Omissions From the Gospel, Important to Consider
- 69 views
Surely having a common understanding of the Gospel is far more important than a shared opinion about, say, women wearing slacks. (Or any number of other secondary matters.)
G. N. Barkman
I cringe when I hear some testimonies:
- “I accepted Christ as my Savior …. “
I think: “What about as my Lord?!”
A testimony is not a doctrinal treatise. If the person doesn’t believe in Christ’s lordship, that’s different from expressing a different attribute. If I say “God is good,” that doesn’t mean I believe God isn’t also X (you name the attribute).
Dave Barnhart
I feel a slight cringe when a salvation testimony begins with a personal pronoun as in:
“I asked Jesus into my heart…”
“I accepted Jesus …..”
“I made Jesus my Savior……”
“I became a Christian when I ……..”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I feel like the purpose of this article is strangely divisive. I have no problem theologically with people saying Christ is their Savior or even relating to Him primarily that way. I don’t see it as a disconnect from Christ being one’s Lord.
When my child (or I) is sinning, I tell them, “you need a Savior”, meaning that she needs to turn to God for help with that sin. To be saved from that sin today, right now.
In this very article, KB says it well in this paragraph:
Not doing what Jesus (God) wants is sin. Salvation is saving you from sin. He doesn’t save you to continue not doing what He wants. That’s not being saved from sin. It’s not as though you can reject that part or even not agree with it, and be saved, only to acquiesce to what He wants sometime down the road. No, you’re giving in right away.
That’s what the Savior does– saves us from being enslaved to our sin to serving a new master.
???
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/05/omissions-from-gospel-impor…
He’s right about this!
Down in Arizona, a meeting is called Gospel Proclaimed, with both Sexton and Doran, go figure. Somebody should say what’s going on with that. And I’m just using that as an example — there’s far more of this strangeness all over.
this must be a specialized conversation I have no secret access to. Who is Doran? Who is Sexton? What are they saying? Must this all be so cryptic?
Since I am not ‘in the know,’ though how lovely that I have been anonymously quoted on someone’s blog now, I guess i haven’t much to contribute further ?
:D
“Doran” is Dr. David Doran, the Senior Pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and the President of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (Allen Park, MI). “Sexton” is Pastor Clarence Sexton, the Senior Pastor of Temple Baptist Church and the Founder & President of The Crown College of the Bible (Powell, TN). They have long had glaring theological distinctions.
In regards to a conference hosted by Sexton just a few years ago (and a second, separate conference), here is an excerpt from what Doran said in his blog in March, 2010:
“The real issue of our day is theological and ministerial agreement, not label or membership card in some club. It does not bother me at all that I would be unwelcome at both of these conferences simply because I would not want to be at either of these conferences. In spite of the presence of some good men, we simply don’t see eye to eye on some very important theological and ministerial issues.
Fellowship means you share something and the more you share the stronger the fellowship. These conferences, and the claims made about them, show that the name fundamentalist no longer serves effectively as a summary of mutual agreement.” [ http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=290]
Translation? Up until recently, Doran wouldn’t have been caught dead on the same platform as Sexton. That’s why many are so puzzled by the roster of speakers at this AZ conference. What’s changed?
so this blogging is sort of an oblique way of asking Doran what changed? no one’s written him about it directly?
[Anne Sokol]so this blogging is sort of an oblique way of asking Doran what changed? no one’s written him about it directly?
Kent B brought out the strangeness of the conference line up. It’s been mentioned before. D Doran himself said he would not be in a conference with Sexton. I personally wouldn’t attend a conference with Sexton. There is no need to write to Doran!
there seems to be a lot of obvious information to some that I am not seeing.
Sexton has heretical teachings and this is what KB’s blog is about? This is not directly stated, but now it seems to be implied?
And so, doran wouldn’t be at his conferences or speak where S was speaking.
But now he is.
So now, we are to wonder why Doran is changing his position when Sexton’s teachings have not changed and are seriously in error … ?
Is this correct?
My reading of the Doran blog post linked above doesn’t precisely say Doran would not go to Sexton’s conference because of Sexton, more likely the issue he was addressing was the presence of Schaap. Moreover the conference Doran will be attending isn’t organized by Sexton so it has a whole different set of commitments. Sexton is merely speaking there. The 2010 conferences and this one are different enough, it seems to me, to see why Doran might go to this latter and not those former.
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/05/omissions-from-gospel-impor…
Selected quotes:
I’m going to be very plain now. I told someone that getting the gospel right is more important than the Manhattan Project during World War 2. I want to use the example of the Gospel Proclaimed as an example. I think that the gospel represented by Sexton, or at least those associated with him, the ones whom he still exalts (and you can’t have it both ways), causes bile to rise in the throats of Doran and Bauder (and perhaps others). The fact that those two factions come together under the heading, Gospel Proclaimed, relates to what I’m talking about.
„,Lordship is either included with the gospel or it isn’t. Those who say it is and those who say it isn’t — they aren’t saying the same thing. They aren’t teaching the same thing. I would say everyone knows it. Among many who exclude Lordship, which is most independent Baptists, they don’t like it because of its effect on their success. These people, those who exclude it, are included in the coalition. They are part of the unity, as if there is no difference. There is a difference and a major difference. Many are going to be in hell and they’ll know there was a difference. The coalitions are not more important than what I’m talking about here, and these are the ones who say they are based upon the gospel.
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/05/omissions-from-gospel-impor…
Most non-Lordship advocates also teach that after someone accepts Christ, only then can he follow Jesus as Lord, that is, only after salvation can someone decide to follow Jesus. To the non-Lordship person, someone doesn’t decide to follow Jesus until after He’s saved. This is usually called “dedication,” a second experience after salvation sometimes.
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-gospel-and-simplicity.h…
Belief involves the will. If someone believes Jesus is the Christ, he has acquiesced to Jesus’ authority. The reign belongs to Jesus, not himself. In John, just from the minimal sample of John 5, he knows that Jesus does the works that the Father does. Someone who stays on the throne of his own life doesn’t believe that. However, most evangelicals and independent Baptists want that still to be belief and that still to be Jesus. It isn’t. It’s a distortion. The distortion is what complicates simplicity.
It’s simple. Jesus is either Lord or He is not. That’s simple. That’s not hard to grasp. What makes it hard? People want to stay in charge, want their own way. They want to be saved, sure. People want a Jesus who will save them, but not rule them. If they believe in that Jesus, does he save? No, because that isn’t Jesus. Men present this alternative Jesus, because he’s easier to accept, but he doesn’t save, because he isn’t Jesus. He isn’t the Messiah. He isn’t Christ.
Discussion