Chuck Phelps back on Board at BJU
Forum category
This surprised me. Chuck Phelps’ name is listed as part of the board at BJU in the 2011 Seminary bulletin. It seems like fundamentalism is growing in its awareness of the problem of sexual abuse in its circles. Yet, Phelps has never articulated any repentance or regret for how he personally handled the situation between rapist and underage teenage rape victim in his church. I know that the standard “above reproach” is subjective at best. Yet, whatever that term means, Chuck Phelps could hardly be “above reproach” on this issue. Does this concern anyone else?
- 75 views
Ultimately this really is apples to chainsaws because of the standard that the Scriptures hold for pastors vs Division 1A football coaches. There are certainly some similarities in regards to certain aspects, but in the end the pastor of a NT church is held to a much higher standard than an unbelieving coach.Right. Which is another reason that a theologically-driven mindset would think that it may be prudent to conduct thorough research, including basing arguments on first-party information and considering the fact that there are many facets to any story like this, before leveling the cheap potshots that are being taken by people whose knowledge of the situation is limited to what they’ve read online.
Kind of new to this discussion, but am curious since people are obviously stirred to the very depths of their souls on this matter concerning both Phelps (who I do not know beyond recognizing him by face) and BJU (which I know fairly well).
My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?
I think most of us have been in the position of looking backward at how we have handled situations, and second guessing. That is not my purpose in this question. This is a situation that most pastors/Christian leaders will never face, and those who face it will likely see it only once in the life of their ministry, so there is not likely to be a lot of experience to fall back on. However, before I am willing to cast one of Phelp’s reputation and accomplishments into outer darkness as unworthy of filling the position, I want to know where he recognized the biblically right thing to do and disregarded it, or where he has exhibited such complete incompetence about a clear truth/application of Scripture that evidences his lack of qualifications for that position.
My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?
I think most of us have been in the position of looking backward at how we have handled situations, and second guessing. That is not my purpose in this question. This is a situation that most pastors/Christian leaders will never face, and those who face it will likely see it only once in the life of their ministry, so there is not likely to be a lot of experience to fall back on. However, before I am willing to cast one of Phelp’s reputation and accomplishments into outer darkness as unworthy of filling the position, I want to know where he recognized the biblically right thing to do and disregarded it, or where he has exhibited such complete incompetence about a clear truth/application of Scripture that evidences his lack of qualifications for that position.
Lee
[Chad]Chad, this is a convenient straw man. In your world, only the people who have spoken directly to Dr. Phelps can have an opinion on this. Actually, I have conducted thorough research. And I take 1st party accounts very seriously. I’ve read your dad’s first party accounts from his website. If he doesn’t expect people to draw from that as 1st party information, he needs to take it down. I’ve read Tina Anderson’s police affidavit. Again, that qualifies as 1st party information. I’ve also read 1st party accounts from those who were physically present during the church discipline session and those physically present during the trial. These accounts are all remarkably consistent with the FACTS. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “facets” to this story. But the facts are clear.Ultimately this really is apples to chainsaws because of the standard that the Scriptures hold for pastors vs Division 1A football coaches. There are certainly some similarities in regards to certain aspects, but in the end the pastor of a NT church is held to a much higher standard than an unbelieving coach.Right. Which is another reason that a theologically-driven mindset would think that it may be prudent to conduct thorough research, including basing arguments on first-party information and considering the fact that there are many facets to any story like this, before leveling the cheap potshots that are being taken by people whose knowledge of the situation is limited to what they’ve read online.
[Lee]Lee, here’s one.
My question: since the matter of Phelp’s blamelessness is in question, affecting his qualifications as a pastor, board member, etc., and that blamelessness must be directly related to his disregard of clear Scripture truth, what are the specific,clear Scripture truth’s, commands, applications, etc., that Phelps deliberately disregarded, ignored, or flat out rejected that have disqualified him as pastor/board member, or whatever?
Isaiah 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.I won’t cite all the places that command seeking justice for the oppressed or pleading the cause of the fatherless, but it’s widespread in Scripture.
As for the qualifications of a pastor/elder, I Tim. 3 says this.
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
It’s an interesting and important question. ( http://sharperiron.org/comment/37736#comment-37736] Post 42 ) I think there is little value in people in internet discussions trying to judge the case of Pastor Phelps in particular. Deciding that matter is really up to the local church… and I would hope that internet discussion are not part of their evaluation process.
But in general, how does accusation relate to blamelessness in cases like these (or unlike these, for that matter)?
In the first century—and probably more so in the couple of centuries after—Christians were accused of terrible things routinely. We were responsible for bringing plague and death to the city of Rome. Christians leaders were accused of all sorts of things.
With the Jewish hostility toward the church evident in Acts, it seems likely that even prior to Roman persecution, Christians and their leaders were routinely accused of pretty nasty things.
So it’s unlikely that 1Tim.3.2 and Titus 1.7 mean to say “free of any kind of accusation of wrongdoing” where ἀνεπίλημπτος (anepilemptos- 1 Tim.) or ἀνέγκλητος (anegkletos- Titus) appear. (Interestingly, in the case of anegkletos, deacons are held to the same standard in 1 Tim.3.10).
So one of the questions involved in evaluating pastors by this standard is whether the accusations are actually true and to what extent, if any.
I don’t have time to research the question fully at the moment, but this bit from Thomas Oden seems relevant. He doesn’t seem to have an evil agenda to cover up the gross misconduct of “IFB” pastors, etc., etc.
I don’t know much about Oden, but I think he’s right that the question of “measuring up” is complex. This is why it’s best judged by those closest to the people involved: by local churches.
I hasten to add, that this is also true of university boards: they are in a position to “test” (1Tim.3.10) in person and make their decision. Those of us not in their position should not assume we know better than they do (though that’s not impossible, it’s a bit arrogant).
But in general, how does accusation relate to blamelessness in cases like these (or unlike these, for that matter)?
In the first century—and probably more so in the couple of centuries after—Christians were accused of terrible things routinely. We were responsible for bringing plague and death to the city of Rome. Christians leaders were accused of all sorts of things.
With the Jewish hostility toward the church evident in Acts, it seems likely that even prior to Roman persecution, Christians and their leaders were routinely accused of pretty nasty things.
So it’s unlikely that 1Tim.3.2 and Titus 1.7 mean to say “free of any kind of accusation of wrongdoing” where ἀνεπίλημπτος (anepilemptos- 1 Tim.) or ἀνέγκλητος (anegkletos- Titus) appear. (Interestingly, in the case of anegkletos, deacons are held to the same standard in 1 Tim.3.10).
So one of the questions involved in evaluating pastors by this standard is whether the accusations are actually true and to what extent, if any.
I don’t have time to research the question fully at the moment, but this bit from Thomas Oden seems relevant. He doesn’t seem to have an evil agenda to cover up the gross misconduct of “IFB” pastors, etc., etc.
Oden, T. C. (1987). Becoming a Minister (185–186). New York: CrossroadBe not satisfied, when you have done a good work, unless you have also done it well: and when you have, then be careful that vainglory, partiality, self-conceit, or any other folly or indiscretion, snatch it not out of your hand, and cheat you of the reward. (Jeremy Taylor, RAC, Ch. II, sec. 23; CS, p. 10)
Taylor’s point is subtle. Even when the pastor does a good deed, it may be subject to being distorted by a meanly inclined will, which then takes away whatever good the deed itself might have accomplished. Yet this need not imply that the pastor is morally spotless:No one is free from sin, excepting Him that became flesh for us. For it is written “No man is pure from filthiness; no, not though he be but one day old” (Job 16:4 LXX). It is for this purpose that the lives and conduct of the ancient holy men and patriarchs were described; not that we may reproach them from our reading, but that we ourselves may repent, and have hope that we also shall obtain forgiveness. For their blemishes are to us both security and admonition, because thenceforth we learn that when we have offended if we repent we shall have pardon. For it is written: “Who can boast that he has a clean heart? and who dare affirm that he is pure from sin?” (Prov. 20:9). No one therefore is without sin. But you must therefore labor to the utmost of your power to be blameless. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Bk. II, sec. III.xviii, ANF VII, p. 403)*
When ideal visions of the pastoral role-model are presented, they may seem impossible to actualize. But these ideal pictures are treated realistically and humanely by the greatest of the pastoral writers. It is not as if these ideal paradigms were subject to complete, simple, immediate, or absolute fulfillment, but that they remain significant ideals even if not often or absolutely realized.
I don’t know much about Oden, but I think he’s right that the question of “measuring up” is complex. This is why it’s best judged by those closest to the people involved: by local churches.
I hasten to add, that this is also true of university boards: they are in a position to “test” (1Tim.3.10) in person and make their decision. Those of us not in their position should not assume we know better than they do (though that’s not impossible, it’s a bit arrogant).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Also want to point out to Dan Frank that facts must be interpreted… and people are famous for having difficulty seeing where the facts end and their interpretations begin.
On “he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” in 1 Tim.3.10, the same observations I mentioned in post 45 would apply.
The passage cannot mean “nobody at all accuses him of anything at all.” So we’re talking about a scale. At one end you have men who are clearly disqualified because they have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of crimes. At the other end you have men who have never been accused of any failure of any kind (I think this group consists of zero: even Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber). In between, there are all kinds of scenarios.
Best to leave these judgments to those who have been called to make them—who have both power and responsibility to make them and effect consequences.
None of us here have that responsibility or authority.
On “he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” in 1 Tim.3.10, the same observations I mentioned in post 45 would apply.
The passage cannot mean “nobody at all accuses him of anything at all.” So we’re talking about a scale. At one end you have men who are clearly disqualified because they have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of crimes. At the other end you have men who have never been accused of any failure of any kind (I think this group consists of zero: even Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber). In between, there are all kinds of scenarios.
Best to leave these judgments to those who have been called to make them—who have both power and responsibility to make them and effect consequences.
None of us here have that responsibility or authority.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Dan Frank]…Thanks. Further clarification if it is not asking too much…Isaiah 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.I won’t cite all the places that command seeking justice for the oppressed or pleading the cause of the fatherless, but it’s widespread in Scripture.
…
What Biblically specific action did Phelps disregard that would absolutely indicate he is one that does not “do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause…?”
From what little I know he didn’t handle some of the details of the situation the way I think I would have handled it, but not handling specific details my way doesn’t necessarily show disregard for a Biblical absolute.
Lee
[Lee]He didn’t pursue justice for a minor who was literally fatherless after she was raped by a church goer. It’s pretty straightforward, unless this Scripture has no meaning.
What Biblically specific action did Phelps disregard that would absolutely indicate he is one that does not “do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause…?”
From what little I know he didn’t handle some of the details of the situation the way I think I would have handled it, but not handling specific details my way doesn’t necessarily show disregard for a Biblical absolute.
“He didn’t pursue justice…”
There are several statements on his website that would indicate other—several contacts with police and child services over several days; legal counsel with assurances that right steps had been taken, etc. You know these to be false?
If they are not false, what precisely would pursuing justice have to look like to fulfill the Biblical mandate?
There are several statements on his website that would indicate other—several contacts with police and child services over several days; legal counsel with assurances that right steps had been taken, etc. You know these to be false?
If they are not false, what precisely would pursuing justice have to look like to fulfill the Biblical mandate?
Lee
Pursuing justice means you pursue (seek to attain or accomplish) justice (the administering of deserved punishment or reward). Chuck Phelps by his own testimony met the bare minimum of the obligations of the law, which came nowhere close to accomplishing justice for Tina Anderson, which was jail for Ernie Willis. You could at best, giving much benefit of the doubt, say he pursued justice for a few days. But there is no indication from anything on his website that he attempted to get Willis apprehended by law enforcement. Whatever he did, he gave up on it incredibly fast. Justice was finally accomplished for Tina Anderson 15 years later solely because a 3rd party contacted police after rumors were posted on a facebook survivors group. Chuck Phelps had nothing to do with justice being accomplished for this particular fatherless girl. 3 people KNEW Ernie Willis had raped Tina. Tina, who was an underaged victim groomed for abuse. Ernie, the perpetrator. And Chuck Phelps. I guess we don’t really expect the perpetrator to pursue justice. And I understand that underage victims rarely have the courage/knowledge to do so. But a seasoned adult pastor knew better and had a Scriptural obligation to much more than he did. Really, there is no way to say that Pastor Phelps obeyed the command to pursue justice for the fatherless.
[Dan Frank]…You could at best, giving much benefit of the doubt, say he pursued justice for a few days. But there is no indication from anything on his website that he attempted to get Willis apprehended by law enforcement. Whatever he did, he gave up on it incredibly fast. …OK, he pursued justice, but not long enough or aggressively enough to fulfill the Scripture mandate? And what exactly is that Scripture mandate? How long is long enough in the light of giving the matter over to the proper civil authorities in a timely manner? How aggressive is aggressive enough?
Is it truly the job of the ministering pastor to ensure that a perpetrator is “apprehended by law enforcement?” I’m going to need the Scripture for the answer to that one.
“But a seasoned adult pastor knew better and had a Scriptural obligation to much more than he did.” That’s a pretty specific statement, implying Phelps exercised a conscientious disregard for some clear Scripture directive. Again, if that is a statement you are going to make there has to be some clear Scripture to validate it coupled with some solid factual evidence that it was Phelp’s motivation to ignore it. Otherwise it falls into the “I don’t think he acted the way that I would have acted in that situation” category, and I don’t think that is what you are intending.
Lee
By your argument, Lee, Isaiah 1:17 has no objective meaning. You get into dark waters quickly.
[Dan Frank] By your argument, Lee, Isaiah 1:17 has no objective meaning. You get into dark waters quickly.Isaiah 1.17 is addressed to whom? The nation of Israel, see v. 4, or its rulers, see v. 10. How does this then become a mandate for Christian pastors? When did the pastor of a church become part of a civil justice system?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Wow, Don. You cause me to remember from my days in Scofield-version dispensationalism how many of the Bible’s commands were conveniently no longer relevant.
You, like it or not, have been grafted into the vine of Israel according to the Apostle Paul. So, yes, it’s relevant to you.
You, like it or not, have been grafted into the vine of Israel according to the Apostle Paul. So, yes, it’s relevant to you.
Don,
Heremeneutical understanding, valid reasoning, and proper exegesis clearly not among Dan’s strengths. See above posts (43,44,48,50,52).
Heremeneutical understanding, valid reasoning, and proper exegesis clearly not among Dan’s strengths. See above posts (43,44,48,50,52).
What Biblical commands were violated by the handling of Tina Anderson’s accusations?
This was explored in a lengthy opening post by me and a series of responses some time ago. You can fine it http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-was-tina-anderson-at-fault-biblical…] here .
This was explored in a lengthy opening post by me and a series of responses some time ago. You can fine it http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-was-tina-anderson-at-fault-biblical…] here .
Thanks, Mike.
Chad, I’ve experienced Don’s sarcastic attacks before. Now yours. I understand you are in an emotional situation. But generic sideline comments on bad exegesis don’t help. I could print out more Scripture on protecting the fatherless and widow, but I think you are already aware of them. Mike (I think) employs a hermeneutic more similar to yours. I note his conclusion.
Chad, I’ve experienced Don’s sarcastic attacks before. Now yours. I understand you are in an emotional situation. But generic sideline comments on bad exegesis don’t help. I could print out more Scripture on protecting the fatherless and widow, but I think you are already aware of them. Mike (I think) employs a hermeneutic more similar to yours. I note his conclusion.
Some have noted that much of our modern culture’s thinking on the issue of molestation arises from feminist philosophy. While feminist philosophy is involved, and extends even to the extremes of the movement, where we find some espousing views so extreme that even marriage is considered a form of either rape or prostitution, this does not discount what may sound like a feminist theological concept: there is a strong trend toward the protection of the weak in Scripture. This applies also to a woman in a “force” situation with a man.There is no way around the basic facts of this case, established in a court of law, resulting in a conviction of forcible rape. I continue to pray for repentance of those involved who still don’t see their duty to defend the defenseless and stand in the gap for justice for the oppressed.
[Dan Frank] Wow, Don. You cause me to remember from my days in Scofield-version dispensationalism how many of the Bible’s commands were conveniently no longer relevant.What is Isaiah 1 about? It is an indictment of the CIVIL leaders of the nation.
You, like it or not, have been grafted into the vine of Israel according to the Apostle Paul. So, yes, it’s relevant to you.
You want to use Isa 1.17 as a proof text that somehow all Christians or at least pastors have a mandate to “seek justice” - then prove that the passage actually says that. Also prove that your definition of justice is what Isaiah is talking about.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Chad, I remember you. You are a bit younger than my oldest son—also married. The two of you were good buddies before our family moved from Concord in the summer of 1993. I cannot imagine how difficult it is for you to watch this situation play out. When Mike Durning reminded everyone in one of his posts to remember that a very real tragedy had taken place, it occurred to me that the tragedy impacted many, many people—not just Tina, her rapist and your dad. Since that time, my prayers have been just as much for you and your family as they have been for healing for those that were hurt and for the Holy Spirit’s work of repentance in those that did wrong.
There was a courtroom full of people all week long in May that heard both sides of the story. I was one of them. Chad, I don’t believe you have heard both sides of the story. You weren’t in the courtroom, you haven’t spoken to the victim in the case—at least not since it became public, and yet it is understandable that you want to defend your dad. That really doesn’t give you an excuse though for making accusations against others. Just by engaging here you put yourself in the position of being corrected on details by those who do know them first hand. Are you sure that is really what you want to do? I’m asking, because I’m willing to work through the process of the conversation with patience, compassion and love if that is what you want to do.
Laurie Moody
There was a courtroom full of people all week long in May that heard both sides of the story. I was one of them. Chad, I don’t believe you have heard both sides of the story. You weren’t in the courtroom, you haven’t spoken to the victim in the case—at least not since it became public, and yet it is understandable that you want to defend your dad. That really doesn’t give you an excuse though for making accusations against others. Just by engaging here you put yourself in the position of being corrected on details by those who do know them first hand. Are you sure that is really what you want to do? I’m asking, because I’m willing to work through the process of the conversation with patience, compassion and love if that is what you want to do.
Laurie Moody
Don, there is a preponderance of Scriptural evidence on this issue. Perhaps you can discount them all?
Psalm 10:18
18to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.
Psalm 82:3
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Proverbs 31:9
9Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
I’d like to note for other readers that your argument is basically that the Scriptural commands on pursuing justice for the oppressed doesn’t apply to fundamentalist Christians today. Is that correct?
Psalm 10:18
18to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.
Psalm 82:3
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Proverbs 31:9
9Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
I’d like to note for other readers that your argument is basically that the Scriptural commands on pursuing justice for the oppressed doesn’t apply to fundamentalist Christians today. Is that correct?
Don,
In all my years in fundamental schools—kindergarten through graduation at Bob Jones University—I have been taught that the principles in Scripture (even if we are no longer under the Mosaic Law) are still applicable to us today. As a matter of fact, those principles are often used to determine and defend what are called “biblical standards” for Christian living today.
It sounds like you are saying you only believe in a literal application of those Scriptures. Am I misunderstanding you?
In all my years in fundamental schools—kindergarten through graduation at Bob Jones University—I have been taught that the principles in Scripture (even if we are no longer under the Mosaic Law) are still applicable to us today. As a matter of fact, those principles are often used to determine and defend what are called “biblical standards” for Christian living today.
It sounds like you are saying you only believe in a literal application of those Scriptures. Am I misunderstanding you?
[Susan R]Susan,Phelps has never articulated any repentance or regret for how he personally handled the situation between rapist and underage teenage rape victim in his church.I don’t know what he has or hasn’t said about this case. IMO there are aspects of the church’s handling of the situation, based on various statements and reports, that I do find objectionable and troubling. But I have no knowledge of conversations he has had with those involved or with the leadership at BJU, or whether or not his actions should disqualify him from serving on the board of a college.
I think I can shed some light on this. I speak with Tina regularly and she has not received any sort of apology at all from Chuck Phelps. Chuck has put a lot of information on his website, even changing and adapting the contents after the trial was over. I haven’t seen Chuck say anywhere that he did apologize. If he sent a letter, it certainly wasn’t received.
When public accusations have been made, an apology should also be public. This would fit with the principle Chuck preached while at Trinity on public discipline from the church for sin that was (or became) public.
[Don Johnson]Don, you may enjoy Ray Ortlund’s commentary on Isaiah, http://www.amazon.com/Isaiah-Saves-Sinners-Preaching-Word/dp/1581347278…] God Saves Sinners . Have you read it? I have. He would certainly argue that Isaiah 1 is relevant to the church today.
You want to use Isa 1.17 as a proof text that somehow all Christians or at least pastors have a mandate to “seek justice” - then prove that the passage actually says that. Also prove that your definition of justice is what Isaiah is talking about.
From this point on, perhaps we could take the argument on whether Isaiah 1 is relevant to Christians today to another thread as it distracts from the more important topic at hand which is proven through many more verses than just the ones in Isaiah.
Since this thread has generated so much discussion about obligation, the following may (for some) put things in perspective:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-henderson/a-deficiency-of-love/10101…
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-henderson/a-deficiency-of-love/10101…
[Dan Frank] I’d like to note for other readers that your argument is basically that the Scriptural commands on pursuing justice for the oppressed doesn’t apply to fundamentalist Christians today. Is that correct?No, not at all. You offered Isa 1.17 as a proof-text, claiming that it calls for Christians to seek justice. You have completely failed to answer my questions with respect to your claims. You don’t address the meaning of the text at all, you are simply reading your own meaning into it. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. I doubt that your interpretation of the term justice is that which the Bible is speaking of, and I certainly don’t believe Isa 1.17 is the mandate you seem to think it is.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[LJ Moody] Don,It really doesn’t matter what you were taught, what matters is what the Scriptures are actually saying. Frank is making a case from a specific passage. I am saying prove it.
In all my years in fundamental schools—kindergarten through graduation at Bob Jones University—I have been taught that the principles in Scripture (even if we are no longer under the Mosaic Law) are still applicable to us today. As a matter of fact, those principles are often used to determine and defend what are called “biblical standards” for Christian living today.
It sounds like you are saying you only believe in a literal application of those Scriptures. Am I misunderstanding you?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Dan Frank]1. Ortlund, whoever he is, is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what he thinks.
Don, you may enjoy Ray Ortlund’s commentary on Isaiah, http://www.amazon.com/Isaiah-Saves-Sinners-Preaching-Word/dp/1581347278…] God Saves Sinners . Have you read it? I have. He would certainly argue that Isaiah 1 is relevant to the church today.
From this point on, perhaps we could take the argument on whether Isaiah 1 is relevant to Christians today to another thread as it distracts from the more important topic at hand which is proven through many more verses than just the ones in Isaiah.
2. No, you brought up Isa 1.17 as a proof text as the basis for your attacks on a Christian brother. The discussion of the passage is entirely relevant unless you agree that it doesn’t make the case you thought it did.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] It really doesn’t matter what you were taught, what matters is what the Scriptures are actually saying. Frank is making a case from a specific passage. I am saying prove it.So you do not believe that the basic principle as expressed in that passage is consistently conveyed throughout the Old and New Testament?
[Mike Durning] Doesn’t sound like they’re coming very soon. See the last paragraph of http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/290992/church-rape-appeal-goes-to…] this story .I noticed that too, Mike. I guess we’ll just have to see. My niece and I took the most comprehensive notes we could. I do understand that it’s impossible for us to be as accurate as the person that can listen to the recording over and over to make sure every part of the testimony is accurately recorded.
A friend of ours who used to transcribe this stuff characterized the time-frames to us as “months”.
It’s probably hard to see it in the heat of the discussion, but a few things here are very clear to me… and probably clear to just about all if they step back for a while:
- There is a perspective on the whole matter that is determined to put everything Phelps did or didn’t do in the worst possible light. That is, to interpret the facts as harshly as possible.
- There is a perspective that wants to defend Phelps or at least see some balance in how the facts are handled. (Edit: yes, some of these want to see everything Phelps did or didn’t do in the best possible light)
- Those in the first group are not going to change their minds and generally tend to handle those in second group in much the same way they handle Phelps.
- That dynamic is only going to produce increasingly personal exchanges, offended feelings and so on.
- That dynamic is extremely unlikely to change anybody’s mind—even among the few who don’t already have strong opinions about it all (if there are any of those left).
So, my advice to those in the first group: everybody has heard it all already. If they aren’t sold by now, they aren’t going to be unless there is new information. The constantly recycled criticisms are pointless.
My advice to those in the second group: you’re sure not going to get those in the first group to budge.
It’s definitely time to give the matter a rest.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion