Dave Cloud: "I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as 'non-essential"
- 79 views
No approval of Apostasy and no common ministry with those who doWhat sort of approval or common ministry does Dever have with apostates?
I think you’re failing to hear my point. I contend that a minor affiliation with a group that you don’t respect, and don’t financially support does not amount to an approval of Apostasy and common ministry with those who do approve Apostasy. This is further coroborated by Dever’s actions to defund teh DCBC.
Faced with his church’s membership in the liberal DCBC. Upon hearing of the liberal leanings of that group, Dever moved to work with the SBC denomination to defund the group. That was his form of cutting ties with them. Obviously you would have just left the DCBC and severed membership, that would be your decision of how to oppose the liberalism. Dever is more of a convention man, and he worked through the convention means to defund the group.
Dever’s decision is different than how a typical fundamentalist would handle this. But I would contend that is all it is, just different, not wrong. In his good conscience he can keep his church a member of the DCBC and possibly work toward it’s restoration. A similar tack was chosen by John Piper too with his involvement in the Baptist General Conference, but that is another can of worms to open here.
The original fundamentalists didn’t all just walk up and leave. Many stayed put and tried to reform. In fact, wasn’t it Dr. Clearwaters or someone else who boasted of saving the Minnesota Baptist Convention rather than having to walk away from it?
I would contend that what Dever and other conservative evangelicals are doing today is nothing compared to the blatant liberalism of Graham. I don’t see their actions as “new evangelical”, although I’m not entirely sure what to think of the original new evangelicals (they all weren’t as blatantly bad as Graham). You can call me a young fundamentalist, or use Joel Tetrau’s “Type C” for me, I don’t know. I think there doesn’t need to be a hard and fast line demarcating “fundamentalists” from non-fundamentalists. I think we need to stand for God’s word and for the unity emphasis as much as the separation. When Paul speaks of separation, he does so with tears not glee. It seems that many fundamentalists jump at the chance to find something new to peg on someone like Mark Dever. Good, another excuse not to have any fellowship with him! Oh he must be really bad! This doesn’t jive with the verses in my tagline below. That spirit is similar to what the Puritan, Thomas Manton was speaking out against. I’ll share that quote again here.
Faced with his church’s membership in the liberal DCBC. Upon hearing of the liberal leanings of that group, Dever moved to work with the SBC denomination to defund the group. That was his form of cutting ties with them. Obviously you would have just left the DCBC and severed membership, that would be your decision of how to oppose the liberalism. Dever is more of a convention man, and he worked through the convention means to defund the group.
Dever’s decision is different than how a typical fundamentalist would handle this. But I would contend that is all it is, just different, not wrong. In his good conscience he can keep his church a member of the DCBC and possibly work toward it’s restoration. A similar tack was chosen by John Piper too with his involvement in the Baptist General Conference, but that is another can of worms to open here.
The original fundamentalists didn’t all just walk up and leave. Many stayed put and tried to reform. In fact, wasn’t it Dr. Clearwaters or someone else who boasted of saving the Minnesota Baptist Convention rather than having to walk away from it?
I would contend that what Dever and other conservative evangelicals are doing today is nothing compared to the blatant liberalism of Graham. I don’t see their actions as “new evangelical”, although I’m not entirely sure what to think of the original new evangelicals (they all weren’t as blatantly bad as Graham). You can call me a young fundamentalist, or use Joel Tetrau’s “Type C” for me, I don’t know. I think there doesn’t need to be a hard and fast line demarcating “fundamentalists” from non-fundamentalists. I think we need to stand for God’s word and for the unity emphasis as much as the separation. When Paul speaks of separation, he does so with tears not glee. It seems that many fundamentalists jump at the chance to find something new to peg on someone like Mark Dever. Good, another excuse not to have any fellowship with him! Oh he must be really bad! This doesn’t jive with the verses in my tagline below. That spirit is similar to what the Puritan, Thomas Manton was speaking out against. I’ll share that quote again here.
…when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity…. Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I am a 5 point Calvinist non-dispensational myself who adheres to the London Baptist Confession until I can find a better one. It is appalling that Dever himself will speak before the very people that he himself will not allow in his own pulpit. What is that, some “one way evangelicalism” that forces others to give you acceptance that you are not willing to reciprocate? And in Dever’s unwillingness to leave the DCBC, with that you are simply defending the indefensible. “In his good conscience he can keep his church a member of the DCBC and possibly work toward it’s restoration.” Sorry, but there is someone’s “good conscience” versus what the Bible says. If there is Biblical command, warrant, precedent, or justification for what Dever is doing, state it. And the fact that “Dr. Piper, Dr. Clearwaters, and the original fundamentalists” didn’t do it … again where did the words and actions of people have the authority of scripture? (And what is the relevance of listing Dr. Piper, who is open and proud in his disavowal of the fundamentalism of his youth? This helps Dever and his defenders how?) And the fact that some bodies like the SBC and the MBC were rehabilitated doesn’t mean that battling for those conventions were the right thing to do. Christianity isn’t an “outcome based/results based” religion, it is a scripture-based one. As a matter of fact, a lot of those who ran the race before us bore fruit by adhering to the Bible even when it DIDN’T (initially) bear fruit, or more to the point when they were persecuted for it. Compare Dr. Clearwaters’ fight to rehabilitate the MBC in an American religious landscape that offered PLENTY of other good churches as alternatives for those seeking them , to what William Carey had to endure in India (poverty/opposition/ridicule, the deaths of 2 children, 2 wives and a number of coworkers, the loss of irreplaceable manuscripts and the years of painstaking work creating them in a fire, etc.) in a ministry that for many years had only a few converts to show for it.
Ultimately David Cloud’s being wrong does not mean that Dever is right.
Ultimately David Cloud’s being wrong does not mean that Dever is right.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Job,
Where does Scripture directly adress this issue? The DCBC is not a group of sons of Belial. And being a non-paying member of the DCBC is not the same as full-fledged fellowship and support.
The Bible says to seek to win your brother first before rejecting him as a heretic. And particularly with Baptist associations being build so as to preserve the autonomy of the churches that are members (autonomy being Baptist after all), the matter of fighting for truth and doctrinal purity from within a fallible organization vs. leaving an organization for dead is up for debate.
Standing for truth takes many forms, and separation is the last resort. Paul wasn’t gleeful when he separated, he was tearful. He didn’t look for the worst in people so he can be assured of who to avoid, he wished the best and was saddened when he had to break it off.
Where does Scripture directly adress this issue? The DCBC is not a group of sons of Belial. And being a non-paying member of the DCBC is not the same as full-fledged fellowship and support.
The Bible says to seek to win your brother first before rejecting him as a heretic. And particularly with Baptist associations being build so as to preserve the autonomy of the churches that are members (autonomy being Baptist after all), the matter of fighting for truth and doctrinal purity from within a fallible organization vs. leaving an organization for dead is up for debate.
Standing for truth takes many forms, and separation is the last resort. Paul wasn’t gleeful when he separated, he was tearful. He didn’t look for the worst in people so he can be assured of who to avoid, he wished the best and was saddened when he had to break it off.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Bob Hayton,
You are evidently twisting history a great deal. I also knew Doc Clearwaters (remember I’m old). He was president of Central when I was there. He criticized the “stay iners” many, many times. He left the NBC along with most churches of the MBC (Minnesota Baptist Convention). He stayed in the MBC but they all left the NBC. Any delay had to do with “keeping the furniture” such as Pillsbury. Also, by your reference you give an admission to the blatant wrongness of Dever. Doc and those churches left the then Northern Baptist Convention, now the American Baptist Churches, in 1947. Thats 63 years, and many more Apostate actions by the ABC, ago! The ABC has now formally voted to approve of homosexuality and holds many other bazaar doctrines. All this time Capitol Hill Baptist has been indifferent to such actions and remained in the DCBC and therefore the ABC. However, the DCBC is also Apostate in and of itself. In 1996 the DCBC accepted the Apostate Progressive Baptist Convention. This was formed by those Liberal (self named moderates for public relations) churches which protested the increasing Biblical stance of the SBC. The DCBC approved of a church group formed in apostasy. And still Capitol Hill Baptist church did not withdraw. In view of the facts of the long and firm apostasy by the ABC and the fact that that the PBC was formed in apostasy, one would have to be in total ignorance of scripture principle to think that they can be reformed. Also one would have to be in direct violation of scripture to stay in affiliation. It is self evident that 2Cor. 6:14 -18 applies clearly and directly here or it cannot be applied anywhere.
You’re quoting the English Puritan Thomas Manton has little relevance here except to prove that you may not really be a separatist in any sense. Thomas Manton was a dissenter against the Anglican Prayer book and orders of worship for which he suffered. However, like most Puritans he was not a separatist but advocated “purifying” the Anglican church. In spite of seizing the government by revolution of force at one point, they utterly failed. Manton’s statement is directly contrary to scriptural doctrine and part of the history of the failure of English Puritanism and the non separatist position. The Pilgrims were Puritan in theology but separatist and independent in church practice. They would eventually influence those Puritans that migrated to the Colonies and would form the Congregational churches. It would take the Wesley revival to rescue England from the dead spiritual churches and the blatant immorality.
If a person holds to the philosophy of Thomas Manton they are not a separatist and not a Fundamentalist in any sense. That appears to be the reason for the differences here.
An action of withholding funds, or influencing others to withhold funds, from an apostate group is a good first step but is not sufficient. 2Cor. 6 obviously demands a clean and complete separation from apostasy and false religion. However, I have never seen any statement or evidence that Mark Dever actually did that. If he did that is commendable but far short of the scriptural demands.
In reality, when one realizes the Satanic influence and false religion that Liberal Christianity is, to have your church affiliated and listed by such groups without protest is like having your Bible Church or Baptist church listed with a Buddhist or Hindu group. And then when asked about it one merely says “Oh yes, but we give them no money, were just listed by them as affiliated.”
You are evidently twisting history a great deal. I also knew Doc Clearwaters (remember I’m old). He was president of Central when I was there. He criticized the “stay iners” many, many times. He left the NBC along with most churches of the MBC (Minnesota Baptist Convention). He stayed in the MBC but they all left the NBC. Any delay had to do with “keeping the furniture” such as Pillsbury. Also, by your reference you give an admission to the blatant wrongness of Dever. Doc and those churches left the then Northern Baptist Convention, now the American Baptist Churches, in 1947. Thats 63 years, and many more Apostate actions by the ABC, ago! The ABC has now formally voted to approve of homosexuality and holds many other bazaar doctrines. All this time Capitol Hill Baptist has been indifferent to such actions and remained in the DCBC and therefore the ABC. However, the DCBC is also Apostate in and of itself. In 1996 the DCBC accepted the Apostate Progressive Baptist Convention. This was formed by those Liberal (self named moderates for public relations) churches which protested the increasing Biblical stance of the SBC. The DCBC approved of a church group formed in apostasy. And still Capitol Hill Baptist church did not withdraw. In view of the facts of the long and firm apostasy by the ABC and the fact that that the PBC was formed in apostasy, one would have to be in total ignorance of scripture principle to think that they can be reformed. Also one would have to be in direct violation of scripture to stay in affiliation. It is self evident that 2Cor. 6:14 -18 applies clearly and directly here or it cannot be applied anywhere.
You’re quoting the English Puritan Thomas Manton has little relevance here except to prove that you may not really be a separatist in any sense. Thomas Manton was a dissenter against the Anglican Prayer book and orders of worship for which he suffered. However, like most Puritans he was not a separatist but advocated “purifying” the Anglican church. In spite of seizing the government by revolution of force at one point, they utterly failed. Manton’s statement is directly contrary to scriptural doctrine and part of the history of the failure of English Puritanism and the non separatist position. The Pilgrims were Puritan in theology but separatist and independent in church practice. They would eventually influence those Puritans that migrated to the Colonies and would form the Congregational churches. It would take the Wesley revival to rescue England from the dead spiritual churches and the blatant immorality.
If a person holds to the philosophy of Thomas Manton they are not a separatist and not a Fundamentalist in any sense. That appears to be the reason for the differences here.
An action of withholding funds, or influencing others to withhold funds, from an apostate group is a good first step but is not sufficient. 2Cor. 6 obviously demands a clean and complete separation from apostasy and false religion. However, I have never seen any statement or evidence that Mark Dever actually did that. If he did that is commendable but far short of the scriptural demands.
In reality, when one realizes the Satanic influence and false religion that Liberal Christianity is, to have your church affiliated and listed by such groups without protest is like having your Bible Church or Baptist church listed with a Buddhist or Hindu group. And then when asked about it one merely says “Oh yes, but we give them no money, were just listed by them as affiliated.”
Bob Hayton said:
There is no such thing as church affiliation that is less than full because no money is given. There is affiliation and non affiliation. Are you just making this stuff up as you go?
Where does Scripture directly adress this issue? The DCBC is not a group of sons of Belial. And being a non-paying member of the DCBC is not the same as full-fledged fellowship and support.You surely know that the principle applies to all false religion. Belial was used in apocalyptic literature of Satan. Paul is referring to Satan here. Belial is also behind liberal Christianity.
There is no such thing as church affiliation that is less than full because no money is given. There is affiliation and non affiliation. Are you just making this stuff up as you go?
There is affiliation and non affiliation.
That’s your take, yes. Others view it a bit more complex than that. There are degrees of fellowship.
And just like it took some quite some time before they eventually broke away from the conventions, and we allow that was okay. Others didn’t necessarily receive the bulletin that all true Bible believers are forty or more years away from the break and so should only find themselves outside those conventions.
People like Dever and others are disconnected from the legacy of Clearwaters and others like him. They are going through some of the same things in trying to rescue the SBC, which they have largely done, and other organizations. Some have broken away from conventions, I bet. And some will in the future. Can we grant them latitude to take this journey one step at a time? Or do we look at them with a smirk and say nothing they do is enough unless they come to the conclusions that many original fundamentalists felt were so sad and painful to take.
Having an attitude that upholds righteousness and fights for purity, but also that prizes unity is not the same thing as an unequal yoke and supporting of error. This militant attitude can express itself in a variety of ways, and separation is one of them but not the only one. I see Dever on a Biblical trajectory and he may well eventually cut off the DCBC. But no one on this thread has asked Dever why they are in the DCBC. Cloud and that other guy he quoted didn’t either. Instead we just impugn motives and judge him from the sidelines. And this is somehow more Christian than how someone like Thomas Manton would have assessed the situation?
It’s sad but the words of Manton have proved true for a good many in fundamentalism, I’m afraid. And if standing apart from people like Manton is part of what fundamentalism is all about, I’m not really all that interested, thank you.
I think I’m going to move on from this paticular back and forth, Bob. You and I have said our peace.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Bob-
If you were approached by a church about becoming a pastor, and that church was in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Churches_USA] ABC-USA but they wanted to leave, would you consider taking it? Or would you ask that the church pull completely out first and then take it? Or would you just go a different direction entirely?
I’m just asking, because I know of a situation like that and I’d like to get your input on the right way it should be done.
If you were approached by a church about becoming a pastor, and that church was in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Churches_USA] ABC-USA but they wanted to leave, would you consider taking it? Or would you ask that the church pull completely out first and then take it? Or would you just go a different direction entirely?
I’m just asking, because I know of a situation like that and I’d like to get your input on the right way it should be done.
"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
[Jay C.] Bob-I would first look at the ruling church board which may be Deacons or Elders. I would kindly probe the depth of their convictions and level of theological understanding and Bible knowledge. I would then seek to determine the same of the congregation. Visit a service anonymously. Ask any staff questions, such as the church secretary. You can find out everything from a casual conversation with a church secretary. If there were a sufficient level of normal spiritual knowledge and conviction I may then consider being one who would go through candidacy. During the candidating process there should be a time of question and answer with the congregation. I would openly and dogmatically state that if called as Pastor it should involve a separation from the ABC. I would inform them if they were to vote for me to come as pastor, then they should also have a vote to withdraw from the ABC. Both results with the number of yeas and nays should be included in any letter requesting me to come as Pastor.
If you were approached by a church about becoming a pastor, and that church was in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Churches_USA] ABC-USA but they wanted to leave, would you consider taking it? Or would you ask that the church pull completely out first and then take it? Or would you just go a different direction entirely?
I’m just asking, because I know of a situation like that and I’d like to get your input on the right way it should be done.
The problem I have seen is that churches who have stayed in the ABC all this time have become weakened in convictions and spiritual understanding. They have experienced the ministry of weak pastors with minimal convictions. There may very well be dissidents who would make an issue and split the church shortly after a new pastor comes with convictions and wanting separation.
In 1971 I helped a Presbyterian church withdraw from the United Presbyterian churches. I taught their weekly Wednesday Bible study and preached in the pulpit until they brought a regular conservative Pastor. I was not an interim pastor but took on some duties. This church had about 90% unity in withdrawal and had to take legal action to prevent seizing the property by the Presbytery. However the new pastor lasted but 5 years with constant dissension. The church had many solid folks but enough people who were unregenerate and/or immature spiritually to cause problems. This is often a problem in churches who were too long in liberal or liberal going denominations. In 1972 I left that area (Seattle) to go off to Central Baptist Seminary at the Arctic Circle. I was in the process of becoming both a Fundamentalist and more Baptist or “Plymouth Brethren Baptist.”
Since then I have been involved in helping a few Pastors and churches going through problems. Some involved problems in churches that had left liberal groups but still had those who had the regrets of leaving their heritage. As they use to say in the military, there are always the 10% who don’t get it. Most churches have the ten percenters. In some they have the voice of fifty percenters. In many traditional clergy calling North American Churches the Pastors need Circus wild animal training. Hold a whip in one hand and a Bible in the other and pray they don’t all attack at once. :bigsmile:
Yes, I believe a man may cautiously consider the traditional Pastorate of a definite come out church.
The whole debate as to whether all doctrines are “essential” or if some are “non-essential”, as others have pointed out, is unhelpful. I think it is much more helpful to realize not every doctrine is of the same level of importance. Yes, that’s what I said. And do you know where I got such an idea? Not from Hayton, or from Dever, or from Mohler, but from the apostle Paul himself.
He said the Gospel is of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15). Obviously not everything can be of first importance, so if the Gospel is of first importance, other things are not. That does NOT mean those secondary or tertiary doctrines are not useful, profitable, helpful, or even important, as everything in Scripture is (2 Tim. 3:16-17). But when every doctrine rises to the level of “first importance,” there is a serious problem.
He said the Gospel is of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15). Obviously not everything can be of first importance, so if the Gospel is of first importance, other things are not. That does NOT mean those secondary or tertiary doctrines are not useful, profitable, helpful, or even important, as everything in Scripture is (2 Tim. 3:16-17). But when every doctrine rises to the level of “first importance,” there is a serious problem.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I couldn’t agree more, Greg. Still, some will disagree. A prominent critic at my blog a few years back, said: “I’ve written a whole post on your 1 Cor. 15, first importance, interpretation. It’s a new interpretation to back up this new doctrine.”
Admitting some are more important than others, let’s us have meaningful fellowship with fellow humans impacted by the Fall. It doesn’t have to entail the view that some doctrine is optional or up for grabs.
Admitting some are more important than others, let’s us have meaningful fellowship with fellow humans impacted by the Fall. It doesn’t have to entail the view that some doctrine is optional or up for grabs.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Hypothetically: You have a Pastor Friend who it turns out is listed affiliated with the “Southern Beneficent Rangers.” This it turns out is a group that is affiliated with the Klu Klux Klan. You have this pointed out to you so you ask the Pastor about this. He states he does not agree with the group and has not given them any money in years.
Is it OK to overlook this affiliated listing? Or should you not advise this Pastor that for his own general reputation and for the reputation of Jesus Christ and his church he must break all necessary affiliation to get his name removed?
If after warning he still fails to act do you not think it that it would be wise and in the best interest of your church to make sure he never speaks at your church?
Is it not much more grievous to God for one to be in any way affiliated with an organization that denies the Deity, death, burial, resurrection, and efficacious atonement of Christ, than to a racist group? The racism is sin and terribly wrong. Apostasy is even more wrong and with greater consequences.
We need to recognize the gravity of what is being discussed here.
Is it OK to overlook this affiliated listing? Or should you not advise this Pastor that for his own general reputation and for the reputation of Jesus Christ and his church he must break all necessary affiliation to get his name removed?
If after warning he still fails to act do you not think it that it would be wise and in the best interest of your church to make sure he never speaks at your church?
Is it not much more grievous to God for one to be in any way affiliated with an organization that denies the Deity, death, burial, resurrection, and efficacious atonement of Christ, than to a racist group? The racism is sin and terribly wrong. Apostasy is even more wrong and with greater consequences.
We need to recognize the gravity of what is being discussed here.
Regarding the essential nature of Biblical doctrines: I have always taught that all doctrines are equally essential but not to equal consequences. There are some doctrines that are essential to salvation and to not believe or to deny has the consequences of eternity in hell. There are other doctrines essential to Sanctification and if wrongly held may hinder Christian living but may not halt all progress. Then there are doctrines of many other subjects. Each may bear certain consequences in seeing them truthfully of seeing them wrongly. The consequences are not the same.
It is best to believe all doctrines truthfully and without error. Those in heaven do so.
It is best to believe all doctrines truthfully and without error. Those in heaven do so.
Bob - thanks for the reply; I appreciated your insight. As for post #27:
The significant difference here is that the KKK has a reputation with believers and nonbelivers that would merit breaking the relationship with them entirely. I don’t think being the head of a church that is affiliated in name only with a denomination that has a liberal program, especially when the Pastor is leading the charge to defund said program, is anywhere nearly close to having ties to the KKK, whether one is a Southern Ranger or a Southern Baptist.
Also, Susan brought up a good point when she said in post #5;
So shouldn’t Cloud be dropping his affiliations with those churches? Seems to me that Cloud is practicing (selective separation) what he’s arguing against.
Hypothetically: You have a Pastor Friend who it turns out is listed affiliated with the “Southern Beneficent Rangers.” This it turns out is a group that is affiliated with the Klu Klux Klan. You have this pointed out to you so you ask the Pastor about this. He states he does not agree with the group and has not given them any money in years.
Is it OK to overlook this affiliated listing? Or should you not advise this Pastor that for his own general reputation and for the reputation of Jesus Christ and his church he must break all necessary affiliation to get his name removed?
The significant difference here is that the KKK has a reputation with believers and nonbelivers that would merit breaking the relationship with them entirely. I don’t think being the head of a church that is affiliated in name only with a denomination that has a liberal program, especially when the Pastor is leading the charge to defund said program, is anywhere nearly close to having ties to the KKK, whether one is a Southern Ranger or a Southern Baptist.
Also, Susan brought up a good point when she said in post #5;
For example, on Bro. Cloud’s site, there is a church directory. I have visited and even attended several churches on that list, and can say from personal experience that some of them have serious doctrinal and methodological issues, and the leadership of those churches associate with other even more problematic churches. Am I supposed to take it on faith that all of Bro. Cloud’s associations are as pure as the driven snow?
So shouldn’t Cloud be dropping his affiliations with those churches? Seems to me that Cloud is practicing (selective separation) what he’s arguing against.
"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
[Bob T.] Or should you not advise this Pastor that for his own general reputation and for the reputation of Jesus Christ and his church he must break all necessary affiliation to get his name removed?I agree 100%.
I missed the part where that happened in this case.
Discussion