Another Brilliant Bible Scholar Speaks
From some lady named Kelly, unedited:
Email #1
Hey Mr., i would like to say brother, but, i just read some of your stuff. Honestly, this really fascinates me, every time there is a false doctrine being preached, the person doing it says " you need to study the word" " lets see what the word really says" man that is ridiculous. the catching away in the twinkling of an eye, so what are you saying , that is the 2nd coming?? does that sound like the 2nd coming?? two men at the mill one taken and the other one left, thats not even a rapture verse, you should study a little more. you can't be surprized when real christians think that or assume that your not one, look at what comes out of your mouth. God is not the author of confusion, people like you are. I'm not saying this in an angy way either, its just a fact. i started to read your stuff and thought that it might carry some weight but then it fell to jibberish and cultish, isn't th holiness movement a well known cult?? Last point, and the most clear point which shows that your lost is, " then how are we supposed to make the world a better place" WHAT???? did God command us to make the world abetter place?? is that the goal of the true child of God, didn't Jesus say that the world would hate us because it hated Him first??? dude your LOST!!! i doubt very much that your gonna make it. i'll pray for ya right now, but after that i will probably for get about you, as you will me. so REPENT AND BELIEVE, read the word as i do, a lover of truth with no agena but to learn Gods truth!!! sincerely , someone who knows p.s. sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but people like you in my opinion are really glazed over in the mind and i'm trying to plant a seed that the birds of the air won't snatch up right away!!!!
Email #2
Thanks for the quick response, i have studied this more than you know and a proper " debate" would take time, time that i don't have. BUT, if your willing i will make my points one by one with scripture and we will see if you can hang with me. If you really want to know the truth, then you will find it. First of all , forget the argument that " history" says there has never been this pre-trib theory, therefore it can't be true, because number 1 thats not true, there have been writings found that support the belief in a pretrib rapture. anyway lets stick to what God says and not man, the jews are still waiting for messiah, does that mean he hasn't come yet???? now i will give it some thought and prayer and get back to you on my first point soon and you can try to shoot them down one by one or start to learn the real truth!! and i did hear that the holiness movement was a cult unless i'm thinking of something else, didn't they start out by not believing in the trinity??? Chosen by Him, kelly
Email #3
alright now your getting hostile, do you believe that there even is a tribulation?? the time of Jacobs trouble?? :You definetley are putting more weight on fact that "history" says this or that. paul said i show you a MYSTERY!!!!!! why couldn't the jews realize that messiah had to suffer?/ it was in the scriptures wasn't it? so just because the forefathers of the church couldn't figure out the pretrib rapture mystery, doesn't prove that its not true! can you understand that? so really what your saying is there is no rapture at all or are you a post-tribber? common man lets get it going, who is going to repopulate the earth during the 1000 reign of Christ? let me guess, there is no millenium, right? and besides, wesleyanism is not something you want to raise a flag for is it?? don't they believe you can lose your salvation?? wooooooo you don't want to debate that do you?? how about election, my true specialty, no no, i think you even cited methodists, are you kidding me, they have been dead for decades, my motherinlaw goes to one and it is dead as a doornail. you see how frustrating it is for me, you have said so many things in IGNORANCE, where do i begin, now you are right about me questioning your relationship with the Lord, but honestly if your not getting the truth, i can only think of the poor slobs who sit under the teaching of a creflo dollar or benny hinn or something!! God help you, i mean it, listen my favorite teacher is John MacArthur, he is obviously much wiser than i am, so i suggest you learn from him, ;you won't be dissappointed or deceived!!! amen and amen, kd
I get plenty of these type of responses each time I write a piece on eschatology. This is just one I found particularly entertaining. See my responses in the comments section. Honestly, I don't even know why I take the time to communicate with people like this who are not interested at all in intelligent discussion or really digging into the Biblical text.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Check Out My Radio Interview Regarding the "Rapture," Dispensationalism, and Middle East Affairs
If you're interested, check out my interview with antiwar.com regarding "end times" Bible prophecy and the dispensational movement.
If you're interested, check out my interview with antiwar.com regarding "end times" Bible prophecy and the dispensational movement.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Letter from a True Christian
In response to my column John Hagee Wants War with Iran and He Wants It Now!, one reader writes:
Well, as you yourself say, "maybe, just maybe YOU are wrong"!
You are as phony as what you write about.
Your rant is about an unknownable timeline based on an unprovable assumption by you, about a POSSIBLE event, and that Hagee is wrong and that YOU "maybe, just maybe" might be right??
Your pathetic "assumptions" and "hopefully's" are just as "dangerous" and as inconclusive as you say his are because YOU believe YOU are right and HE (Hagee) is "dangerous" because he "may be wrong"!
I say to you, "YOU ALSO DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE"!
Are you afraid "this same group of people" (his Ministry?) has the power to nuke Iran? Or start a war over there?
You are a moron! And a fool! You are an educated idiot!
I watch him occassionally but I or any other TRUE Christian, would NEVER attack him and besmirch him and his beliefs as you have just publically done.
You say it is some sort of a "good" to "call this crowd out"!
YOU, mister tough guy? HAHAHAHA!!
What is it you hope to gain? Attention??
How dare you, you little twerp!
What could you possibly hope to gain in your shamefull personal attack on him and his beliefs, that also will reflect on his family and his followers; ALL of whom have done more for more people than you will EVER do because he would NEVER attack you or your beliefs as you have just done to him! HE is a TRUE Christian, NOT YOU!
People will NEVER much follow you or ever really believe in you or your teachings because of this ugly side of you and your self righteous behavior! People around you will always sense this in you. It will ALWAYS come out! That is who you are and what you are all about!
He has founded several churchs and has done much good for MANY people and communities. Have you ever founded anything? And you never will!
How you ever became a pastor is beyond me and YOU sir are one of those types who give Christianity a bad name but you are so arrogant you don't care, because of who you think you are!
You are not a loving or true Christian. If you were either, you would not, you COULD NOT, have ever done this shamefull and disgusting slander. If I could 'call you out" I would beat you to a pulp and maybe make you into a man, maybe even a gentleman to boot. Maybe someday someone will! MEN don't just "call people out"! SOMETHING will happen when you do! You just don't get it!
But until then, you will forever be just nothing but a disgusting little, little man.
Perhaps one day I will know what it means to be a True Christian, just like this awesome guy. There's much that could be said here about his confused theology and worldview, but we'll just let his self-contradictory and totalitarian words speak for themselves.
In response to my column John Hagee Wants War with Iran and He Wants It Now!, one reader writes:
Well, as you yourself say, "maybe, just maybe YOU are wrong"!
You are as phony as what you write about.
Your rant is about an unknownable timeline based on an unprovable assumption by you, about a POSSIBLE event, and that Hagee is wrong and that YOU "maybe, just maybe" might be right??
Your pathetic "assumptions" and "hopefully's" are just as "dangerous" and as inconclusive as you say his are because YOU believe YOU are right and HE (Hagee) is "dangerous" because he "may be wrong"!
I say to you, "YOU ALSO DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE"!
Are you afraid "this same group of people" (his Ministry?) has the power to nuke Iran? Or start a war over there?
You are a moron! And a fool! You are an educated idiot!
I watch him occassionally but I or any other TRUE Christian, would NEVER attack him and besmirch him and his beliefs as you have just publically done.
You say it is some sort of a "good" to "call this crowd out"!
YOU, mister tough guy? HAHAHAHA!!
What is it you hope to gain? Attention??
How dare you, you little twerp!
What could you possibly hope to gain in your shamefull personal attack on him and his beliefs, that also will reflect on his family and his followers; ALL of whom have done more for more people than you will EVER do because he would NEVER attack you or your beliefs as you have just done to him! HE is a TRUE Christian, NOT YOU!
People will NEVER much follow you or ever really believe in you or your teachings because of this ugly side of you and your self righteous behavior! People around you will always sense this in you. It will ALWAYS come out! That is who you are and what you are all about!
He has founded several churchs and has done much good for MANY people and communities. Have you ever founded anything? And you never will!
How you ever became a pastor is beyond me and YOU sir are one of those types who give Christianity a bad name but you are so arrogant you don't care, because of who you think you are!
You are not a loving or true Christian. If you were either, you would not, you COULD NOT, have ever done this shamefull and disgusting slander. If I could 'call you out" I would beat you to a pulp and maybe make you into a man, maybe even a gentleman to boot. Maybe someday someone will! MEN don't just "call people out"! SOMETHING will happen when you do! You just don't get it!
But until then, you will forever be just nothing but a disgusting little, little man.
Perhaps one day I will know what it means to be a True Christian, just like this awesome guy. There's much that could be said here about his confused theology and worldview, but we'll just let his self-contradictory and totalitarian words speak for themselves.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Ghandi and Hellen Keller Burning in Hell for All Eternity?
The President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw leader of one of the world's best seminary's, takes a crack at this, and responds to a Baptist theologian who says there's no other honest Christian position than Ghandi being in hell. Mouw offers caution:
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=21
Whose position do you find yourself more sympathetic to? The Baptist guy's, or Mouw's?
My own take on this:
I'm uncomfortable opening up a can of worms that someone can be "in Christ" without themselves proclaiming Christ...however there's the other can of worms that can be opened in the strict absolutist position as well which Mouw is concerned about. Logically, if we open the door (rightfully as 99.9% of Christians believe) for infants, mentally disabled, etc, you'd think this would apply in some sense to those who live in forced ignorance their whole lives as well. So in actuality, all Christians--including predestinationist Calvinists--allow for some sort of grace and salvation of peoples who are not able to process propositional doctrinal formulas. And if we take the position that the unborn as people, then I certainly don't see much logic in punishing the spirits of fetuses for eternity. Ghandi's case would be a bit different since he did in fact know about Christ. Yet at the same time he bore much more fruit than most professed Christians who have lived.
Can grace be obtained only by intellectually believing Evangelical-friendly doctrinal propositions? Is the guy who professes Christ and bears little fruit infinitely better off than the other guy who bears a ton of fruit but doesn't believe the right intellectual propositions? Can the latter group still be covered by grace and somehow be "in Christ"? I suppose at best I'd maybe be privately and cautiously optimistic that some could be covered by grace in such a way, but for those I encounter who are able to hear the gospel, I'll stick to preaching repentance and born again theology. I'll leave the rest in God's hands, though I won't be as dogmatic as the Baptist guy and find myself agreeing with Mouw--Not a univeralist, are consequences for those who reject the gospel, but that we shouldn't either underestimate God's grace and how he handles some of these difficult questions. I think it would be important to note that Mouw or others would still maintain that the ignorant or whoever would hypothetically be covered by God's grace and that the Cross event is still central to this. But how this would work I really don't know, which is why I wouldn't feel comfortable preaching it.
The President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw leader of one of the world's best seminary's, takes a crack at this, and responds to a Baptist theologian who says there's no other honest Christian position than Ghandi being in hell. Mouw offers caution:
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=21
Whose position do you find yourself more sympathetic to? The Baptist guy's, or Mouw's?
My own take on this:
I'm uncomfortable opening up a can of worms that someone can be "in Christ" without themselves proclaiming Christ...however there's the other can of worms that can be opened in the strict absolutist position as well which Mouw is concerned about. Logically, if we open the door (rightfully as 99.9% of Christians believe) for infants, mentally disabled, etc, you'd think this would apply in some sense to those who live in forced ignorance their whole lives as well. So in actuality, all Christians--including predestinationist Calvinists--allow for some sort of grace and salvation of peoples who are not able to process propositional doctrinal formulas. And if we take the position that the unborn as people, then I certainly don't see much logic in punishing the spirits of fetuses for eternity. Ghandi's case would be a bit different since he did in fact know about Christ. Yet at the same time he bore much more fruit than most professed Christians who have lived.
Can grace be obtained only by intellectually believing Evangelical-friendly doctrinal propositions? Is the guy who professes Christ and bears little fruit infinitely better off than the other guy who bears a ton of fruit but doesn't believe the right intellectual propositions? Can the latter group still be covered by grace and somehow be "in Christ"? I suppose at best I'd maybe be privately and cautiously optimistic that some could be covered by grace in such a way, but for those I encounter who are able to hear the gospel, I'll stick to preaching repentance and born again theology. I'll leave the rest in God's hands, though I won't be as dogmatic as the Baptist guy and find myself agreeing with Mouw--Not a univeralist, are consequences for those who reject the gospel, but that we shouldn't either underestimate God's grace and how he handles some of these difficult questions. I think it would be important to note that Mouw or others would still maintain that the ignorant or whoever would hypothetically be covered by God's grace and that the Cross event is still central to this. But how this would work I really don't know, which is why I wouldn't feel comfortable preaching it.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Should Pastors Be Bi-Vocational?
Most pastors prefer to have their ministries be their full-time vocations. Others, by choice or by forced circumstances (church is too small, not enough money in the budget, etc) work bi-vocationally. Their ministry is supplemented with part-time or some other form of full-time work. Some Christians complain that a full-time vocational pastor with full pay and benefits sucks too much money out of the church budget and encourages the laypeople just to leave real ministry to the "paid professional." Others critique bi-vocational ministry as being unrealistic and too demanding on a pastor's time, especially in a church of 100 or more. Tell me which of these models of pastoral ministry you agree with and why:
1. The Case for the Full-Time Vocational Pastor: Pastors who are called to ministry by the Lord should serve full-time if their church is large enough and if there is enough money to support him full-time. Supporting a pastor financially is a Biblical teaching, not a mere suggestion. Plus, a pastor trains for many years for this position. Keep in mind that aside from his BA degree, many of them have 3 year seminary degrees...and some even more than that! We would never expect a lawyer who invests as much time and almost as much money to seek separate employment, so why pastors? Why are pastors, who are well-trained professionals themselves, put on a different plane than all other professionals? After these pastors rack up so much education (and probably school debt!) and on the job training, is it fair to then ask them to learn some other trade on top of all this? And how do we expect a pastor to lead a church, raise children and at the same time carry on a separate career? That is too much of a burden to put onto our pastors. It's also a recipe for burnout and possible family problems.
Plus, pastors are needed on a full-time basis. There are sick people to visit, lessons and sermons to prepare, programs to organize, contacts to make, etc. Not only that, but we need pastors who are men and women of prayer. We need pastors who can split their time between study, inward ministry to the church body, and outreach ministry to the unchurched. Sure, the Apostle Paul was a "tentmaker" but he said he was entitled to full-time support if he so wanted. The situation then was also much different than the one today. There may be similar dangerous situations a pastor or missionary can be in certain parts of the world, or the church just might not be able to support a pastor full-time. But if they can, then it's best for the pastor to work full-time for the church.
Pastors who work outside their ministries are robbing their churches of their best efforts. Today’s tentmakers have tendencies to live inside their tents. It is up to the local church to take proper financial care of its pastors. If there is a situation where the pastor must take separate work because the church can’t afford a full-time minister then that is a different story. But if the pastor can be supported by the church, then there is no reason for him or her to get off track with their call and be distracted with other employment.
2. The Case for the Bi-Vocational Pastor: A pastor can be called to ministry but still have a separate means of support. Look at how much money is spent in church budgets towards salaries. If pastors had another means of income it would save the church all sorts of money that could be better spent on saving the lost. Take a look at church budgets, how much actually goes towards these efforts vs. the staff's pay package and benefits? And while the Apostle Paul didn't say everyone had to be bi-vocational, he sure set a good standard for others to follow. Not only this, but most pastors are only serving those inside their church walls. By this I mean that most of their ministry is maintenance work and directed at their own members. Many are basically babysitters. The pastor will have more unchurched acquaintances if he has other means of work and income where he more naturally encounters others and is able to form relationships. We wouldn’t have to worry about pastors being overworked because the ministry would be more evenly shared throughout the leadership and congregation, and not just left to the “paid professionals.”
And speaking of seminary, sure seminary is a good thing, but do pastors really need it if they can’t afford it? Is this God's standard or man's? Is it really Biblical for pastors to rack up all that debt just so they can go into a profession that pays average to below average wages? The lawyer and doctor at least will make up for all their debt. Some pastors are still paying off their school debts for years into their ministry and never recover from them! Seminary may not be right for all pastors. And even if they go to seminary, why not have a separate skill developed in their undergrad years or afterwards on the side (perhaps a secular under grad major followed by a graduate seminary degree)? Maybe a Protestant model of the Jesuits works best here, where you had ministers who were skilled in both secular and sacred vocations.
Also, if such was the case, pastors would be more bold to preach and teach the truth and do what needs to be done. Reason being they would not worry so much about offending those who give financially and might leave the church. When a pastor receives his primary financial support from his ministry, it is a conflict of interest and the pastor will be too concerned about his livelihood to really rock the boat if it needs to be rocked. On a similar note, if pastors were bi-vocational then when in between churches, they would not have to worry about where they would live and how they would eat. Wouldn’t this actually be better for the pastor and his family? If we are talking the best interest of the pastors, is it in their best interest to be financially beholden to their churches? Thus, it is best for a pastor to have separate employment outside of his or her local church pastoral position.
......................................................................................................
So, which of these paradigms do you generally find more persuasive? What arguments would you add or subtract to either of these approaches? Which one do you think is better for pastors, churches, and the unchurched people they are trying to reach?
Most pastors prefer to have their ministries be their full-time vocations. Others, by choice or by forced circumstances (church is too small, not enough money in the budget, etc) work bi-vocationally. Their ministry is supplemented with part-time or some other form of full-time work. Some Christians complain that a full-time vocational pastor with full pay and benefits sucks too much money out of the church budget and encourages the laypeople just to leave real ministry to the "paid professional." Others critique bi-vocational ministry as being unrealistic and too demanding on a pastor's time, especially in a church of 100 or more. Tell me which of these models of pastoral ministry you agree with and why:
1. The Case for the Full-Time Vocational Pastor: Pastors who are called to ministry by the Lord should serve full-time if their church is large enough and if there is enough money to support him full-time. Supporting a pastor financially is a Biblical teaching, not a mere suggestion. Plus, a pastor trains for many years for this position. Keep in mind that aside from his BA degree, many of them have 3 year seminary degrees...and some even more than that! We would never expect a lawyer who invests as much time and almost as much money to seek separate employment, so why pastors? Why are pastors, who are well-trained professionals themselves, put on a different plane than all other professionals? After these pastors rack up so much education (and probably school debt!) and on the job training, is it fair to then ask them to learn some other trade on top of all this? And how do we expect a pastor to lead a church, raise children and at the same time carry on a separate career? That is too much of a burden to put onto our pastors. It's also a recipe for burnout and possible family problems.
Plus, pastors are needed on a full-time basis. There are sick people to visit, lessons and sermons to prepare, programs to organize, contacts to make, etc. Not only that, but we need pastors who are men and women of prayer. We need pastors who can split their time between study, inward ministry to the church body, and outreach ministry to the unchurched. Sure, the Apostle Paul was a "tentmaker" but he said he was entitled to full-time support if he so wanted. The situation then was also much different than the one today. There may be similar dangerous situations a pastor or missionary can be in certain parts of the world, or the church just might not be able to support a pastor full-time. But if they can, then it's best for the pastor to work full-time for the church.
Pastors who work outside their ministries are robbing their churches of their best efforts. Today’s tentmakers have tendencies to live inside their tents. It is up to the local church to take proper financial care of its pastors. If there is a situation where the pastor must take separate work because the church can’t afford a full-time minister then that is a different story. But if the pastor can be supported by the church, then there is no reason for him or her to get off track with their call and be distracted with other employment.
2. The Case for the Bi-Vocational Pastor: A pastor can be called to ministry but still have a separate means of support. Look at how much money is spent in church budgets towards salaries. If pastors had another means of income it would save the church all sorts of money that could be better spent on saving the lost. Take a look at church budgets, how much actually goes towards these efforts vs. the staff's pay package and benefits? And while the Apostle Paul didn't say everyone had to be bi-vocational, he sure set a good standard for others to follow. Not only this, but most pastors are only serving those inside their church walls. By this I mean that most of their ministry is maintenance work and directed at their own members. Many are basically babysitters. The pastor will have more unchurched acquaintances if he has other means of work and income where he more naturally encounters others and is able to form relationships. We wouldn’t have to worry about pastors being overworked because the ministry would be more evenly shared throughout the leadership and congregation, and not just left to the “paid professionals.”
And speaking of seminary, sure seminary is a good thing, but do pastors really need it if they can’t afford it? Is this God's standard or man's? Is it really Biblical for pastors to rack up all that debt just so they can go into a profession that pays average to below average wages? The lawyer and doctor at least will make up for all their debt. Some pastors are still paying off their school debts for years into their ministry and never recover from them! Seminary may not be right for all pastors. And even if they go to seminary, why not have a separate skill developed in their undergrad years or afterwards on the side (perhaps a secular under grad major followed by a graduate seminary degree)? Maybe a Protestant model of the Jesuits works best here, where you had ministers who were skilled in both secular and sacred vocations.
Also, if such was the case, pastors would be more bold to preach and teach the truth and do what needs to be done. Reason being they would not worry so much about offending those who give financially and might leave the church. When a pastor receives his primary financial support from his ministry, it is a conflict of interest and the pastor will be too concerned about his livelihood to really rock the boat if it needs to be rocked. On a similar note, if pastors were bi-vocational then when in between churches, they would not have to worry about where they would live and how they would eat. Wouldn’t this actually be better for the pastor and his family? If we are talking the best interest of the pastors, is it in their best interest to be financially beholden to their churches? Thus, it is best for a pastor to have separate employment outside of his or her local church pastoral position.
......................................................................................................
So, which of these paradigms do you generally find more persuasive? What arguments would you add or subtract to either of these approaches? Which one do you think is better for pastors, churches, and the unchurched people they are trying to reach?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
