What do you do with Promise Keepers?

PK can go from a doctrinal statement that affirms both "faith alone" and "Christ alone," to one that affirms "Christ alone" but not "faith alone," and yet Christians can still confidently assert that nothing is diminished?

To go from a doctrinal statement that affirms both "faith alone" and "Christ alone," to one that affirms "faith in Christ alone". I see no problem. Faith in Christ alone is still an affirmation of faith alone, unless the rules of prepositional phrases has changed.

 

Are you saying the statement does NOT affirm faith alone? Again, just b/c they do not articulate in Luther fashion the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not mean they deny it or promote a works based salvation.

No one has suggested doctrine should be ignored. The whole point is that no one has shown evidence that PK compromises any of the fundamentals. Until that happens ...

 

You have not shown that PK teaches unbiblical doctrine or promotes men who are being disobedient. As you admit, there must be room for flexibility in doctrines outside the fundamentals. Therefore the implication that one is disobedient b/c they have a different belief (outside the fundamentals) is arrogant.

A commitment to obedience is not the same thing as a commitment to my interpretation of non-fundamentals or clear commands such as adultery (straw man analogy by the way).

As you confess, one cannot be clear on where to draw the lines, so why do you attempt to do so? And why would you then suggest that one who holds a different opinion is disobedient?

Your original argument was based upon the assertion PK allowed "non-Reformation defined faith" people to participate. This is a salvation issue.

This is a typical secondary response. I would simply suggest that doctrine concerning the fundamentals is the issue here. That is indeed the only true "dividing" doctrine (as far as "I cannot have anything to do with you" doctrine). As you have acknowledged, drawing the line is an individual choice on other (non-fundamental) doctrinal matters, therefore, I do not have the right to condemn as disobedient those who draw it at a different location.

You have not shown a teaching or promotion of false doctrine.

Your opinion is noted, but you have yet to show faulty doctrine.

As soon as you offer some legitimate texts that condemn such movements, we can debate this issue.

 

I have demonstrated it by commenting on the speakers that they promote. When you sponsor a speaker who is doctrinally aberrant, you have promoted false doctrine. When you sponsor a speaker who is disobedient to Scriptural commands you are promoting him. It is not a matter of interpretation. IT is a matter of obedience.

They had a Catholic priest speak in Plainview TX. They promote female pastors. John Maxwell, a frequent PK speaker, has given some credence to the UPC, a Pentecostal group that denies the trinity. Maxwell frequently associates with apostates such as Robert Schuller who denies biblical salvation. Mike Timmis, a PK board member (at least previously if not currently) was a Roman Catholic. Max Lucado who probably preaches baptismal regeneration is a PK speaker. Pentecostal Jack Hayford has spoken at the Clergy conference. McCartney himself made the statement, “WE don’t care if you are Roman Catholic.” How is that not unbiblical doctrine? This is just a smattering of examples that could be given about the false doctrine and the promotion of false doctrine by PK. I doubt it will convince you but at least can’t say I haven’t given any examples of it.

No it wasn’t. I Haven’t even mentioned that to my knowledge.

Adultery is not a doctrinal matter yet it one that we are commanded to separate over. Same with laziness. Adultery was not a straw man. It was a clear scriptural answer to your contention that we were only to separate over the promotion of false doctrine with regard to the fundamentals. I showed a place that proves your contention wrong.

I have not said that drawing the line is an individual choice. I have said that the particular place where one draws the line is a matter of discernment on the part of the individual that they will have to answer for. The doctrinal matters involved in PK are not matters of great mystery. Catholic promotion, weakening of biblical doctrine, ignoring of denominational lines, charismatic promotion … all these and more are matters among which there should be no question.

Since I have shown these texts, feel free to dig in. Rom 16; 2 Cor 6-7; Titus 1; 2 John; 3 John; Jude. I have addressed these passages many times. The Scripture is clear. When someone has bad doctrine, we are to confront and urge repentance and then separate. When someone is behaving unbiblically, we are to confront, urge repentance, and then separate.

 

Bottom line: Does PK product scripturally affirming results? Yes.

'Nuff Said.

 

First, I have yet to see these great results. Our society has not gotten better. Our churches do not seem to be stronger. There is more immorality, divorce, abortion, fatherless homes, then there ever has been. Where are these results? Secondly, and more importantly, Scripture is never affirmed when its doctrine is denied. Paul addresses your thought process in 1 Cor 1-3 and 2 Cor 2-4. Pragmatism is an unbiblical philosophy, just ask Uzzah.

I am not suggesting that PK has never had any good effect. I am sure that they have. In fact, I told you about a man I met playing golf who was saved at a PK rally and was faithful in church. My argument is rather that the results are astounding, at least that I have seen and that pragmatism should never be a valid concern where moral and doctrinal issues are at stake.

Hardly.

[ October 24, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

No I am not a guy, but several men at our church have went to P.K. over the years and they have really enjoyed it. I don't see any of them worring about family more then God, if anything I think it changes their perspective and helps them to be better Christians, Husband's and Dad's.
Love in Christ Angie

 

Pastor Larry:

I can see that we are not going to get anywhere in our discussion simply b/c of the names you mentioned in the previous post. As I mentioned from the beginning, you practice a form of secondary separation that I believe is distorted. You draw lines of separation over issues that I would not. I would be comfortable participating and helping in an event that involved several denominations who were bound by the fundamentals. In the end, I just don't believe one can hold your view and be consistent (nor do I find it in the text). I understand why people hold it. I was a part of the extreme IFB world for some time and secondary separation was one of those defining marks that distinguished the "real" people of God from the "hypocrites." However God has enabled me to realize that He works well beyond my human limitations and interpretations.

While I am ultimately responsible for who does and does not preach in my pulpit, I honestly would have no qualms with encouraging my men to go to a PK conference. The purpose of such a conference is not to hash out doctrinal issues (which is not a bad thing either). The purpose is to encourage godliness among men. I visited their website again and examined their purpose and statement of beliefs. I find nothing outside the evangelical, Orthodox belief system.

Once again, I just hope that if you are going to maintain such a high standard for yourself, that you are consistent across the board on this matter. I hope that you will discourage your university students from being a part of Navigators or Campus Crusade. I hope that you wil discourage your people from visiting the passion plays in Gatlinburg or Branson. I hope that you discourage your people from participating in Right-to-Life rallies and "I Still Do" conferences. I hope that you discourage anyone in your church from giving to Wycliffe Bible translators. I hope that you will not purchase books in your local non-baptist bookstores. I hope you will discourage people from attending any form of Christian concert from Steven Curtis Chapman to the Gaithers. I just hope that somehow you can be consistent in your view. Good luck

Do you think God is going to divide us in Heaven based upon your standards?

Let's see: John Maxwell over here ... Max Lucado over here ... Jack Hyles over here ... kind of flies in the face of Jesus' concept of a unified body doesn't it?

[ October 24, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

Maybe where you live.

I'm in the Air Force, and we have literally thousands of people who go out every so often to help with Habitat for Humanity.

Not a one of them that I've talked to realized that HFH had any relationship with the Bible.

Shucks, I even re-built a database for the HFH office in Biloxi, Mississippi back in 1997. Even though I knew the people in the office were Christians, there was nothing in the office anywhere that told me it was even close to being a Christian organization of any type. Didn't find out until after I was through with the software work that they were Christian-based. Up to that point, I (and the people working with me) were just helping them out of the goodness of our hearts.

Unfortunately, this is the case with many, many people.

You can't say the same for PK. People know exactly what they're going for, and what it's based on. Thus, your comparison fails, and it's better to just keep the conversation on PK than to try comparison arguments anyway.

 

This is how those who practice secondary separation would want us to define it. I simply suggest that Larry is emphasizing both. He would encourage "separation" from those who embrace those who in his mind embrace those who are "disobedient."

In other words:

Disobedient Christian (in his perception not mine) is embraced by the rally organizor (who at that time becomes disobedient as well) therefore I am to abstain from the disobedient organizer's event b/c of his association with the disobedient Christian.

Secondary separation is a complicated format b/c in the scheme the middle party is also disobedient (therefore they can argue "primary" seperation when in reality it is secondary).

Clear as mud???

 

From the Habitat for Humanity website:

What is Habitat for Humanity International?

Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry.

For further info, visit Habitat's statement on being a CHristian Ministry:

www.habitat.org/how/christian.html

 

SBC,

You are right that we will likely not get anywhere because of our different values in this regard. I do try to be consistent. I would discourage any college student from being involved with Navigators or Campus Crusade for a variety of reasons. I am not sure what shopping at a bookstore has to do with this. I think I already answered that. I really think, based on what you have said, that you have no real concept of what it is that I am discussing. You wanted examples of false teaching so I gave them. Now apparently you want to ignore them. You wanted scriptural passages so I gave them. Now apparently you want to ignore them. I don't think God will divide us in heaven. I do think he gave us commands on earth to be followed, not to be ignored. I don't have to make the calls in heaven, fortunately. I do have to make them here on earth. When someone does not line up with Scripture, that is significant to me. It is a serious issue and I think it needs much more thought than you appear to have put in it. God places truth over unity. We are to be unified only in the truth. That is not an option for an obedient believer. People don't have to see everything the way that I do. But there are some clear issues that cannot be disregarded.

Larry

 

(sigh)

And John, that doesn't refute my statements one whit.

See y'all in another thread.

 

Neither does your arguement hold up, just because you said so.

 

Lost people do go to these meetings, lets say one has a few questions of the gospel, what good would a catholic priest do them?
Doctrine is very important, I do not disagree with the PK's aim as far as families are concerned, but all the speakers that preach, teach, and promote a false doctrine is reason alone not to fellowship with or support them. Period

 

Here is all the information one should need as far as the Promise Keeper movement.
http://www.wayoflife.org/special/spec0001.htm

 

Perhaps opinion is a better word than "values" here. IFBers (of whom I am assuming you are a part) have a tendency to think in terms of "my opinion is more right and spiritual than yours." I sense that sentiment in your statement regarding values.

Again revealing your secondary separation practices.

The point is when you shop in a Christian bookstore, you are seeking edification / encouragement from an organization that sells / promotes doctrine with which you disagree. The last time I checked, many of the bestsellers in local Christian bookstores are Charismatics. In your logic, when you support the organization, you are supporting the doctrines of those they support (I believe you like to refer to them as disobedient Christians). Just be consistent.

Actually I lived the world of secondary separation for many years and am very aware from where you are coming.

I missed where you have outlined "false teaching" promoted by PK. I have looked at their belief statement and would like for someone to show me something in it that violates the fundamentals.

I do not want to ignore them. I simply believe that the passages you cite do not have to do with separating with someone b/c of a difference in interpretation on a matter outside the fundamentals. Until you show that is the case from the text, we will interpret these texts differently.

Actually I was being facetious. I was just making the sarcastic point that you will be spending eternity with many of those you shun on earth b/c of a non-essential doctrinal matter.

Again what needs to be emphasized here is "when someone does not line up with YOUR INTERPRETATION of particular passages of Scripture". You have made it clear that you are not talking about the fundamentals, and outside the essentials, there must be room for some flexibility.

Please don't patronize me. You have no clue how much time or thought I have put into this issue. Once again, beware of the attitude that one person is more spiritual than another b/c they have a different interpretation of an issue like secondary separation.

I have no qualms saying God places truth over unity. This is not the issue. Once again, you are trying to place things in obedient-disobedient / true-false categories that should not be there.

What is clear in your mind is not always so "clear" to others. As a matter of fact, I would simply say you are in the minority on this issue, so perhaps we should re-think who is clear and who is not

 

This is why it is always important to consider the source