Disappointed in MACHE-stance on Ham

[PeterPan]

I'd really love a point by point discussion or link to one that shows how Enns' Bible Curriculum is such a problem that is based on someone actually reading it. I've read through the samples and Instructors Guide and am not seeing it. There is no denial of the Deity of Christ or the innerency of scripture in what I have read in this curriculum.

 

I don't know if you're actually asking or not, but apparently there's a Parent's Guide as well as the specific IGs for each level. KH made some quotes from the PG. Not saying I would have put his commentary in, but here you go. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=187216417990499

 

I'm not sure what you mean by innerency of Scripture. Apparently people have different expectations on that. That youtube clip with Enns talking about his take on Paul and Adam was enough to sort that out for me.

 

I have absolutely no doubt sincere people are buying the materials and using them to communicate what they believe in their family. These are issues people have to sort out for themselves by looking at the big picture, what the author believes, where he's going, and whether that's what want.

[OnTheBrink]

No, not according to some Christians.

 

Some Christians have rules about who is truly a Christian and who isn't.

 

According to them, just because you say you are a Christian, it doesn't make it so.

 

My comments are unrelated to the whole Ham/Enns debate, but isn't the bolded true? I mean, are you a (fill in the blank) simply because you say you are? If that logic is true, then I'm a cheeseburger. I said so, therefore I am, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

I get what you're saying about Christians judging others as not Christian, and I know that was the context you made your comment in, but, wolves dress in sheep's clothing and call themselves sheep but truly are wolves. We can't assume wolves are sheep simply because they say they are, kwim?

 

Again, my post isn't about Ham or Enns; it's about the idea that it's foolish to believe someone is something simply because they say so.

[PeterPan]

From my understanding, people who are really familiar with Enns's work (all of his work), find his New Testament writings/perspective to be fairly orthodox.

 

I have a close friend who took several of Enns's classes while he was teaching at Westminster. Based upon the way that he presented himself at that time, she felt that his New Testament writings were orthodox, although he was headed into murky water regarding the Old Testament.

 

After doing some research recently, she thinks that while she might consider using his elementary school-level materials on the New Testament, as a conservative Christian she would not recommend the middle or high school materials, because she thinks that he'll be pushing an unorthodox agenda.

 

As for Keller, as long as he holds to the historic Adam and Eve and the fall, then he is within the bounds of orthodoxy whether he holds to some type of theistic evolution or not. The problem with Enns is that he doesn't appear to hold to a historic fall and then looks at Paul's words as if he didn't know what he was talking about (Paul didn't know about evolution and therefore took a symbolic story about Israel as being true). He wants to keep what Paul says about Christ while denying the historicity of Paul's metaphor.

 

The difference between Peter Enns and Keller is that if Keller abandoned the confession by abandoning the federal headship of Adam (and therefore the federal headship of Christ as he notes), he'd be kicked out of the PCA (after a very public trial). We would have heard about it. Enns is not a Teaching Elder in a PCA church or any church for that matter and he's no longer affiliated with any school. He can abandon the confession without any official consequence.

 

Ok, this confuses me, and I want to understand how people are using the term orthodox. So Keller is considered orthodox in the PCA if he holds to the historic fall (what you said), but Enns is still orthodox even though he doesn't?

 

See that's why I haven't even wanted to tread there, because I've been really surprised by how much the term flows about and how unclear or unexpected the standards are. Clearly I'm out of the loop.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

My comments are unrelated to the whole Ham/Enns debate, but isn't the bolded true? I mean, are you a (fill in the blank) simply because you say you are? If that logic is true, then I'm a cheeseburger. I said so, therefore I am, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

I get what you're saying about Christians judging others as not Christian, and I know that was the context you made your comment in, but, wolves dress in sheep's clothing and call themselves sheep but truly are wolves. We can't assume wolves are sheep simply because they say they are, kwim?

 

Again, my post isn't about Ham or Enns; it's about the idea that it's foolish to believe someone is something simply because they say so.

 

Yes but there has been a multitude of flavors of Christianity for ages and all of these people consider themselves Christian. Whose evidence is correct? Which version is correct? Who is the judge? I think God is the judge so to speak.

[PeterPan]

I agree. People look at the same pile of evidence and come up with different conclusions all. the. time. It's why there's more than one person in a jury.

 

That wasn't my point. My point was the amount of time and effort a theologian goes to in thinking through very precisely exactly what all the implications are, the logical ends, what the words mean, etc. For instance, where I went to grad school they offered an entire year course on *Salvation*, nothing but salvation.

[OnTheBrink]

Yes but there has been a multitude of flavors of Christianity for ages and all of these people consider themselves Christian. Whose evidence is correct? Which version is correct? Who is the judge? I think God is the judge so to speak.

 

I agree; God is the judge of man's heart. But, God also warns in the Bible about wolves in sheep's clothing. It's foolish to assume everyone who claims Christianity is one. It's a balance between "hoping all things and believing all things" about someone who claims Christ, and being wary of false teachers.

 

And again, lest anyone assume I'm speaking in veiled terms about anyone; I'm not. I probably should have started a new thread, though. LOL

[Mrs Mungo]

That wasn't my point. My point was the amount of time and effort a theologian goes to in thinking through very precisely exactly what all the implications are, the logical ends, what the words mean, etc. For instance, where I went to grad school they offered an entire year course on *Salvation*, nothing but salvation.

 

What makes you think other people have not put thought into it? There are boatloads of people with PhDs in theology who reject the 7 day creation model. http://www.answersincreation.org/testimony.htm

 

Several of these people encountered a crisis of faith when they are faced with the real evidence of an old earth. A certain hs curriculum publisher I saw speak talked of his son facing a similar crisis when he went to college and met liberals who were nice people with logical arguments that he wasn't ready to refute. When you link a Christian's belief in salvation through Christ to *anything* else, then you are setting up those scenarios.

[*anj*]

Ok, this confuses me, and I want to understand how people are using the term orthodox. So Keller is considered orthodox in the PCA if he holds to the historic fall (what you said), but Enns is still orthodox even though he doesn't?

 

See that's why I haven't even wanted to tread there, because I've been really surprised by how much the term flows about and how unclear or unexpected the standards are. Clearly I'm out of the loop.

 

 

No, I'm sorry. I was unclear. Keller is considered orthodox in the PCA. Enns would have formerly been considered orthodox, but not any longer. I think that some people would still consider certain of Enns's writings to be orthodox, but not all.

 

Does that help at all? :001_smile:

[pdalley]

I don't know if you're actually asking or not, but apparently there's a Parent's Guide as well as the specific IGs for each level. KH made some quotes from the PG. Not saying I would have put his commentary in, but here you go. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=187216417990499

 

I'm not sure what you mean by innerency of Scripture. Apparently people have different expectations on that. That youtube clip with Enns talking about his take on Paul and Adam was enough to sort that out for me.

 

I have absolutely no doubt sincere people are buying the materials and using them to communicate what they believe in their family. These are issues people have to sort out for themselves by looking at the big picture, what the author believes, where he's going, and whether that's what want.

 

 

I've asked twice in this thread. I'm talking about both the Parent guide sample and the Instructor's Guide. I want to know what in these materials - not Dr. Enns' speeches - that is in direct violation of the basic tennent of Evangelical Christianity - Jesus Christ came and died for mankind's sins on the cross so they could be reconciled to God. That the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I am not seeing these things in this curriculum.

 

I've read Dr. Ham's facebook postings. In fact my irritation with him is entirely due to his words and based on his words alone. Not on things I've 'heard' he said but what I've read that he has written. In that post he takes thing way out of context of the whole chapter. He's cherry picking.

 

I'm speaking specifically of this curriculum because that is what the subject that is causing the criticism of Peace Hill Press and Susan Wise Bauer.

 

I'm getting the feeling that if I were to purchase Dr Enns' curriculum I'd be seen as endorsing his worldview. I wouldn't be. I would be purchasing a tool to aid the education of my children.

 

Sometimes a tree is just a tree. There is no boogeyman behind it. God communicates with me about what I should and should not use to educate my kids. He gifted me with the Holy Spirit and a wonderful Pastor to guide me spiritually. I also have my former Pastor - who is also a Doctor of Theology.

 

I dislike being treated as if none of these things are true and I am somehow not really a Christian if I do not check off certain beliefs. I only know of one that the Bible says I must adhere to if I am considered to be a follower of Jesus.

 

But then I'm not a theologian.

Edited March 29, 2011 by pdalley

[JoJosMom]

What makes you think other people have not put thought into it? There are boatloads of people with PhDs in theology who reject the 7 day creation model. http://www.answersincreation.org/testimony.htm

 

Several of these people encountered a crisis of faith when they are faced with the real evidence of an old earth. A certain hs curriculum publisher I saw speak talked of his son facing a similar crisis when he went to college and met liberals who were nice people with logical arguments that he wasn't ready to refute. When you link a Christian's belief in salvation through Christ to *anything* else, then you are setting up those scenarios.

 

 

A bit off topic, but...thank you, Mrs. Mungo, for the link.

[Amy loves Bud]

Kirch, I was thinking about this last night, and I think there are people who end up accepting theistic evolution (or other ideas and interpretations) sort of blithely or naively. They don't have time (or extreme interest) to sort through the issues and get there rather by default; it's what they were taught or heard or what makes sense to them, done. These are people who didn't change any other bit of their interpretation of scripture to get there, and there could even be some logical incongruities if they thought about it long enough. But there are other people, theologians, scientists, people who DO sit around thinking about these things to great lengths and trying to wrestle with the issues, nuances, words and terms. These people are very specific in what they're saying and meaning, and they HAVE thought through the logical ends. So I think we as laypeople, people not crazy into this stuff, can MISS some of the nuances that the more versed people are communicating.

 

I don't disagree, there are people who do this. However, you can substitute "literal six-day creation" for the bolded and the statement would still be true.

[*anj*]

I'd really love a point by point discussion or link to one that shows how Enns' Bible Curriculum is such a problem that is based on someone actually reading it. I've read through the samples and Instructors Guide and am not seeing it. There is no denial of the Deity of Christ or the innerency of scripture in what I have read in this curriculum.

 

I think (and I could be wrong), but I think that it's less an issue of the way that Enns deals with the deity of Christ, and more an issue of his whole view of Scripture. If he rejects the notion that there was an actual Adam, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If there was no Adam, there was no Fall. If there was no Adam, there is no federal headship (the idea that the sin of one man led to the whole human race being born in a state of sin.) So, if there is no Fall and no Federal Headship, how is there a need for a Savior? And how could the death and resurrection of that one Man earn salvation for all (or the many, depending on how you view it)?

 

I'm not a theologian either, and I definitely don't have all of the answers! ;)

[Donna T.]

I think (and I could be wrong), but I think that it's less an issue of the way that Enns deals with the deity of Christ, and more an issue of his whole view of Scripture. If he rejects the notion that there was an actual Adam, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If there was no Adam, there was no Fall. If there was no Adam, there is no federal headship (the idea that the sin of one man led to the whole human race being born in a state of sin.) So, if there is no Fall and no Federal Headship, how is there a need for a Savior? And how could the death and resurrection of that one Man earn salvation for all (or the many, depending on how you view it)?

 

 

 

Well, does he? I am seriously trying to find out.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Donna T.

[pdalley]

I think (and I could be wrong), but I think that it's less an issue of the way that Enns deals with the deity of Christ, and more an issue of his whole view of Scripture. If he rejects the notion that there was an actual Adam, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If there was no Adam, there was no Fall. If there was no Adam, there is no federal headship (the idea that the sin of one man led to the whole human race being born in a state of sin.) So, if there is no Fall and no Federal Headship, how is there a need for a Savior? And how could the death and resurrection of that one Man earn salvation for all (or the many, depending on how you view it)?

 

I'm not a theologian either, and I definitely don't have all of the answers! ;)

 

Thanks for answering. :)

 

I'm not getting that from the text I've read though - that Adam was figurative rather than literal. I guess that's why I'm puzzled. Again, I'm only speaking of this particular text - not Dr. Enns' worldview. Just this curriculum.

 

I'm one of those who believes that God made the world and I have no idea how long 7 days are in God's time. It could have been 7 days - days as we know them - or it could be days as in 2Peter 3:8. I don't believe God's time and our time must be the same. I think they could be but I'm not convinced of that.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think (and I could be wrong), but I think that it's less an issue of the way that Enns deals with the deity of Christ, and more an issue of his whole view of Scripture. If he rejects the notion that there was an actual Adam, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If there was no Adam, there was no Fall. If there was no Adam, there is no federal headship (the idea that the sin of one man led to the whole human race being born in a state of sin.) So, if there is no Fall and no Federal Headship, how is there a need for a Savior? And how could the death and resurrection of that one Man earn salvation for all (or the many, depending on how you view it)?

 

I'm not a theologian either, and I definitely don't have all of the answers! ;)

 

In this article, he seems to be saying that there may have been an actual Adam, but that he represented the beginning of Israel, but not the first human. (Though I'm not seeing him come down specifically here on the question of if there was an Adam or if he was only a metaphor.)

 

I have to confess that the more I read about this, the more I want to read. I am finding it wonderfully interesting. I've been digging more into both science and theology over the last two weeks than in months. I suppose for that alone I should be thankful.

 

I also found this listing of blog posts that Peter Enns has done for the BioLogos website. Some interesting other posts about various questions that come up when reading Genesis.

[SweetBean]

I think (and I could be wrong), but I think that it's less an issue of the way that Enns deals with the deity of Christ, and more an issue of his whole view of Scripture. If he rejects the notion that there was an actual Adam, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If there was no Adam, there was no Fall. If there was no Adam, there is no federal headship (the idea that the sin of one man led to the whole human race being born in a state of sin.) So, if there is no Fall and no Federal Headship, how is there a need for a Savior? And how could the death and resurrection of that one Man earn salvation for all (or the many, depending on how you view it)?

 

I'm not a theologian either, and I definitely don't have all of the answers! ;)

Well, does he? I am seriously trying to find out.

 

It does seem that Enns believes that Adam was no a historical person and that the Adam and Eve narrative is metaphorical. Did you check out the Biologos link that OhElizabeth posted earlier?

[newlifemom]

Now this has become an interesting discussion.:lurk5:

[unsinkable]

My comments are unrelated to the whole Ham/Enns debate, but isn't the bolded true? I mean, are you a (fill in the blank) simply because you say you are? If that logic is true, then I'm a cheeseburger. I said so, therefore I am, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

I get what you're saying about Christians judging others as not Christian, and I know that was the context you made your comment in, but, wolves dress in sheep's clothing and call themselves sheep but truly are wolves. We can't assume wolves are sheep simply because they say they are, kwim?

 

Again, my post isn't about Ham or Enns; it's about the idea that it's foolish to believe someone is something simply because they say so.

 

I was talking about a specific incidence of taking people at their word. If someone calls herself a Christian, I am not going to get out my own personal checklist and go thru it (I mean that both figuratively and literally) to make sure she is a Really Real Christian.

 

If that is foolish, so be it.

[pdalley]

I was talking about a specific incidence of taking people at their word. If someone calls herself a Christian, I am not going to get out my own personal checklist and go thru it (I mean that both figuratively and literally) to make sure she is a Really Real Christian.

 

If that is foolish, so be it.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I am taking the text I've read to say just what it says. I do not care about Dr Enns' worldview. I see nothing in this particular text that I have problems with as a Christian. I see nothing in the text I've read that indicates that Adam was figurative and not literal. Perhaps Dr Enns does believe that is so but I do not see that in these books.

 

I take people at their word when it comes to being a Christian.

[angela in ohio]

Keller is considered orthodox in the PCA.

 

Not by everyone in the PCA. ;) (But yes, by PCA leadership.)

 

But that's a whole other war....

Edited March 29, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Aubrey]

My comments are unrelated to the whole Ham/Enns debate, but isn't the bolded true? I mean, are you a (fill in the blank) simply because you say you are? If that logic is true, then I'm a cheeseburger. I said so, therefore I am, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

But generally, people are pretty much what they say they are, or they're certifiably crazy. In the latter case, it's obvious to everyone.

 

I've never heard of anyone *lying* about their faith, although plenty of people understand their faiths differently. So...which interpretation of the faith gets the copyright on the label?

 

I get what you're saying about Christians judging others as not Christian, and I know that was the context you made your comment in, but, wolves dress in sheep's clothing and call themselves sheep but truly are wolves. We can't assume wolves are sheep simply because they say they are, kwim?

 

Well, actually...if I see someone in sheep's clothing, yeah...I think it's best to assume it's a sheep. I think it's up to the Shepherd to find the wolves, not me.

[unsinkable]

My comments are unrelated to the whole Ham/Enns debate, but isn't the bolded true? I mean, are you a (fill in the blank) simply because you say you are? If that logic is true, then I'm a cheeseburger. I said so, therefore I am, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

I get what you're saying about Christians judging others as not Christian, and I know that was the context you made your comment in, but, wolves dress in sheep's clothing and call themselves sheep but truly are wolves. We can't assume wolves are sheep simply because they say they are, kwim?

 

Again, my post isn't about Ham or Enns; it's about the idea that it's foolish to believe someone is something simply because they say so.

 

Another thing is, and maybe an articulate person might be able to put it better:

 

There has to be a baseline of trust that people are who they say they are in order to function in society.

 

It's like this board. Unless someone gets my hinky radar going, I pretty much believe people are who they say they are. It wouldn't "work" for me as a fun place if I mistrusted everyone on here.

 

Just like life wouldn't work if I walked around not believing people are who they say they are.

[Jean in Newcastle]

My comments are unrelated to the whole Ham/Enns debate, but isn't the bolded true? I mean, are you a (fill in the blank) simply because you say you are? If that logic is true, then I'm a cheeseburger. I said so, therefore I am, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

 

I get what you're saying about Christians judging others as not Christian, and I know that was the context you made your comment in, but, wolves dress in sheep's clothing and call themselves sheep but truly are wolves. We can't assume wolves are sheep simply because they say they are, kwim?

 

Again, my post isn't about Ham or Enns; it's about the idea that it's foolish to believe someone is something simply because they say so.

 

The wolves/sheep scenario is more important in an actual church situation. If a pastor has been invited by your church to speak there, there is an assumption that that person is going to have a certain pastoral authority even if they are visiting. So people can be led astray if the visiting pastors beliefs do not measure up with what the church believes. But even in the church we are told to check things out in light of the Scripture to make sure it measures up.

 

I suppose there might be people who say "Ooh, an author. I'm going to believe everything they say." or "Oooh, a theologian. I'm going to believe everything they say." But I would say that it is a very foolish person who would do that. We know there are different denominations and different doctrinal beliefs that theologians etc. subscribe to. And we know that there are homeschoolers who are adherants and consumers of materials that correspond to each of these beliefs.

[*anj*]

I've read Dr. Ham's facebook postings. In fact my irritation with him is entirely due to his words and based on his words alone. Not on things I've 'heard' he said but what I've read that he has written.

 

.....................................................

 

Sometimes a tree is just a tree. There is no boogeyman behind it. God communicates with me about what I should and should not use to educate my kids. He gifted me with the Holy Spirit and a wonderful Pastor to guide me spiritually. I also have my former Pastor - who is also a Doctor of Theology.

.................................................

I dislike being treated as if none of these things are true and I am somehow not really a Christian if I do not check off certain beliefs. I only know of one that the Bible says I must adhere to if I am considered to be a follower of Jesus.

 

But then I'm not a theologian.

 

Well said.

 

I am so weary of this whole matter, but I can't even just walk away from it because of my position within our homeschool group.

 

It seems that we always need to have some controversy. No one wants to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. When I first read someone else's post in this thread, I was concerned that Keller may have gone off the trail, so I checked the Biologos site to see why he was listed there. That's when I saw the white paper.

 

It doesn't take long to be discerning, it just takes a desire not to slander our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why do we have to act like we are on the Jerry Springer show throwing mud at each other?

 

This has just been a very ugly chapter in our common experience.

[pdalley]

 

 

 

It doesn't take long to be discerning, it just takes a desire not to slander our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why do we have to act like we are on the Jerry Springer show throwing mud at each other?

 

This has just been a very ugly chapter in our common experience.

 

Oh yes. This. :iagree:

 

FWIW, I don't think Dr Ham is doing this out of a desire to set himself up as 'The' theologian. I think he believes what he believes passionately and isn't being as careful with his words as he should.

[Jami]

Well said.

 

I am so weary of this whole matter, but I can't even just walk away from it because of my position within our homeschool group.

 

It seems that we always need to have some controversy. No one wants to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. When I first read someone else's post in this thread, I was concerned that Keller may have gone off the trail, so I checked the Biologos site to see why he was listed there. That's when I saw the white paper.

 

It doesn't take long to be discerning, it just takes a desire not to slander our brothers and sisters in Christ. Why do we have to act like we are on the Jerry Springer show throwing mud at each other?

 

This has just been a very ugly chapter in our common experience.

 

I love ya, Anj. :)

[dangermom]

FWIW, I don't think Dr Ham is doing this out of a desire to set himself up as 'The' theologian. I think he believes what he believes passionately and isn't being as careful with his words as he should.

Maybe. I find myself sort of :glare: at his explanation of why he should call out wolves in sheep's clothing, which seems to involve him comparing himself to the original apostles. That strikes me as less than humble.

[OnTheBrink]

I was talking about a specific incidence of taking people at their word. If someone calls herself a Christian, I am not going to get out my own personal checklist and go thru it (I mean that both figuratively and literally) to make sure she is a Really Real Christian.

 

If that is foolish, so be it.

 

And I wouldn't, either. But, I've learned that many MANY times, people are not what they claim to be (whatever it is they're claiming).

 

But generally, people are pretty much what they say they are, or they're certifiably crazy. In the latter case, it's obvious to everyone.

 

I don't think so. Deceivers aren't so easily discerned, which is why they can easily deceive.

 

I've never heard of anyone *lying* about their faith, although plenty of people understand their faiths differently. So...which interpretation of the faith gets the copyright on the label?

 

I have. And it wasn't about interpretation of faith.

 

Well, actually...if I see someone in sheep's clothing, yeah...I think it's best to assume it's a sheep. I think it's up to the Shepherd to find the wolves, not me.

 

Matthew 7:15

 

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

 

This is a directive to Christians.

 

Another thing is, and maybe an articulate person might be able to put it better:

 

There has to be a baseline of trust that people are who they say they are in order to function in society.

 

It's like this board. Unless someone gets my hinky radar going, I pretty much believe people are who they say they are. It wouldn't "work" for me as a fun place if I mistrusted everyone on here.

 

Just like life wouldn't work if I walked around not believing people are who they say they are.

 

Generally speaking, this is true. What I'm saying is, not all who say they are XYZ, are really XYZ.

 

The wolves/sheep scenario is more important in an actual church situation. If a pastor has been invited by your church to speak there, there is an assumption that that person is going to have a certain pastoral authority even if they are visiting. So people can be led astray if the visiting pastors beliefs do not measure up with what the church believes. But even in the church we are told to check things out in light of the Scripture to make sure it measures up.

 

I suppose there might be people who say "Ooh, an author. I'm going to believe everything they say." or "Oooh, a theologian. I'm going to believe everything they say." But I would say that it is a very foolish person who would do that. We know there are different denominations and different doctrinal beliefs that theologians etc. subscribe to. And we know that there are homeschoolers who are adherants and consumers of materials that correspond to each of these beliefs.

 

People can come into churches and be wolves without being pastors. I've seen it happen and it's ugly.

 

My whole point, again was NOT about Enns or Ham, but rather, people can be deceptive. Personally, I'll trust people to be who they claim to a point, but I've been played for a fool too many times to simply believe people's claims, especially if their actions indicate otherwise.

 

Matthew 7: 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

 

Galations 5: 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Thus, my opinion that just because someone says they're this or that (or in this case, a Christian) doesn't mean they are.

 

And, once again, before someone quotes me and then talks about Ham or Enns, I'm not talking about either of these men. I'm speaking generally about believing everything people (in general) claim.

[*anj*]

I love ya, Anj. :)

 

;) The feeling is mutual, Jame!

[*anj*]

I'm speaking generally about believing everything people (in general) claim.

 

I'm totally tracking your vibe, Michelle! :001_smile:

[Hedgehogs4]

What if every lecture at a conference becomes a bash of someone else. Wow, it would be like some boards I know! Perhaps this is just a shot across the bow.

 

My thought was "yeah, let's just call ourselves Democrats and Republicans" and we can hold a convention like this with legitimacy."

[elegantlion]

Has anyone received their new CBD catalog yet? Oh the irony. PHP and AIG pages are back to back. :tongue_smilie:

[SweetBean]

Has anyone received their new CBD catalog yet? Oh the irony. PHP and AIG pages are back to back. :tongue_smilie:

:lol::lol::lol:

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe. I find myself sort of :glare: at his explanation of why he should call out wolves in sheep's clothing, which seems to involve him comparing himself to the original apostles. That strikes me as less than humble.

 

Also, it does not appear that the "fruit" (division, strife, a widened schism in the HS community) he is bearing seems to be good fruit.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Sis

[EthiopianFood]

Has anyone received their new CBD catalog yet? Oh the irony. PHP and AIG pages are back to back. :tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:

[KnitWit]

Has anyone received their new CBD catalog yet? Oh the irony. PHP and AIG pages are back to back. :tongue_smilie:

 

TRUE!!! :lol: