positive note, after my father, who does not believe in God, read it he started reading the bible every day...

Dr. Parsley,

Praise God that your dad is reading the bible. However, and please know that I am not trying to be presumptuous or judgmental or anything negative, but the book should not be recommended based on your fathers experience.

I agree. I actually did give it to him because I had a strong feeling that it could be used by God for my Dad given where he was in his thinking. One step on the road, not the final one. But I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to just anyone without knowledge of where they are because it could be unhelpful.

I see it a bit like any artwork. Some will derive spiritual benefit from looking at Rembrandt's "Prodigal Son", but some will latch on to the heresy that's hidden there to their detriment. In the end, it's just a work of man not intended for anyone to take authoritatively and I very much doubt that anyone would take it as an authority in any way; I think they would be stimulated to think and, as my Dad did, turn to the bible to find out more (and correct impressions gained from the book). Having said that, I do think younger people can be more impressionable and should probably steer well away from The Shack, as well as Rembrandt.

Is there one example in Scripture, especially from the OT, where the Lord actually spoke to his people through false prophets? I don't think so.

-----Added 7/8/2009 at 10:10:54 EST-----

I have to admit that dr_parsley has a point about something, which is that most people don't jump straight from one extreme to another. I'm not quite sure that giving someone 'The Shack' is quite the way to go about it .... but in the interest of providing more positive recommendations on something that is a very realistic problem ....

So, if you know that you can't reach someone by handing them Calvin's Institutes, what exactly do you do? What is a good 'halfway point' idea?

Calvin's "A Brief Outline the Christian Faith" published as "Truth for all time" by The Banner of Truth Trust
 
Caroline,
What a well written post...I'm going to steal much of it if you don't mind. :eek:


But one comment on something you said:

In other words, the sin is not in READING the blasphemy and saying, "What dreadful blasphemy!" The sin would be actually blaspheming.

My only point was that reading those blasphemous, incorrect, disrespectful, things about the God that I love, made me want to puke.

I just cannot see why a Christian would want to read that any more than a person would want to read a book full of insults about their own mother.... :confused:

Thanks! And yes, I completely agree that Christians generally probably wouldn't waste time with stuff that is blasphemy. I would note here that I actually have not read The Shack for that very reason (I see no compelling reason to waste my time that way). My only purpose in saying it was that I don't think it's necessarily a sin to read it. In fact, there seem to be quite a few here that have read at least some of it for various reasons, and I would not say that it is the same as if they had gone to a strip club. But your point is well taken also. Sometimes I do think Christians tend to read stuff just for shock value, and that's not always helpful.

Calvin's "A Brief Outline the Christian Faith" published as "Truth for all time" by The Banner of Truth Trust

Thanks! I'll check it out. If it's in normal English, I'm sold. :)
 
And Caroline,
My main reason for answering you was to tell you how well you put your previous post...not to disagree, that was just a minor thing.

bob
 
I'm not really sure that the 'strip-club' analogy is appropriate (although it does make sort of a point). I think that it would be very difficult for any normal healthy adult male to avoid breaking commandments at least against adultery in one's heart in that type of an environment. However, I think most mature Christians can avoid blaspheming God even while reading something blasphemous. In other words, the sin is not in READING the blasphemy and saying, "What dreadful blasphemy!" The sin would be actually blaspheming.

Caroline, I'm glad you're on the board.
 
I recently started reading "The Shack."

I was challenged by a pastor-friend of mine who said that I "wasn't qualified to comment on it's contents if I hadn't read it through."

While I think that's flawed thinking, I got a copy used off of Amazon to read.

While I have no interest in the book (or time to develop an interest) I heartily agree with your pastor-friend. Too often Christians think they are capable of commenting on something they have not read (or only read pieces and parts from others) when they know only those pieces and parts.

One of the criticisms I often lay at the feet of those that say the Bible is full of contradictions and errors follows immediately after asking "When was the last time you read the whole Bible?" which almost invariably gets a "Well, I haven't read the whole thing, I've just read parts from this book that shows the errors". The fallacy of their logic is that they have not checked if what the author of the book was saying was in any way true. To be able to critique a book, you need to have read it. You do not judge a man based on what someone else says without careful investigation.

-----Added 7/8/2009 at 10:16:54 EST-----

And also, there is the perception that ALL books and resources have some issues, so you have to "pick out the good, while leaving the bad"....

I ask...why wade through a dung pile on the hope that their MIGHT be a dime underneath...?

You need not do so. And that is perfectly appropriate a decision. What I think is also appropriate is to say that "I started reading the book, found it full of errors in the first part, and decided it was not worth continuing to be able to give a full critique."

I have never read it ... so I won't comment on the book itself. (Though if someone asks me about it, I can at least say I know people I trust that have said it is not worth reading, but I would add that I have not read it myself.)
 
Does one have to formally study and know every facet of garbage to recognize it?

Not necessarily, but I suppose it depends on your goal. If you are merely looking to avoid garbage, then no in-depth study is needed. If you are in the business of cleaning up various types of garbage and pollution, then it is quite necessary.

I think Brian does have a point here, and perhaps one that I should have considered more thoroughly. I don't think The Shack has ever been important for me to read (I read the back cover and read a review and decided that was quite enough), but I do run a website for ex-Pentecostals, so I am frequently asked read Pentecostal articles or listen to sermon clips and help someone understand why it isn't biblical. Mostly, we've got ex-UPCI folks, so The Shack isn't a big issue ... but I did have to read Ruth Harvey's Kingdom Kid series recently, wherein we learn that it makes Jesus feel like throwing up when he sees girls wearing pants. (Seriously. I'm not making that up. And there's a helpful Q&A in the back: "If you love Jesus, will you want to make him feel sick?")

So I guess we all have to do our share of wading in garbage from time to time. Maybe there's a John 13:10 reference here, but I'm tired and can't think of it, so I'll sign off for now.
 
Just a couple of minor points, because I think we're talking past each other somewhat now...

I agree we should be careful in calling our impulses 'judgments of the Spirit'. Absolutely. Do you deny that it is possible to make a judgment in the Spirit?

My experience with these things is that 'I feel a leading from the Lord' and 'I'm stepping out on faith' are the two most common phrases people utter before they do something really stupid. (Well, the second and third most common maybe. The top one is probably, "Hey, everybody watch this!")

And the reason is that these things are treated as infallible.

We move in different circles! This is extremely rare in my experience. I don't know if the English are less prone to this, or why are experiences are so different, but there you go.

I'm not really sure that the 'strip-club' analogy is appropriate (although it does make sort of a point). I think that it would be very difficult for any normal healthy adult male to avoid breaking commandments at least against adultery in one's heart in that type of an environment.

Off the topic and a minor point, but maybe men can be more mature than your generalisation seems to give them credit for here... not that I would go into a strip club, mind you. For instance, here in Zululand people don't think breasts are a big deal (even though Zulu women tend to be well endowed); if you go to the local (Christian) school's sport's day on a hot day you might see lots of teenage girls doing the 100m sprint completely topless, but do the Christian male teachers have a problem? I don't think so because the context is not sexual. Similarly, many of us wouldn't find a strip club to be a sexual context because we've been trained to find our only sexual context to be that of our marriage bed.
 
Brother P,

I'm very glad that your Dads first question was "does this reflect Christianity"...he's much smarter than many Christians that I know!

I wonder sometimes if many Christians do have a tendency to be more gullible, more so than the general population. I think people have quite a lot of experience at spotting lies and error and are wary of anyone with an agenda. They don't want to get taken in by that used car salesman, and they're quick to spot the errors and guile of politicians (at least politicians in the other camp to themselves!). It seems to me that Christians can become "open minded", which is of course a terribly dangerous thing to be, but I don't think the general population is particularly so.

I guess for me the bottom line is; I love God, so when someone writes a book and "disses" Him, the things He's taught, the things He's revealed, the things that He's set up, then I get mad! :soapbox:

That's utterly commendable. I think one of the requirements to be a missionary (where I find myself) is to be less sensitive to such things. If I were that sensitive I wouldn't last 3 months. I employ 3 pastors and when I do interviews one of my questions is "What is the gospel?" and never has anyone given a satisfactory answer, even though these people all pastor a church. The most I've ever got is "If we believe in Jesus, then we'll be saved", and I won't tell you what the least I got was. Now extrapolate and think about the general doctrinal state of the 500 churches in my catchment area.

What makes me mad is when a local man (and his son) is regularly raping the orphan he took into his household and is an absolute thief and crook; and yet this man is a respected pastor with a significantly sized ministry, claiming he heals AIDS and has raised people from the dead, and he's doing all this in the name of Jesus and when I oppose him his whole church is praying to Jesus against me and he's saying Jesus is protecting him against my murderous attacks. Now THAT makes me mad. The devil is abroad my friend. I see The Shack as a childish book written by a sincere man who has a cuddly God; it's childish in its writing as well as its content, but I find I can't get too excited about that when there are much much bigger issues to contend with. But, as I say, I respect your reaction and don't say one reaction is somehow better; I just feel a bit like I wish I had the luxury of having that reaction.

Back to my dad, he's read maybe 10 books in his 65 years; there's no way he's going to read Calvin's Brief Outline, but he did read The Shack (I thought he wouldn't) and the Christian elements in that book may be used by God. The heretical elements will do little or no damage to a person already dead.
 
While I have no interest in the book (or time to develop an interest) I heartily agree with your pastor-friend. Too often Christians think they are capable of commenting on something they have not read (or only read pieces and parts from others) when they know only those pieces and parts.


I think that we can be able to comment on something if we haven't read it cover to cover.

Example: How many Christians do you know who've NEVER read the bible all of the way through, COVER TO COVER at least once.

I know plenty. Pastors even.


By this logic, they're not qualified to comment on the contents of the bible until they've done so... :eek:


PS: just to make sure everyone on this thread understands; I came to the same conclusion after reading the book as I did from the reviews by Mohler, Challies, etc...it didn't change my outlook one bit except to show me that they were being generous in their criticisms.
 
Just a couple of minor points, because I think we're talking past each other somewhat now...

I agree we should be careful in calling our impulses 'judgments of the Spirit'. Absolutely. Do you deny that it is possible to make a judgment in the Spirit?

My experience with these things is that 'I feel a leading from the Lord' and 'I'm stepping out on faith' are the two most common phrases people utter before they do something really stupid. (Well, the second and third most common maybe. The top one is probably, "Hey, everybody watch this!")

And the reason is that these things are treated as infallible.

We move in different circles! This is extremely rare in my experience. I don't know if the English are less prone to this, or why are experiences are so different, but there you go.

If you look up the Agapemone you can see that at least some time ago it was not true that the English were less prone to that sort of thing.
 
PS: just to make sure everyone on this thread understands; I came to the same conclusion after reading the book as I did from the reviews by Mohler, Challies, etc...it didn't change my outlook one bit except to show me that they were being generous in their criticisms.

Exactly. What was the value in reading it? Well, I now have very slanted views of Michael W Smith, Eugene Peterson (already had one on him), and William Young, as well as other in-the-eye-of-the-public Christians who gave favorable reviews. It was so much worse than I thought.
 
\

Off the topic and a minor point, but maybe men can be more mature than your generalisation seems to give them credit for here... not that I would go into a strip club, mind you. For instance, here in Zululand people don't think breasts are a big deal (even though Zulu women tend to be well endowed); if you go to the local (Christian) school's sport's day on a hot day you might see lots of teenage girls doing the 100m sprint completely topless, but do the Christian male teachers have a problem? I don't think so because the context is not sexual. Similarly, many of us wouldn't find a strip club to be a sexual context because we've been trained to find our only sexual context to be that of our marriage bed.

Ok, that's just over the top! You are tempting the devil by saying that a strip club doesn’t have a sexual context. Your ignoring heterosexuality, depravity, sexuality, and so much more. I would say for men one of the CORE temptations is flesh/eyes, and worshipping the creation rather than the creator (1 John 2:15/16, Romans 8:6-8, Matt 4:8/9, Romans 1:24)

I think it horrible advice to believe you (HETEROsexual male) can enter a strip club and be 'ok' and untempted. I'd say if you can, possibly you're glorified, not just justified and experiencing sanctification, I'd think sanctification must be OVER for you!

This conversation is just getting RIDICULOUS. Are we sola-scriptura here? Because I have provided a scriptural refutation and gotten back,’ I feel' 'I don’t think'; I, I, I!

I'm stopping because I'm feeling fleshy in this post. :soapbox:
 
\

Off the topic and a minor point, but maybe men can be more mature than your generalisation seems to give them credit for here... not that I would go into a strip club, mind you. For instance, here in Zululand people don't think breasts are a big deal (even though Zulu women tend to be well endowed); if you go to the local (Christian) school's sport's day on a hot day you might see lots of teenage girls doing the 100m sprint completely topless, but do the Christian male teachers have a problem? I don't think so because the context is not sexual. Similarly, many of us wouldn't find a strip club to be a sexual context because we've been trained to find our only sexual context to be that of our marriage bed.

Ok, that's just over the top! You are tempting the devil by saying that a strip club doesn’t have a sexual context. Your ignoring heterosexuality, depravity, sexuality, and so much more. I would say for men one of the CORE temptations is flesh/eyes, and worshipping the creation rather than the creator (1 John 2:15/16, Romans 8:6-8, Matt 4:8/9, Romans 1:24)

I think it horrible advice to believe you (HETEROsexual male) can enter a strip club and be 'ok' and untempted.

Woe there! I never said you could be untempted. Now that WOULD be ridiculous, but it is not a sin to be tempted and many men would have grace enough to be up to the temptation if for some bizarre reason they found themselves in a strip club. Does it need saying that any man should avoid such a thing like a bath of acid? BUT the person I was responding to indicated that it would not be possible for a man to be in a strip club and not sin, which I think belittles where God wants to take us in His grace. He wants us to be soldiers sure of our weapons and well trained in spiritual warfare. If we say, "we would all definitely sin if tempted in this way" it does away with God's impact in our lives!
 
I think it horrible advice to believe you (HETEROsexual male) can enter a strip club and be 'ok' and untempted.

I would think this describes an unregenerate. A regenerate heart in such circumstances would be horribly distraught and remorseful to be there and looking for the nearest escape.
 
Christiana,

I would think this describes an unregenerate. A regenerate heart in such circumstances would be horribly distraught and remorseful to be there and looking for the nearest escape.

Yes....but still tempted and lusting all of the way out the door.

I've talked to too many brothers in private, and myself included...we struggle with the eyes...and if we were truthful with ourselves, we lust far more often than we'd like to admit.

For myself, not only can I not go IN but I can't go NEAR a strip club, or even talk about it for long...

I hope that didn't offend you.
 
I think it horrible advice to believe you (HETEROsexual male) can enter a strip club and be 'ok' and untempted.
I would think this describes an unregenerate. A regenerate heart in such circumstances would be horribly distraught and remorseful to be there and looking for the nearest escape.

So, Christina, I stated
I think it horrible advice to believe you (HETEROsexual male) can enter a strip club and be 'ok' and untempted

Your statement, 'I would think this describes an unregenerate' perplexes me. What would you say happens upon regeneration?

Matthew 5:28/29 exhorts us to take active measures to battle lust, is this for the unregenerate unbeliever, should the unbeliever battle lust and sin, why will it bring them righteousness or salvation? Would you argue that Jesus must be talking to an unregenerate person and that is why THEY must battle against the lust of the eyes?

Matthew 24:13 calls us to endure to the end, this is not let go let God, but it’s also not get saved and hang on to it work for it, the elect will work out their salvation in fear in trembling (cooperation with God through sanctification AFTER he saves us through regeneration monergisticaly, Eph 2:4/5), thus we’ll fight for Holiness and Godliness against the flesh but in His power YES while in a regenerated but not yet glorified, state.

This said, regenerate or not, we will still NEED to fight sin including lust, I believe I speak for most men in saying lust is a strong sinful temptation of the flesh that we must FIGHT daily.

I say that the strip club is not a healthy environment for the Christian mans fight against lust. And would certainly not shepherd people into believing its ok if they’re regenerated, that’s dangerous, unbiblical, and unloving.

Finally, back to regeneration, the regenerated person does not stop sinning, thus we don’t put our self in tempting situations (James 1:12-15), <-- who put us in a strip club? Can we avoid the appearance of evil in a strip club? 1 Thes 5:22 ‘Abstain from every form of evil’, it’s just unbiblical, and I STILL don’t see scripture, just I think, I feel, I, I , I'.
 
(Edited to say that I posted this and then realized a couple of people posted ahead of me. The 'conversation going around the bend' note wasn't meant to apply to the previous few posts, just so we are clear.)
__________________________

Hehe. Methinks this conversation is going around the bend.

Well, to try to reel it back in a bit ...

dr_parsley,

I don't really have anything else to say about you giving your father the book. Personally, I'd peg it as 'probably not the best idea', but, as I have noted, it's done now, and I don't doubt that your intentions were the best, although I take some issue with the manner in which they were initially described (a 'judgment made in the Spirit').

I know that it is difficult to keep ones cool when the bulk of the forum seems to be against you, but please don't insult us by lumping us all together as people who 'don't understand'. You are jumping to conclusions about people that you do not know.

I do think most of us here know that African women going topless (which may be acceptable in that culture) is not quite the same thing as a strip club, and the comparison is a bit odd, but I think the conversation is merely scattering because nerves are getting a bit frayed.

I will admit that I also perceive many (perhaps most) Reformed people as somewhat insulated and somewhat prone to squabble over minor issues. I sometimes say that I think Reformed churches have 'allergies', as they tend to overreact to exposure to stuff that is generally thought to be quite harmless. On the other hand, this is why Reformed churches generally do not have pastors that rape people and claim to heal AIDS.

As for myself, I'm sure I can match you story for story. I'm not at all shocked by things you have seen. I have seen that sort of thing also. In fact, I'd wonder if we started to compare, I might have worse (anybody else here seen people cut open with knives at a healing service?)

But the little things do matter. The tree that bears such poisonous fruit starts with the little deception, the idea that we can set aside the Bible and just go with whatever seems to work. Sometimes the deception merely gets to a 'warm and cuddly God', and sometimes it ends with a pastor allowed to rape a kid because he has a 'great ministry of healing' or a baby getting his scalp split open while people stand around shouting, "Praise the Lord!" But, at the root, it is the same lie told from the very beginning. The serpent whispers to us, "Did God really say that this is wrong to eat of the fruit of this tree? No, if you eat it, you shall not die. You will rather grow wise and become like God."

When people turn away from the Word and just invent their own version of 'God' ... well, that's when all the trouble starts because there is no way of calling them back or pricking their conscience. So, in a sense, perhaps it seems to be overreacting, but then, those who are sensitive to these things keep themselves in submission to God and so avoid the traps that we have seen in such extremes.
 
(Edited to say that I posted this and then realized a couple of people posted ahead of me. The 'conversation going around the bend' note wasn't meant to apply to the previous few posts, just so we are clear.)
__________________________

Hehe. Methinks this conversation is going around the bend.

Well, to try to reel it back in a bit ...

dr_parsley,

I don't really have anything else to say about you giving your father the book. Personally, I'd peg it as 'probably not the best idea', but, as I have noted, it's done now, and I don't doubt that your intentions were the best, although I take some issue with the manner in which they were initially described (a 'judgment made in the Spirit').

I know that it is difficult to keep ones cool when the bulk of the forum seems to be against you, but please don't insult us by lumping us all together as people who 'don't understand'. You are jumping to conclusions about people that you do not know.

I do think most of us here know that African women going topless (which may be acceptable in that culture) is not quite the same thing as a strip club, and the comparison is a bit odd, but I think the conversation is merely scattering because nerves are getting a bit frayed.

I will admit that I also perceive many (perhaps most) Reformed people as somewhat insulated and somewhat prone to squabble over minor issues. I sometimes say that I think Reformed churches have 'allergies', as they tend to overreact to exposure to stuff that is generally thought to be quite harmless. On the other hand, this is why Reformed churches generally do not have pastors that rape people and claim to heal AIDS.

As for myself, I'm sure I can match you story for story. I'm not at all shocked by things you have seen. I have seen that sort of thing also. In fact, I'd wonder if we started to compare, I might have worse (anybody else here seen people cut open with knives at a healing service?)

But the little things do matter. The tree that bears such poisonous fruit starts with the little deception, the idea that we can set aside the Bible and just go with whatever seems to work. Sometimes the deception merely gets to a 'warm and cuddly God', and sometimes it ends with a pastor allowed to rape a kid because he has a 'great ministry of healing' or a baby getting his scalp split open while people stand around shouting, "Praise the Lord!" But, at the root, it is the same lie told from the very beginning. The serpent whispers to us, "Did God really say that this is wrong to eat of the fruit of this tree? No, if you eat it, you shall not die. You will rather grow wise and become like God."

Well said, *shiver (baby thing), and I echo your concern regarding the whisper of the serpent! Well put all around.

Admittedly, I'm partial to anyone who uses methinks (not excluding Spurgeon ;) )
 
Just put the book down. Throw in firepit. Douse book with gasoline and light with a match.

QFT

I have not read the book itself, primarily because of how blasphemous I am told it is. Portraying the Holy Spirit is it in the identification of a black woman? I heard a sermon which was talking about the book and the preacher's explanation of it made it sound completely heretical and blasphemous. I felt nauseated simply listening to an overview of it.

Even more when I heard Michael W. Smith supports and approves the book. Not that I like him very much, but that such a large figure of himself would do that. Let's just fill already liberal-in-thought "Christians" and convince them that it's okay to make the idea of God into an unholy graven image. Let alone a person which is an abomination.

John Calvin would not approve and neither do I.
 
What makes me mad is when a local man (and his son) is regularly raping the orphan he took into his household and is an absolute thief and crook; and yet this man is a respected pastor with a significantly sized ministry, claiming he heals AIDS and has raised people from the dead, and he's doing all this in the name of Jesus and when I oppose him his whole church is praying to Jesus against me and he's saying Jesus is protecting him against my murderous attacks. Now THAT makes me mad.

dr_parsley,

I've probably said way more than my fair share on this thread already. But I was thinking this over later and realized that I never said something very important, which is that I do respect you for opposing this 'pastor'.

People tend to think this is an easy thing to do (opposing someone like this, I mean), but it is not.

The thought that has given great comfort to me in these situations is to remind myself that God is our judge. Let them say whatever they want to say and try to pray down curses or whatever ...Does this 'pastor' think God does not see? So what if they do this in the name of God ... God is not fooled.

Matthew 7:22-23: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Be encouraged. God knows those who are His.
 
I say that the strip club is not a healthy environment for the Christian mans fight against lust. And would certainly not shepherd people into believing its ok if they’re regenerated, that’s dangerous, unbiblical, and unloving.

Finally, back to regeneration, the regenerated person does not stop sinning, thus we don’t put our self in tempting situations (James 1:12-15), <-- who put us in a strip club? Can we avoid the appearance of evil in a strip club? 1 Thes 5:22 ‘Abstain from every form of evil’, it’s just unbiblical, and I STILL don’t see scripture, just I think, I feel, I, I , I'.

What I have tried to say, is that in any situation God is sufficient in Christ to help us through any temptation. To say that we will inevitably sin in a given situation is to deny this.

I have not implied at ANY point that one should put yourself into temptation or that temptation and sin is anything other than a horror to be fled with the precision and seriousness and urgency of a soldier extracting himself from a battle field after being left behind in enemy land.

Understanding that a particular sin is NOT inevitable is critical for anyone's fight against sin. If someone doesn't understand that, or the force of it, or why in Christ it's true, then they will continue to fall into that sin. This is an issue I feel strongly about and it's particularly often evident in men's view of sexual sin. The world tells us that sexual desire is something that cannot be resisted and it's as if Christians fall into the trap of believing that. But I am confident in the Lord, that, although I would go to any lengths to not put myself into temptation, that when I find myself being tempted, He is sufficient and He has promised.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 02:08:07 EST-----

dr_parsley,

I know that it is difficult to keep ones cool when the bulk of the forum seems to be against you, but please don't insult us by lumping us all together as people who 'don't understand'. You are jumping to conclusions about people that you do not know.

Don't worry I'm nothing but cool :) But I'm really sorry if I've jumped to conclusions. Can you tell me where so I can learn from it? (Genuine request)


I do think most of us here know that African women going topless (which may be acceptable in that culture) is not quite the same thing as a strip club, and the comparison is a bit odd, but I think the conversation is merely scattering because nerves are getting a bit frayed.

It was two particular contexts where a usually-sexual situation does not have a sexual context for a particular person. E.G. the teacher who knows that Zulu's don't see breasts as sexual and E.G. a man who, by the mercy and gift of God, has invested all his sexual context in his wife and is not at all interested in a nasty strip club context. Decontextualising sexual situations is one way that sprang to my mind that God can help us overcome sexual temptation.

As for myself, I'm sure I can match you story for story. I'm not at all shocked by things you have seen. I have seen that sort of thing also. In fact, I'd wonder if we started to compare, I might have worse (anybody else here seen people cut open with knives at a healing service?)

Oh I'm sure Americans can be more crazy than Zulus ;)
 
I say that the strip club is not a healthy environment for the Christian mans fight against lust. And would certainly not shepherd people into believing its ok if they’re regenerated, that’s dangerous, unbiblical, and unloving.

Finally, back to regeneration, the regenerated person does not stop sinning, thus we don’t put our self in tempting situations (James 1:12-15), <-- who put us in a strip club? Can we avoid the appearance of evil in a strip club? 1 Thes 5:22 ‘Abstain from every form of evil’, it’s just unbiblical, and I STILL don’t see scripture, just I think, I feel, I, I , I'.

What I have tried to say, is that in any situation God is sufficient in Christ to help us through any temptation. To say that we will inevitably sin in a given situation is to deny this.

I have not implied at ANY point that one should put yourself into temptation or that temptation and sin is anything other than a horror to be fled with the precision and seriousness and urgency of a soldier extracting himself from a battle field after being left behind in enemy land.

Understanding that a particular sin is NOT inevitable is critical for anyone's fight against sin. If someone doesn't understand that, or the force of it, or why in Christ it's true, then they will continue to fall into that sin. This is an issue I feel strongly about and it's particularly often evident in men's view of sexual sin. The world tells us that sexual desire is something that cannot be resisted and it's as if Christians fall into the trap of believing that. But I am confident in the Lord, that, although I would go to any lengths to not put myself into temptation, that when I find myself being tempted, He is sufficient and He has promised.

Again, as I understood you wanted to cover in PM but aparently not, in my reponce you're quoteing above I was not writing to you, I was writing to another user. See the following link; http://www.puritanboard.com/650295-post82.html

However, I've seen brothers, pastors, fall into sexual sin so please understand this is a particularly sensitive area for me. I've seen the fall of a ministry and it's affects upon sheep and families and congregations. The ripples lasting for years to follow. Thus, when you stated,
Off the topic and a minor point, but maybe men can be more mature than your generalisation seems to give them credit for here... not that I would go into a strip club, mind you. For instance, here in Zululand people don't think breasts are a big deal (even though Zulu women tend to be well endowed); if you go to the local (Christian) school's sport's day on a hot day you might see lots of teenage girls doing the 100m sprint completely topless, but do the Christian male teachers have a problem? I don't think so because the context is not sexual. Similarly, many of us wouldn't find a strip club to be a sexual context because we've been trained to find our only sexual context to be that of our marriage bed.
my concern is that someone may take from that that they have the faith and that they love their wife and totally stumble up in a situation, I'm telling you I've seen it.

So please don’t feel like I am attacking you, I am merely opposing a position you're taking and trying to do so biblically. Do you feel that I've inappropriately applied biblical principals?

However, I am tired and want to be finished with this conversation.
 
However, I am tired and want to be finished with this conversation.

I second this. I appreciate the responses, dr_parsley, but the topic is wandering far afield of the purpose of the thread.
 
I think that we can be able to comment on something if we haven't read it cover to cover.

Example: How many Christians do you know who've NEVER read the bible all of the way through, COVER TO COVER at least once.

I know plenty. Pastors even.


By this logic, they're not qualified to comment on the contents of the bible until they've done so... :eek:
:eek:
I don't know what to say about a pastor that hasn't read the Bible cover to cover (if what you mean is not having read the entire Bible, not just the Bible in the order published) other than the church that ordained him was certainly not following the Biblical qualifications for an elder in ordaining him ... he certainly was a "new convert" in at least the maturity sense.

While Paul was chosen to be apostle to the gentiles without a long time in training first, he already had a great deal of Bible knowledge, and I would be surprised if he had not committed much of it to memory. I personally would find it reason for leaving a church if the pastor had not read the entire Bible.

And while I think it possible for a person to testify to his salvation before he has read the entire Bible, he is not qualified to expound the scriptures. I cannot think of a more dangerous practice than to ordain those that are so young in the faith that they have not yet read the entire Bible. Given that we hold that scripture interprets scripture, a pastor that has not yet read the whole does not know if something he believes which is error would be corrected by reading the rest of the scriptures.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 03:42:56 EST-----

Let's just fill already liberal-in-thought "Christians" and convince them that it's okay to make the idea of God into an unholy graven image. Let alone a person which is an abomination.

John Calvin would not approve and neither do I.

Very minor point ... I am sure I must be misunderstanding you, but you have a potential heresy stated in there ... that is, God is not just an idea, God but is three persons. I'm near sure you would affirm that, but what you said sounds like you are saying that each person of the trinity is not a person, but a concept. Denying the personhood of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is denying the trinity in a very real sense. The phrase I'm looking at is: "... make the idea of God into an unholy graven image. Let alone a person ..."

:think:
 
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

The Shack:
Is it true? No.
Is it noble? No.
Is it right? No.
Is it pure? No.
Is it admirable? No.
Is it excellent? No.
Is it praiseworthy? No.

Thus I would say it is a tool to study heresy, but it is not, in any way, a faithful transmission of the gospel. It is actually another gospel, sent by a false prophet. And what are we called to do with that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top