Visiting the Mormon Temple is nothing. I just returned from going out to ice cream with my family. This ice cream place is very near a bar which sells alcohol. Follow this trail of apostasy:
By entering within the city limits (Girard, IL) of a place where alcohol is sold for profit …
And, worse yet, by voluntarily eating ice cream within 0.10 miles of this evil establishment …
I tacitly endorsed both the sale and consumption of alcohol …
Thus, I am in favor of alcohol …
In the same way:
The President of BJU made a private visit to Wheaton
Thus, it is a public visit, because there is no such thing as a “private” visit
Oh, I don’t know….I guess the thought of two guys who are going to spend eternity together and whom both represent important institutions of higher learning within different branches of the Family of God actually looking for areas in which they can sharpen each other, learn from each other, even open ongoing dialog with each other appeals to my interpretation of the Scripture that tells us to try and live peaceably with each other. I remain confused why this would be a bigger deal for some than if Pettit had taken a similar trip to Notre Dame or Clemson. (I wouldn’t really be confused….I know why. I just disagree.) Perhaps people are afraid that BJU might have a positive effect on Wheaton?
issues haven’t changed. The separation took place because both sides had what they considered good and sufficient reasons. At this point, I’m willing to wait for them to get to Heaven so God can comb the kinks and snarls out.
issues haven’t changed. The separation took place because both sides had what they considered good and sufficient reasons. At this point, I’m willing to wait for them to get to Heaven so God can comb the kinks and snarls out.
And somehow, I don’t think “waiting until we get to heaven” is what the Lord had in mind when He told us to live peaceably. If that was our attitude about every conflict — let’s not deal with it until we all die — then many opportunities for learning would be lost, our testimony would be furthered marred before the world and frankly, we’d be living in ongoing disobedience due to disharmony that could have and should have been resolved.
And somehow, I don’t think “waiting until we get to heaven” is what the Lord had in mind when He told us to live peaceably. If that was our attitude about every conflict — let’s not deal with it until we all die — then many opportunities for learning would be lost, our testimony would be furthered marred before the world and frankly, we’d be living in ongoing disobedience due to disharmony that could have and should have been resolved.
Dan,
If those kind of conversations were to be had… wouldn’t it be better to start on a campus like PCC, or to have John Greening from the GARBC speak in BJU chapel, or invite BBFI leaders for a summit on the Greenville campus? It seems that if bridges are to be built, we have enough that needs to be dealt with “closer to the center” before we branch out more widely.
Absolutely….I’d love to see that. I actually tried to help make that happen a decade ago among various factions of churches within the Independent and Conservative Southern Baptist worlds and was thoroughly excoriated for the attempt. I don’t see it as a “either/or” as in, before we do A, we should do B, but I see it as do it wherever it is possible.
I absolutely do not buy into the notion that it is a compromise to have conversations — official or off-the-record — with other people who are Believers. I reject the notion that it will influence someone negatively. If one’s faith or position is so weak that it cannot endure a conversation, then it really isn’t very valid to begin with, IMHO.
…conversations don’t necessarily mean full convergence. There is a reason why we all ended up doing things differently. We need to remember that I think, too. Fundamentalists of the past had their differences, but also knew the differences between opponents and friends with whom they differed with on some key issues. But if you all want something that is actually happening, I’m surprised no one has raised this: http://www.thefoundationsconference.com/
Visiting the Mormon Temple is nothing. I just returned from going out to ice cream(link is external) with my family. This ice cream place is very near a bar which sells alcohol. Follow this trail of apostasy:
By entering within the city limits (Girard, IL) of a place where alcohol is sold for profit … And, worse yet, by voluntarily eating ice cream within 0.10 miles of this evil establishment … I tacitly endorsed both the sale and consumption of alcohol … Thus, I am in favor of alcohol …
In the same way:
The President of BJU made a private visit to Wheaton Thus, it is a public visit, because there is no such thing as a “private” visit Thus, he endorses everything they stand for Thus, BJU and Wheaton are the same Thus, the world is ending
I dare anybody to question this logic. I personally feel it’s an after-effect of the recent Shemitah(link is external) and the blood moon …
It’s the end of the world as we know it…and I feel fine. :p
Seriously. So Dr. Horn and Mr. Pettit went to Wheaton. As far as I know, the world is still turning on its axis and God is still on the throne. But maybe I missed that last part and He stepped off for a bit. That’s why there is the internet!
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion
NewJim
Visiting the Mormon Temple is nothing. I just returned from going out to ice cream with my family. This ice cream place is very near a bar which sells alcohol. Follow this trail of apostasy:
In the same way:
I dare anybody to question this logic. I personally feel it’s an after-effect of the recent Shemitah and the blood moon …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewOh, I don't know....I guess
Oh, I don’t know….I guess the thought of two guys who are going to spend eternity together and whom both represent important institutions of higher learning within different branches of the Family of God actually looking for areas in which they can sharpen each other, learn from each other, even open ongoing dialog with each other appeals to my interpretation of the Scripture that tells us to try and live peaceably with each other. I remain confused why this would be a bigger deal for some than if Pettit had taken a similar trip to Notre Dame or Clemson. (I wouldn’t really be confused….I know why. I just disagree.) Perhaps people are afraid that BJU might have a positive effect on Wheaton?
NewThen the
issues haven’t changed. The separation took place because both sides had what they considered good and sufficient reasons. At this point, I’m willing to wait for them to get to Heaven so God can comb the kinks and snarls out.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
NewRob Fall wrote:
And somehow, I don’t think “waiting until we get to heaven” is what the Lord had in mind when He told us to live peaceably. If that was our attitude about every conflict — let’s not deal with it until we all die — then many opportunities for learning would be lost, our testimony would be furthered marred before the world and frankly, we’d be living in ongoing disobedience due to disharmony that could have and should have been resolved.
NewBut where to start...
Dan,
If those kind of conversations were to be had… wouldn’t it be better to start on a campus like PCC, or to have John Greening from the GARBC speak in BJU chapel, or invite BBFI leaders for a summit on the Greenville campus? It seems that if bridges are to be built, we have enough that needs to be dealt with “closer to the center” before we branch out more widely.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
NewNot either/or...
Absolutely….I’d love to see that. I actually tried to help make that happen a decade ago among various factions of churches within the Independent and Conservative Southern Baptist worlds and was thoroughly excoriated for the attempt. I don’t see it as a “either/or” as in, before we do A, we should do B, but I see it as do it wherever it is possible.
I absolutely do not buy into the notion that it is a compromise to have conversations — official or off-the-record — with other people who are Believers. I reject the notion that it will influence someone negatively. If one’s faith or position is so weak that it cannot endure a conversation, then it really isn’t very valid to begin with, IMHO.
NewJust keep in mind the FBFI
Just keep in mind the FBFI/SBC split dates back well over a hundred and fifty years. It’s not of the last three generations making.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
NewOn the other hand...
…conversations don’t necessarily mean full convergence. There is a reason why we all ended up doing things differently. We need to remember that I think, too. Fundamentalists of the past had their differences, but also knew the differences between opponents and friends with whom they differed with on some key issues.
But if you all want something that is actually happening, I’m surprised no one has raised this:
http://www.thefoundationsconference.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6coILvij6Hc
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
NewIt's the end of the world as we know it...
It’s the end of the world as we know it…and I feel fine. :p
Seriously. So Dr. Horn and Mr. Pettit went to Wheaton. As far as I know, the world is still turning on its axis and God is still on the throne. But maybe I missed that last part and He stepped off for a bit. That’s why there is the internet!
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewMy conclusion
My conclusion:
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement