A Near Miss…

Check this out, from Sky News:

Disaster seemed certain when a photographer captured these planes on course to collide over east London.

Christadelphians

I ran across a new word today as I was working on a position paper about what happens when a person dies. The word is Christadelphians. Here’s information on them from Wikipedia:

The Christadelphians are a nontrinitarian religious denomination holding a theology at variance with mainstream Christianity. Although their current name developed in Britain and North America in the 19th century, they claim a long line of believers, going back to Apostolic times, who have always been committed to upholding the purity of the gospel as understood by the original Apostles. They are primarily found in the English-speaking world, but are growing elsewhere, with Christadelphians living in approximately 130 countries.

Christadelphians base their beliefs wholly on the Bible, and accept no other texts as inspired by God. Christadelphians believe that God is the creator of all things and the father of true believers. He is a separate being from his son, Jesus Christ. They believe that the Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the power of God used in creation and for salvation, and at certain times in history has been given to believers.

Jesus is the promised Messiah, in whom the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament (particularly those to Abraham and David) find their fulfilment. Jesus is the Son of Man, in that he inherited sin-prone human nature from his mother, and Son of God by virtue of his miraculous conception by the power of God. Although tempted, he committed no sin, and was therefore a perfect representative sacrifice to bring salvation to sinful humankind. God raised him to immortality, and he ascended to Heaven, God’s dwelling place. Jesus will return in person to establish the kingdom of God on earth. His throne will be in Jerusalem and he will be king over the restored kingdom of God in Israel. Jesus will also rule over the whole earth.

People become disciples of Christ only by belief in his teachings, by repentance, and through baptism by total immersion in water. Although saved by faith in God’s grace, real faith will manifest in works, thus the disciple should seek to live a life consistent with Bible teaching. Christadelphians point to clear teachings in the Scriptures that death is the complete cessation of life. After death, believers are in a state of non-existence, knowing nothing until the Resurrection at the return of Christ. Following the judgment at that time, the accepted are given the gift of immortality, and live with Christ on a restored Earth, helping him to establish the Kingdom of God, and to rule over the mortal population for a thousand years (the Millennium). Christadelphians view the future Kingdom of God as the focal point of the Gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles. They point to fulfilled Bible prophecy, particularly as regards the nations, as clear evidence that the Scriptures can be trusted.

Christadelphians reject a number of doctrines traditionally held by the mainstream Christian denominations, notably the immortality of the soul, the Trinity, and the pre-existence of Christ. They believe that where the words devil or Satan occur in the Bible, they should be understood as the inherent evil within man (i.e. sin) and his inclination to disobey his Creator. These terms may also be used in reference to specific political systems or individuals in opposition or conflict. Hell, is understood to simply refer to the grave to which all men go, rather than being a place of eternal torment.

Christadelphians believe the doctrines they reject were introduced into Christendom after the 1st century, and cannot be demonstrated from the Bible. They believe that many of the beliefs of mainstream Christianity can be clearly shown, from Scripture, to be in direct opposition to clear Bible teaching.

Christadelphians are conscientious objectors (but not pacifists), and refrain from involvement with politics, joining the armed forces, the police force, or other organised bodies such as trade unions. There is a strong emphasis on personal Bible reading, bible study, prayer, and morality. Congregational worship, which usually takes place on Sunday, centres on the remembrance of Christ.

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry has some good info on them as well.

Church Membership…

I was asked one day about why people join a church. Does the Bible state that have to be a member of a local church, go through all the hoops and stuff that people do -voting, classes, and such?

In a comment on Jason Sampler’s blog, Rick Thompson, flipped the switch for me and gave me a reference (THANKS SO MUCH!). He said,

I throw 2 Cor 5:12-13 into the fray:

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”"

Here is an example of a clear deliniation between those outside and inside and an admonition to “expel…from among you.”

Clearly this implies two things:

1. Membership and
2. A method of entrance and exit.

The question is how and what? Since there is no concise teaching on the entrance into a church in scripture, we can only deduce that entrance was “accepted” by the body or by the eldership and in turn this was how memebers were expelled.

Perhaps you can find the practice of voting on membership issues from this passage in 2 Cor. 2:

“1So I made up my mind that I would not make another painful visit to you. 2For if I grieve you, who is left to make me glad but you whom I have grieved? 3I wrote as I did so that when I came I should not be distressed by those who ought to make me rejoice. I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy. 4For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.
5.If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.”

Here Paul is talking to a local church about a particular member. The majority seems to have prevailed in his situation, implying a vote of some sort.

Is it not reasonable then to expect a majority to accept his entrance into the church?

NOBTS is open for business – in New Orleans!

My beloved campus opened for on-campus classes. I am so proud of Dr. Kelley and his staff and the work they have done. I wish I could have been there for the first day.

Here’s a link to the story…

My view on the past 26 years of the SBC – Leading from fear.

After reading a weekend of blogs and letters and critiques, I was hoping to post this on Monday evening, but time slipped away faster than a greased plate on a sheet of ice. I want to view the last 20+ years of the SBC, the resurgence, etc and give a summary of what I think has happened. This may be wrong, but I’ve tried to move past the conspiracy theories and such to try to consider the other side and their view. I’m also going on memory and some supposition, so I ask you in advance for a little grace. So here it goes.

I think there was a point when those currently in the lead of the resurgence that took place in the late 1970’s, felt that there were real doctrinal issues within the convention, especially in the seminaries. Changes to the doctrine taught had to be made. I had a pastor friend who told me that when he was in seminary in the 70’s NOBTS had already gone through its house cleaning. I don’t know how true that was, but it was what I was told by a reliable pastor. I also think many wanted to be involved in denominational leadership, but because there was not an alignment doctrinally and because they were squelched when they tried to speak up, the felt they could not lead within the denominational environment in the mid 1970’s.

These men stood on principle and conviction and felt reform must take place. With the help of a judge who found the avenue for reform, someone with a strong personality – who oddly enough doesn’t get a lot of play in the public eye – helped start a reformation process. Those who became sympathetic to their cause rallied and the reformation was completed over a period of time. While that happened, some of these men stood on doctrine and became keepers of the keys to the doctrine of the SBC and other views had to be dissected and dismissed so that the resurgence would not take a step back. Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts. Doctrinal integrity has now, unfortunately, become doctrinal exclusivity. There is no room for differences in doctrine, even on the non-essentials. This would open them up to real doubt about past doctrinal battles.

At the same time, to move the reformation through, the trustee boards had to be in agreement with doctrine and cause of the reformation. To ensure this happened, an unspoken policy of inbreeding occurred. People sympathetic to the cause must be on the boards, and only people whom the leadership trusted could be nominated and placed on the boards. This unspoken policy was extended so people would rotate between boards as new, trustworthy people came forward. Because they needed people they could trust, spouses of those on boards would be nominated to other boards and positions. There was a need to ensure that people they could trust would sit in positions of leadership so as to continue the reformation. Unfortunately, paranoia still exists, and as a result, the practice of inbreeding must be maintained to keep the impact of the reformation in place.

Doctrinal arrogance and fear now rule the extremists in the leadership of what was the conservative resurgence. The strategy has become an unspoken policy.

Much of the leadership of certain boards and entities now do not hold places of leadership but places of followship. People follow the influencers without considering other points of view or doing their own research. Influence is being exerted across entity lines in an unprecedented way. And it is done because of fear. Maybe a more appropriate word is paranoia. They cannot trust those who have not been properly educated theologically. They cannot trust people who don’t think as they do. They cannot trust people who are critical of one view of their doctrine. The potential consequences of having trust would be the setback of their resurgence.

I do not believe landmarkism and cessationism is their goal. I believe it is their view of right doctrine, and that doctrine at any cost. If, on principle and conviction, they viewed that part of right doctrine included drinking a chocolate – peanut butter Blizzard© from Dairy Queen every day, they would not stop until all Baptist churches and boards and board personnel did that. (I admit this should not be doctrine, but certainly a tasty practice to follow!)

While the above may be an oversimplification or over generalization of the issues, that’s much of what I’ve seen happen from this part of the world. I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject, especially if I’ve missed the boat…

Next Page »