Luter Has Interesting Ideas and Friends

[Dave Roberts]

This one surprised me, even for an SBC President.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

I wish this were an April Fool's joke.

[Blake]

I bet I know who this year's is going to.

[Sandy]

I don't see anything "looney" or "strange" about either Luter's or Wile's view. Prophetic themes related to the downfall of nations as a result of moral decay is a common Old Testament, and historical, theme. The problem I have is when someone points to specific events and attempts to link them to specific judgments, or predict a series of events. The standard for prophetic utterances coming from God is their accuracy. If it turns out that nothing happens with North Korea, which is probably the case, will Wiles be willing to admit he was not prophetic? Probably not. Luter stayed out of the prophecy rather diplomatically, though I doubt most Southern Baptists would see this as an issue or a problem.

The other problem I have with this sort of thing is seeing it as God's judgment on "nations" under the new covenant, which is the result of Jesus's atonement and is carried out by individuals. There are examples, again in the Old Testament, of places where the consequences that came upon a nation were brought about by the wickedness of its rulers, and its people. I think it is legitimate to point to those examples as lessons from the past, and as motivation for believers to inspire them to continuous repentance and spiritual renewal. There's nothing wrong with a strong, prophetic voice coming from the church, calling us to revival, and that's something that, frankly, seems like it will pass away when Billy Graham does. There are a lot of Billy wannabees, but so far, no one I see being raised up like that.

Nor is there anything unusual about Wiles' call for activism among Christians. That's nothing new, either. The only problem some of you guys here have with that is that the right is doing it instead of the left.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy, we can always count on you here.

What a stupid comment by Luter!! What does such a nonsensical comment accomplish. Luter, please make it clear when you make such comments that you are not speaking for all Southern Baptists.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, the idea that the innocent are punished by God for what someone else has done is not good Christian theology, in fact it is heretical. The scriptures argue against the idea that "the Fathers have eaten sour grapes and their children's teach are set on edge" not for it. God does not punish the innocent with the guilty, period.

You can make this about us "SBC" critics if you like. But I would oppose this kind of thinking no matter who said it. It isn't because Luter is the President of the SBC that I oppose this kind of theology. It is because it is heretical theology no matter who says it.

You are making this about the SBC by defending an SBC leader just because he IS an SBC leader, not because he is right.

Also, while we are on it, the kind of bigotry that makes LGBT persons the scapegoats for every disaster or national failing is unconscionable. It is this kind of thinking that leads gay persons to be abused, attacked, and bullied because "good" religious people declare them evil giving evil persons religious cover for their abuse.

[Tom Parker]

Sandy: That you try to defend Luter for this view is just plain sad on your part! Do you not realize that Luter is not helping the SBC at all?

[Tim Bonney]

Proverbs 6

6 There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that hurry to run to evil,
19 a lying witness who testifies falsely,
and one who sows discord in a family.

Ezekiel 18:1-4

The word of the Lord came to me: 2What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.

As you can see the bolded passages, God is not for the shedding of innocent blood.

[Tom Parker]

Tim: There is just no way to defend Luter's comments and his association with Wiles. What has happened to the SBC? I do not believe the people of the United States much less the world listens to the SBC anymore but the SBC just does not understand that.

[Sandy]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

You know as well as I do that the spiritual concept of guilt or innocence is God's ideal, not man's perception of what it is. Paul's authoritative discussion of it is found in Romans 3, and while I won't sling prooftexts with you over this, you know the arguments as well as I do. Since Christ, anything we receive from God that is not judgment is a blessing. The covenant relationship that existed in the OT was with Israel, and it was subject to God's judgment for disobedience to the covenant. Achan committed the sin, but the scripture clearly says that "The Lord's anger burned against Israel," and whether his family was involved, or approved, or not, they all suffered the judgment with him.

God's covenant today is with individuals through the blood of Christ. The judgment for failing that covenant is death and punishment in eternal hell. It is only grace that relieves us of that obligation. I don't believe God gives out specific words of prophetic foreknowledge related to what goes on in the world today, but I do believe that sin, and the fall of man, is responsible for the evil that happens and I do believe that prophetic voices obedient to God's word are raised up to identify things in a culture that are signs of rebellion against God, and that people need to be called to repentance and renewal as a result. However, there are those, particularly among pre-millenialists and dispensationalists, who hold a different interpretation of prophetic events, and do believe that God can, and does, use current events and circumstances to alert people to the need for repentance, or to bring about necessary judgment. I do not hold those views myself, but they are not heretical by any definition of the term, and use of that word exposes intolerance and bigotry. But I've always said that those who consider themselves "moderate" or "liberal", and pat themselves on the back for their open minded "tolerance" of homosexuality, including ordaining unrepentant homosexuals and allowing same sex couples to marry in direct rebellion to God, are intolerant bigots when it comes to more conservative views and interpretations of scripture.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, it is not an orthodox view that God punishes the innocent with the guilty. And as David has point out Darbyism isn't the historic faith of Jesus Christ. No one in the early church, none of the reformers, no one had heard of this bizarre theory of history and eschatology before the 19th century. Doesn't that give you pause that this could be viewed as adding to the scriptures and the Christian faith?

I realize that one of the possible outcomes of Calvinism and pre-mill Dispensationalism is that God doesn't love everyone or want everyone to be saved. I'm sorry you've bought into these extremes which are not "conservative." Old time revivalistic conservative Southern Baptists that I grew up with would have never argued that God punishes innocent children in a society for the sins of there parents. They would have argued for the "age of accountability" and the grace of God until a child is able to seek out faith.

It is just the usual old saw defense to yell "liberal" any time most of the rest of the Christian world points out how out of character with the gospel it is for Christians to make such statements.

[Sandy]

And of course, affirming that homosexual behavior is not sinful is orthodox Christian doctrine?

Who determines what is "orthodox"? You? A clergy board? The Pope? Some academic in an ivory tower institution with an office wall papered with degrees?

Let's see what other criticisms of Luter we can come up with here. Many African American Baptists speak in tongues. That might be a good one to dig into. Maybe he's made some statements in sermons similar to those of Jeremiah Wright, some sound bytes that can be taken out of context to make him look like a Black racist. We can't discuss Suzii's airplane commuting costs without getting some CBF'ers in a snit, but I bet we can come up with a couple of pages if Fred took several trips to minister to his congregation when they were scattered from New Orleans by Katrina...

[TrudyU]

"Sandy" writes, "And of course, affirming that homosexual behavior is not sinful is orthodox Christian doctrine?"


Ed: Sandy what does that question have to do with Luter, his ideas or his friends?

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[TrudyU]

Ed: Sandy when you say "I think the same-sex marriage issue is a wake up call for Christians in America ", I have to ask,in what way? As you answer keep in mind I am opposed to homosexuality and any societal stamp of approval for it.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy you are living in a pre-prophets and pre-New Testament understanding of God's working here. But I obviously can't talk you out of contradicting Jesus or his Apostles. You should know that there is more than one interpretation of the Babylonian captivity or in many Old Testament situation in which God has some bad event attributed to him. You know that people in the Old Testament era attributed all things to God, both good and bad, and had little concept of Satan, eternal punishment, heaven and hell etc. The Old Testament says "An eye for an eye" and Jesus says "turn the other cheek." If you are going to leave Jesus and the Apostles out of Biblical interpretation and stick with a pre-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament you will get all kinds of unorthodox interpretations out of the Bible and end up having us all obey dietary laws, Old Testament dress codes, etc.

I guess when you vote Jesus out as the criteria for Biblical interpretation you can feel justified lifting up the Old Testament with greater authority than Jesus and the Apostles.

And if you are going to do that then you should just as well go with the Old Testament definitions of marriage which are also different than our current society's views on marriage.

If you want "Biblical" marriage you better decide which one. Do you mean Jacob's polygamy? Do you mean the system of arranged marriages? Do you mean that getting an engagement broken requires a divorce? Those are all Biblical practices of marriage.

Finally Sandy, you've never answered my question. Are you accusing me, an advocate of marriage equality, of being responsible for the conflict with North Korea. That is the logical conclusion of your pre-Christian (and also Pre-rabbinical) argument. Why are you too squeamish to blame me? Is it maybe because the whole idea is plain crazy?