The Heavens Declare the Glory of God, the Firmament the Work of His Hand

The Heavens Declare the Glory of God, the Firmament the Work of His Hand

Subscribe to receive notifications of new posts via email.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission recently joined Pope Francis, Rick Warren as well as Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh leaders in Rome. The gathering was sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

And now, Dr. Albert Mohler. president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at a conference recently had this to say:

"One of the things we should not be embarrassed to say is that we are learning. One of the embarrassments that I have to bear is that I have written on some of these issues now for nearly 30 years, and at a couple of points I have to say ‘I got that wrong,' and we have to go back and correct it, correct it by Scripture.

"Now early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation. And speaking at an event of the National Association of Evangelicals twenty-something years ago, I made that point. I repent of that.
 
I believe that a biblical, theological understanding, a robust biblical theology, would point to us that human sexual, affective, um, profiles of who we are sexually, is far more deeply rooted than just the will, if that were so easy.
 
But Genesis 3 explains that, helps us to understand that this complex of same-sex challenges coming to us is something that is deeply rooted in the biblical story itself, and something we need to take with far greater seriousness than we have taken it in the past, understanding that that requires a far more robust gospel response than anything the church has come up with heretofore."
 
 
Chelsen Vicari of the Institute on Religion & Democracy took this away from the speech,

 
"I was very surprised by Dr. Mohler's changing tone. And I was very thankful that he took time during his speech to actually confess that he had gotten sexual orientation wrong earlier in his career and that he is willing to say that there are individuals who are born with an innate sexual attraction to the same gender."
 
"Now therefore go to speak to the men of Judah, [or Africa, Europe or America] and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, [or NYC, Dallas or Seattle] saying, ‘Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I frame evil against you and devise a device against you. Return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good." Jeremiah 18:11

43 comments:

  1. I know for many Al Mohler hung the moon and they will defend him at any cost (even that of their own soul). His true colors are finally showing through the façade of decades that he has perpetrated on the Bride of Christ, namely that he is a charlatan and a hireling, better known as a heretic. His comments on this are unbiblical and therefore totally useless to anyone who loves Jesus Christ in truth. How long will it be before he says that it is possible to be gay and saved at the same time (which according to Scripture is impossible)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The rapid decline of spiritual leaders isn't all that shocking, it's time to stop paying attention to these celebrity types and stick with scripture.
    As for homosexuality being born that way, God's word states otherwise; from Romans 1:27 'and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female ' {YLT} There's two things to take note of from this text, first of all, 'males having left' - does that not denote a choice? Also, 'the natural use', 'natural' being defined by Strongs as 'distinctive, according to nature'. Thayer's defines it as ' produced by nature, inborn'. It's clearly obvious homosexuals choose their perversion, they depart from that which is 'natural', or found in us at birth, and pursue the unnatural. It really doesn't get any plainer than that does it?

    Mohler should be shunned, like most every other famous celebrity type evangelical. May we cleave to our Lord, and no mortal man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We should look up and not out for guidance. Scripture is very clear, mans heart is wicked. Be they Mohler, Moore, Graham or Francis we must stop looking to man and look to God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well said ali - amen. How sad is it that multitudes follow and embrace their celebrity pastor/pope and defend them. The strong delusion is indeed powerful - praise God for discernment.

      Delete
  4. "And now, Dr. Albert Mohler. president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at a conference recently had this to say:"

    Thanks for posting this. What conference and do you have a link?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is the link:

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/12/02/the-curious-case-of-dr-albert-mohler#.VH8ujohOKrU

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think there is a lot of over-reacting to what Mohler said. He is allowing for the possibility that people are born with an "orientation" towards homosexuality. There is no evidence of such, but I don't see the impossibility of a genetic defect causing such a thing. But that would mean there are also those born with an "orientation" towards pedophilia, bestiality, necromancy, etc.

    The issue really isn't whether one is born with an "orientation" to a particular sin. The issue is that we are all born with orientations to sin. The issue is also that just because one has an orientation towards a particular sin, that doesn't mean they have to act on it.

    Homosexual "orientation" might not be chosen. But every homosexual act is chosen. And that is the issue. We don't sanction the behavior just because a desire towards that behavior isn't chosen. And I don't think Mohler was suggesting anything of the sort.

    "Heretic" is a mighty strong word to use against Mohler for suggesting the possibility of an in-born orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with this article which says Mohler's comments were actually somewhat confusing.

    http://barbwire.com/2014/12/03/needs-image-0900-curious-case-dr-albert-mohler/

    ReplyDelete
  8. As Christian leaders, responses should NOT be confusing!!! Mohler, as a leader, should have articulated his views more clearly. The Bible is clear - homosexuality is a SIN. God does not condem birth defects, He condems sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct Ali, this isn't the first time Mohler has released a confusing statement. It also isn't over-reacting to call him out---again. Too bad many will defend, embrace, and make excuses for someone who claims to be a 'spiritual leader'. You are right in exposing this man's wishy washy words. May God continue to give His people a backbone!!!

      Delete
    2. I agree he should not be confusing. But nothing he said warrants the label of "heretic," as Darrel called him.

      Delete
    3. I would have to agree with Darrel, especially when one considers Mohler joining forces with Mormons to defend traditional marriage. He picks his battles and embraces dead religions to join arms with. He also overlooks sin in his own denomination....starting with Rick Warren.

      Delete
    4. Did Mohler actually "join forces" with Mormons or did he just agree with them on that topic. I think sometime Christians can get a bit picky and legalistic.

      Just to be clear, I am as "anti-Mormon" as one can get.
      http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com

      But joining in political and social issues has nothing to do with theology. As long as no one even hints that their is a unity in theology, there is no problem joining with other people for the same cause. After all, I live near Mormons and we vote on the same side of the fence when it comes to issues concerning our small town - political issues. If my neighbor is a Muslim and he wants to defend the life of someone a robber is attacking, should I not "join" with him because he's Muslim?

      IF Mohler had stated that homosexual behavior is no longer a sin, THEN you'd have a legitimate theological complaint. But that is NOT what he said. He only questioned whether or not we should acknowledge the possibility of an "orientation." And, how to deal with the issue properly.

      Delete
  9. Glenn, you are part of the problem here, when you make allowance for all that AM says and does in this matter of LBGTQ. "Sexual orientation" has so many definitions, so make it clear what you refer to while not excusing AM for his pie-in-the-sky statements. A logical conclusion to what AM said is that it is ok for a person to be born again and gay at the same time-a biblical impossibility. Why did you choose to ignore that statement in your defense of the indefensible Al Mohler? Your definition of 'heresy' is probably wanting also. Heresy=anything that is opposed to Scripture and/or the character of God. To even hint that a person is born with the predisposition to homosexuality thereby making God responsible for that condition IS HERESY. You want to blame someone other than yourself for your sins then call out Adam, not God. Defend AM to the hilt, I expect nothing less, after all he is a "preacher" and as such can do or speak no wrong-he has made himself a pope. If you still think that there is no such thing as "guilt be association" you have deceived yourself and all those who hear you say that. Read 2 Cor. 6:11-18 until it soaks in that born again believers are not to associate with, become unequally yoked together with, or find any area of agreement or common interests with the lost world. You should know this, why you are ignoring it is your problem

    ReplyDelete
  10. Darrel,

    You are part of the problem due to your lack of understanding.
    
Firstly, heresy is defined as a violation of fundamental Christian doctrines - the “non-negotiables” - which determine whether one’s beliefs are really Christian. Show me where Mr. Mohler violated any non-negotiable doctrines.

    “Sexual orientation” has only ONE definition that I am aware of. It means an orientation towards some sexual desire, the orientation is heterosexual, homosexual, or any other sexual persuasion.

    IF one is indeed “born” with a homosexual orientation, that doesn’t make them “gay,” since “gay” is usually reserved for one who practices homosexual behavior.

    Is it possible to have an “orientation” towards homosexuality and still be a Christian? YES! Everyone has a sinful orientation of some sort; we are ALL oriented towards sin. IF there is such thing as a genetic defect so that one is “oriented” towards homosexuality, as long as they never engage in the action they are not sexually immoral. Desires are not always sinful; one can have desires for women before marriage but as long as one is focussing those desires as lust, then there is no sin.

    So, God is responsible if someone is born with a genetic defect which gives him a malfunctioning brain?!?!? So in your mind God is responsible for all birth defects?!?!? And here I was under the impression that it was due to sin entering the world and corrupting everything in it! What kind of God do you worship who creates people with defects?!?!

    Your ad hominem attacks against Mr. Mohler set you up as nothing more than a bigot against someone who doesn’t dot your i’s or cross your t’s. Contrary to your assertion, o one has even intimated that Mohler can do or speak no wrong. I’ve only cautioned you to not jump to conclusions and put into the man’s mouth that which he has not said.

    2 Cor 6:11-18 has nothing to do with “guilt by association.” It has to do with those of Christians joining with non-Christians for THEOLOGICAL reasons. In your logic, if I vote Republican I am violating this passage because Mormons and other cult members vote the same way. DO you fly in an airplane before ensuring your pilot is a Christian? Am I not allowed to be in a band because I’m joining together with unbelievers in that band?

    We are not to isolate ourselves from the world; we are to be the salt and light to the world. Working together with pagans in regards to political and social issues does not violate Scripture as long as it is clearly understood that one is not working together for religious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...but as long as one ISN'T focussing those desires as lust, then there is no sin."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tell us, Mr. Chatfield, what is a "non-negotiable" doctrine and which are those that are up for debate and negotiable in your esteemed estimation? Please be so kind as to inform the Holy Spirit that you have finally gotten the list down-pat and that He needn't bother with any further moderation of debate in "Christian circles". Either He has been confused for eons or just plain unable to properly instruct the elect of the Father as to what is right and what is wrong.

    As for "ad hominem" attacks it seems that you are the one unleashing the cheap shots as found in your fifth paragraph. Mohler's own words is the best attack dog I can come up with and have no need to look further that what falls out of his mouth.

    I see that reading 2 Cor. has profited you nothing. Maybe you should really read it next time. Mohler is wrong and if you make excuse for him or support him in any way you are complicit with his sin. If that is what you want, I'll not try to persuade you away from your choice of sins.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Darrel,

    Non-negotiable doctrines are something we should know simply by reading the Scripture.
    I think Dr. Ron Rhodes and Dr. Norman Geisler have an excellent list in their book, Conviction Without Compromise Here’s their list:

    God’s unity
    God’s tri-unity
    Deity of Christ
    Humanity of Christ
    Depravity of Mankind
    Virgin Birth of Christ
    Sinlessness of Christ
    Christ’s atoning death
    Christ’s bodily resurrection
    Need for God’s grace
    Need for faith
    Christ’s bodily ascension
    Priestly intercession by Christ
    Christ’s bodily second coming
    The Inspiration of Scripture
    Literal interpretation of Scripture

    Would you care to add something to that list?

    No, I didn’t have any ad hominem attack. I used YOUR logic to inquire as to your beliefs since you claim we cannot associate with pagans. Perhaps you should think out your claims before writing them.

    Perhaps YOU should read the 2 Cor passage in context rather than with the bias misuse of it you have displayed.

    Demonstrate from Scripture how Mohler is wrong to suggest a possibility that people can be born with a defect which causes them to have homosexual desires. Define what sin Mohler committed. What about your sin of bearing false witness against him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glenn,

      Are you saying you believe homosexuals may be born that way? Are you in agreement with Mohler's claim?

      There is sufficient evidence to prove homosexuals are not born that way, as I already stated in my original comment. I'll repost it - from Romans 1:27 'and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female ' {YLT} There's two things to take note of from this text, first of all, 'males having left' - does that not denote a choice? Also, 'the natural use', 'natural' being defined by Strongs as 'distinctive, according to nature'. Thayer's defines it as ' produced by nature, inborn'. It's clearly obvious homosexuals choose their perversion, they depart from that which is 'natural', or found in us at birth, and pursue the unnatural. Let me add this, if the natural way is inborn, that implies at birth does it not? So, at birth God instills in every one of us the 'natural way'. It's when we choose to abandon that way and go after the unnatural we sin.
      By Mohler's logic, if homosexuals are born that way, does that mean an adulterer is born that way as well? Is a pedophile born that way too? Surely you can see the foolishness of such logic.

      Delete
    2. Are you saying you believe homosexuals may be born that way? Are you in agreement with Mohler's claim?

      I’m saying we do not know if a person might have a genetic defect in the brain which disrupts normal thinking processes. There my indeed be SOME people born with an “orientation” towards homosexuality. There is no proof either way, but the important this is to use their claim about “sexual orientation” to reach them with the truth - that everyone has an “orientation” towards sin, but that doesn’t justify acting on it. (I don’t believe there is such an in-born trait, but I am open to the possibility of a genetic defect.)

      No, there is NO evidence from Scripture which says one cannot be born with a desire towards it. I am very familiar with Romans, but if you actually read to understand it rather than trying to use it as a proof text, you will see it says nothing about an “orientation,” rather it speaks to the choice of behavior. That is a huge difference.

      The “natural way” WAS inborn before the Fall, in the same way before the Fall. There are sorts of corruptions of the “natural order” which God did not instill or design, and it is all because of the Fall.

      By Mohler's logic, if homosexuals are born that way, does that mean an adulterer is born that way as well? Is a pedophile born that way too? Surely you can see the foolishness of such logic.

      IF there is a genetic defect for one type of “sexual orientation,” then there COULD be a genetic defect for any other “sexual orientation.” I so stated that in my very first comment: There is no evidence of such, but I don't see the impossibility of a genetic defect causing such a thing. But that would mean there are also those born with an "orientation" towards pedophilia, bestiality, necromancy, etc.

      But the issue is that ALL sexual behavior is always a choice.

      By separating “orientation” from “behavior” we can more easily address the claims of the activists: i.e., “orientation” may not be a choice, but no one has to act on orientations. No act should be sanctioned just because of an “orientation.”

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. IF you understood the depravity of man, then you'd understand where homosexuality is birthed from - within the very heart of the one who lusts.
      You also claim this, "IF there is a genetic defect for one type of “sexual orientation,” then there COULD be a genetic defect for any other “sexual orientation.” I so stated that in my very first comment: There is no evidence of such, but I don't see the impossibility of a genetic defect causing such a thing."
      You are on a very slippery slope Glenn, for the word of God has shown you to be wrong. Sin is a choice Glenn, it isn't a genetic defect. To claim so is to take all accountability away from man and put the blame on God, which James addresses in his epistle. You haven't a leg to stand on Glenn, for you have NO scriptural support for your opinions.

      What exactly is 'orientation' Glenn? Where does the Bible speak of such a thing? Rather, isn't this worldly terminology offered up by the world to re-define sin so its less offensive, and so one can play victim?
      There is no such thing as sexual orientation Glenn, for Christ Himself tells us what comes out of the heart in Matthew 15:19, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies". 'Fornications' is defined as- 'Thayer Definition:
      1) illicit sexual intercourse
      1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
      THAT is what lies in the human heart Glenn, in the thought life. Let's look at Thayer's definition for 'heart', 2b1) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours
      2b2) of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence
      2b3) of the will and character

      How does any of that jive with orientation?!?

      Delete
  14. Here's another point to consider, the phrase 'sexual orientation' is not found anywhere in Scripture - it's man-made phraseology used to lessen the severity of the abomination known as homosexuality.
    Here are my findings on such a phrase...
    Orientation - positioning: the positioning of something, or the position or direction in which something lies

    That is the definition of the word orientation, it is a positional stance someone takes, the direction one goes in. I am baffled how homosexuality has been labeled as 'sexual orientation'; can we label the adulterer in that group as well, or the pedophile? Such labeling is confusing and lessens the severity of truth...homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, pedophilia is a sin. When we take on the world's 'terminology' of the sinful actions and choices of human beings, we bring about confusion which produces a numbing affect on the severity of what actually is taking place: SIN. If you tell the homosexual their behavior is an 'orientation', you have not brought clarity to what the truth is.
    to be continued....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the phrase 'sexual orientation' is not found anywhere in Scripture - it's man-made phraseology used to lessen the severity of the abomination known as homosexuality.

      “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible, nor was the word “homosexuality” found in the Bible until 20th century, “dinosaur” isn’t found in the Bible, etc. Just because a word or phrase is not found in the Bible, that does not mean it is an invalid concept.

      I am baffled how homosexuality has been labeled as 'sexual orientation';
      You need to keep up with the times, the psychology, the culture in regards to word usage. According to the intelligentsia, everyone has a “sexual orientation” - not just those who practice homosexuality. “Sexual orientation” is the direction/position one takes towards sexuality, which can be heterosexual, homosexual, zoophilia, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. This is really no different than being born with the orientation towards sin in general. Homosexual orientation is not the same as homosexual behavior. There are plenty of testimonies from Christians who have had homosexual “orientation” for as long as they can remember, but they knew it was wrong and never acted on it. Even though they struggle with the desire (i.e., temptation), they overcome it through Christ.

      You are confusing a desire with a behavior.

      Delete
    2. This will help you out in your defense of the word 'homosexual' - http://iamhis-lyn.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-origin-of-phrase-homosexual.html

      Sexual orientation is a reference to a preference Glenn, do you even understand that? Do you comprehend when a homosexual says they cannot help their 'orientation' what they are saying is they can't help who they lust to have sex with? You are confusing worldly terminology and NOT seeing sin for what it is! This is what happens when you have the foundational truths of the Bible wrong, when you cleave to free will theology and fail to understand biblical truth concerning soteriology, how can you get anything else right?

      All you've done is give your opinion, you have no scriptural support to back anything you say. Your ignorance and worldliness really shines through when you bring 'psychology' to the table, as if that trumps God's word about sinful lustful behavior. As for Christians who lust after the same sex {btw, that's what 'sexual orientation' is} this is sin. Even if they only do it in their thought life, it is sin. Christ taught this very thing in Matthew 5:28 ' but I--I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.' I've already given the definition of 'heart', it's quite evident that lusting is forbidden - even in your mind. That's what homosexuals do, they lust. From Romans 1:27, 'did burn in their longing toward one another' - this describes homosexual 'orientation' Glenn. Actually, the KJV renders it ' burned in their lust one toward another'. God's word proves you to be in error Glenn.

      Delete
  15. The Bible condemns homosexuality throughout, we find this in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7. The origin of homosexuality is the same of all sin, it comes from within.
    Homosexuality is birthed from within the human heart; from Matthew 15:19-20, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." These words were spoken by our Lord in Matthew's Gospel, so where do I get homosexual sin from that verse? From the word 'fornications', the Greek is πορνεία which translates porneia and is defined by Thayer's Greek Definitions as -1) illicit sexual intercourse
    1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
    1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman
    That covers all the sexual bases, it also leaves little doubt when someone says our Lord never spoke out against homosexuality. The Lord Jesus goes on to state these are what defiles a man, makes one unclean. To be defiled means to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven, as Revelation 21:27 clearly states.
    There is also much debate on what triggers the sin of homosexuality, why this particular sin is worthy of so much attention is mind boggling as well. What triggers the murderer, or the thief? What triggers the adulterer, the greedy, the one who covets? When I reflect on my own life and the sins I chose, I can trace my sin of homosexuality back to my youth. I remember as a young girl, around the age of 12 or so, being attracted to girls. Why was I attracted to this sin at such a young age, what triggered this attraction? It really isn't as complicated as science tries to make it... "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. " - Psalm 51:5 I was born wicked, vile, God-hating and sin-loving. Why do some fall into the sin of homosexuality and others do not? CHOICE, it really is that simple. I chose this particular sin because I lusted. I know studies have been done, extensive time and money has been poured into why mankind does what it does. All this is a waste, the passage in Psalm 51 by David tells us exactly why mankind does what it does. We over-complicate the simple, which in turn causes confusion, debates, arguments, and man goes on in sin wondering why it is so.
    Look at James 1:14, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust." What is the cause of one being tempted? Our own lust entices us, tempts us, carries us away. Lust comes in all forms, it is from the Greek word epithumia and is defined as ' a longing, especially for what is forbidden'. To understand what is forbidden, you must go into God's word and you must have a conscience that is not seared. When truth is suppressed, then the conscience does not respond like it was designed to; this is what we see today concerning the sin of homosexuality. This is why homosexual activists and their supporters fight so hard to claim the Bible does not speak out against homosexuality, that is not a sin if it's a 'loving relationship' , that the Bible only condemns this act in pagan worship, etc. This is also why they 're-label' what the Bible calls sin, an abomination, by calling it 'gay' or 'sexual orientation'.

    The true bride of Christ must call homosexuality what it is, a sin against a holy God. We must remember two things, the sinner needs to hear what the Bible calls their choice and the sinner needs to know what Christ has done. "God never clothes men until He has first stripped them,nor does He quicken them by the gospel till first they are slain by the law."-Spurgeon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lyn,

      All your Bible passages say nothing about homosexual “orientation,” but only homosexual behavior. The two are not the same.

      In your logic, every time a person thinks about stealing something, he is therefor a thief. Yes, thoughts about something can be a sin also (like hating someone so much that you wish them dead becomes on the same level as murder; lusting after a woman becomes on the same level with adultery).

      You continue to confuse desire vs behavior. Split them apart. That is what Mohler was really saying. We can address the sin of homosexual behavior without getting involved as to whether or not “orientation” is something someone is born with. Orientation does not require acting on it.

      All of us are sin oriented.

      Delete
    2. Glenn,

      You cannot prove orientation even exists. You are using a worldly terminology to gloss over a lustful forbidden desire. This is what happens when you fail to rightly divide....as you've done. God's word shows us what the homosexual does - they lust {Romans 1:27}, it shows us where the lust lies, in the human heart {Matthew 15:19}, it shows us this sin is a choice {Romans 1:27}, that man chooses to leave the natural to pursue the unnatural. And through it all, you still insist there's such a thing as 'orientation'. God says He instills the natural way, man chooses to leave that and go after the unnatural, and you call that orientation? The Bible calls it sin, whether it is in the thought life or acted out, it's the same...sin. You need to leave psychology where it originated from...man.

      Delete
  16. Glenn,

    It's troubling that you find nothing wrong with joining up with dead religions to stand for various issues, such as traditional marriage. Where does the Bible teach we should do this? Where are we to join in with Mormons to fight for traditional marriage, or with Roman Catholics to stop abortion? Honestly, can good and evil battle together and achieve victory? Are we called to stop abortion or defend marriage? Rather, aren't we called to proclaim Christ crucified? What changes the unregenerate heart? Is it battling over moral issues or is it the Gospel? Romans 1:16 answers that.
    There truly is a reason why God commands His elect to ' wherefore, come ye forth out of the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and an unclean thing do not touch, and I--I will receive you' 2 Cor. 6:17 Never should we stand on the stage of a dead religion's facility, like Mohler did at Brigham Young, and agree to 'go to jail' with them over the fight for traditional marriage!
    You may need to read this - http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/10/should-christian-leaders-lecture-at-byu/

    from that same link, "Dr. Mohler is one of several Christian leaders brought into the BYU series by a group called “Standing Together,” a Utah-based ecumenical group working with the BYU speakers series whose VISION reads: “Advancing Biblical Unity and Spiritual Transformation in Utah,” and whose MISSION states the group “seeks to be a catalyst for uniting the Utah Christian community through relational efforts of prayer, worship, and strategic evangelism.” (Also on the board with Woods is Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and Richard Mouw president of Fuller Theological Seminary.)

    Here's another link to consider - http://truthwithsnares.org/2013/10/17/southern-baptist-leader-dr-r-albert-mohler-to-dialogue-with-mormons/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lyn:

      It's troubling that you find nothing wrong with joining up with dead religions to stand for various issues, such as traditional marriage.

      I said NOTHING about joining up with dead religions; my point was joining up with PEOPLE who may have a different religious belief but have the same political and social goals. As long as it isn’t put forth as a religious agenda, there is no compromise.

      Where does the Bible teach we should do this? Where are we to join in with Mormons to fight for traditional marriage, or with Roman Catholics to stop abortion

      We are still citizens of this earth even as we are citizens of heaven. If we don’t preach against the evils as well as preach the gospel, then the evils will just get worse. The Church for the most part didn’t fight against divorce laws when they began, and lost the ability to fight against them when they became what the are today. Christians didn’t take open stands against the homosexual agenda when it was possible to do so before it’s gotten to its current state. In this country every citizen has a voice with their votes. When one needs a political party to affect the governmental system, that party may have pagans of every stripe. But we aren’t there to discuss religion, rather we are there to work on the political situation.

      I think the way Mohler went about it was wrong in that he made it appear that we have common theological grounds with the LDS, but that doesn’t make him a heretic. It means he used poor judgement. My asking my neighborhood Mormon to join with me in a political cause does not give the appearance of commonality with his faith. Crucifying Mohler for poor judgment in that situation is also wrong. (unless you want to say you’ve never had an incident in your life where you used poor judgment.)

      We may “join” with anyone for the same cause, as long as we don’t bring religion into the issue. If this was not true, then I couldn’t join a band unless everyone in it was Christian.

      Delete
  17. take a look at this - from Rick Warren, "“We have far more in common than what divides us,” he said in the two-minute video released by the Catholic News Service on Wednesday, described as being an outline for “an ecumenical vision for Catholics and Protestants to work together to defend the sanctity of life, sex and marriage.”http://christiannews.net/2014/12/02/rick-warrens-call-for-christians-to-unite-with-catholics-holy-father-raising-concerns/

    This is the SAME MINDSET Mohler has! This is the push to join all 'religions' into one, picking a couple of issues that they can agree on and running with it! This is the building of the end-time apostate church Glenn; this is how Satan will unite these dead religions, by finding some 'common ground' and going from there. A little compromise leads to full blown falling away, and that's what's happening with Mohler and Warren. We must warn, then separate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Warren and Mohler are NOT the same mindset in this regard. Mohler stands strong for orthodox Christianity and teaches the Mormonism and Catholicism are both wrong. Warren thinks we have so much in common with Rome that we just might as well re-join them! Warren has said similar things about Islam.

      Delete
  18. Mr. Chatfield,
    I don't know Ron Rhodes, but Norm Geisler? Now there's a bastion of sound doctrine. As for their "all-inclusive list" dare I attempt to instruct two learned Doctors (of whatever) that they forgot to include the creation? Or maybe they are of the mind that we are all here due to some evolutionary process that may or may not include the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Also, there is no mention of election and predestination, maybe they are of the mind that people get saved by an act of their "free-will". So one can only surmise that Creation and Election are of secondary importance and therefore "negotiable" which ends up being one of those pesky dilemmas where creation and evolution are both true (square that with John 5:45&46), as is election and free-will (and if one can gain access to heaven via an act of his will, then that person has no need of grace-Eph.2).

    Mohler is sowing the seeds of "big-tent Christianity" where everyone is welcome and they can continue in their sins even after they are supposedly saved. And you, Mr. Chatfield are found to be in lock-step with him. Lyn is so very correct in her assessment of this situation. Since you make room for PRACTICING homosexuals (and, yes, that is precisely what you are doing) why not include practicing murderers and liars as well? Where do you draw the line and by what authority do you declare who may be included in the Body of Christ and bring with them the continued practice of their favorite sin? [Have you never read that born again believers are delivered from the power of sin-Rom. 6:14?] That's the declaration of AM and of you, if you continue to defend this unbiblical and HERETICAL position. To you, it is a negotiable thing since it was not included in the list you provided and cherish as seen above, BUT IT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT. Don't you realize that to say that a believer can continue to practice his sins and is nonetheless still welcomed that you are making Christ the minister of sin?

    You still want to defend Mohler? Have at it, but know also that his list of associates includes many a free-mason (the SBC is infested with them) who worship satan and not the Lord Jesus; those that deny the need for the Blood of Christ and His status as the Eternal Son of God and state simply that one can receive the mark of the beast and later be "saved" (I speak specifically of one John MacArthur-and no, I will not discuss it further here, look it up for yourself).

    "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits..."

    You have a decision to make: will you continue to follow Al Mohler or turn to Christ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darrel,

      Dr. Ron Rhodes is a top-notch apologist. He has a ministry called “Reasoning From the Scriptures,” and has numerous books dealing with cults and false teachings. You would do well to learn from him. I have sat in many classes with him at apologetics conferences.

      Norm Geisler is indeed a man of sound doctrine. The fact that he has problems with a 7-day creation - which is where I totally disagree with him - does not negate the fact that everywhere else he is sound. Of course Calvinists don’t like him because speaks against some Calvinist teachings.

      Creation, by the way, is not “non-negotiable” as far as salvation. One can believe God used evolution and millions of years and yet still be saved. You won’t find in the Bible a requirement to believe in Young Earth Creation in order to be saved.

      Nor is there anywhere in the Bible where one has to believe in Augustinianism (Calvinism) to be saved. My stance against Calvinism should be well known to those who follow my blog or read my comments on other blogs. I’m 100% anti-Calvinism, but I am surely saved.

      You assert that Mohler is sowing the seeds of "big-tent Christianity”, and I vehemently disagree with your OPINION.

      Since you make room for PRACTICING homosexuals (and, yes, that is precisely what you are doing) why not include practicing murderers and liars as well?

      Now you have told a bald-faced lie. You are bearing false witness against me. Your problem is exactly the same as Lyn’s; you can’t separate a desire from an action. I know Christian men who got caught up in pornography and still have a desire for it, but they practice self-control and don’t imbibe. So a man who struggles with homosexual desire but abstains can be a Christian. There are many Christian single people who have strong sexual desires but abstain until they are married (or even remain celibate for life). Having the desires doesn’t prevent them from being part of the body of Christ. YOU also struggle with sin - all of us do. Yet having such desires (whatever they may be) does not keep you from salvation. This is NOT a “heretical” position.

      Freemasonry is indeed a religion which is not compatible with Christianity. Guess what, I have friends who are Masons, and I’ve had Mormon friends, I have Catholic friends, etc. Associating with people who have false belief systems is not a sin. Your understanding about Freemasonry sounds like you read too many Jack Chick tracts.

      As far as your claim about Mohler and the mark of the beast, this has been discussed ad nauseum on many sites, and I have participated in such discussions. Mohler had an erroneous understanding on this one issue; that those who took the mark of the beast and then later learned the gospel, could be saved. Having that belief is not heresy. You seem to have a real bone to pick with Mohler.

      By they way, I don’t follow any man - I follow Christ. But I will defend anyone — even a Mormon — who is falsely accused.

      Delete
    2. As far as your claim about Mohler and the mark of the beast

      Sorry, that should read "McArthur" and the mark of the beast."

      Delete
    3. This statement is truly astounding and speaks volumes...
      "Associating with people who have false belief systems is not a sin. Your understanding about Freemasonry sounds like you read too many Jack Chick tracts."
      What saith the word of the Lord? " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
      It appears to be time to separate from you Glenn Chatfield, your compromising ways speak volumes.

      Delete
  19. Mr. Chatfield, your inability to understand plain speech is appalling and is reflected in another inability of yours, namely to understand Scripture. Further communication with you is pointless; goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Darrel; Glenn argues from a worldly point of view and not from Scripture. As for 'falsely accused', this charge is erroneous considering Glenn uses psychology as a basis for what he believes. That in and of itself is very telling. As I stated earlier, this is what happens when you don't even have the foundation right. When you believe wrongly about such an essential doctrine as soteriology, how can you possibly comprehend anything after that?

      Delete
    2. Darrell,

      I'd say I understand Scripture a whole lot better than you. You behave as a Pharisee when someone does ONE thing you don't like. You have proven yourself unteachable.

      Delete
  20. Lyn, (Part 1)

    God said everything was good BEFORE THE FALL. Where have you been? The whole of Christendom for 2000 years has taught that everything was perfect until the Fall, at which time the world was corrupted. So then, you must deny the effects of the Fall when you say everyone is still the way God made Adam.

    Are you insinuating when God stated 'it is good' He was lying? Things had gone awry BEFORE sin?!? Oh my!

    Talk about not being able to read and comprehend!! Where did I even INTIMATE such an absurdity!?!?!? Your comments are a continuous string of false claims, totally misrepresenting everything I have said, and yet you have the audacity to say I argue from a worldly point of view. Like Darrel, if you don’t understand something or if you don’t like it, you behave as a Pharisee with charges of false teaching.

    Lyn, no one has ever suggested that sin isn’t a choice. YOU don’t seem to be able to comprehend the difference between a desire and a behavior. If you can’t understand the difference, then it is impossible to talk sense to you. You make a bald-faced lie when you say I argue from psychology.

    Then you have the audacity to say I believe wrongly about soteriology because I disagree with Calvinism. Typical Calvinist viewpoint.

    YOU are the one with no Scriptural support to say one cannot have a genetic defect which makes their brain not function properly. You defy the whole of medical science when you deny there is no such thing as a genetic defect of the brain. How do you explain mental retardation?!?!?

    You think if a word isn’t in the Bible then it can’t be used by Christians, then how do you use “Trinity.” Your lack of logic in your argument is extreme.

    Your whole argument about what I said about “orientation” only proves you can’t read - or maybe you didn't read - or even comprehend what was so plainly laid out.

    I fully understand the origin of the word “homosexual” but you continue to confuse behavior with desire. EVERYONE - GET THAT — EVERYONE has an “orientation” towards sin. That is what we inherited from Adam.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lyn, (part 2)

    You cannot prove orientation even exists.

    UM, yes we can prove “orientation” exists. We are all oriented - pre-disposed - towards sin. HELLO!!! It is NOT “worldly terminology.”

    Every time you claim I bring in psychology because of the word “orientation,” you demonstrate you ignorance of the English language. And you also lie about me. I have plenty of proof on my blog as to what I teach about psychology - it’s a fraudulent philosophy. DON’T EVER ACCUSE ME OF USING PSYCHOLOGY just because you fail to understand the English language!

    The point is that “orientation” does not force choice. If you were smart enough to understand that then you’d understand what Mohler and I are both saying. We say, okay, one may be oriented towards homosexuality, just as everyone is oriented towards sin. But orientation does not demand behavior acting upon it.. We say, so you have an attraction to someone of the same sex; so what? Don’t act on it because if you act on it you are sinning! Why is this so difficult to understand?!??!

    Every scripture you bring out only says that one who participates in homosexual relations is sinning grievously. No where - NO WHERE - have I even INTIMATED anything different.

    You cleave to your unbiblical Augustinian/Calvinist theology and decide anyone who doesn’t accept a theology which has a God who creates people specifically to send to hell is somehow less of a Christian. Thanks for being another bigoted Calvinist.

    Then you attack what I said about Darrel’s comment about Freemasonry by cherry-picking another passage to throw out like confetti but has nothing to do with the statement I made.

    You have just stated that I cannot be a member of a band unless the band is all Christian because of 2 Cor 6:14. Gee, I couldn’t even work with unbelievers by your abuse of that passage. Talk about someone not able to rightly divide the Word - look in the mirror, Lass.

    I don’t compromise anything. But I also refuse to behave like a Pharisee and attack someone because they might have one or two ideas that don’t comport with Scripture but are not heresy.

    You, like Darrel, have proven to be unteachable because you refuse to even try to comprehend what someone is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Once again Glenn, you've succeeded in only arguing from your personal p.o.v. You then do what you normally do when you cannot support your opinion with Scripture, you blame Calvin and Augustine. This is what happens when one follows a free will theology, which truly is an accursed gospel. As I've stated, if you do not have the foundation right, everything you attempt to build on from there will not stand. God help you Glenn, you are blinded by faulty theology and worldly terminology.

    As for being unteachable, clearly, it's you who are unteachable. Scripture has been given, defined, broken down and proven that homosexuality has not one thing to do with orientation, which does not exist. Lust is the culprit; yet, according to Glenn's world, it simply isn't so. This is what happens when one strays from Scripture and attempts to mix the world with holy Writ - confusion sets in and compromise will drag you away.


    May God have mercy on you Glenn, your understanding of things does not square with Scripture. A little leaven is deadly.


    Good day to you

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nice assertions, Lyn. Typical Calvinist. I'm all wrong because I'm not a Calvinist. And of course it is just my point of view because I use common sense and proper hermeneutical principles rather than just asserting things the way you do. Anyone not sucking the teat of Calvinist theology is condemned to hell by your version of Calvinism. I'd say scripturally it is the Calvinists who have the foundation wrong.

    You keep denying there is such a thing as orientation, and yet you defend a theology which says all are oriented to sin!! What is it about that word you don't like -- just because the Bible doesn't have that word in it?!?!? The Bible doesn't have a huge collection of English words in it, but that doesn't mean we can't use such words to describe teachings -- again, you have never addressed the point about "Trinity" not being in the Bible.

    Homosexuality, like every other sin, does indeed originate in an orientation towards sin. A predisposition towards sin. Your Calvinist theology agrees that all mankind has a sin nature - an orientation towards sin. But you say their is ONE sin that can originate from an orientation towards sin - homosexuality. It is the only sin, from what you are saying, which is not due to the sin nature of man.

    How convoluted can you get?!?!?

    ReplyDelete