Dr. Paul Chappell and Lancaster Baptist Church introduce a new resource website called Ministry127 (based upon Philippians 1:27).

I was in awe of all the time and effort that has obviously been spent on the website and the content, right up until the moment I checked the doctrinal statement. The first paragraph dropped my enthusiasm a couple of points, but I’ve got the site bookmarked. Thanks be to God for good people and leaders.

AA

We believe the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people and is the only acceptable translation to be used in this college by faculty or students

It’s really not that shocking… I believe that the KJV is the preserved Word of God (along with others), and I don’t mind the idea of a community all using the same version. I think given Chappell’s target audience… (independent baptist churches) it’s a pretty pragmatic statement.

The issue here is not whether it is preserved or if a group uses a standard text, but if it is a matter of policy (fine) or doctrine (not) that they do.

That being said, it is a good way to wield influence. It would be good to see others (with better doctrine) making similar efforts. You can’t argue with the basic quality of the appearance of what they are presenting.

[URL=http://ministry127.com/pastoral-leadership/top-10-questions-pastors-are…] Top 10 Questions Pastors Are Never Asked[/URL]

Wow! Most of the book reviews are either of Chappell books or of books most pastors read 20+ years ago. I’d be interested to see them interact with recent books outside of their fundamentalist sub-culture.

Their print magazine is quite well done, carefully written and edited, well worth reading. Many aspects of their design border on “trendy,” which I mention as a compliment. If I understand their editorial perspective correctly, they are not necessarily interested in interacting with material outside of our fundy subculture. Rather, they seem committed to defending their position as articulately as possible…from within their point of view (which is quite engaging), they seem to be saying we need to look no further for “outside advice.”

This isn’t quite my position, but I find their materials to be a helpful resource.

Bob, do you have a print reference for the blood issue? I know some West Coast people, and I would like to have this info on hand.

I don’t always agree with Bob T., but on this issue I am fully pursuaded of both the validity and the seriousness of at least some of his accusations. I was appalled the first time I attended a college graduation at West Coast and witneseed the potential graduates being forced to recite a parapgraph endorsing the KJV as the only true Bible for English speaking people and requiring them to promise if they ever abandoned that position they would send back their diplomas and consider their degrees revoked. The place is as rife with heresy as Hyles/First Baptist, which should not be surprising considering the Hyles ties and grads on staff. As Bob said, the only real difference is that West Coast is much more polished.

Charlie,
the address is below or you can just Google “Paul Chappell and the blood of Christ ’ and the first subject will be “The Magnificence of the Blood of Christ.” That is the sermon printed.

www.swordofthelord.com/onlinesermons/BloodAtonement.htm

First, on this…

being forced to recite a parapgraph

You would have to assume that the sudents don’t agree with the paragraph to say they were “forced,” and we don’t know that. In fact, it’s unlikely that there would be more than a very small few attending there that disagree w/the school’s position on that.
Folks, it’s not heresy to believe that one translation is better than the rest or even than one is preserved in a way that the others are not. I don’t happen to agree with that view, but we’re just cheapening the word “heresy” by throwing it around like that. What term are we going to use when someone denies the deity of Christ or asserts that the Holy Spirit is “God’s active force” or some other real heresy?

In any case, if you think a view is incorrect provide a reasoned case for disbelieving it. Labeling it isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

Second, about the blood issue. Checked the source. I don’t see anything there that denies the humanity of Jesus’ blood.

Second, about the blood issue. Checked the source. I don’t see anything there that denies the humanity of Jesus’ blood.

First, he argues (wrongly) that blood comes from the father and since Jesus didn’t have a human father, it “originated from the seed of the Holy Spirit.” Now unless Chappell is arguing that the Holy Spirit is human, he is arguing that Christ had something other than human blood.

Second, he says that the blood of Christ “literally and spiritually, is incorruptible.” Assuming that “literally” and “spiritually” are two different things (which seems obvious), then he is arguing that the blood is literally incorruptible. Yet human blood is corruptible.

Chappell’s teaching here is an old well meaning heresy. If Jesus didn’t have human blood, then he wasn’t fully human. If he wasn’t fully human, then he couldn’t pay for human sins.

My pastor years ago (he is with the Lord now) believed that there was a container (a cup) in heaven that held the actual blood of Jesus. I think (but am not sure) that it was that belief that caused the ruckus against MacArthur about the blood.

I guess I’m using a different definition of ‘heresy.’ I would agree that this view of the blood is problematic (and the first time I heard it years ago at BJU—a guest speaker—I thought it was utterly absurd), it is possible to argue that Jesus’ blood, while fully human, is kept from decay “literally” in a supernatural fashion. So the denial of true humanity there is not a necessary inference or something Chappell has said, but rather something that is being inferred from what he has said.
The logic that says “human blood decays” would also say “human bodies decay, therefore the resurrection denies Jesus’ humanity.” Both assume that what normally happens must happen in every case.

My own reason for not believing there is literal physical blood of Jesus still in existence is simply that it is not what the Bible teaches.

Edit: I’m going to have to reread what exactly his reasoning is on the blood coming from the father.

[Aaron Blumer] I guess I’m using a different definition of ‘heresy.’

So what is your definition of heresy? Knowingly and purposefully attributing attributes of Scripture reserved for the original manuscripts of Scipture by the Scriptures to a translation is much more than a preference, even a strong one. It is heresy. It is a conscious denial of truth. That is not to say that every KJVer has knowingly and purposefully…, but these are teachers and leaders who claim to have studied the topic. We have every legitimate reason to hold them accountable to thier own self-proclaimed positions.

[Aaron Blumer] First, on this…

being forced to recite a parapgraph

You would have to assume that the sudents don’t agree with the paragraph to say they were “forced,” and we don’t know that. In fact, it’s unlikely that there would be more than a very small few attending there that disagree w/the school’s position on that.

Shall we say “required?” Don’t miss the forrest because you are studying one tree!