PDA

View Full Version : Max Lucado.


Steven m.
03-17-2003, 02:42 PM
MAX LUCADO'S ECUMENICAL CONFUSION


Max Lucado is one of the prominent and influential evangelical leaders on
the scene today. His positive-oriented books and tapes are sold in most
Christian bookstores; and he is a popular speaker at a wide range of
conferences, including Promise Keepers, National Religious Broadcasters,
National Association of Evangelicals, Moody Bible Institute, and Jerry
Falwell's 1992 National Youth Workers Convention.

Lucado is pastor of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas.
In June 1997 I talked with Lucado on the phone as well as with Elder Doyle
Jennings of the Oak Hills Church. Both stated that they believe that
baptism is necessary for salvation, but they do not believe in "baptismal
regeneration." Thus we see that they have added baptism to the grace of
Christ for salvation. This is standard Church of Christ error, and it is a
very serious matter for it constitutes a false gospel. That Max Lucado is
committed to Church of Christ doctrine is evident by his close relationship
with Pepperdine University and Abeline Christian University, both staunch
Church of Christ institutions. A Pepperdine spokesman told Dennis Costella,
editor of Foundation magazine, that Lucado has been featured seven times at
Pepperdine lectureships (Foundation, March-April 2000). Costella is in a
unique position to judge these things because he grew up in the Church of
Christ and graduated from Pepperdine.

Elder Jennings said he does not accept the doctrine of eternal security,
while Lucado said this doctrine is not an issue in the church and elders
and people are free to accept it or reject it. This is very telling since a
proper understanding of salvation leads to eternal security for the
believer. Those who believe a born again child of God can lose his
salvation simply do not understand the gospel.

In my phone conversation with Max Lucado and with Elder Jennings, I got the
distinct impression that doctrine was not very important to them. After I
hung up the phone from talking with Lucado I wrote the following summary of
my observations:

"Lucado said he represents a 'movement of grace' in the Churches of Christ,
'a move away from legalism.' I sense that we are seeing a movement away
from the older rigid doctrinal positions of the various denominations by
the younger men who have taken charge. I saw another example of this in a
recent article in Charisma magazine about the United Pentecostal Church. It
said some of the younger men are not satisfied with the past legalism and
are willing to modify some of the finer points of their doctrinal position
for the sake of ecumenism. Even the cults are joining in this movement,
represented by the Worldwide Church of God. These new leaders are
ecumenical and make no issue of doctrine. Finer points of doctrine are
absolutely meaningless. That is why something as important as eternal
security is a non-issue with them. It is becoming increasingly more
difficult to pinpoint the heresy of heretical churches. The easy-going,
doctrinally-generic church is becoming the norm" (Dave Cloud, June 9, 1997).

Lucado holds an unscriptural view of Christian unity which is helping to
break down the walls of separation between truth and error and which is
preparing the way for the building of a one-world apostate "church." Lucado
helped organize an ecumenical alliance of pastors in his home town, which
has grown to more than 100. The pastors are learning to "put away
differences" in order to deepen personal relationships. It includes women
pastors, Charismatics, and others. Cindy Daniel, for example, is co-pastor
with her husband of Expect a Miracle Church. Newman Dollar, pastor of City
View Christian Fellowship, who, with Lucado, was one of the founders of
this ecumenical fellowship, told the San Antonio Express-News (Feb. 19,
2000) that he wants to see more pastors from Catholic churches participating.

Lucado was a signer of the deceptive "The Gift of Salvation" declaration
between evangelicals and Catholics in November 1997. This declaration was
also known as "Evangelicals and Catholics Together II." We exposed the
danger and error of this statement in the article "Evangelicals and
Catholics Confusing the Gift of Salvation," which was published December 7,
1997. We noted that "The Gift of Salvation" is a bland and, in the
ecumenical context, insufficient affirmation of the doctrine of biblical
justification. In typical New Evangelical fashion, the evangelical authors
and signers omitted many things that are necessary to properly delineate
the true Bible Gospel from the false Roman Catholic one. For the most part,
what they stated about justification is not inherently unscriptural; THE
MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM LIES IN WHAT THEY FAILED TO STATE. This, of course, is
the root error of New Evangelicalism.

Lucado's unscriptural view of unity was also evident when he spoke at the
1996 Promise Keepers Clergy Conference for Men in Atlanta, Georgia.
According to Promise Keeper leader Dale Schlafer, priests, bishops and
pastors were present from every denomination in America.

Lucado's message at the Clergy Conference dealt with "Denominational
Harmony: From Bondage to Freedom." Lucado said, "I submit myself to the
Word and there are core beliefs. However, for too long we have allowed our
differences to divide us instead of our agreements to unite us." He urged
the men to subscribe to the premise, "In essentials unity--in
non-essentials charity."

We wonder if Lucado considers the gospel itself "essential"? If so, how can
he yoke together with Roman Catholics who add sacraments to Christ's
salvation? The phrase "in essentials unity--in non-essentials charity" is a
smokescreen for disobedience to biblical separation. While not every
teaching of scripture is of equal importance, the Bible does not divide
doctrine into essential and non-essential. Timothy's job in Ephesus was to
make certain that NO OTHER DOCTRINE be allowed (1 Timothy 1:3). There is no
hint here that some portions of apostolic truth are "non-essential." Paul
labored to preach THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD (Acts 20:27). The man who
strives to be faithful to every detail of New Testament truth will find it
impossible to be comfortable in an ecumenical Promise Keepers-type
environment. As one wise man observed, "You will have a limited fellowship,
or you will have a limited message."

Lucado then had the 40,000 men shout the names of their denominations all
at once. The result was confusion, of course. Lucado then asked the crowd
to state who was the Messiah. The ensuing response, "Jesus," was heard
plainly. The evident goal of this clever little exercise was to demonstrate
the beauty and simplicity of ecumenical unity.

In Atlanta, Lucado even claimed that "the sin of disunity causes people to
go to Hell!"

He then stated: "The step to unity is acceptance and no longer to speak
evil of one another. WOULD IT NOT BE WONDERFUL NOT TO BE KNOWN AS EITHER
PROTESTANT OR CATHOLIC? This is a God-sized dream and no one in our
generation has ever seen the Church united."

This is not a God-sized dream; it is the vision of the Harlot that John
recorded in Revelation 17. Promise Keepers is confused about the church. It
certainly is not all the alleged Christian denominations. The focus on the
New Testament Scriptures is upon the church as a local body of baptized
believers organized according to the apostolic pattern for the fulfillment
of the Great Commission. This is the church which is the pillar and ground
of the truth (1 Timothy 3). To define the "church" as the denominations and
to call for this hodgepodge of doctrinal and moral confusion "to stand
together" is utter confusion. The denominations today are more akin to the
Harlot of Revelation 17 than to the church of Jesus Christ.

According to eyewitness reporter Dr. Ralph Colas, "LUCADO THEN PLED THAT
EVERY CLERGYMAN WHO HAD EVER SPOKEN AGAINST ANOTHER GROUP OR DENOMINATION,
FIND A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP AND APOLOGIZE. Contemporary Christian singer
Steve Green then belted out repeatedly 'Let the Walls Come Down.' The
40,000 ministers shouted, whistled, clapped, and cheered as they worked to
a higher and higher pitch of emotion" (Colas, An Eyewitness Report on the
1996 Clergy Conference for Men, Atlanta, Georgia, February 13-15, 1996).

We are to apologize for warning people of false gospels and false baptisms
and false spirits and false Christs and false sacraments and false
mediators and false views of the church and false views of Scripture? We
are to apologize for warning of sin and worldliness and compromise? I have
spoken against many Christian groups and denominations, because God
commands me to preach the truth AND to expose error (2 Timothy 4:1-6). I
refuse to apologize for striving to obey God. By God's grace I am going to
keep on exposing error until the Lord takes me to Glory. And by God's grace
I am going to name names and be specific about the error and the sin.

May God help us have the courage in these evil hours to honor and obey Him
rather than man.

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints" (Jude 3).

Maranatha.

Johnv
03-17-2003, 03:57 PM
Having read a few of Max Lucado's books, I have found nothing in his writings where he calls for baptism as a requirement for salvation, only that faith in Christ alone is required for salvation.

All about Grace
03-17-2003, 04:33 PM
Typical anti-Lucado (or anyone different than me) gibberish that has as much credibility as its original author.

Lucado is filling a needed role in the broader body. He is writing evangelical material at a layperson's level. Press on Max.

Steven m.
03-17-2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Johnv:
Having read a few of Max Lucado's books, I have found nothing in his writings where he calls for baptism as a requirement for salvation, only that faith in Christ alone is required for salvation. Sorry you are blinded by the cover of the books of Max Lucado that you read.He does not believe that you can be saved without water baptism.

Maranatha.

Steven m.
03-17-2003, 05:46 PM
Max Lucado
Max Lucado is pulpit minister of Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas, and the author of 11 books. His popularity as an author is evidenced by the fact that at one time he had three top ten best-sellers simultaneously. In addition, all 11 of his books have simultaneously appeared on the Christian Booksellers Association hardcover, paperback, and children's best-seller lists. Lucado has won six Gold Medallion Awards, and served as general editor of the recently released New Century Version The Inspirational Study Bible, a so-called "everyday language" version.

Lucado has a touchy-feely writing style that appears to be an attempt to get the reader to identify with the human side of Jesus. The result, however, is heresy at best and blasphemy at worst. In his book, No Wonder They Call Him the Savior, Lucado blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christ with the following statement (pp 131-132):

"Look closely through the shadowy foliage. See that person? See that solitary figure? What's he doing? Flat on the ground. Face stained with dirt and tears. Fists pounding on the hard earth. Eyes wide with a stupor of fear. Hair matted with salty sweat. Is that blood on his forehead? That's Jesus. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. ... Does this look like the picture of a saintly Jesus in the palm of God? Hardly. We see an agonizing, straining and struggling Jesus. We see a 'man of sorrows.' We see a man struggling with fear, wrestling with commitments, and yearning for relief." (Emphasis added.)

What we see is blasphemy (defined as the intentional defamation of the person or nature of God)! It appears that in Lucado's attempt to help us identify with the "human side" of Jesus, he has engaged in gross speculation, in effect rewriting the Bible's account of Jesus time in the Garden, and thereby, he portrays a different Jesus -- a sinful One!

The Bible tells us not to fear, but to trust God. The Bible tells us that greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. The Bible tells us that perfect love drives out fear. If Jesus agonized, strained, struggled, wrestled, and yearned as Lucado speculates, particularly if he fell into a stupor of fear as Lucado contends, then Jesus would have sinned and could not possibly have been the God and Savior He claimed to be -- and that's blasphemy!

Lucado is now working on a novel, based on the fictional account of Jesus life as if He were born in the South in the United States today. Lucado says he's thinking of titling it The Gospel According to Manny (Manny being short for Immanuel). Lucado's only concern for this title is that "Manny doesn't sound like a Southern name" (June/July 1995, Release).

[Editor's Note: The interviewer of the Release article suggested to Lucado that he might want to change the title of The Gospel According to Manny to The Gospel According to Manny Joe-Bob, in order to better reflect Jesus's fictitious Southern heritage. Lucado said he liked that idea.]





Maranatha.

All about Grace
03-17-2003, 06:08 PM
Lucado has a touchy-feely writing style that appears to be an attempt to get the reader to identify with the human side of Jesus. The result, however, is heresy at best and blasphemy at worst. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


If Max Lucado is on the fundamentalist hit-list, fundamentalism has gone further off the isolationist deep end than I originally imagined.

rufus
03-17-2003, 06:16 PM
Steven m, thanks for the post and warning!! Keep on exposing darkness.

rufus graemlins/thumbs.gif

Molly
03-17-2003, 06:39 PM
He has some neat stories that he tells in his books,which is his strength....not very bold theologically,nor does he stand firm on many issues....my husband said he was kinda wishy washy(striving not to be too offensive) on Larry King Live...not to our suprise. John Mac was the bold,biblical standing one out of the 4.

Loren B
03-17-2003, 06:42 PM
Great Post Steven m.!

Keep up the good work. Many on this board don't realize that ecumenism is not a good thing.

I have read a couple of Max Lucado's books and they are mostly fluff. Sound Doctrine is the least of his concerns. Selling books seems to be the order of the day.

Mike McK
03-17-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Steven m.:
In his book, No Wonder They Call Him the Savior, Lucado blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christ with the following statement (pp 131-132):

"Look closely through the shadowy foliage. See that person? See that solitary figure? What's he doing? Flat on the ground. Face stained with dirt and tears. Fists pounding on the hard earth. Eyes wide with a stupor of fear. Hair matted with salty sweat. Is that blood on his forehead? That's Jesus. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. ... Does this look like the picture of a saintly Jesus in the palm of God? Hardly. We see an agonizing, straining and struggling Jesus. We see a 'man of sorrows.' We see a man struggling with fear, wrestling with commitments, and yearning for relief." (Emphasis added.)

What we see is blasphemy (defined as the intentional defamation of the person or nature of God)!How is this blasphemy?

It appears that in Lucado's attempt to help us identify with the "human side" of Jesus, he has engaged in gross speculation, in effect rewriting the Bible's account of Jesus time in the Garden, and thereby, he portrays a different Jesus -- a sinful One!Please explain how he has done this.

The Bible tells us not to fear, but to trust God. The Bible tells us that greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. The Bible tells us that perfect love drives out fear. If Jesus agonized, strained, struggled, wrestled, and yearned as Lucado speculates, particularly if he fell into a stupor of fear as Lucado contends, then Jesus would have sinned and could not possibly have been the God and Savior He claimed to be -- and that's blasphemy!Faith in God is not to be without fear or not to agonize over such a gut wrenching decision as Christ faced in the garden.

Faith in God is to follow God's will in spite of these things.

If anything, that Jesus was able to say, "Nevertheless, not My will but Thy will be done" and go to the cross in spite of His fear, showed an amazing faith in God the Father.

Lucado is now working on a novel, based on the fictional account of Jesus life as if He were born in the South in the United States today. Lucado says he's thinking of titling it The Gospel According to Manny (Manny being short for Immanuel). Lucado's only concern for this title is that "Manny doesn't sound like a Southern name" (June/July 1995, Release).An excellent idea, but it's been done to death. I'd be curious to see Lucado's take on it but, since this is eight years old, I doubt we will.

RomOne16
03-17-2003, 07:40 PM
Thanks Steven M. graemlins/thumbs.gif

Always good to see someone stand up for the truth, and be willing to expose compromise and doctrinal error. Especially these days.

Keep contending for the faith!

Johnv
03-17-2003, 08:24 PM
The following Lucado quote was said in a previous post to be blasphemous. Please tell me how this quote is blasphemous. It sound pretty accurate to me. "Look closely through the shadowy foliage. See that person? See that solitary figure? What's he doing? Flat on the ground. Face stained with dirt and tears. Fists pounding on the hard earth. Eyes wide with a stupor of fear. Hair matted with salty sweat. Is that blood on his forehead? That's Jesus. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. ... Does this look like the picture of a saintly Jesus in the palm of God? Hardly. We see an agonizing, straining and struggling Jesus. We see a 'man of sorrows.' We see a man struggling with fear, wrestling with commitments, and yearning for relief."

Mike McK
03-17-2003, 08:58 PM
Don't congratulate him yet, Mom. He still hasn't explained how Lucado's description is blasphemy.

Terry_Herrington
03-18-2003, 01:42 AM
Sorry Steve M, I feel that you are off base on this one. Max Lucado's books have been a blessing to me and my wife.

Sure, I don't agree with some of his doctrine, but he has a unique way of stating things that cause me to think about our wonderful Savior and to appreciate the things of God. As one preacher told me, learn to eat the peanuts and to spit out the shells.

"What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." Phil 1:18 (KJV).

Ken Rhoades
03-18-2003, 07:30 AM
100% AMEN!
This Author is one of the clearest dangers to Holy Bible based Christ centered faith. I did not know about the baptismal regeneration, but was very clear on the fact that wafer worship and Jesus only (UPC) was ok for this perverted anti christ author. Any effort to identify core Bible based distintive is put down as 'hateful' and not 'Christ like'. It is a wave of mind killing fuzzyness that comes from the endless supply of perversions of the Holy Bible.

Ken ><KJV> graemlins/thumbs.gif

All about Grace
03-18-2003, 10:02 AM
It never ceases to amaze me on the BB how someone can come on here spewing falsities about an evangelical leader who is making a lasting impact and then be congratulated for "standing for the truth."

We are still waiting for proof that Max Lucado is a heretic (I almost chuckle as I type the words). As far as Lucado's books being shallow, he is writing on a level where the average layperson can understand and appreciate his words. I don't spend my time digesting Lucado's books (except as a resource for good sermon illustrations), but I appreciate his ministry for many of those who prefer that level.

BTW, criticizing evangelicals & promoting some type of "I am the only one who is right and spiritual" mindset does not equal "contending for the truth."

I am thankful God does not operate on the same level of preference that most of us choose.

Aaron
03-18-2003, 12:44 PM
I consider Max Lucado a "fad theologian" whose fame will shortly wane as did Calvin Miller's.

Who?

timothy 1769
03-18-2003, 01:11 PM
Fists pounding on the hard earth. Eyes wide with a stupor of fear.

what's the basis for saying these things?

Ernie Brazee
03-18-2003, 02:07 PM
Ir is very evident that some here have no idea who the Lord Jesus Christ is.

The person this Max fella depicts is not the virgin born son of God, God in the flesh, but his idea of what Max would be doing if he were in Jesus place. What Jesus experienced in the garden wasn't fear of the cricifixion, rather it was dread of becoming sin for us.

Some don't realize what sin is, God hates sin, hates it so much that the only accepted sacrifice is His only begotten son. Realizing this, Jesus, as God (John 1:1 )knew what he was going to experience and this is the dread he felt, the dread of bearing all sin past , present, and future.

Maybe the Jesus you worship was a cringing coward in the garden, but my Jesus went to the cross willingly knowing what he faced and went with love for those whoes sin he was bearing.

Keeping with the theme of the thread....this Max character needs to get aquainted with the Christ of the Bible and stop creating his idea of Christ.

TheOliveBranch
03-18-2003, 02:18 PM
graemlins/laugh.gif I see people here standing up for Lucado almost as strongly as those standing up for the KJV. Or should I be laughing?

Mike McK
03-18-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
The person this Max fella depicts is not the virgin born son of God, God in the flesh, but his idea of what Max would be doing if he were in Jesus place. What Jesus experienced in the garden wasn't fear of the cricifixion, rather it was dread of becoming sin for us.That may be true, too. I don't see a big difference between the two.

Maybe the Jesus you worship was a cringing coward in the garden, but my Jesus went to the cross willingly knowing what he faced and went with love for those whoes sin he was bearing.Why does feeling fear make Him a "cringing coward"? How does feeling "dread" make Him any less so? Wouldn't the fact that He went to the cross willingly in spite of His fear or, in your case, dread, prove that He wasn't a coward?

Keeping with the theme of the thread....this Max character needs to get aquainted with the Christ of the Bible and stop creating his idea of Christ. Having read your posts for quite a long time now, one could say the same thing about you.

Daniel David
03-18-2003, 02:49 PM
What is the basis for saying that Jesus was struggling with fear other than the sewage dump?

Kiffin
03-18-2003, 03:10 PM
I think it is well known that Max Lucado like most Churches of Christ ministers hold to baptismal regeneration. If I'm not mistaken COC do not like the term baptismal regeneration though they do believe it. They also generaly hold to more of a Pelagian view of Original sin rather than a Arminian or Calvinist view.

Lucado does not fit with the normal Church of Christ and I hope he does represent 'movement of grace' in the Churches of Christ. I do not see how Lucado blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christ by saying

"Look closely through the shadowy foliage. See that person? See that solitary figure? What's he doing? Flat on the ground. Face stained with dirt and tears. Fists pounding on the hard earth. Eyes wide with a stupor of fear. Hair matted with salty sweat. Is that blood on his forehead? That's Jesus. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. ... Does this look like the picture of a saintly Jesus in the palm of God? Hardly. We see an agonizing, straining and struggling Jesus. We see a 'man of sorrows.' We see a man struggling with fear, wrestling with commitments, and yearning for relief."

That actually is what I read in the Gospel accounts. No where does Lucado describe Jesus as a sinner. There is a danger among some Fundamentalists of diminishing the Humanity of Christ and forgetting He was not only Perfect God but Perfect Man. I wonder if the information on Lucada mentioned here is from David Cloud's website? which makes a habit of slandering people.

Johnv
03-18-2003, 03:28 PM
this Max character needs to get aquainted with the Christ of the Bible and stop creating his idea of Christ

Oh, I disagree. We have deified Christ to the point where it's blasphemous to think of him as human. Like he was Superman or Santa Claus or something.

Denying Jesus' humanness is as heretical as denying his divinity. Max Lucado, IMO, does neither.

All about Grace
03-18-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Ir is very evident that some here have no idea who the Lord Jesus Christ is.

The person this Max fella depicts is not the virgin born son of God, God in the flesh, but his idea of what Max would be doing if he were in Jesus place. What Jesus experienced in the garden wasn't fear of the cricifixion, rather it was dread of becoming sin for us.

Some don't realize what sin is, God hates sin, hates it so much that the only accepted sacrifice is His only begotten son. Realizing this, Jesus, as God (John 1:1 )knew what he was going to experience and this is the dread he felt, the dread of bearing all sin past , present, and future.

Maybe the Jesus you worship was a cringing coward in the garden, but my Jesus went to the cross willingly knowing what he faced and went with love for those whoes sin he was bearing.

Keeping with the theme of the thread....this Max character needs to get aquainted with the Christ of the Bible and stop creating his idea of Christ. Thanks for clearing it up for us. Since you seem to have the incarnation completely figured out, I will add your post as an appendix to my Bible. :rolleyes: tongue.gif :rolleyes:

All about Grace
03-18-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
graemlins/laugh.gif I see people here standing up for Lucado almost as strongly as those standing up for the KJV. Or should I be laughing? And I see people criticizing with no warrant an evangelical as a heretic. Now tell us, which is more laughable???

All about Grace
03-18-2003, 05:23 PM
There is a danger among some Fundamentalists of diminishing the Humanity of Christ and forgetting He was not only Perfect God but Perfect Man. I wonder if the information on Lucada mentioned here is from David Cloud's website? which makes a habit of slandering people. graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif

Two thumbs up on both accounts.


For those fundies who really want to get worked up, they should read Phillip Yancey's "The Jesus I Never Knew."

superdave
03-18-2003, 05:47 PM
You get my two thumbs up too Kiffin

Now, I don't go to Max's book when I am studying or preparing to teach necessarily, because it is not a commentary, or a interpretive tool, but that is not its purpose. It is for the most part solid doctrine (can't speak for all of it, I have only read a couple books) and it is explained very clearly and in a picturesque manner, rather than in dry theologian speak, nothing wrong with that.

I mean, I read John Piper too, yet have some major rifts with him on doctrine. I don't see either as a heretic. As a matter of fact, I think God will take the Post-Trib guys up with the rest of us at the rapture smile.gif

I have heard Max speak, he is a gifted orator, and does write a pretty turn of phrase. Fluffy, perhaps, Emotional? Definately, Heretical? I don't think so, I have heard more heretical comments in the Bible Versions Forum than you'll ever hear from M.L

JMHO

ByGrace
03-18-2003, 09:46 PM
I've read most, if not all, of Lucado's books and find nothing "heretical" about any of them. His works may not be the "deepest" around. . .but they are certainly a good read!


In Him,
Grace

Daniel David
03-19-2003, 01:39 PM
I have read many of his works. He has alot of good illustrations. I do think though that alot of his illustrations use alot of imagination and speculation. He is trying to tell the story as he thinks it might have happened. With that, I have no problem.

I do have problems with him taking liberty with Christ's experience on the cross. Implying that Christ feared anything is mindless rhetoric that is used to make people feel better about themselves. Hey, I am for people feeling better, just not at the expence of a biblical understanding of Christ.

Lucado is notable weak and evasive on doctrine for a reason. Given his pro-catholic stance, it is hard to call him a firm evangelical.

ByGrace
03-19-2003, 05:27 PM
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. " Hebrews 4:15

Daniel David
03-20-2003, 12:43 AM
... and that verse has nothing to do with what I said.

C.S. Murphy
03-20-2003, 12:52 AM
Preach what biblical mandate would be broken if Christ was fearful on the cross? I feel we can definately say he dreaded the cross, atleast when he was in the garden. Is it absolutely impossible that he was fearful, maybe when he asked why God had forsaken him. I am not trying to argue maybe I am missing something so please help me out.
Murph

p.s. although "8 hours one friday" by Max is one of my favorite books I don't agree with everything he does.

KenH
03-20-2003, 01:08 AM
I always find it amazing how often Christians, especially conservative evangelical types, set up theological firing squads by forming a circle, aiming their rifles toward the center of the circle, and then yell "Fire!". graemlins/laugh.gif

Daniel David
03-20-2003, 01:17 AM
Murph, he is God. Does God fear anything? In an effort to "identify" with his humanity, people disregard his deity. You tell me how God can fear anything.

I see Christ telling an angry mod that he was in the temple daily teaching the word. He did not fear that mob.

I see Christ telling Pilate that his authority was given to him by God alone.

To say that he was ever fearful though is pure conjecture if not a more serious charge.

KenH
03-20-2003, 01:25 AM
How do you interpret Jesus' passion in the Garden of Gethsemane just before He was betrayed?

Aaron
03-20-2003, 08:21 AM
When Christ feared, He did not fear them which could kill the body only. He feared Him who could destroy both body and soul in Hell.

The Holy Spirit neglected many aspects of Christ's physical pain, aspects of which contemporary preachers make a great fuss. The Holy Spirit focuses on the spiritual aspects and Christ's divinity.

"...yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." 2 Cor. 5:16.

Tentmaker
03-20-2003, 08:52 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kiffin:
[QB] I think it is well known that Max Lucado like most Churches of Christ ministers hold to baptismal regeneration. If I'm not mistaken COC do not like the term baptismal regeneration though they do believe it. They also generaly hold to more of a Pelagian view of Original sin rather than a Arminian or Calvinist view.

The Lord knows I am not a defender of the Church of Christ, nor a fan of Max Lucado. But I suggest you check out his web site www.oakhillschurchofchrist.org (http://www.oakhillschurchofchrist.org) and read their statement of faith. Unless they are outright lieing, they definately do not teach baptismal regeneration.

All about Grace
03-20-2003, 09:54 AM
Does God fear anything? In an effort to "identify" with his humanity, people disregard his deity. You tell me how God can fear anything.
False dichotomy. God does not "fear" anything but humans do. The Incarnate Son was both.



I see Christ telling an angry mod that he was in the temple daily teaching the word. He did not fear that mob.

I see Christ telling Pilate that his authority was given to him by God alone.
I also see the Son of God making Himself vulnerable, becoming dependent upon a mother, and agonizing in the garden. His humanity was as real as his deity. If he experienced the full gamut of human emotions, he experienced fear.

To say that he was ever fearful though is pure conjecture if not a more serious charge. It is not our responsibility to demonstrate instances where Jesus showed fear. It is the responsibility of those who deny it to demonstrate how Jesus was completely human and yet did not experience a basic human emotion. What is more speculative to say he did not experience a basic human emotion and yet was completely human or vice-versa? The answer seems obvious.

ByGrace
03-20-2003, 10:03 AM
... and that verse has nothing to do with what I said.First, of all, I don't recall writing that I was posting that verse in reply, or commenting on what you said.

SBCbyGrace, excellent post!

Aaron
03-20-2003, 12:06 PM
Again, the fear of man is a sin, Rev. 21:8. But the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

If Jesus feared, it was not that He feared the physical tortures of the crucifixion, or anything that man could do to Him. He feared God.

We are left with no alternative.

Terry_Herrington
03-20-2003, 01:43 PM
Aaron,
With all due respect, to say that Jesus did not experience any normal human fear, facing what He was facing, is to minimize the humanity of Christ to the point that it would have been almost non-existent. I do not think that any "human" could face crucifixion without some fear. :confused:

The important thing is that Jesus did not give into that fear. smile.gif

Daniel David
03-20-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
1. False dichotomy. God does not "fear" anything but humans do. The Incarnate Son was both.

2. I also see the Son of God making Himself vulnerable, becoming dependent upon a mother, and agonizing in the garden.

3. His humanity was as real as his deity. If he experienced the full gamut of human emotions, he experienced fear.

4. It is not our responsibility to demonstrate instances where Jesus showed fear. It is the responsibility of those who deny it to demonstrate how Jesus was completely human and yet did not experience a basic human emotion. What is more speculative to say he did not experience a basic human emotion and yet was completely human or vice-versa? The answer seems obvious.1. Just because humans do something does not mean that the Son of God HAD to also. Do you simply assume that Christ had to do and experience what you do and experience for him to be a real human? Nice job of centering Christ around you there.

2. None of that has to do with fear, SBC. Remember, that as an infant, he held the universe together. He never "feared" anything that we assume infants fear.

Personally, if my power was such that I could hold the universe in place, nothing would be greater.

3. Your first statement is absolute truth. Your second is mere speculation on your part. He did not experience sin and was still completely human.

4. Nice cop-out. You are trying to assert that Jesus feared. Since Scripture in no way backs you up, you have the burden to demonstrate your ideas. Otherwise, you might be adding to God's revelation. Again, he did not sin and was still completely human.

C.S. Murphy
03-20-2003, 03:11 PM
To say that he was ever fearful though is pure conjecture if not a more serious charge. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I suppose scripture does not prove that He feared but I don't think it proves He didn't. I believe the poster who said it shows His humanity is right. You can say conjecture if you like but if you feel my thoughts are deserving of some kind of "charge" I would love for you to make the charge so I would atleast know what crime I am accused of.

Murph

Aaron
03-20-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Aaron,
With all due respect, to say that Jesus did not experience any normal human fear, facing what He was facing, is to minimize the humanity of Christ to the point that it would have been almost non-existent. I do not think that any "human" could face crucifixion without some fear. :confused:

The important thing is that Jesus did not give into that fear. smile.gif My argument with you is in no way a sign of disrespect.

What do you call normal? That which is commonly experienced by a fallen race? We need to be careful not to transfer our fallen tendencies to Christ. As I said above, we no longer know Christ according to the flesh, and the preoccupation with His human nature is unscriptural. The Scriptures give us what we need to know about His humanity, and that is enough to know that He was touched with the feeling our weaknesses—yet without sin.

But what saith the Scriptures? Fear of anything or anyone but God is always presented in the Scriptures as an evidence of weak faith. And what of the Scriptures I cited earlier. It is exactly this "normal human fear" that is our undoing, who through fear of death are all our lifetime subject to bondage, Heb. 2:15.

Christ Himself told us NOT to fear them that can kill the body only, but to fear Him who can destroy both the body and soul in Hell.

Did Christ command something that He could not do Himself?

That Christ feared is plainly set forth in the Scriptures: Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared...(Heb. 5:7)What did Christ fear? Only that which would be good, holy and righteous to fear, the fiery indignation and righteous judgment of God.

All about Grace
03-20-2003, 04:05 PM
1. Just because humans do something does not mean that the Son of God HAD to also. Do you simply assume that Christ had to do and experience what you do and experience for him to be a real human? Nice job of centering Christ around you there. Your burden of proof not mine.
You need to show evidence where Jesus endured certain human emotions (such as sorrow, joy, grief) but did not experience others (fear). You are evidently picking and choosing which human emotions Jesus faced, so it is your task to offer evidence.

2. None of that has to do with fear, SBC. Remember, that as an infant, he held the universe together. He never "feared" anything that we assume infants fear.

Personally, if my power was such that I could hold the universe in place, nothing would be greater.
But it has everything thing to do with the reality of Jesus' humanity. It is almost humorous how you accuse others of speculation and then you make statements such as: He never "feared" anything that we assume infants fear.

We can only assume Jesus endured every non-sinful human emotion that is basic to the human construct. There is no scriptural evidence to the contrary, but there is sufficient evidence that his humanity was absolute and full.

3. ...He did not experience sin and was still completely human. Irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about non-sinful human emotions that are natural to the human construct.

4. Nice cop-out. You are trying to assert that Jesus feared. Since Scripture in no way backs you up, you have the burden to demonstrate your ideas. Otherwise, you might be adding to God's revelation. Again, he did not sin and was still completely human. Again your reasoning amuses me. Are you the one who was trying to get others to engage in meaningful debate in another thread? The burden of proof lies with the one who is making the assertion that contradicts the norm.

Jesus was 100% human.
Fear is a natural human (non-sinful) emotion.

What is the natural deduction here?

You want to argue against the norm, so you have the burden of proof.

BTW, you have no biblical evidence that Jesus nursed, urinated, fell and skinned his knee, swam as a child, wrestled, got a blister on his hand, felt full after a meal, or a multitude of other human emotions and actions. Should we also eliminate these elements of his humanity?

Who is trying to cop-out? Just provide your biblical evidence that Jesus was completely human in every arena of life except for the fact he never experienced fear.

Daniel David
03-20-2003, 06:26 PM
SBC, you assume that fear is not sinful.

God has given to believers an attitude that is not fear but power, love, and a sound mind.

Of course, the burden is not on me to defend everyone who calls himself "evangelical (whatever that means) because I refuse to draw lines.

rsr
03-20-2003, 10:54 PM
Lucado's view of baptism:

What do you teach and believe regarding central beliefs such as baptism?

I believe that baptism is essential for obedience. As far as I can tell there is no example of an unbaptized member of the New Testament church. In baptism the believer is identified with the righteous life of Jesus — buried with him, risen with him. Baptism is sacred. We’ve baptized over a hundred souls a year at Oak Hills for several years.

At the same time, I strongly resist any effort to trust the act of baptism to save. The work of salvation was finished when Christ said it was, on the cross. Baptism, nor any other work, adds to his completed service. My only contribution to my salvation is my own sin. The glory of redemption is not my baptism — but that a sinner like me could stand fearless and saved before a holy God.THE CHRISTIAN CHRONICLE (http://www.christianity.com/CC/article/0,,PTID25485%7CCHID127205%7CCIID1398630,00.html)

Sounds awfully baptistic. No wonder the Campbellites are having a cow.

Daniel David
03-21-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
1. I suppose scripture does not prove that He feared but I don't think it proves He didn't.

2. I believe the poster who said it shows His humanity is right.

3. You can say conjecture if you like but if you feel my thoughts are deserving of some kind of "charge" I would love for you to make the charge so I would atleast know what crime I am accused of.1. Let us leave the arguments from silence to the babysprinklers.

2. I believe you are wrong. His humanity never touched on sinfulness, Murph. Oh, and this has nothing to do with Calvinism. Thanks.

3. Consider what John said in 1 John 4. Perfect love casts out all fear. Now, if God is love, and he is perfect in all ways, I don't consider it a stretch to say that Christ, being both man AND God, never in any way feared.

Btw, no one is attacking you CSMurphy. I don't know what crime you are alluding to.

[edited to replace personal name with screen name]

[ March 22, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

JonathanDT
03-21-2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
What Jesus experienced in the garden wasn't fear of the cricifixion, rather it was dread of becoming sin for us. dread (drd)
v. dread·ed, dread·ing, dreads
v. tr.
To be in terror of.
To anticipate with alarm, distaste, or reluctance: dreaded the long drive home.
Archaic. To hold in awe or reverence.

v. intr.
To be very afraid.

n.
Profound fear; terror.
Fearful or distasteful anticipation. See Synonyms at fear.
An object of fear, awe, or reverence.
Archaic. Awe; reverence.

adj.
Causing terror or fear: a dread disease.
Inspiring awe: the dread presence of the headmaster.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English dreden, short for adreden, from Old English adrdan, from ondrdan, to advise against, fear : ond-, and-, against; see un-2 + rdan, to advise; see ar- in Indo-European Roots.] Maybe the Jesus you worship was a cringing coward in the garden, but my Jesus went to the cross willingly knowing what he faced and went with love for those whoes sin he was bearing.
Funny, I was always taught that courage was being afraid but pushing though it.

Aaron
03-21-2003, 07:30 AM
SBC said:
The burden of proof lies with the one who is making the assertion that contradicts the norm.Sez who?

Kiffin
03-21-2003, 09:54 AM
Tentmaker and rsr thanks for the info. I stand corrected. The Churches of Christ must not be pleased with Lucado's Baptist leanings.

All about Grace
03-21-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Preach the Word:
SBC, you assume that fear is not sinful.

God has given to believers an attitude that is not fear but power, love, and a sound mind.

Of course, the burden is not on me to defend everyone who calls himself "evangelical (whatever that means) because I refuse to draw lines. Way to avoid the points I raised. I have noticed on occasion your tendency to drop out of the discussion when challenged to defend your assertions. So I shouldn't be surprised.

Is a Christian soldier who may be on the front lines of the war and about to invade hostile territory and face enemy fire commiting in sin if he has a sense of fear???

You refuse to draw lines??? graemlins/laugh.gif It is amazing how some can live so deep in the box that they cannot see the lines. tongue.gif

Kiffin
03-21-2003, 10:10 AM
In Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Gospel of Mark 14:33-34 33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; 34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. he comments,



He began to be sore amazed--ekthambeisthai, a word not used in Matthew, but very significant; it bespeaks something like that horror of great darkness, which fell upon Abraham (Gen. xv. 12), or, rather, something much worse, and more frightful. The terrors of God set themselves in array against him, and he allowed himself the actual and intense contemplation of them.

All about Grace
03-21-2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />SBC said:
The burden of proof lies with the one who is making the assertion that contradicts the norm.Sez who? </font>[/QUOTE]If you maintain Jesus did not experience a normal human emotion, it is your burden of proof (if you believe he was 100% human). I can't believe this question is even being debated (as to the burden of proof).

Besides the actions & emotions I have already cited that are not provided in Scripture, should we say Jesus did not laugh because we do not find it in the text???

Daniel David
03-21-2003, 01:27 PM
SBC, all of your points assume that fear is not a sinful emotion.

I have post two passages that indicate it is not from God.

I suggest you reread what I said about drawing lines.

If the discussion cannot get past the nature of fear, do you not agree that it is fruitless to continue?

All about Grace
03-21-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Preach the Word:
SBC, all of your points assume that fear is not a sinful emotion.

I have post two passages that indicate it is not from God.

I suggest you reread what I said about drawing lines.

If the discussion cannot get past the nature of fear, do you not agree that it is fruitless to continue? Since obviously you do not want to deal with the issues that have been raised, answer one question: Is it a sin to be afraid of something or someone other than God?

Aaron
03-21-2003, 04:03 PM
SBC, that was answered several posts ago. Get to the point.

All about Grace
03-21-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Aaron:
SBC, that was answered several posts ago. Get to the point. Yes or no will suffice.

Terry_Herrington
03-21-2003, 09:54 PM
Aaron,
You said, "My argument with you is in no way a sign of disrespect."

I did not, for one minute, think that anything you said was disrespectful. I was simply being careful so that you did not think that I was being disrespectful to you. graemlins/thumbs.gif

C.S. Murphy
03-23-2003, 12:57 AM
Somebody may have quoted this already but I didn't remember it:

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he*** feared;****8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Heb 5:6-9 (KJV)

Murph

Aaron
03-23-2003, 01:10 AM
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002419;p=3#000 044

Daniel David
03-23-2003, 06:13 PM
I wasn't aware that fearing God was the sinful part. If that is all that can be said about Christ fearing, then the lack of evidence is against those who agree with Lucado's statement. Fearing God is necessary. Fearing anything else is sin (or at the very least a result of sin which Jesus was not hindered by).

KenH
03-23-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Fearing anything else is sin (or at the very least a result of sin which Jesus was not hindered by). Say what? So if I fear speaking in front of an audience I am sinning? That's a new idea to me.

Sherrie
03-23-2003, 06:33 PM
In a sense you are Ken. Because you are suppose to trust God, and he will lead you in what you do and say.

Sherrie

Daniel David
03-23-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Fearing anything else is sin (or at the very least a result of sin which Jesus was not hindered by). Say what? So if I fear speaking in front of an audience I am sinning? That's a new idea to me. </font>[/QUOTE]Not anymore.

KenH
03-23-2003, 10:49 PM
That's okay. I already knew I sin 24/7 anyway. :(

C.S. Murphy
03-24-2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Preach the Word:
I wasn't aware that fearing God was the sinful part. If that is all that can be said about Christ fearing, then the lack of evidence is against those who agree with Lucado's statement. Fearing God is necessary. Fearing anything else is sin (or at the very least a result of sin which Jesus was not hindered by). A few pages back you said that Jesus never feared but now you seem unconcerned when a verse clearly states that he did :
To say that he was ever fearful though is pure conjecture if not a more serious charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats up with that
Murph

All about Grace
03-24-2003, 10:26 AM
Every day life scenarios based on Preach's faulty logic:

A ferocious dog breaks its chain and makes a mad dash at me or one of my children .... fear .... SIN!

I am swimming in the ocean and I see the fin of a shark about 5 yards away ... fear ... SIN!

I am at the mall and I turn around and one of my children is no longer in sight ... fear ... SIN!

I receive a phone call that my wife has been in a serious automobile accident ... fear ... sin!

I step off the curb w/o noticing a speeding car headed in my direction, suddenly I see the car headed straight for me ... fear ... sin!

I am mountain climbing and my rope gives way and I am dangling on the edge of a cliff ... fear ... sin.

I am a soldier on the frontlines when suddenly I realize we are under heavy fire, friends are dying around me, I seem trapped with no escape ... fear ... sin.


It doesn't take long to realize the absurdity of the claim that fear of anything other than God is a sin. Once again, fear is a natural human emotion. Jesus was 100% human. You draw the conclusions here.

Daniel David
03-24-2003, 01:14 PM
Murph, I since the discussion was not about godly fear but fear in the sense that Lucado used it, I did not see the relevance of using it. I hope that clears things up for you.

SBC, I would rather not try to sift Scripture through your personal stories.

Did not Christ say that we are not to fear those who can destroy our bodies but to fear him (God) who can destroy both body and soul? Now, since you are the Ph.D. student, explain that in light of your personal stories.

All about Grace
03-24-2003, 02:54 PM
What Preach said: SBC, I would rather not try to sift Scripture through your personal stories.

What Preach means: I have no reasonable response to these real life situations that contradict a proposal I made earlier without giving it much genuine thought.

Did not Christ say that we are not to fear those who can destroy our bodies but to fear him (God) who can destroy both body and soul? Now, since you are the Ph.D. student, explain that in light of your personal stories.

Nice attempt to twist the text to fit your feeble attempt to dehumanize Jesus.

This text has to do with whom one should or should not fear and not the emotion fear itself. In other words, Jesus is not saying: "It is a sin to be afraid." What Jesus is saying is: there is no real reason to fear those who can bring our existence to an end. They cannot control your ultimate destiny. He does not say the fear itself is an illegitimate human emotion that is sinful.

In the overall context, Jesus is warning against the disciples dissembling themselves because of an unwarranted fear of those who can only kill their bodies. In other words, don't allow a fear of humans to cause you to yield to the temptation of denying the One who controls eternity (by words or actions).

The warning is not about being afraid. It simply puts fear into proper perspective.

Fear should lead us to trust in God. For example, the Psalmist declares: "When I am afraid, I will trust in you." David assumes fear. And as a result of this fear, David learned to trust God. He is not forbidding fear. He simply says that when it comes, it should lead one to trust God.

Jesus in the Garden is the classic illustration here. When he appears to be afraid (remove this cup from me), what happens? He displays an uwavering trust in God (nevertheless not my will but yours be done).

Conclusion: it is a false generalization to say that fear is a sin. Fear in and of itself is simply a human emotion that comes from being finite and limited. However the response fear generates in the life of the believer can create God-dependence or self-dependence (and subsequently can lead to faith or sin).

I assumed you would not deal with the real-life situations b/c even you can recognize the absurdity of your previous statements. Fear is a natural human emotion. It is not a sin matter. Thus the initial question (did Jesus experience fear as a completely finite human?) has yet to be answered negatively.

At this point, I guess you will probably drop out of the discussion (if you follow your typical pattern). graemlins/thumbs.gif

Daniel David
03-24-2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
1. What Preach means: I have no reasonable response to these real life situations that contradict a proposal I made earlier without giving it much genuine thought.

2. Nice attempt to twist the text to fit your feeble attempt to dehumanize Jesus.

3. This text has to do with whom one should or should not fear and not the emotion fear itself. In other words, Jesus is not saying: "It is a sin to be afraid." What Jesus is saying is: there is no real reason to fear those who can bring our existence to an end. They cannot control your ultimate destiny. He does not say the fear itself is an illegitimate human emotion that is sinful.

4. In the overall context, Jesus is warning against the disciples dissembling themselves because of an unwarranted fear of those who can only kill their bodies. In other words, don't allow a fear of humans to cause you to yield to the temptation of denying the One who controls eternity (by words or actions).

5. The warning is not about being afraid. It simply puts fear into proper perspective.

6. Fear should lead us to trust in God. For example, the Psalmist declares: "When I am afraid, I will trust in you." David assumes fear. And as a result of this fear, David learned to trust God. He is not forbidding fear. He simply says that when it comes, it should lead one to trust God.

7. Jesus in the Garden is the classic illustration here. When he appears to be afraid (remove this cup from me), what happens? He displays an uwavering trust in God (nevertheless not my will but yours be done).

8. Conclusion: it is a false generalization to say that fear is a sin. Fear in and of itself is simply a human emotion that comes from being finite and limited. However the response fear generates in the life of the believer can create God-dependence or self-dependence (and subsequently can lead to faith or sin).

9. I assumed you would not deal with the real-life situations b/c even you can recognize the absurdity of your previous statements. Fear is a natural human emotion. It is not a sin matter. Thus the initial question (did Jesus experience fear as a completely finite human?) has yet to be answered negatively.

10. At this point, I guess you will probably drop out of the discussion (if you follow your typical pattern). graemlins/thumbs.gif 1. Actually, I did think about it. I realize your need to say such things so they divert peoples attention.

2. Christ was/is fully God and fully man. I have no desire to dehumanize him. I just don't wish to paint the wrong picture by adding to him because it makes me feel better.

3. You are merely arguing from speculation and silence (two of the strongest forms of argument :rolleyes: ). It is an explicit statement. Do not fear those who can destroy the body. Now either we take this to mean what we want it to (as you have done), or we accept the plain meaning (as I have done).

4. The fact remains that they are not to fear.

5. I certainly understand your position, but disagree. Now, call that whatever you want (avoiding the issue or dodging it or not thinking through it), that is up to you. I would like to see a little more discussion and fewer attempts at ad hominem.

6. When fear exists, the solution is to trust in God. So, if faith in God removes fear, then fear must not be something that we should have. Think it through SBC.

7. What a jump that is! There is so much fear in Christ that when he stood up, he spoke two words and the entire mod fell at his speach. Very convincing.

8. Perfect love casts out all fear. Is that a true statement or not? Perhaps you could use your hermenuetic on that verse and tell me how it doesn't really mean what it says.

9. Again, we disagree on a fundamental level, therefore we will not see eye to eye on the various circumstances here.

10. I hope that made you feel better. I am not sure whether I should laugh or cry. graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/tear.gif

C.S. Murphy
03-25-2003, 12:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Preach the Word:
[QB] Murph, I since the discussion was not about godly fear but fear in the sense that Lucado used it, I did not see the relevance of using it. I hope that clears things up for you.

So at one point you demand that someone show you a verse stating that Jesus feared but when it is produced you feel it is not relevant to the discussion. How convenient. graemlins/laugh.gif
Murph

Daniel David
03-25-2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Preach the Word:
[QB] Murph, I since the discussion was not about godly fear but fear in the sense that Lucado used it, I did not see the relevance of using it. I hope that clears things up for you.

So at one point you demand that someone show you a verse stating that Jesus feared but when it is produced you feel it is not relevant to the discussion. How convenient. graemlins/laugh.gif
Murph Murph, instead of laughing at what you do not understand, try following the discussion.

Someone quoted Lucado's story abou Christ having fear on/around the cross. The Scripture never gives such an image.

I have then stated that such fear is not something that Christ experienced. Fearing God is a reverance and awe of him. That is not the same as being fearful. I hope that clears things up.

Btw, why don't you show me a text where Jesus was fearful.

Good grief. :rolleyes:

timothy 1769
03-25-2003, 01:11 AM
1john 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

timothy 1769
03-25-2003, 01:15 AM
you're in a little boat with 11 other disciples and your sleeping master, being tossed about in a violent storm.. fear.. SIN?

yes.

matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

[ March 25, 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

C.S. Murphy
03-25-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Murph, instead of laughing at what you do not understand, try following the discussion.

Thank God my level of understanding is not determined by one of your many tests.


Btw, why don't you show me a text where Jesus was fearful.

Good grief. :rolleyes: [/QB]7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he*** feared;****


Good grief indeed.

Murph

Daniel David
03-25-2003, 01:28 AM
Murphy, that is the verse that indicates his fear was toward God. I think it has already been mentioned by both me and Aaron that we believe that is acceptable and not the same thing as what Lucado described.

All about Grace
03-25-2003, 12:22 PM
Christ was/is fully God and fully man. I have no desire to dehumanize him. I just don't wish to paint the wrong picture by adding to him because it makes me feel better.

So maintaining that Jesus experienced a natural human emotion is adding to him??? You have yet to answer the central question here: how can Christ be fully human and not experience a natural human emotion?

You are merely arguing from speculation and silence (two of the strongest forms of argument). It is an explicit statement. Do not fear those who can destroy the body. Now either we take this to mean what we want it to (as you have done), or we accept the plain meaning (as I have done).

Your words here are almost comical. Since when is dealing with a text in its context arguing from speculation and silence??? It does not matter what we want or accept, what matters is what Jesus meant when He spoke the words. The "plain" meaning cannot be understood outside of its context. Come on Preach ... you do not prescribe to the type of hermeneutics you are espousing here. If so, we had better be on the lookout for God's eyes running around the earth :rolleyes:

If you are dealing strictly with a "plain" meaning, is fear acceptable in a case where one's life is not in jeopardy? Be consistent here.

The fact remains that they are not to fear

By leaving out part of the admonition you fall prey to the very accusation you make above tongue.gif

When fear exists, the solution is to trust in God. So, if faith in God removes fear, then fear must not be something that we should have.

Did they teach logic where you went to school?

There are many situations in life that generate or increase one's faith (the entire gospel of John was written to increase faith). That being the case, there are many things in life that cause us to either excersise faith in God or depend upon self. That does not make those faith instigators "sinful". As David said, fear will come. It is a given. What happens after fear arrives is the real issue here.

What a jump that is! There is so much fear in Christ that when he stood up, he spoke two words and the entire mod fell at his speach. Very convincing.

Since Jesus has already prayed the "not my will but thine be done" prayer, your point is moot. Besides, I did not say Christ was afraid of the mob or even of death. I simply said his words "remove this cup" reveal the full humanity of Christ. Would you care to enlighten us with the "plain" meaning as to what Jesus meant by these words?

BTW, you need to go do some homework on the reaction of the crowd.

Perfect love casts out all fear. Is that a true statement or not? Perhaps you could use your hermenuetic on that verse and tell me how it doesn't really mean what it says.

It is an absolutely true statement. Read further and you will discover the fear described -- the fear of judgment. You added the word "all". It is nowhere to be found. But by doing so, you change the text. John is writing to believers who are being perfected in God's love; therefore, there is no reason to fear the day of judgment. We can have confidence on that day.

Come on Preach. You are either not thinking or you are sinking quickly.

Again, we disagree on a fundamental level, therefore we will not see eye to eye on the various circumstances here.

Since you have failed to address the various circumstances, we don't know what you are thinking. Remember theology cannot be removed from the world of practicality. It is so easy to make blanket statements about certain subject matters (such as fear) w/o acknowledging the Scripture nowhere calls the emotion fear sinful.

I ask you again: if you see your child is about to be hit by a speeding car, would it be a sin for you to be afraid??? Can you answer this question yes or no? We will see.

Aaron
03-26-2003, 01:17 AM
SBC's premise is that involuntary reactions are not sin, however, that presupposes an unpolluted nature. Naturally he transfers not UNfallen human nature (which he cannot comprehend) but his own fallen human nature to Christ.

The Scriptures tell us plainly that an evil tree (our fallen nature) CANNOT yield good fruit, and there ain't no such thing as neutral fruit.

A lot of foolish talk in this thread about "normal" human this and "normal" human that. Christ was fully human, but He was not a "normal" human. He was virgin-born for one thing. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, SBC, but I don't think that was the norm in the First Century. He was a perfect, sinless man. Not quite the norm there either. As a sinless man, He was One who had perfect trust in His Father, and perfect love toward God and toward man. Fear of any thing, circumstance or person, except God, would be a sign of distrust and weakness. In short, it would be a sign of unbelief.

SBC, despite your violence to the Scriptures, the plain reading of Matthew 10:28 yields the interpretation given it by Preach and I.

There is a straightforward command of Christ that says "Fear not..."

He did not say, "Do not allow your fear to, blah, blah, blah..." or whatever other vomit you want to spew.

Here's a dose of real life for you.

You've been caught translating the Scriptures into English. The stake is raised and the faggots are gathered...fear...SIN.

You're caught praying in your bedchamber. The king has you dropped into a den of lions...fear...SIN.

You've just been falsely and illegally arrested in a garden, you're sentenced to be crucified...fear...SIN.

All about Grace
03-26-2003, 09:43 AM
As Preach is prone to do when the heat is turned up, he dropped out of the discussion and Aaron has taken the "my belief has to be the correct one b/c that's what I believe" mantle. As both of these brothers have a tendency to do, their arguments are more fluff than sustenence which is why they often drop out of discussions. Here we go:

Aaron: SBC's premise is that involuntary reactions are not sin, however, that presupposes an unpolluted nature. Naturally he transfers not UNfallen human nature (which he cannot comprehend) but his own fallen human nature to Christ. Aaron's premise is that fear is a result of the Fall and cannot be a part of the unpolluted human nature. Naturally he transfers his own understanding of the Incarnation to Jesus Christ with no biblical support. Since no one can understand the totality of what the Incarnation involved, we can only assume that when the Bible says God became a human that God actually became a human, experiencing the full range of human emotions humans face yet without sin. Any speculation contrary to this biblical truth must be proven by the opponent, which has yet to happen.


The Scriptures tell us plainly that an evil tree (our fallen nature) CANNOT yield good fruit, and there ain't no such thing as neutral fruit. Here Aaron employs a tactic Preach uses on occasion. He uses a text to prove a point that has nothing to do with the context or intent of the passage. As I have shown above, quoting Scripture does not make the use of that text legitimate. Stick with context and intent and this discussion can progress easier.

A lot of foolish talk in this thread about "normal" human this and "normal" human that. Christ was fully human, but He was not a "normal" human. He was virgin-born for one thing. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, SBC, but I don't think that was the norm in the First Century. He was a perfect, sinless man. Not quite the norm there either. As a sinless man, He was One who had perfect trust in His Father, and perfect love toward God and toward man. Fear of any thing, circumstance or person, except God, would be a sign of distrust and weakness. In short, it would be a sign of unbelief.
Aaron makes two mistakes here:

1) He associates the word "norm" with the Incarnation and not Christ's humanity. There was nothing normal about God becoming a human, but neither was there anything abnormal about the humanity of Christ. He was fully human.

2) He links all fear to unbelief. Once again, fear is not always a sign of unbelief. If I enter my house at night and suddenly a burglar sticks a gun in my face, my natural reaction is to be startled/express a level of fear. Does that mean I have sinned in that moment or that I am not trusting God? No. It is a natural human emotion. The reason Aaron and Preach have failed to address the real-life situations is b/c their proposal (all fear is sin) is absurd when considering everyday life.

SBC, despite your violence to the Scriptures, the plain reading of Matthew 10:28 yields the interpretation given it by Preach and I. Evidently it is easier for Aaron and Preach to accuse me of violating the text rather than to actually deal with the passage in its context. Notice also how both have failed to address the question (if they are employing just a plain reading) of whether it is only wrong to fear those who are threatening our lives (the plain reading of the text). I am ready to deal with any passage you might suggest. I simply request that we deal with passages in context and intent and not simply as I prefer to read them.

You've been caught translating the Scriptures into English. The stake is raised and the faggots are gathered...fear...SIN.
And of course you know that Huss experienced no fear in the process right???

You're caught praying in your bedchamber. The king has you dropped into a den of lions...fear...SIN.
And your evidence that Daniel felt NO fear is ???

When you guys are ready to actually deal with reality on this issue, let me know. Until then ...

Aaron
03-26-2003, 01:01 PM
I'm sure Thomas Bilney, John Huss and a host of other Christians who faced death by torture were frightened somewhat. We are never fully free of sin until we are released by death.

Thomas Bilney was frightened the first time he faced the stake and recanted to save his skin. A natural human response, yet his conscience troubled him so that he repented of his sinful fear and retracted his recantation.

The night before his death his friends tried to console him but he did not need it. In their presence he held the tip of his finger over the flame of the candle until it burned it off and said to his friends, "Whatever is not of Christ will burn."

As he was being led to the stake he ran to embrace it and praised God for the opportunity to die for Christ. No fear.

And what of the host of martyrs whose little children were tortured before their eyes in an attempt to coerce their parents to confess the infallibility of the Pope and other blasphemies? Each would tell you their fear was sinful, though their reason to fear was immenently more valid than the fear described in your soft examples.

Christ is our example, not the natural tendencies of sinners, and I noticed you neglected to repeat that example in your last post.

How one looks at the examples you gave depends on his world view. If one sees every action and reaction that springs from polluted nature as sin—as indeed it is, for so the Bible presents it as such—then he will give one answer. If one sees the natural tendencies of man as good, and only willful and cognizant wrong-doing as sin, he will give another.

But when REAL stories of men and women who faced unspeakable tortures for the testimony of Christ are brought to our eyes, something very different than the ideas you espouse come to view.

Daniel David
03-26-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
As Preach is prone to do when the heat is turned up, he dropped out of the discussion and Aaron has taken the "my belief has to be the correct one b/c that's what I believe" mantle.I think you only say this to make yourself feel better. I will type slowly here: we disagree on a fundamental level as to the nature of fear. Therefore, we will not interpret situations the same. Btw, thinking people see through such statements, so who are you appealing to?

This isn't about calvinism anyone (just had to throw that out so people can breathe easier).

Finally, can you remind me of that passage where Jesus feared anyone or anything (besides of course fearing God which was never argued against in the first place)?

All about Grace
03-26-2003, 05:21 PM
Thanks Aaron for reminding me of the Bilney story. It is a great one indeed. As a matter of fact, it illustrates my point exactly. Bilney's original fear caused him to act in a sinful manner (he recanted his faith). His second reaction was a complete dependence upon God, which in turn eliminated the fear factor.

You say: As he was being led to the stake he ran to embrace it and praised God for the opportunity to die for Christ. No fear. This is absolute speculation on your part. Whether he felt any level of fear or uncertainty when the flames actually encapsuled his body we shall never know. What we do know is that his dependence upon God caused him to remain true to the end (with or w/o feelings of fear).

Again you speculate when you aver: Each would tell you their fear was sinful, though their reason to fear was immenently more valid than the fear described in your soft examples. We will never know what level of fear they faced. What we do know is that they trusted God in spite of their fears. My "soft" examples simply illustrate that fear is a natural human emotion in the life of a human being (even when it is as trivial as being startled). To eliminate it from Jesus' experiences requires evidence that he did not experience this natural human emotion. The evidence has yet to be shown.

However great or insignificant you may feel the cause of fear may be, one cannot allude the fact that fear is a natural human emotion.

Christ is our example, not the natural tendencies of sinners, and I noticed you neglected to repeat that example in your last post.

I have asked for a reasonable interpretation of the "remove this cup from me" prayer of Gethsemane and have yet to receive one.

How one looks at the examples you gave depends on his world view. If one sees every action and reaction that springs from polluted nature as sin—as indeed it is, for so the Bible presents it as such—then he will give one answer. If one sees the natural tendencies of man as good, and only willful and cognizant wrong-doing as sin, he will give another.

I have not argued the natural tendencies of humans are good. Don't put words in my mouth. What I have suggested is that the natural human response of fear to an adverse or startling circumstance does not equal committing a sin. But then again, I know it is easier to attack straw men.


BTW, it is usually easier to debate or discuss when you actually deal with the issues the other party raises instead of simply neglecting them. But I shouldn't expect you guys to change your spots, so ... graemlins/sleep.gif

timothy 1769
03-26-2003, 05:24 PM
However great or insignificant you may feel the cause of fear may be, one cannot allude the fact that fear is a natural human emotion

well, so is lust. did jesus lust?

All about Grace
03-26-2003, 05:29 PM
I will type slowly here: we disagree on a fundamental level as to the nature of fear. Therefore, we will not interpret situations the same. Btw, thinking people see through such statements, so who are you appealing to?
It is so easy for you to say there is a fundamental disagreement on the nature of fear when you have yet to prove fear in and of itself is sinful.

Thinking people also engage in legitimate arguments and rebuttals instead of making unsupported generalizations and then abandoning the debate.

This isn't about calvinism anyone (just had to throw that out so people can breathe easier). This is definitely not a Calvinism issue since I am classified by most as Calvinistic.


Finally, can you remind me of that passage where Jesus feared anyone or anything (besides of course fearing God which was never argued against in the first place)? And can you provide me that passage where Jesus did not experience natural human emotions? The burden of proof still lies in your yard.

timothy 1769
03-26-2003, 05:32 PM
I have asked for a reasonable interpretation of the "remove this cup from me" prayer of Gethsemane and have yet to receive one.

imo:

as an example to us. notice he finishes with "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. "

on one level jesus was not looking forward to the excruciating pain of crucifixion. who would? so the prayer was not a lie, there was a real, human desire to not experience it.

but no fear graemlins/thumbs.gif

Preacher Nathan Knight
03-26-2003, 06:04 PM
I do not think it was the pain that worried Jesus. After all that is why He came, to be our sacrifice and take our place. I think it was more of the separation from the Father that bothered him. they had never been separated before but when all our sin was placed on Jesus it caused that to happen.

timothy 1769
03-26-2003, 06:09 PM
I do not think it was the pain that worried Jesus. After all that is why He came, to be our sacrifice and take our place. I think it was more of the separation from the Father that bothered him. they had never been separated before but when all our sin was placed on Jesus it caused that to happen.

a very good point. you've changed my mind, thanks!

Preacher Nathan Knight
03-26-2003, 06:20 PM
Im glad to have been a help. graemlins/thumbs.gif

Aaron
03-26-2003, 10:02 PM
SBC said:
I have not argued the natural tendencies of humans are good. Don't put words in my mouth. What I have suggested is that the natural human response of fear to an adverse or startling circumstance does not equal committing a sin.Thanks for proving my point. graemlins/thumbs.gif

If it isn't sin, then it's righteousness. You don't have to say the exact words, your intentions are clear.

All about Grace
03-27-2003, 09:20 AM
Thanks for proving my point.

If it isn't sin, then it's righteousness. You don't have to say the exact words, your intentions are clear. Obviously you guys do not want to really discuss this matter. Maybe at some point I stop getting lured into these facades. :rolleyes:

Aaron
03-27-2003, 11:41 AM
I am focusing on the forest. You are sidetracked by the trees. ;)