Baldwin brother now Christian

Yes, Thank you for the good news. When you have it, I hope you post it, Mike.

[ October 31, 2002, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

I was lost, But now I am found.

Sherrie

 

Wow! Now that is great news.

Jude said

First of all we should all rejoice in Baldwin's conversion. When most of us were converted, we thought it was us searching for Jesus and then later realized it was the opposite and we should not ridicule a young convert who makes a theological error in that regard.

Second, Theologically speaking Chemnitz is correct and it has nothing to do with RC Sproul. Lutherans like those of us who are Calvinists realize it was nothing I did in searching Christ that saved us but He sought and found us.

Third, Rev 3:20-21 has nothing to do with Salvation but is Christ rebuking and correcting the Church of Laoedecia for keeping Him out of their spiritual affairs. Rev 3:20-21 is probably the most misused verse in the Bible by evangelists and Gospel tracts.

Regardless, let us rejoice and thank God for Baldwin's conversion. That is truly Great News!

 

I never read him. Heard of him in passing but not much. I spend a fair amount of time in the Bible.

I am going to assume you never read Rms 4, Heb 11. James never claims that he is justified before God by his works, he only claims that you will know he has faith because of his works. How do you expect to be able to do anything for your salvation when all our works are as dirty rags (Isa 64:6), all fall short(Rm 3:23), and when you break one you break all (Jas 2:10).

Sound doctrine and sound language are important for maintaining the focus on Christ not man.

[ October 31, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Thank you for posting a new salvation. The angels in heaven are rejoicing.

Boo Chemnitz...If you can't be happy that someone was saved from an eternal hell after this life is over... then something is sorely lacking in your testimony as a christian.

[ November 06, 2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

Amein, Smoke Eater and Wisdomseeker.

 

I never said I wasn't happy that the Holy Spirit did his work on the heart of Stephen Baldwin.

I was critical of a poor choice of words and the subsequent theology they are related to.

 

I would just let it go Chemitz, if you let them, some people on this board will have you torn to shreds over this silly and stupid language issue.

The original wording was bad, probably should have been "Baldwin brother was saved" instead of found Christ, but your reaction was equally as unloving. You called them on their wording, they called you on your reaction.

So my suggestion to everyone is: let it go.

 

So, Chemnitz, would you answer the simple question: is it good news that Stephen Baldwin is a Christian or isn't it? For myself, given the other, not so wholesome influences of Hollywood, I'm delighted. You can be the spit in the punchbowl if you want; for the rest of us, we're quite pleased.

[ November 05, 2002, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

I did answer that, go back and read.

 

Not to say that God can't save him. It just doesn't look that way to me yet.

Red flags: Luis Palau and the blasphemous rock opera Godspell.

 

I kind of agree with the last post. Godspell is not what I'd call exactly good doctrinal or evangelical material. Is this an emotional response? Only God knows.

I for one would be thrilled to know another soul is saved, but there definitly needs to be some fruit evidence.

 

I, too, love Luis Palau, and Godspell as well.

And I agree with Bro. Adam's suggestion concerning the verbage... let it go. This mentality of "he must not be a real Christian because I disapprove of his verbage" is pathetically unproductive.

 

You people really don't understand my point, do you? I have not at any point questioned anybodies' faith.

[ November 05, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Chemnitz, I think the problem is not necissarily a theological one, but your theological interpretation of the terminology.

If someone loses their dog, God knows where it is. They start looking, when they finally spot it right out in the open in front of them, They will say they found their dog. In your understanding they didn't find the dog since God already knew where it was.

When the statement is made that someone found Jesus, it doesn't negate that Jesus was already there, calling to them. It means that they finally saw Jesus, understood who He is and what He did for them. Although He was right there in front of them, they didn't see Him. At that point, they found what they did not have, they found what they needed, they found what they could not feel, touch, see, smell.

Terminology. That is the problem, not theology.

 

"Pleasant words are as an honeycomb sweet to the taste, and health to the bones"

So distracted... just like the Devil to get us all sidetracked off of what is really important.

[ November 07, 2002, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

You still have made it the work of man and not God. Terminology is indicative of theology, so when there is bad use of terminology then there is likely bad theology.

Again, My comments were more directed at Smoke_eater's original thread title than at the article.

 

I am to assume that you speak in Greek and Hebrew then. If you are to avoid any terminology issues with the apostles and the other writers of the original books of Scripture. I am sure english terms aren't what they had in mind. After all the Trinity isn't in the Bible, but we use it today too. I guess that is a theological error on our part as well.