pajarito

My God may be correct, your "god" may be correct, your "gods" may be correct, your "lack of gods or belief" may be correct... But they all can't be correct. Jesus didn't allow for that. He was absolutely exclusive in that regard. It is my belief that simply "whatever works for you" might work in the "short term" (pleasures of sin for a season) but it will not work in the long run (eternity following the righteous judgment of Christ).

Nice.

Do you think it's very wise to judge religion based on the actions of those who abuse it?

I dare say that most professing Christians in general are just going through the motions and aren't really sincere in their hearts.

That's awesome!!!

Not at all considering the alternative. I'd be satisfied to be the lowliest servant in heaven.

I meant for my response to you to be for bigtexan. Sorry about that.

Haggard was obviously continuing in a “pattern of sin” making him a hypocrite. It leads one to think that he might not have been saved in the first place (Romans 6). The entirety of his evangelistic efforts (good works) cannot pay the penalty for the sins of his heart (Ephesians 2:8-9). However, being a Christian does not mean that you don't stumble into sin anymore (Romans 3:23). It means that you don't dive into it. Like I've said before, it's the difference between drifting down the river of sin with everyone else and swimming against the current. For the Christian, it is a continual battle against the human nature and it lasts for the rest of your life. It’s part of the process of “growing in holiness” which should take place if one is truly saved and deserving of the title of Christian. Otherwise, one is a false convert even if they believe themselves to be Christian. Most who claim to be Christian really aren’t. Haggard’s failure to represent the hope that should lie within him not only by what he “says” but how he conducts his life, if he really is a Christian, is most definitely a “blow to his integrity and leadership.” He is also held to a higher standard in the eyes of God because of his leadership role (James 3:1). He will be punished worse if he is unrepentant.

THAT is great advise!

I think the screen name says it all... "stayhigh"

Repentance & faith are required. Speaking hypothetically about Jeffrey Dahmer is silly and evidence is not shown in your example.

Baptism is simply a demonstration of obedience to the Word of God. It is an outward sign to the world of the inward change that is claimed by that person to have taken place. Baptism does NOT in and of itself mean that one is saved. Signs of a growing and maturing Christian should follow a true conversion. If not, then one should re-examine themselves. Belief can exist without repentance. However, without repentance, there is no salvation. Some quotes from the article: None of the above clarifies whether his sorrow was vertical (e.g. sins against God) and not just horizontal (e.g. wrongs against people). He never says that he sinned against God but simply that he’s sorry for what he’s done. His guilt may very well have been sincere. However, feeling very bad about crimes committed and wrongdoings to others is very different from feeling horrible for crimes committed against God. He should have felt bad about the things he’d done. That still does not pay for his crimes against God. Even a willingness to “do the right thing” from now on doesn’t cover what’s already been done. Righteousness cannot come from “anything” we do. Only through repentance and faith. I have no idea what Jeffrey may have really meant by what he said in the article and only God knows his heart. I’m just saying that the key signs of vertical repentance and faith in the Savior are not present in the article you referenced. By the way, what he did disgusts me but I hope that his conversion was sincere.

There is no such person.

It's not my notion.

Just tuned back in… This whole line of discussion is ridiculous. Only God knows your heart…ultimately. One cannot be saved (e.g. be a Christian and not just one in name) without sincere repentance and faith. Do I believe one can be involved in a deathbed conversion? Yes. However, do I think it is very probable or happens very often? No. Karla Faye Tucker may have claimed to be a Christian in the end. I’m sure many do. Whether she was truly saved, however, is questionable. That decision is God’s alone. Anyway, whether she “became a Christian” before being executed is irrelevant. We live in this society and it has laws. Murder has consequences and the death penalty is the law of the land. She received justice here and she will also receive justice where she is going (or already is).

I don't get it.

You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet Any Fifth Street Promenade tarot card reader would be thrilled to nail a prediction as accurately as William Booth did one hundred years ago. “I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.” Was the founder of the Salvation Army accurate? Is there religion without the Holy Ghost? With a red face I confess that we conservatives have veered from the zany antics of televangelism into a ditch with little recognition of the active work of the Holy Spirit. Is there Christianity without Christ? Have you been to an Episcopal church lately? Is there forgiveness without turning from sin? Ask Dallas Theological Seminary. Is there salvation without regeneration? Google “Carnal Christianity.” Is there politics without God? www.ACLU.com Is there heaven without hell? Paging Rob Bell. How was General Booth able to make such an accurate prediction? He surveyed the doctrines that were under assault, and then forecasted where that errant theology would take us. What deficient theology did he see? He witnessed a forsaking of the preaching of the Law. While he did not know what the result would be named, he knew that antinomianism (no law, lots of grace) had to lead to what turned out to be watered down mainline Protestantism and the seeker sensitive movement. Now that General Booth’s predictions have been fulfilled, we would do well to survey the latest threat. “Isn’t the seeker sensitive movement the latest threat?” you ask. I would suggest it is not. The seeker sensitive movement is the result of the squishy, anti-nomianism that General Booth witnessed; it is not a new threat. Seeker Sensitive is the manifestation of bad theology. Seeker sensitive is merely a fad (a bad fad, but a fad, nonetheless), and it won’t be long before it is replaced by another fad that is the result of new bad theology. What is the bad theology of our day? Redefined justification. Nearly 500 years ago, God used Martin Luther to recapture the foundational doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Every puritan who followed in his wake recognized that justification is the core doctrine of Protestantism. How did they define it? Man=sin. God=holiness. Consequence=hell. But God chose to demonstrate His kindness by taking the punishment we deserve by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a sinless life and die on a cross, rise from the dead and defeat death. Therefore, if people will repent and trust the Savior, the righteousness of Jesus will be imputed (credited to our account) that we might be made the righteousness of God (see II Cor.5:21) so that God can be glorified for His kindness. That is justification. But alas, today’s “progressive” theologians have decided we need to take a fresh, new look at our cherished corner stone. Emergent leader, Brian McLaren says he simply wants to have a conversation and re-think long-held evangelical assumptions. While he acts like he is taking us on a journey whose destination is unknown, Mr. McLaren seems to know exactly where this conversation is headed: a new definition of justification. From the article “Interview with Brian McLaren about ‘A Letter to Friends f Emergent.’” Interviewer: I think with all the other change going on, one thing we’ve got to hold firm on is the Gospel. McLaren: What do you mean when you say “the Gospel? Interviewer: You know, justification by grace through faith in the finished atoning work of Christ on the cross. McLaren: Are you sure that’s the Gospel? Interviewer: Of course. Aren’t you? McLaren: I’m sure that’s a facet of the Gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical Protestants have assumed is the whole Gospel, the heart of the Gospel. But what’s the point of that Gospel? Is it beneficial to question whether Christians should have Christmas trees? Sure. Is it necessary to question whether Christmas trees are green? The doctrine of justification has been long settled. To open up the doctrine for the sake of conversation screams of a hidden agenda. While Mr. McLaren’s framing of the issue is under the guise of, “Let’s just open up the issue for discussion,” does Mr. McLaren know where he wants this conversation to go? It sure seems like it. He just seems to recognize that if he does not take a slow, meandering, deconstructionist path, he might be labeled for what he is. “Is getting individual souls into heaven the focal point of the Gospel? I’d have to say, ‘No,’” states Mr. McLaren. Sure seems like the conversation is closed. Mr. McLaren considers the classic understanding of penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse.” Is it any wonder that Brian thought the manager in Hotel Rwanda was a better example of love than Jesus in The Passion of the Christ? The new bad theology is mangled justification. That means we have no further need for the Bible, Jesus or the cross. Christianity will be nothing more than a work righteous religion on the same level of Islam or Buddhism. Christianity will no longer be about forgiveness of sins for the glory of God. The cross is no longer about satisfying the wrath of God. Faith is no longer about being in a right relationship with the Creator and inheriting eternal life. Now, let’s put on our General Booth goggles and take a look into the future of Christianity. What will be the result of this bad theology? Universalism. If the emergents have their way, Jesus Christ will no longer be the exclusive way to everlasting life, nobody will go to hell and everyone will go to Heaven. Brian McLaren offers this oxymoronic defense. “I am not embracing a traditional universalist position, but I am trying to raise the question, ‘When God created the universe, did he have two purposes in mind—one being to create some people who would forever enjoy blessing and mercy, and another to create a group who would forever suffer torment, torture, and punishment? What is our view of God? A God who plans torture? A God who has an essential, eternal quality of hatred? Is God love, or is God love and hate?’” Straw man aside, that is like stating, “I am not saying I think everyone is going to go to heaven, I’m just saying that God is so loving He won’t send anyone to hell.” In 1759, William Romaine presented, “The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended.” This was an effort to fend off the advances of the Catholic merit system (infused righteousness) into Protestant circles. The doctrine of justification that Luther had rescued was under assault. Here is what William Romaine begged. I have taken the liberty of replacing “Catholicism” with “Emergent”. “A sinner made righteous by the righteousness of Christ is the doctrine upon which a church stands or falls. Upon it our church was established, and has long stood; but do we stand upon it now? Are we all champions for the protestant doctrine, or are we in general departed from it? Alas! Our enemies can tell, with triumph they tell of the increase of the emergent interest among us. And why does it increase? Whence is it that they make so many converts? Is it not because our people are not well established in the protestant doctrine? If it was taught and preached more, our churches would not be so empty as they are, nor the emergent houses so full. Many of our people know not what it is to be a protestant, and therefore they become an easy prey to the emergents, who are so busy and successful in making converts.” Our new bad theology is redefined justification. The result can only lead to universalism. Mr. McLaren might try to obfuscate his position by saying he does not believe in “traditional universalism”, but universalism by any name (or with any adjective) is heresy. Heresy means people will go to hell. Listen to William Romaine. “I fear this may be true; but is it not alarming, and ought it not to stir up the clergy, to try to put a stop to the spreading of the emergents? May the Lord raise up faithful and able men to defend His righteousness against them who have established a meritorious righteousness of their own, and will not submit to the righteousness of God.” If you choke on the squishy gospel of the seeker sensitive movement, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Well, if you're Bill, one's position can can be very subjective and that's ok. If I have a red house and most people (who aren't color blind) also agree that my house is red, it is perfectly alright if Bill (who isn't color blind for my example) says that he really believes that my house is purple. He sees that my house is made of bricks and it probably is really red as most people agree who've actually looked at it, but he really likes the color purple. He likes to think that my brick house is purple. That's what he takes from his drive through my neighborhood every time comes by. He really likes that purple brick house that I live in. It doesn't matter that my house is really made with red brick. The facts aren't as important as my feelings as long as it works for me.

Dave, Did you mean to respond to me or Bill? Jay

Much of Catholic tradition is not Biblical at all. It's just Catholic tradition. But that's another topic. Good hermeneutics is necessary in order to properly undertand scripture. Critical analysis verses the subjective "what does it mean to me?" or "what can I change it to work for me?" By your analogy, textual criticism, historicity, proper translation, context doesn't matter. It's all what it means to me. If I'm ok with that, then whatever makes me happy. Is that responsible?

It's not what it means to you. It's not what it means to me. It's about what it means.

Luke wasn't a sheepherder. Anyway, anyone who's actually taken the time to read the Bible couldn't say that its authors were ignorant or uneducated.