Bob Jones University and the Bruins Foundation are hosting “An Evening with Tim Tebow”
- 39 views
The poster may have meant it as a criticism, but I doubt it. He probably isn’t on my side.
I could care less about the Obama picture. I spent an hour with Joe Biden in the Capitol building when he was a Senator. Big deal.
Anyway, if you have to explain a joke…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[AndyE]Ok, let me try one more time and see what you think. If the “grace of God that brings salvation” i.e., the gospel, teaches us to live soberly, righteously, and godly, but we don’t live that way and we claim to be a Christian saved by the gospel – aren’t we saying something wrong about the gospel? Aren’t we saying the gospel doesn’t teach that? It doesn’t teach that we should deny ungodliness and worldly lusts? Aren’t we saying the gospel doesn’t change one’s life or release us from the power of sin? Aren’t we saying false things about the gospel? The passage I quoted a couple posts earlier from 1 Timothy 1 says that things like sexual immorality are contrary to sound doctrine and not in accordance with the gospel. If an activity is not in accordance with the gospel, isn’t that activity contrary to the gospel? In other words, both false doctrine and impure actions can corrupt the gospel message of a Christian testimony.
Believe it or not, I understand where you are going with your argument, and there’s a sense in which I would agree. However, if every sin that publicly damages our testimony is the same as preaching a false gospel, then there would be no reason to specifically call damnation on false teachers, something that’s made a special point of in the NT. Both Jesus and Paul make a clear distinction between false teachers and other sins that need to be repented of. Unless you believe the “let him be accursed” passage should be applied to all Christians sinning publicly, then at a minimum, you agree with me that there’s a difference. If so, those offenses can (and should) be judged differently.
Dave Barnhart
[Bert Perry]I’d just refer you to Matt 5:27-30 and let you connect the dots.Regarding that video, yes, it’s rhythmic calisthenics imitating bad dancing, it’s definitely not something I’d watch (in fact I could only take a few seconds, I’m not much for Survivor to begin with), and yes, the tank top is intended to do something visually….yes, but….don’t y’all think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it sexual immorality per 1 Tim. 1:10-11? Infringement on modesty, yes, would make our Victorian ancestors fall on the fainting couch, yes, but….seriously? Calling it sexual immorality really does injustice to the definition of Strong’s 4202, don’t you think?
[dcbii]Remember, I’m not saying Tim is preaching a false gospel. I’m not calling out damnation on him! I’m saying that giving Christian recognition to false teachers and heretics — that confuses and denigrates the true gospel message he is trying to proclaim. Same with what his does on that video. All I”m really saying is that all these activities impact the clarity of the gospel message. They are not in accord with what the gospel teaches.Believe it or not, I understand where you are going with your argument, and there’s a sense in which I would agree. However, if every sin that publicly damages our testimony is the same as preaching a false gospel, then there would be no reason to specifically call damnation on false teachers, something that’s made a special point of in the NT. Both Jesus and Paul make a clear distinction between false teachers and other sins that need to be repented of. Unless you believe the “let him be accursed” passage should be applied to all Christians sinning publicly, then at a minimum, you agree with me that there’s a difference. If so, those offenses can (and should) be judged differently.
[AndyE]Remember, I’m not saying Tim is preaching a false gospel. I’m not calling out damnation on him! I’m saying that giving Christian recognition to false teachers and heretics — that confuses and denigrates the true gospel message he is trying to proclaim. Same with what his does on that video. All I”m really saying is that all these activities impact the clarity of the gospel message. They are not in accord with what the gospel teaches.
And I have no argument with your last two sentences. I really wish he had more discernment. I don’t know the man, I don’t care about football, and even as an alumnus, I’m not interested in the Bruins and wouldn’t pay to attend this fundraiser. I would find it interesting to talk with him to see what his thoughts are on both the video and his platform appearances, and for that matter, I’m also curious about the thought-process that was behind inviting him to BJU. Either way, though, while I find this fundraiser a little concerning, without knowing a lot more than I do, I’m not prepared to write-off BJ as a bunch of compromisers.
Dave Barnhart
I’m sorry, Andy, but Matthew 5:27-30 points out the responsibility of the person not to lust after someone in a society where Romans brought brothels to every city they ran. The dots aren’t connected there.
No argument that it was immodest to a degree, as well as tacky. But I think that we do our arguments no service by exaggerations like the one you’re engaging in.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]So, are you saying that what Tim participated in on that show was in accordance with the gospel? I don’t think you understand what our Lord was saying regarding the full scope of the commandments. In fact, you seem to be limiting them in precisely the way Christ says not to.I’m sorry, Andy, but Matthew 5:27-30 points out the responsibility of the person not to lust after someone in a society where Romans brought brothels to every city they ran. The dots aren’t connected there.
No argument that it was immodest to a degree, as well as tacky. But I think that we do our arguments no service by exaggerations like the one you’re engaging in.
http://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=82127
–––––––-
It’s noteworthy that there was fierce opposition to Tebow speaking/appearing at Liberty, but for a very different reason than seen in this thread. Thousands of people signed a petition started by a pro-gay group:
http://wset.com/archive/online-petition-aims-to-keep-tim-tebow-from-speaking-at-liberty-convocation
Here’s an excerpt from the linked article:
“The petition titled, “Tim Tebow Don’t Speak at Liberty University,” says the university is quote “ground zero for a global assault on the legal rights of gays and lesbians.”
It goes on to encourage Tebow to cancel his plans at LU, saying quote “associating with anti-gay hatred is no way to share the good news of Jesus Christ.”
–––––––-
It seems ironic that the opposition in that instance was coming from the left/liberalism, and was directed at Tebow’s known conservative views regarding Biblical marriage, etc……….
[AndyE]Bert Perry wrote:
I’m sorry, Andy, but Matthew 5:27-30 points out the responsibility of the person not to lust after someone in a society where Romans brought brothels to every city they ran. The dots aren’t connected there.
No argument that it was immodest to a degree, as well as tacky. But I think that we do our arguments no service by exaggerations like the one you’re engaging in.
So, are you saying that what Tim participated in on that show was in accordance with the gospel? I don’t think you understand what our Lord was saying regarding the full scope of the commandments. In fact, you seem to be limiting them in precisely the way Christ says not to.
I point out a sin of Tebow’s, and you ask me whether I say his behavior is in full accordance with the Gospel? Say what? I’m simply saying that, Biblically speaking, his sin is immodesty, not sexual immorality. Is that so hard to determine? Really, if we make a habit of accusing everyone wearing a tank top or dancing badly of being fornicators, we shouldn’t be surprised when those people (a) think we’re nuts and (b) don’t risk having the door hit them on the rear end when they leave.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I suggest a panel discussion at BJU between Tim Tebow, Anselm (the former Archbishop of Canterbury), and Don Johnson (I’ll accept Wally Morris as his second, if need be), moderated by Bob Jones III. The topic will be, “Christ’s Atonement and the Real Christian Life.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
http://www.grace.edu/campus-life/chapel/schedule
http://www.inkfreenews.com/2018/01/11/tim-tebow-to-speak-at-grace-college/
–––––––––––—
Grace is (particularly) well-known in fundamentalism for its long affiliation with Dr. John Whitcomb:
Dr. Whitcomb ended his association with Grace many years ago.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris]Dr. Whitcomb ended his association with Grace many years ago.
I didn’t say it was current.
BJU still holds to Biblical separation and the Tebow-Bruins invite doesn’t change that!
[as an aside: I’m rooting for all of the Bible Colleges & Universities! BJU under Steve Pettit is on the right course!]
The schools are parachurch organizations and the separation rules are applied differently than to a church (don’t have time to develop this!)
Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle For A Pure Church (still the standard in my view) allows that there are foggy areas in the application of the principles of separation!
Tebow is neither an unbeliever nor an apostate!
Some fail to remember that sanctification is not a straight line process … more like this
Tim Tebow’s Christian trajectory is in the right direction! He’s had some dips … but so have you and I
You mean, Bunyan’s allegory about the journey to the celestial city has biblical merit!?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion