WOF doctrine may have sparked BAD Economy

[Mike Vande]

Back when I first got saved, my chaplain told me ther were a number of God's people making what they thought were sharp deals on long term loans, thinking God was coming back at anytime and they'd get out of paying the money back. And not all of them were WOF types, either.

I have a terribly hard time believing there are enough low income WOF followers defaulting on subprime loans to be even a minor blip on this country's economic radar screen all by themselves. I'm on record as completely rejecting the WOF/NICI heresy, and heresy it is. But blaming the economic collapse on them is ridiculous. When Obama took office, it scared the fatcats on Wall Street into taking their money out of circulation and putting it where the government couldn't get it's hands on it. Banks started losing money because their paper was being called in, and they didn't have the capital to cover it anymore. POP! goes the economic bubble, and now we are mortgaging the next two or three generation's future and hoping things will get better sometime in the next 100 years...

[paul]

I have a terribly hard time believing there are enough low income WOF followers defaulting on subprime loans to be even a minor blip on this country's economic radar screen all by themselves.

But blaming the economic collapse on them is ridiculous.

That all I was saying that started this 4 page discussion, you used the word ridiculous, I used the word irresponsible....and away it went.

[dolfan]

Again I have to ask WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

I know. I ask it, too. The issue is why am I drawing lines at all? When you can answer that, I think it gives you a better idea of where to draw them, if it is still necessary to do so. I draw a line at WOF, for example, because it explicitly teaches that the Jesus of the New Testament was someone other than almost all believers, common sense, and a couple of thousand years of church history including great theological workouts of the early fathers on up to modern, faithful scholars knows and understands Him to be. So, I draw a big, bright, bold line right at their feet and have no problem with it.

If I'm sitting at a communion table with a UPC guy, though, and I feel my chalk finger getting twitchy, I better check up. I'm not convinced that his error is of the same kind as the WOF. One is error, the other is evil. This UPC guy believes in the Jesus of the bible, is honestly seeking to understand the mystery of God revealed there, and in the big picture is really different from me only on some finer points of understanding that, although I find them silly, do not amount to this person being anti-Christ or being an unbeliever. I'm probably going to keep my chalk holstered. If he breaks out with some Hagin or Copeland, though, I'm going to at least unsnap the thing even if I don't immediately whip out the chalk.

If I'm talking with a Catholic, I'm going to give serious thought about their whole Mary-worship. I think they're spooky, quite frankly. But, boy, they have a pretty historically solid view of who Jesus is and the devout ones are as devout as anyone. I know some. So, while they won't "dine" with me at communion, I would them.

Give me an Anglican priest who ordains homosexuals and says that it is God's will to extend love to everyone however they're made, and I'll call him a liar to his face and withdraw my company from him in terms of fellowship. Yet, if he's a Bama fan, I'll probably talk football with him and be nice about it. But in doing so, I'm not "accepting his errors".

If we continuously measure each other's errors, as we all understand them through our theological biases, then there's very little hope for even a local church to exist. We need to measure each other by the standard of love, and that means measuring honestly with an eye toward helping and holding up. That also requires patience and kindness.

All of these beliefs are in Christianity today.

No, they're not because they're not Christian beliefs.

Where do we stop?

OH! We can't stop! We have to love them all and not resist.

Not only have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater but we've whipped out our .45 of love and unloaded a clip into the squaling child.

There's that danger, too. Not every error is fatal, though.

[Gerald Creasy]

Unless, of course, one might take these kind of statements personally...

"It is not I that have been educated to the level that God is not real or how you define Jesus dosent matter."

"I am sorry to see you have sold out, Gary."

We gee, Gary was it before or After Fuller that you came to the conclusion that "How you define Jesus" dosent really matter??

The statements may be offensive but are they not also true?


Isn't it amazing that Jesus said "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

BUt the highbrows have convinced our leaders that such exclusivist language is negative, lets make the scripture meaningless by blowing wide open who Jesus is.

Lets cut out the old song "Everybody ought to know who Jesus is" and replace it with Depeche Mode "Your own personal jesus, Someone to hear your prayers, Someone who cares, Your own personal jesus, Someone to hear your prayers, Someone whos there"

Define him as you will; it's okay!

I'll state again:


If any belief about Christ can be held and it's all okay, then the belief he is not needed can be held as well.
If you say this is not true that Christ is needed, how then do you establish WHICH Christ is needed? Yours, or another?

If you say YOURS, upon what basis do you claim that yours is the correct Jesus that they need??

Without a proper understanding of who Christ is what then becomes of Christianity? It becomes a collection of people deidicated to the pursuit of an ideal CALLED Jesus that can be anything, everything or nothing at all.

It is no longer Christianity at all.

[Pastor Gary]

We gee, Gary was it before or After Fuller that you came to the conclusion that "How you define Jesus" dosent really matter??

The statements may be offensive but are they not also true?

I'll try one more time:
I have never, ever, not one single time, in this lifetime or any other, on this forum, in smoke signals, by mental telepathy or otherwise said that ""How you define Jesus" dosent really matter."

Never. Not once. You have not shown me to have said so, because I NEVER SAID THAT... it's the big lie theory: if you keep repeating it over and over, people will start to think it's true.

YOU, not I, have twisted a statement to make a straw-man fallacy argument to "prove" something never said so you can create an enemy to battle. I have simply been suggesting to you -- and you are intelligent enough to understand this is you will choose to -- that you can be absolutely doctrinaire and precisely correct about your Theology and still miss it because "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

That's all I have been saying from the start. But you just continue to fight a battle that doesn't exist, if that makes you feel superior.

[Gerald Creasy]

We gee, Gary was it before or After Fuller that you came to the conclusion that "How you define Jesus" dosent really matter??

The statements may be offensive but are they not also true?

I'll try one more time:
I have never, ever, not one single time, in this lifetime or any other, on this forum, in smoke signals, by mental telepathy or otherwise said that ""How you define Jesus" dosent really matter."

Never. Not once. You have not shown me to have said so, because I NEVER SAID THAT... it's the big lie theory: if you keep repeating it over and over, people will start to think it's true.

YOU, not I, have twisted a statement to make a straw-man fallacy argument to "prove" something never said so you can create an enemy to battle. I have simply been suggesting to you -- and you are intelligent enough to understand this is you will choose to -- that you can be absolutely doctrinaire and precisely correct about your Theology and still miss it because "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

That's all I have been saying from the start. But you just continue to fight a battle that doesn't exist, if that makes you feel superior.

How can you say that you never said anyhting of the sort and call me "exclusivist" at the same time?

Does not calling me "Exclusivist" mean that you are "Inclusive"??

If you are inclusive to include other definitions of Jesus, how then does a proper definition "matter"???

[Jamais Vu]

Okay. Have it your way. You are right, Gerald. Everyone else is stupid.

You may have thought you left the old COGOP exclusivist mindset of the past, but you have merely replaced it with another flavor of the same kool-aid.

soooooo you dont think Jesus is exclusive? you think there are other avenues to salvation, than Jesus Christ?? and how is "love" equivalent to just overlooking the differences in doctrine? i would rather have something that is REAL even if it hurts my poor feelings, than some head-in-the-sand, everyone come together in the name of love front.

Please try not to put words never uttered into the mouths of others. Either cite where I said anything remotely approaching what you have alleged, or apologize for the sly misrepresentation.

If you cite where i "tried" to put words uttered into the mouths of others, or maybe any of these "allegations" then i will surely apologize. I asked a few questions, and then stated a viewpoint......does that bother you? I have no idea who you are, or what you stand for.....so how could i possibly misrepresent you? Surely your reputation is not bound by the hinges of someone you have never met on an internet message board?....

[Pastor Gary]

How can you say that you never said anyhting of the sort and call me "exclusivist" at the same time?

Does not calling me "Exclusivist" mean that you are "Inclusive"??

If you are inclusive to include other definitions of Jesus, how then does a proper definition "matter"???

You just like to argue, Gerald, or this would be over. WAY over. This is the same problem I had all the time with Tim Elston: he truly thought he knew what a person meant, and what their motives were, no matter how much they explained otherwise.

Once again, you have misquoted me. Here is what I said: "You may have thought you left the old COGOP exclusivist mindset of the past, but you have merely replaced it with another flavor of the same kool-aid."

You read into that what you wanted to see to perpetuate your argument, not what I actually said or meant. I nowhere said you were an exclusivist. Read it and show me those words. I said you left one error behind and fell victim to another, different kind of error equally arrogant -- the belief that you are right about everything and others are your spiritual inferiors. Different manifestation of the same mindset.

You are, I repeat, angry with me because I am not as passionate about some issues as you are, and because I can be nice to people who are wrong. You call that compromise, and I call it evangelism.

[Gerald Creasy]

How can you say that you never said anyhting of the sort and call me "exclusivist" at the same time?

Does not calling me "Exclusivist" mean that you are "Inclusive"??

If you are inclusive to include other definitions of Jesus, how then does a proper definition "matter"???

You just like to argue, Gerald, or this would be over. WAY over. This is the same problem I had all the time with Tim Elston: he truly thought he knew what a person meant, and what their motives were, no matter how much they explained otherwise.

Once again, you have misquoted me. Here is what I said: "You may have thought you left the old COGOP exclusivist mindset of the past, but you have merely replaced it with another flavor of the same kool-aid."

You read into that what you wanted to see to perpetuate your argument, not what I actually said or meant. I nowhere said you were an exclusivist. Read it and show me those words. I said you left one error behind and fell victim to another, different kind of error equally arrogant -- the belief that you are right about everything and others are your spiritual inferiors. Different manifestation of the same mindset.

You are, I repeat, angry with me because I am not as passionate about some issues as you are, and because I can be nice to people who are wrong. You call that compromise, and I call it evangelism.

Your response to me from the git go was to paint me as a arrogant psycho to whom you did not HAVE to deign to respond, threated with banning and IGNORE a plain email request as civil and as "help me to understand" as I possibly could make it.

If I have misunderstood your comments then for the above reasons you are equally responsible.

It's so easy to love the lovable isnt it?

[paul]

How can you say that you never said anyhting of the sort and call me "exclusivist" at the same time?

Does not calling me "Exclusivist" mean that you are "Inclusive"??

If you are inclusive to include other definitions of Jesus, how then does a proper definition "matter"???

You just like to argue, Gerald, or this would be over. WAY over. This is the same problem I had all the time with Tim Elston: he truly thought he knew what a person meant, and what their motives were, no matter how much they explained otherwise.

Once again, you have misquoted me. Here is what I said: "You may have thought you left the old COGOP exclusivist mindset of the past, but you have merely replaced it with another flavor of the same kool-aid."

You read into that what you wanted to see to perpetuate your argument, not what I actually said or meant. I nowhere said you were an exclusivist. Read it and show me those words. I said you left one error behind and fell victim to another, different kind of error equally arrogant -- the belief that you are right about everything and others are your spiritual inferiors. Different manifestation of the same mindset.

You are, I repeat, angry with me because I am not as passionate about some issues as you are, and because I can be nice to people who are wrong. You call that compromise, and I call it evangelism.

Your response to me from the git go was to paint me as a arrogant psycho to whom you did not HAVE to deign to respond, threated with banning and IGNORE a plain email request as civil and as "help me to understand" as I possibly could make it.

If I have misunderstood your comments then for the above reasons you are equally responsible.

It's so easy to love the lovable isnt it?

Gerald you misquote, you draw your own conclusions, you make completely false statements concerning others views, you make false accusations and when you are challenged and confronted you always cry foul and restort to playing the victim.

[Pastor Gary]

Your response to me from the git go was to paint me as a arrogant psycho to whom you did not HAVE to deign to respond, threated with banning and IGNORE a plain email request as civil and as "help me to understand" as I possibly could make it.

If I have misunderstood your comments then for the above reasons you are equally responsible.

It's so easy to love the lovable isnt it?

This thread has proven my thesis beyond any example I could have provided. I said: "Everyone — everyone — interprets the Scriptures through their interpretive framework or tradition. Human bias of experience and personal prejudice is virtually impossible to avoid.

The people who fervently believe they don’t do this probably do so more than most people."

If you will review this (and perhaps other similar threads) you will see clearly that you (and I) read what others write through the filter of our experience, bias, understanding, culture... even, sometimes, gender, race, nationality, age, political views.

We do it. We don't do it consciously or willingly, but we do it.

[free]

I'm taking authority over this thread and calling it completely stopped, destroyed and finished in Jesus name!

[RamboPreacher]

I agree with your authoritative declaration of faith proclamation, and in so doing, require that our agreement make it so.