troubling events last week

D.James Kennedy is one of my favorite tv preachers along with Adrian Rogers,and Charles Stanley. D.James Kennedy even goes soulwinning and promotes it through his Evangelism Explosion program. I disagree with his Calvinism and baby baptizing but unlike some he doesn't let his calvinism get in the way of winning souls to Christ. God Bless Coral Ridge!

 

What answer have you come up with Squire?

 

The endorsement or affiliation issue is not so pertinent or divisive among us pastors as it might be to the general congregation. I can meet with, listen to, talk with anyone that comes from a different doctrinal background and not have it affect me adversely. The common man in the pew may not be able to. That is one reason for separation. Here in Ghana our church folks really want to just melt into a general pot of doctrinal and eccesiastical union. That is what everyone does here. Doctrine does not matter. It has taken seven years of very hard work to keep our church fundamental and Baptist doctrinaly. We sing the hymns, and teach them as well. Every church here sings the same choruses whether Catholic, orthodox, or cult! It matters not. There is a difference and we need to maintain it. It is not easy to do that though. Sometimes difficult decisions must be made.

 

Not necessarily so, dfi. Some IFB actually have sense enough to realize that many preachers from other denominations are better educated on some subjects. It is not a sin to have a person from another denomination come in and give a lecture or preach. Me thinks you are just trying to stir the pot. If you don't agree with what this church has done, why don't you write THEM and ask THEM why they did what they did and if they believed it was a compromise instead of bringing it here. There is enough division in Christian circles and between the denominations without busy-bodies going around trying to cause trouble.

 

Mexdeaf, do you remember when Richard Wurmbrand, who wrote Tortured for Christ, spoke in chapel? Very moving. In those days Dr. Lee Roberson had in quite a few non-IFB preachers, as you have pointed out.

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]Mexdeaf, do you remember when Richard Wurmbrand, who wrote Tortured for Christ, spoke in chapel? Very moving. In those days Dr. Lee Roberson had in quite a few non-IFB preachers, as you have pointed out. [/QB][/QUOTE]

John,

Yes, now that you mention it, I remember the scars. With perfect hindsight I now wish I had kept better chapel notes.

 

Mike,

You speak truthfully. I have faced the same thing in Mexico. However, I think there is a difference between Sexton having Ian Paisley preach at his church and me doing the same here. The difference would be the religious comprehension of the culture, I think. In our third world countries 'religion of the white man' all tends to be lumped together, and we MUST draw strong lines to differentiate say, Baptists from Pentecostals.

For example, I think in the USA even a majority of unsaved folks would acknowledge that the JW's or Mormons are completely different from the Baptists. In our countries that would not be so.

 

Mexdeaf, do you remember when Richard Wurmbrand, who wrote Tortured for Christ, spoke in chapel? Very moving. In those days Dr. Lee Roberson had in quite a few non-IFB preachers, as you have pointed out. </font>[/QUOTE]I was at TTU at about the same time as these fellas and well remember the non-Baptist who spoke in chapel and being greatly blessed by them. I appreciate the balance I learned at TTU. I remember Richard Wurmbrand.

My reasons for not having Dr Paisly speak in chapel or church have nothing to do with his paedobaptism.

I not think the folks in "Book of Martyrs" died for Baptist disctinctives. They died for their faith in Christ.

 

If you are serious about the check I'll be glad to send you my address privately.

 

Yes, I did see that. Yet, I also see that you withhold the name so as not to cause a problem. Yet, you come here to complain though they haven't really been given adequate time to explain. One week is far from adequate time. 30 days would be reasonable amount of time, unless you have contacted them by phone, and tried this several times. So, it leaves open in my mind to question your motives for posting your grievance here. I think that explanation should be clear enough.

 

Depending on the context, I don't see a problem with it. This BB is abundant with people who are of differing denominsations, and I submit that it is indeed good for us here to abandon our denominational barriers and stand together on the things we agree on.

 

dfi, Do your research. Read "The Fundamentals". Read about the original fundamentalists and those who followed their steps up through the mid 20th century. They weren't just Baptists. They weren't KJVO or premillenial only. They didn't separate from all other denominations. ETC.

They did unite around truths for the promotion of those truths in spite of some significant differences.

While I wouldn't hold hands with a Catholic under a Catholic banner against abortion, if you are going to participate politically in the pro-life movement you are likely to engage Catholics.

BTW, do you favor any of the Supreme Court justices... FYI, all of the conservatives are Catholics including Clarence Thomas and Roberts.

I think maybe Souter lists himself as a protestant... do you prefer him?

 

Stand with Catholics at an abortion rally? If I were one for attending rallys, I don't see the problem. If the even were not denomination specific, sure.

Share a platform? No. But protest with? Probably, assuming it were not denomination specific.

I don't know much about AoG. Probably would pass here. But if it were similar to item 1, such as an abortion rally that was not denomination specific, then probably.

 

I apologize for interjecting here.

Scott J, you bring up an interesting thought. Almost an epiphany.

United vs. Separated.

United around the fundamental, scriptural truths. And/Or separated from worldliness.

I think there's a distinction, with united being a positive thing, and separated being a negative...but I must ponder for a while more....

 

Good thoughts, however I view Biblical separation as being a positive rather than a negative. It is not so much being separated FROM something as it is being separated UNTO God.