The "Max Lucado" Syndrome

[malcolm]

One of the prevalent methods of preaching the "gospel" these days is to be "seeker-friendly," to appeal to people in whatever way will get them into church and get them to say a canned prayer and be added to someone's list of souls saved. This is simply an extension of the kind of humanistic teaching that has increasingly been taking over the church. One of the prime examples and proponents of this is Max Lucado - apparently the biggest selling Christian inspirational author in the market today.

Now, according to Max (and countless other preachers and evangelists), God thinks you are wonderful. He thinks you're special. He thinks you need to have more confidence in yourself and get your self-esteem boosted to the heavens. You see, God loves you more than anything. He thinks you're so valuable and precious that He sent His Son to die for you. Yes, when Jesus was dying on the cross He was thinking of you. Even if you were the only person on earth, Jesus would still have died for you. Because you are just that wonderful and valuable to God.

And, hey, since that's the case, why not come to church and let God bless you even more. After all, you're so special that God wants to give you whatever your heart desires. He wants to fill your life with prosperity and happiness and solve all your problems. Of course, even if He doesn't solve all your problems, you'll still feel better about them in the knowldedge that you're so wonderful and special! All you have to do is come as you are - because God loves you and values you just as you are. And then join in all the social events, pray and read the Bible, read a nice inspirational story every day, and wait for the blessings to pour in. Well, who wouldn't want to be a Christian? Certainly sounds better and cheaper than any other kind of therapy!

It's a little puzzling, though. If everyone is so wonderful, so special, so valuable, and so loved by God, why ever would they need to be saved from His wrath? Why would Jesus have needed to die for them in the first place?

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

But, of course, we're valuable and precious to God. It's not as if Scripture says we're worthless ...

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

And don't forget how special we are! It's not as if Scripture says that God was grieved to have even made us ...

Genesis 6:6-7 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

And our self-esteem could really use a boost by thinking of how important we are to God. After all, it's not as if Scripture tells us that God's real concern in our salvation is His own glory ...

Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time

I mean, it's not like we're really wicked or anything. We deserve to be told that there's something good in us that makes God love us and think we're worth saving. Because it's not as if Scripture tells us that there is nothing good in us at all ...

Romans 7:18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

So, even though we're sinners, it's really not all that bad. Look at all the positives.

Psalms 14:1-3The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalms 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Isaiah 64:6-7 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us and made us waste away because of our sins.

Yes, when it's all said and done, I have to give God credit and glory for saving me - it was a good decision for Him to save someone as great and special and wonderful and valuable as me! I appreciate His love and Jesus' sacrifice for me, but of course it's understandable that God would love someone like me. Sure, I was a sinner and made a few mistakes in life, but I've put all that behind me now and am ready to be blessed by God with all the good things that I've always wanted. Yes, I'm thankful for God's grace and His salvation, and now that I've got it all wrapped up in a nice package and am guaranteed of going to heaven and living happily ever after for eternity, well, it just motivates me so much to be an even better person than I was. After all, it's the least I can do.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.

It's incredible how pervasive the "Max Lucado" syndrome is throughout the church today. Such utter deception and selfishness, all propogated in the name of Jesus, hiding behind noble sounding words and doctrines, and hiding behind one of the most "taken out of context" Scriptures ever: John 3:16.

Paul was correct in Romans 3:11. People are so busy seeking to feel good about themselves that there is no one who really seeks God.

[luv1another]

well malcolm I am glad to see you don't stop at saying people who spam are not Christian... would it surprise you to know Max is one of my favourite authors.
have you tried reading his stuff or do you enjoy closing your eyes and pointing your finger at whatever you feel might not fit into your idea of God?

for your information Max has a book published just last year titled "It's NOT about ME" and it is far from what you describe max as.

just don't forget my friend you shall be judged in the same way you judge others :wink:

AS for seeker friendly churches, first of all I don't believe people need us to tell them they are worthless etc etc...

I believe the bible should be preached without being watered down but in context.

I don't see anywhere in the bible where Jesus went up to a gentile and told them they were worthless or that God hated them or whatever you are suggesting we do. Jesus had the harsh words for the pharisee's and Saducee's who were just like you appear to be... holier than thou.

wasn't it Jesus who went against what all the Jews thought? He was the one reaching out to the Gentiles, to the ones with disease and prostitutes... how dare he huh?
did he condem them? no
God does love each and every being he created he does not see them as worthless... yes they break his heart yes he will punish them BUT yes he does love them and yes he does want them to turn from their wicked ways... I really don't think anyone would be saved if we walk up to them and say you heathen you God loves you but you are a wicked person accept Jesus now or burn in hell.

In fact I have heard plenty of testimonies of the opposite... people who were once homosexual, were prostitutes, were criminals... it was not the so called Christians with signs at mardi gras etc you know the signs the once that say things like repent or burn sinner and such... their testimonies say things like it was the love that such and such showed, it was because that person took the time to talk to me and they showed me love...

I really think Jesus was onto something when he said love one another :yes:
I can't say I have heard many testimonies that say I went to church and people came up to me after the service and told me I was going to hell if I didn't repent right now and wow it just hit me so I asked Jesus to save me.

so stop wasting time saying how everything could be done better and actually get off your laurels and do something that will help people find God... go feed someone or invite them to have a warm bed in your house during winter or something. I am sure you know all the bible verses I could quote on loving people and feeding the poor etc but I will refrain.

just because Max lucado does not appeal to you doesn't mean that he is not doing things right... if you think he is wrong instead of chucking a spaz and blasting him where everyone can see why don't you get down on your knee's and ask God to correct him and guide him onto the right way or something?
after all he is your brother in Christ. :doh:

[Anoetos]

Malcolm,

Great post...

When you quote Scripture like that it makes me think you might be some kind of Calvinist...

A glass of wine with you, sir!

[Meh_Gerbil]

I don't see where Max's approach is significantly different than trying to scare people into the flock by going on and on for hours about how awful everyone is and how hot hellfire must be.

[Swardus]

Philippians 1:15-18

15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

There are still other reasons and motives that are all used, but you can equate them to this passage as well. But I think Max is an alright kind of guy. And "fire and brimstone" had/has its time and place, too. You may be mixing up Max with the "name it and claim it" folks- usually full-throttle charismatics, but not always- that still preach their selfish and self-centered brand of evangelism. This I defintely don't agree with. The early church often had people from al levels of society- both masters and slaves. Paul told them (somewhere in the epistles-I forgot) to be content with their station in life. And we see that today in many churches.

I used to go to a church where there are an elderly man and his wife who are millionaires, but you couldn't tell it by looking at them or talking to them. They had one car (at that time)-a late model Lincoln, and up until about fourteen years ago, they lived in a very small farmhouse with four children. They are a very humble and friendly couple who often invite newcomers over to their house for Sunday dinner and an afternoon nap.

Meanwhile, the "name it and claim it" people often "have it and flaunt it". And just like the "speaking in tongues" thing, you're probably not saved if you don't have it or you have alot of unconfessed sin in your life. Those that fear this condemnation usually live beyond their means so they won't be stigmatized or ostracized.

Now there are some cult-like ways that some people are "reeled-in" (hint) that are definitely wrong. These are not going to be discussed here.

You do need to research your information before putting it into print.

[wfaber]

I don't see anywhere in the bible where Jesus went up to a gentile and told them they were worthless or that God hated them or whatever you are suggesting we do. Jesus had the harsh words for the pharisee's and Saducee's who were just like you appear to be... holier than thou.
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Granted, this is the only example I know of where Jesus appeared to be putting a gentile down for being a gentile.

But as for different styles in presenting the Gospel, look at the words of Paul to the Philippians:
Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
What troubles me, however, is not the methods used to proclaim the Gospel, but rather what kind of message is being proclaimed. For example, the Four Spiritual Laws, published by Campus Crusade, as well as much of the other literature I have seen from Bill Bright and Campus Crusade.

"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."

Emphasis is placed on "the abundant life." (John 10:10) The Greek word for "more abundantly" can refer either to quality of life of quantity of life, as do the English translations. But the emphasis in their literature is on "a life worth living."

"Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life."

No mention is made of the wrath of God or eternal punishment. What's wrong with being separated from God? The ungodly are separated from God and having a blast!

I can see where hell and judgment don't necessarily have to be overstressed as I have seen it done, but are they trying to water down the message by not bring it up?

"Jesus Christ is God's ONLY provision for Man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life."

"We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives."

I wonder if some Christians are going to wake up on resurrection day and be surprised to find they they have eternal life and a heavenly home waiting for them.

So which is worse, watering down the message or sweetening it a little?

[malcolm]

Bold text by luv1another, regular text by me.

have you tried reading his stuff or do you enjoy closing your eyes and pointing your finger at whatever you feel might not fit into your idea of God?
I've read enough of his stuff to know that I shouldn't be reading any more of it.

for your information Max has a book published just last year titled "It's NOT about ME" and it is far from what you describe max as.
Yes, I was aware of that. It's typically lukewarm and self-centered. Your problem appears to be that you just look at the superficial words, but don't go any deeper to see the heart and life behind it. The kingdom of God is not a matter of words or talk, but of power and action (1 Corinthians 4:20, 1 John 3:18).

just don't forget my friend you shall be judged in the same way you judge others
I wouldn't expect anything less.

AS for seeker friendly churches, first of all I don't believe people need us to tell them they are worthless etc etc...
That's nice. Totally unbiblical, but nice.

I believe the bible should be preached without being watered down but in context.
And "in context" is your code for "take out all the bits people might not like."

I don't see anywhere in the bible where Jesus went up to a gentile and told them they were worthless or that God hated them or whatever you are suggesting we do. Jesus had the harsh words for the pharisee's and Saducee's who were just like you appear to be... holier than thou.
Someone has already mentioned the incident where Jesus calls a woman a "dog" after she asked Him for help. You may also want to read Luke 14 or John 6 or John 12. If you don't see this kind of preaching in the Bible, then you must have really taken all the verses in my OP "out of context."

wasn't it Jesus who went against what all the Jews thought? He was the one reaching out to the Gentiles, to the ones with disease and prostitutes... how dare he huh?
Since when did I ever say we shouldn't reach out to people?

did he condem them? no
He didn't have to - they were condemned already. Why do you think He had to reach out to them with the gospel if they weren't condemned in the first place? (Matthew 12:41-42, John 3:18, John 12:48)

God does love each and every being he created he does not see them as worthless...
I don't recall ever saying that God doesn't love people. And, by stating that "he does not see them as worthless" you've just directly contradicted Scripture.

yes they break his heart yes he will punish them BUT yes he does love them and yes he does want them to turn from their wicked ways...
I've never disagreed with this.

I really don't think anyone would be saved if we walk up to them and say you heathen you God loves you but you are a wicked person accept Jesus now or burn in hell.
Maybe you don't, but the gospel doesn't depend on your opinion of whether anyone would be saved. We're called to preach the gospel as it is presented in Scripture, not as we want it to be - otherwise, we are not really leading anyone to "salvation," but to a false confidence that will land them up in hell.

In fact I have heard plenty of testimonies of the opposite... people who were once homosexual, were prostitutes, were criminals... it was not the so called Christians with signs at mardi gras etc you know the signs the once that say things like repent or burn sinner and such... their testimonies say things like it was the love that such and such showed, it was because that person took the time to talk to me and they showed me love...
Of course. You think I support so-called Christians who stand with those kind of signs? You think I don't believe in taking time to talk to sinners and show them love? Sorry, but you seriously need to stop jumping to such judgmental and condemning conclusions!

I really think Jesus was onto something when he said love one another
Yes, so do I. Lying to people isn't loving them, though.

I can't say I have heard many testimonies that say I went to church and people came up to me after the service and told me I was going to hell if I didn't repent right now and wow it just hit me so I asked Jesus to save me.
You've probably been reading too much Max Lucado, then.

so stop wasting time saying how everything could be done better and actually get off your laurels and do something that will help people find God... go feed someone or invite them to have a warm bed in your house during winter or something. I am sure you know all the bible verses I could quote on loving people and feeding the poor etc but I will refrain.
Yes, I do know them. And I take them very seriously. And, once again, you are being hugely judgmental by assuming that I am not doing precisely the things that you are talking about.

just because Max lucado does not appeal to you doesn't mean that he is not doing things right...
It has nothing to do with whether he appeals to me. Actually, his books and his approach do appeal to me. The same way the fruit in the Garden appealed to Adam and Eve. What matters is what God actually says, though.

if you think he is wrong instead of chucking a spaz and blasting him where everyone can see why don't you get down on your knee's and ask God to correct him and guide him onto the right way or something? after all he is your brother in Christ.
Good grief, how judgmental can you be? You and your assumptions once again. You know, if you're going to be judgmental, that's fine. I respect people who are prepared to put themselves on the line by making judgments. Especially if they're prepared to humble themselves when they're wrong. But your problem is that you're such a hypocrite about it. You have the audacity to warn me about being judgmental, but then your own post contains little else!

[malcolm]

I don't see where Max's approach is significantly different than trying to scare people into the flock by going on and on for hours about how awful everyone is and how hot hellfire must be.

It's only different in content. Both approaches are equally unbliblical and wrong.

[malcolm]

Bold text by Swardus, regular text by me.

But I think Max is an alright kind of guy.
I'm sure he is an "alright kind of guy." I'm sure there are a lot of worse guys in the world. Just being an "alright kind of guy" doesn't cut it with God, though.

You may be mixing up Max with the "name it and claim it" folks- usually full-throttle charismatics, but not always- that still preach their selfish and self-centered brand of evangelism.
No, Max Lucado has his own brand of lukewarm, inoffensive Christianity. It's much harder to disagree with than the obvious blasphemy of "name it and claim it" - which is what makes it so much more dangerous.

I used to go to a church where there are an elderly man and his wife who are millionaires, but you couldn't tell it by looking at them or talking to them. They had one car (at that time)-a late model Lincoln, and up until about fourteen years ago, they lived in a very small farmhouse with four children. They are a very humble and friendly couple who often invite newcomers over to their house for Sunday dinner and an afternoon nap.
And so why were they still millionaires?

You do need to research your information before putting it into print.
I agree.

[luv1another]

Malcolm I don't know you and maybe you are nice in real life ...
I refuse to defend myself from your accusations I hand it to God and I say let him be my defender... I was trying to defend a Christian brother that you had decided to speak against I would say slander but maybe it was not quite slander... someone who is not here to speak for themselves. God shall be his defender too.
May Gods Bless you

[malcolm]

Malcolm I don't know you and maybe you are nice in real life ...
No, I'm a worthless sinner in real life. The only thing nice about me is the work that God has been able to do to change my heart and teach me to love Him and other people in Spirit and truth.

Besides, Jesus doesn't call us to be "nice." He calls us to love one another. There's a big difference.

I refuse to defend myself from your accusations
I wasn't asking you to defend yourself. I was hoping you might actually humble yourself and apologize.

I don't deny that I'm judgmental. I believe that God calls us to be judgmental. And I see being judgmental as a very constructive thing. And I fully expect to be judged in the same way that I judge others. If I've made any judgments that are demonstrably wrong, then all you have to do is point out the truth and I'll apologize.

But to reply in such a hypocritical way, by accusing me with all kinds of false assumptions while at the same time criticizing me for being judgmental? Well, sorry, but there's nothing loving or Christian about that.

I hand it to God and I say let him be my defender...
If only people knew the full implications of this, they might not be quick to say it.

(1 Corinthians 11:31) But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

I was trying to defend a Christian brother that you had decided to speak against I would say slander but maybe it was not quite slander...
And slandering me was the best way to defend your Christian brother?

Well, I know how these things get, you being a moderator and all. I will not pursue the matter any further.

[semmie]

i love max lucado.

that is all.

[President-Elect $cirisme]

It's only different in content. Both approaches are equally unbliblical and wrong.
Which approach would you take?

Also, instead of bolding quoted material, I would highly recommend using the quote tags ( and , respectively) as it makes it easier to tell who wrote what.

[dizzle]

I have been edified by Max. Unfortunately some Christians do not want a balanced meal. If all one takes in is Max style stuff that is where the idea that Christianity is all about Precious Moments figurines, paintings of lighthouses, and baskets of puppies comes in. But Max is a great part of a balanced diet. In the Grip of Grace was awesome.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Based on what I've read of Malcolm's posts, it seems that he's going to Heaven, but very few others are.

[malcolm]

Which approach would you take?
The approach of preaching the full gospel, the whole truth, not just parts of it, and not just extremities of it.

There are many scriptures that speak of God's love. They must all be accepted, believed and taught. There are many scriptures that speak of God's wrath. They must all be accepted, believed and taught also. There are many scriptures that speak of God's grace, and there are many scriptures that speak of the need for obedience.

So, essentially, what I'm advocating is a balanced approach that incorporates and fully acknowledges all of God's Word - all of the gospel and not just whatever parts happen to appeal to each individual person.

You might say: "No scripture left behind!" :wink:

Also, instead of bolding quoted material, I would highly recommend using the quote tags (, respectively) as it makes it easier to tell who wrote what.
Okay, no problem. Actually, the reason I was using the bold text is because the quote tags take up quite a bit of vertical space on the page and I thought it might be better to compact things a bit. But, if the quote tags are what most people prefer, I'm happy to use them more.

[malcolm]

I have been edified by Max. Unfortunately some Christians do not want a balanced meal. If all one takes in is Max style stuff that is where the idea that Christianity is all about Precious Moments figurines, paintings of lighthouses, and baskets of puppies comes in. But Max is a great part of a balanced diet. In the Grip of Grace was awesome.
Yes, I'd agree that some parts of what Mr. Lucado says are indeed true, and may in fact be beneficial in themselves. However, when choosing who to read or listen to or who is going to influence your Christian life and beliefs, you have to be very careful. It really isn't just a case of picking out the good stuff and leaving the bad. That just doesn't work. The people of Israel are a prime example of that throughout the Old Testament.

If Max Lucado does not present a balanced and full gospel, then he does not present the gospel. And, if he does not present the gospel then, however much of a "nice guy" he is - or if he was an angel from heaven - Paul's words in Galatians 1:8 apply.

[malcolm]

Based on what I've read of Malcolm's posts, it seems that he's going to Heaven, but very few others are.

:no: Sorry, but I don't even know if I'll make it.

It's true that very few people will actually end up in heaven, though. Jesus said it Himself.

(Matthew 7:14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The vast majority will be the ones saying "Lord, Lord, didn't we ..."

[President-Elect $cirisme]

The approach of preaching the full gospel, the whole truth, not just parts of it, and not just extremities of it.

There are many scriptures that speak of God's love. They must all be accepted, believed and taught. There are many scriptures that speak of God's wrath. They must all be accepted, believed and taught also. There are many scriptures that speak of God's grace, and there are many scriptures that speak of the need for obedience.

So, essentially, what I'm advocating is a balanced approach that incorporates and fully acknowledges all of God's Word - all of the gospel and not just whatever parts happen to appeal to each individual person.

You might say: "No scripture left behind!" :wink:

I do find the title, No Scripture Left Behind... very amusing.

And I agree with taking a balanced approach, it's just like DDW said.

And, just an FYI: as far as Seeker Driven Churches go, I think you will find that Willow Creek Community Church, and (to a lesser extent) Saddle Back play a greater role in that movement. Lucado has a part, but in my experience, it's pretty negligible compared to these churches.

[malcolm]

And, just an FYI: as far as Seeker Driven Churches go, I think you will find that Willow Creek Community Church, and (to a lesser extent) Saddle Back play a greater role in that movement. Lucado has a part, but in my experience, it's pretty negligible compared to these churches.

Fair point.

[luv1another]

I refuse to defend myself from your accusations
I wasn't asking you to defend yourself. I was hoping you might actually humble yourself and apologize.



I have asked 4 diffrent people to go through this thread and see if or where I need to apologize.
non of them can see anyplace where I need to apologize... maybe you could make it clear for everyone as to exactly why or what I need to apologize for :shrug:

[Da Blonde]

:no: Sorry, but I don't even know if I'll make it.

It's true that very few people will actually end up in heaven, though.

If that were so, there would be no reason to bother with it then.

Jesus said it Himself.

(Matthew 7:14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The vast majority will be the ones saying "Lord, Lord, didn't we ..."

A metaphorical comment taken out of context to justify elitism.

[malcolm]

If that were so, there would be no reason to bother with it then.

Umm, He said "few," not "none."

A metaphorical comment taken out of context to justify elitism.

Or a plain and simple analogy, taken entirely in context, that means exactly what it says.

People only complain about things being taken "out of context" when the plain meaning is something they don't like.

Of course, now we have the luxury of having the words of Jesus written down in black & white with ink on paper, and can peruse them for endless hours to find ways to render the ones we don't like meaningless - with words like "metaphorical" and "exegesis" and "cultural context" and all kinds of other carpets to sweep the Word of God under. It's hard to imagine how these people would have reacted had they been face to face with Jesus when he actually said those things. It would have been interesting to see how Jesus responded if one of the Pharisees had said, "Sorry, Jesus, but you're taking that Old Testament verse out of context!"

[{Tim}]

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Granted, this is the only example I know of where Jesus appeared to be putting a gentile down for being a gentile.

Just FYI...
He may not have actually been "putting her down" as such. From the article "Why was Jesus so mean and insulting to the Canaanite woman?" (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html), on Christan Think Tank:

Summary: This passage proves to be a masterful teaching session by the Lord. It does not contain the traditionally-assumed insults to the woman, nor the insensitive rejection of her anxious request. Instead, it shows a sensitivity to her urgent need AND the disciples' needs. Through the skillful selection of a warm, household image, Jesus creates a situation that leads the woman to a more informed faith, a more precise hope, and the disciples to a greater appreciation of their role and of their privilege. Jesus has stayed true to His priority at the time (His disciple's needs), but was willing to interrupt that (briefly) to minister to a needy, faith-filled heart and to use that in leading His disciples to the greater rest that comes from greater faith in God. And this situation, recorded in scripture, challenges US to recognize His power and His willingness to meet our needs, although we MAY have to learn something in the process too...:>)

I suggest you read the whole article; it's not too long.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

:no: Sorry, but I don't even know if I'll make it.

It's true that very few people will actually end up in heaven, though. Jesus said it Himself.

(Matthew 7:14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The vast majority will be the ones saying "Lord, Lord, didn't we ..."

Wow Malcolm. This is incredible. You spend so much time telling me in the video game thread what I have to do to be right with God, and you're not even sure if you are. How can you tell me how to be saved and what the gospel is if you're not saved yourself? You tell me to ask God what he says, but he apparently hasn't given you the go-ahead that you're his.

btw, have you ever read B.B. Warfield on Matthew 7:14. There are passages that indicate that there will be many in Heaven. Rev. 7 for instance talks about a countless number and Jesus with the Centurion talks about many coming from all around the Earth (That's what the four directions mean) to the great feast of the lamb.

Furthermore, consider God's record with the angels. He kept 2/3 of them. Are we going to say that God is in the business of losing more than he gains?

Malcolm. Could it be you're not sure if you'll make it because you've been serving a God of justice alone while forgetting his mercy? Yes. God has wrath. That wrath is present and it was put on Christ. When God looks at us, he sees Christ. God saves us because of what Christ did, but then we want to say "Forget what Christ did! Look at what I'm doing!" Well your focus for your salvation then is no longer the cross. It's you.

Malcolm. Lighten up. The tighter you make your halo and the more good you do to try to appease God, the more doubt you'll have. You'll never reach assurance even if you went on from this point to lead a sinless life, as long as you look at yourself instead of Christ.

Take it from someone who's been there. (And still stumbles from time to time.) It's no way to live.

[Sparko]

Amen Nick!

Legalism only causes more strife and worry. Because we can never be perfect. Paul said it pretty well in Colossians 2:

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

[malcolm]

Amen Nick!

Legalism only causes more strife and worry. Because we can never be perfect. Paul said it pretty well in Colossians 2:

Indeed. Amen to that too.

Just for the record, I am fully opposed to legalism. I also have no problem appreciating God's unbounding mercy and His amazing grace. Neither do I go from day to day in a perpetual state of worry or anxiety about the state of my salvation. And I certainly don't believe that my salvation depends on myself, nor does it depend on any "works" I may or may not do in my own strength.

If anyone wants to post about the dangers of legalism and the errors of "salvation by works," that's fine with me. I agree completely with the Word of God in Colossians 2.

[Sparko]

Indeed. Amen to that too.

Just for the record, I am fully opposed to legalism. I also have no problem appreciating God's unbounding mercy and His amazing grace. Neither do I go from day to day in a perpetual state of worry or anxiety about the state of my salvation. And I certainly don't believe that my salvation depends on myself, nor does it depend on any "works" I may or may not do in my own strength.

If anyone wants to post about the dangers of legalism and the errors of "salvation by works," that's fine with me. I agree completely with the Word of God in Colossians 2.

:lmbo: You sure could have fooled me (and just about everyone else on TWEB. )

so far you have told us:

1. Frivilous posts (spamming) is evil.
2. Games are evil.
3. Photo avatars are evil.
4. Having icons to show who are mods or who won contests is evil.
5. Max Lucado is evil.

Sure sounds like you are legalistic. You go around saying "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" thinking that by doing that you are being holy, when in fact you are just being legalistic.

In fact you are the most legalistic person I have met in a long time, with the possible exception of Zipperhead.

[Cynic Sage]

:lmbo: You sure could have fooled me (and just about everyone else on TWEB. )

so far you have told us:

1. Frivilous posts (spamming) is evil.
2. Games are evil.
3. Photo avatars are evil.
4. Having icons to show who are mods or who won contests is evil.
5. Max Lucado is evil.

Sure sounds like you are legalistic. You go around saying "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" thinking that by doing that you are being holy, when in fact you are just being legalistic.

In fact you are the most legalistic person I have met in a long time, with the possible exception of Zipperhead.

Where are these threads, I only know about his problem with video-games. Me wantee see.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Indeed. Amen to that too.

Just for the record, I am fully opposed to legalism. I also have no problem appreciating God's unbounding mercy and His amazing grace. Neither do I go from day to day in a perpetual state of worry or anxiety about the state of my salvation. And I certainly don't believe that my salvation depends on myself, nor does it depend on any "works" I may or may not do in my own strength.

If anyone wants to post about the dangers of legalism and the errors of "salvation by works," that's fine with me. I agree completely with the Word of God in Colossians 2.

You could have fooled me also. How can you be doubtful of your salvation and not be a legalist? The answer is that you're looking at yourself instead of Christ. Personally, if you think you're hearing the voice of God on these matters, I'm quite convinced it's either another voice or your own feelings. Some people have hyper-sensitive consciences that think in extremes. I tend to be that way myself.

Malcolm. Seriously. Take it from someone's who's been there with all the past anxiety attacks to prove it. You reek of legalism. I haven't seen you say anything about grace really. Just wrath, wrath wrath. Now I believe in the wrath and justice of God, but I know that grace is greater than all our sin.

[docjam]

Max happens to be one of my favorite authors also. Just because he picks a certain area of christianity to write about doesn't mean that he neglects all other areas of Chirstianity. It's like a preacher on any given sunday in any given church, they're not going to stand there at the pulpit and preach on every single aspect of christianity every single sunday, that would be a little bit ridiculous don't ya think? I think there are certain churches that don't necessariliy preach on certain topics enough but that doesn't make them any less of a church. For example, in most churches, I don't think tithing is taught enough. So every church that doesn't teach about the importance of tithing enough is a satanic church? Absolutely not! Just like you pick a church based on your preferances, you pick a book based on your preferances. If it doesn't speak to you, don't read it. It's more or less that simple. If it speaks to you, great! If not, move on and find yourself another book. Different people are spoken to in different ways, just because Max Lucado doesn't speak to you doesn't mean he's any less of a Christian. I agree with luv1another in that he's a very uplifting author. So he makes church sound good and pleasing...is that a bad thing? He doesn't make it sound perfect, just pleasing. In the body of Christ there's an eternal hope, a supernatural hope that comes only from God and by His grace. In a world that is otherwise so hopeless, don't ya think it could be a great comfort to them for someone to tell them that there is a hope. And what's with this noone is righteous, not one garbage? It's true that bible says that, but does it now also say "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is Eternal Life." Does it not ALSO say that if we humble oursleves and pray and seek His face that he will pour out His spirit on ALL people, and does it not also say that we can be forgiven of our sins over and over and over again? Noone is righteous true, but that because we're all sinners. There is however grace for our sins, that's why Christ died on the cross for us, so that our sins can be covered. Too many times we look at one little thing that we see as a fault and magnify it so much to a point of over-exaggeration at times but we fail to look at all the good that person did. Look at Billy Graham. He's preached all over the world and helped millions of people come to know God on a personal basis. Has he ever sinned? OF COURSE! is he perfect? NO. Does that take away from that fact that he's one of, if not the greatest evangelist ever? NO WAY! Just because his works don't speak to you, doesn't mean his work doesn't speak!

[malcolm]

Sure sounds like you are legalistic. You go around saying "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" thinking that by doing that you are being holy, when in fact you are just being legalistic.

In fact you are the most legalistic person I have met in a long time, with the possible exception of Zipperhead.

So either you are coming to some false conclusions based on a few posts, or you are accusing me of blatantly lying about being opposed to legalism. If there are any other options, please point them out.

[malcolm]

You could have fooled me also. How can you be doubtful of your salvation and not be a legalist? The answer is that you're looking at yourself instead of Christ. Personally, if you think you're hearing the voice of God on these matters, I'm quite convinced it's either another voice or your own feelings. Some people have hyper-sensitive consciences that think in extremes. I tend to be that way myself.

Malcolm. Seriously. Take it from someone's who's been there with all the past anxiety attacks to prove it. You reek of legalism. I haven't seen you say anything about grace really. Just wrath, wrath wrath. Now I believe in the wrath and justice of God, but I know that grace is greater than all our sin.

It doesn't appear that you require my input in this discussion, so I won't bother arguing.

[Sparko]

So either you are coming to some false conclusions based on a few posts, or you are accusing me of blatantly lying about being opposed to legalism. If there are any other options, please point them out.

c. you are living in denial.

[malcolm]

Max happens to be one of my favorite authors also. Just because he picks a certain area of christianity to write about doesn't mean that he neglects all other areas of Chirstianity. It's like a preacher on any given sunday in any given church, they're not going to stand there at the pulpit and preach on every single aspect of christianity every single sunday, that would be a little bit ridiculous don't ya think?
Fair point.

I think there are certain churches that don't necessariliy preach on certain topics enough but that doesn't make them any less of a church. For example, in most churches, I don't think tithing is taught enough. So every church that doesn't teach about the importance of tithing enough is a satanic church? Absolutely not!
Sure, but you're talking about specific issues. I'm talking about the gospel. Any church that doesn't preach the full gospel is unacceptable to God. If they preach the full gospel in the first place, then all the other issues will fall into place on top of that foundation. But if the foundation is faulty, then it doesn't matter what other good stuff they preach about those specific issues.

Just like you pick a church based on your preferances, you pick a book based on your preferances.
Umm, sorry, but if you're picking a church based on your preferences then you're off to a bad start in the first place.

If it doesn't speak to you, don't read it. It's more or less that simple. If it speaks to you, great! If not, move on and find yourself another book.
You know, some people would call that philosophy "self-centered." And I'd be one of them.

Different people are spoken to in different ways, just because Max Lucado doesn't speak to you doesn't mean he's any less of a Christian.
In and of itself, that is a perfectly accurate point.

I agree with luv1another in that he's a very uplifting author. So he makes church sound good and pleasing...is that a bad thing? He doesn't make it sound perfect, just pleasing. In the body of Christ there's an eternal hope, a supernatural hope that comes only from God and by His grace. In a world that is otherwise so hopeless, don't ya think it could be a great comfort to them for someone to tell them that there is a hope.
Absolutely. I'm all for telling people that there's hope. The question is whether the hope you're holding out to people is a real one, or whether it is merely whitewash on crumbling walls.

And what's with this noone is righteous, not one garbage? It's true that bible says that,
Sorry, but if it's true that the Bible says it, then could you explain to me how it is "garbage?"

but does it now also say "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is Eternal Life." Does it not ALSO say that if we humble oursleves and pray and seek His face that he will pour out His spirit on ALL people, and does it not also say that we can be forgiven of our sins over and over and over again?
Yes. It does say that. I agree. And I certainly wouldn't call those scriptural truths "garbage."

But, the Bible also says that we're worthless. So, again, maybe you could explain why you choose to refer to Romans 3:12 as "garbage," but not Romans 6:23?

Noone is righteous true, but that because we're all sinners. There is however grace for our sins, that's why Christ died on the cross for us, so that our sins can be covered.
Absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary.

Too many times we look at one little thing that we see as a fault and magnify it so much to a point of over-exaggeration at times but we fail to look at all the good that person did.
First, my post was making a general point and simply using Max Lucado as a representative example. It wasn't intended to be an all-out personal attack on Max Lucado. Maybe Max does do a lot of "good" - but, like I said, the deeper issue is what foundation is he building on?

Second, my post was simply address a particular issue that I believe is important. In order to do so, I quoted some relevant scriptures and made some broad points. Just because I didn't also quote all the scriptures that talk about "love" and "grace" and "mercy" and "forgiveness" doesn't mean I don't believe in them or consider them equally important.

After all, surely you don't expect me to cover every single aspect of Christianity in a single post?

[malcolm]

c. you are living in denial.

Ah, the cop-out option. Fair enough.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Ah, the cop-out option. Fair enough.

Malcolm, Malcolm, Malcolm. What is the basis for your salvation? You only have two options.

A. The blood of Jesus.
B. My own works.

Now you might try to mix those two, but is that really the gospel? Are you saying that Jesus just gives you a boost so you can work your way to Heaven (Or maybe you actually give Jesus a boost.)? Are you saying that salvation is 99.9% grace and .1% works? I guarantee you that if it's even that much, we're all gonna fail miserably.

So then we look at your statement that you're not even sure if you'll make it to Heaven. Well why not? What's keeping you? What we see is you listing more and more rules.

In fact, I'd say you're giving the "Christian answers" without understanding them. I seem to notice that the most legalistic people I know, which would include Zipper also, seem to speak in the most "spiritual" terminology over and over. It's like you have to put on your most holy face when around other Christians and speak an esoteric language in order to be saved.

Bottom line. You can't say "I'm trusting fully on grace" and at the same time say "I don't know if I'll make it." The two completely contradict

[malcolm]

What is the basis for your salvation? You only have two options.

A. The blood of Jesus.
B. My own works.

Now you might try to mix those two, but is that really the gospel?
Umm, no. I fully believe option A and completely reject option B. I would not try mixing the two in any way for then you would be quite correct in saying that's not really the gospel.

Are you saying that Jesus just gives you a boost so you can work your way to Heaven (Or maybe you actually give Jesus a boost.)? Are you saying that salvation is 99.9% grace and .1% works?
No, and no again.

So then we look at your statement that you're not even sure if you'll make it to Heaven. Well why not? What's keeping you? What we see is you listing more and more rules.
Really? What "rules" have I listed exactly? Sorry, but I don't remember listing any "rules."

In fact, I'd say you're giving the "Christian answers" without understanding them. I seem to notice that the most legalistic people I know, which would include Zipper also, seem to speak in the most "spiritual" terminology over and over. It's like you have to put on your most holy face when around other Christians and speak an esoteric language in order to be saved.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe you could try it in plain English without all the esoteric language.

Bottom line. You can't say "I'm trusting fully on grace" and at the same time say "I don't know if I'll make it." The two completely contradict
Bottom line. I can and do say "I'm trusting fully on grace" and at the same time say "I don't know if I'll make it." You can deal with that however you choose. Disagree with me on specific issues by all means. But I'd personally advise against all the wacky and erroneous assumptions you've been making.

[Cynic Sage]

so far you have told us:

1. Frivilous posts (spamming) is evil.
2. Games are evil.
3. Photo avatars are evil.
4. Having icons to show who are mods or who won contests is evil.
5. Max Lucado is evil.



Can anybody provide me with links to these threads?

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Umm, no. I fully believe option A and completely reject option B. I would not try mixing the two in any way for then you would be quite correct in saying that's not really the gospel.


No, and no again.


Really? What "rules" have I listed exactly? Sorry, but I don't remember listing any "rules."


Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe you could try it in plain English without all the esoteric language.


Bottom line. I can and do say "I'm trusting fully on grace" and at the same time say "I don't know if I'll make it." You can deal with that however you choose. Disagree with me on specific issues by all means. But I'd personally advise against all the wacky and erroneous assumptions you've been making.

Then you tell me how the statements, "I am fully saved by grace and that's all I'm relying on" and "I don't know if I'll make it to Heaven" go together. Keep 1 John 5:13 in mind in light of your answer.

As for rules, just go to the video game thread. I'm sure John has seen the others.

[Sparko]

Can anybody provide me with links to these threads?

Uh you will just have to do a search on Malcolm and check out his various posts. They are not all separate threads.

Here is the one about the avatars: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=1137&page=1

[Sparko]

Bottom line. I can and do say "I'm trusting fully on grace" and at the same time say "I don't know if I'll make it." You can deal with that however you choose. Disagree with me on specific issues by all means. But I'd personally advise against all the wacky and erroneous assumptions you've been making.

If you are trusting fully on grace, then can you tell us what doubts you are having? What do you think are some reasons why you might not 'make it?'

[Da Blonde]

Umm, He said "few," not "none."

Umm, not my point, or even anything I considered. "Few" is perhaps a more offensive cosmology than "none" although both postulate a worthless universe.

Or a plain and simple analogy, taken entirely in context, that means exactly what it says.

Not in this case.

People only complain about things being taken "out of context" when the plain meaning is something they don't like.

That is human nature but it's certainly not the only reason to say so. And the comment is not very witty.

Of course, now we have the luxury of having the words of Jesus written down in black & white with ink on paper

If they misquote CEOs and world leaders, they won't hesitate to misquote a representation of the Godhead either.

and can peruse them for endless hours to find ways to render the ones we don't like meaningless - with words like "metaphorical" and "exegesis" and "cultural context" and all kinds of other carpets to sweep the Word of God under.

Everyone does. This is bigger than your smug finger-wagging though.

It's hard to imagine how these people would have reacted had they been face to face with Jesus when he actually said those things. It would have been interesting to see how Jesus responded if one of the Pharisees had said, "Sorry, Jesus, but you're taking that Old Testament verse out of context!"

No doubt some did when arguing for legalism as you do.

[Da Blonde]

so far you {malcolm]have told us:

1. Frivilous posts (spamming) is evil.
2. Games are evil.
3. Photo avatars are evil.
4. Having icons to show who are mods or who won contests is evil.
5. Max Lucado is evil.


That's quite a series.

Terry Pratchett has a new science fiction book about, among other things, a planet where the state religion has declared the color blue evil. sounds like our friend would fit in well with the Sanhedrin there.

[Da Blonde]

How can you be doubtful of your salvation and not be a legalist?

Interesting and probably a correct dichotomy.

It is one thing to have some honest and sincere doubt, which everyone does at one point or another. It is something else again to say "most won't make it to heaven, maybe not even me" and to believe such is right or as it should or must be.

[malcolm]

Then you tell me how the statements, "I am fully saved by grace and that's all I'm relying on" and "I don't know if I'll make it to Heaven" go together. Keep 1 John 5:13 in mind in light of your answer.

(Galatians 5:4 NIV) You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

As for rules, just go to the video game thread. I'm sure John has seen the others.
I've been to the video game thread. I'm still not aware of having posted any "rules" there. Again, please point them out specifically if there are any - otherwise, please withdraw your accusation.

[semmie]

d'ya know why i like Max?

i like Max because he reminds me of some basic truths that often get lost in the shuffle of my theologically cluttered brain.

the truths...that...god actually took on human flesh...to save me. his daughter. whom he loves.

that...god...has a plan for me...and doesn't intend for me to carry the weight of my guilt every time i fall down.

that...god...somehow...is just as compassionate as the scriptures say he is.

Max writes for a Christian audience. and, in my honest opinion, the body of christ could use these reminders now and again. Max isn't the theologian that speaks hard truths to us with amazingly accurate prooftexts. Max is the gentle voice, urging us to set aside all of the mumbo-jumbo that is NOT christ for just two seconds....just long enough to rest...and to remember...why we're Christians to begin with.

man. Max has some good stuff. i'm particularly fond of his book, entitled, God Came Near. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0849944546/qid=1121233104/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2326478-2094231?v=glance&s=books)

that is all.

[malcolm]

If you are trusting fully on grace, then can you tell us what doubts you are having? What do you think are some reasons why you might not 'make it?'

Again ...

(Galatians 5:4 NIV) You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

[docjam]

I want to apologize for my poor use of words. In no way did I intend to come across as meaning the word of God to be garbage. It was more the intentions behind what was being written that I didn't agree with. Instead of taking a single verse for your arguement, try taking the context in which the verse was written before using it for justification. Read the chapter that goes along with it. Without Christ, we are not holy. When we accept Christ as our Lord and savior, we become holy as he is hloy. A lot of people mistake holy for being blameless or perfect and that's not the case. Holy is having pure intentions...hallowed, blessed, devout, godly, pure, virtuous, faithful, moral, just, upright, honorable and the list goes on but nowhere is perfect in that list. To be holy is to love God and to strive after him and to do whatever it takes to pleases him. That doesn't mean there won't be bumps and bruises along the way, it just means not to let things keep you down and to serve God no matter what bumps and bruises you come across in life.

"Falling down doesn't make one a failure, staying down does."

[Sparko]

Again ...

(Galatians 5:4 NIV) You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Uh Malcolm, that is saying if you are trusting in the LAW (works and legalism) to justify you then you have fallen away from grace because you are no longer trusting in Christ alone to save you.

So if you DO trust in grace alone to save you, why would you have any doubts about your salvation? Do you think the bible was lying when it said that there is no condemnation for all who believe in Christ?

You seem to be confirming what we claim, that you are worried about your salvation because you seem to be trying to be justified by the law (doing things right, and doing good works) just like that verse you quoted.

[malcolm]

Instead of taking a single verse for your arguement, try taking the context in which the verse was written before using it for justification. Read the chapter that goes along with it.
Umm, yes. I do.

Instead of making vaguely condescending remarks about context, you might try being a little more constructive by explaining exactly how the context of a particular verse changes the plain meaning of it as I have quoted it. Then we might have the basis of a scriptural discussion.

Without Christ, we are not holy. When we accept Christ as our Lord and savior, we become holy as he is holy. A lot of people mistake holy for being blameless or perfect and that's not the case. Holy is having pure intentions...hallowed, blessed, devout, godly, pure, virtuous, faithful, moral, just, upright, honorable and the list goes on but nowhere is perfect in that list.
The only reason "perfect" is not on the list is because you made the list. I'm not aware of any scriptural basis for your definition of holiness.

God is holy. But, based on this description, you appear to be implying that this only means that he has "pure intentions" and does not necessarily include Him being blameless and perfect?

If I've missed something here, please provide some scriptural support for your definition of holiness. Thanks.

To be holy is to love God and to strive after him and to do whatever it takes to pleases him. That doesn't mean there won't be bumps and bruises along the way, it just means not to let things keep you down and to serve God no matter what bumps and bruises you come across in life.
While I agree with the general sentiments you are expressing here, I seriously question the scriptural accuracy of your definition of holiness. It seems like you're just taking some concepts and mashing them together to suit your own understanding.

"Falling down doesn't make one a failure, staying down does."
Fair enough.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/roadtohellis.html)

[malcolm]

Uh Malcolm, that is saying if you are trusting in the LAW (works and legalism) to justify you then you have fallen away from grace because you are no longer trusting in Christ alone to save you.
Yes, precisely.

So if you DO trust in grace alone to save you, why would you have any doubts about your salvation?

Because if I turn to "works and legalism" to justify myself, then I will have fallen from grace and will "no longer" be trusting in Christ alone to save me. Just as Paul warned the Galatians.

Sorry, but what's so difficult to understand about this?

You seem to be confirming what we claim, that you are worried about your salvation because you seem to be trying to be justified by the law (doing things right, and doing good works) just like that verse you quoted.
:huh:

Okay, let's see if we can trace the circular argument that you've trapped yourself in:

1. Malcolm is legalistic and is trying to justify himself by his own works.
2. Malcolm has stated that he is not sure he will make it to heaven.
3. Malcolm quotes Galatians 5:4 to explain why he is not sure he will make it to heaven.
4. Therefore, Malcolm is worried about his salvation because he is trying to be justified by the law.

Now here are a few flaws in the :

1. If Malcolm really was legalistic and trying to justify himself by his own works, he would have no need to worry about his salvation - as he simply wouldn't have any salvation in the first place.
2. The only way Galatians 5:4 makes any sense in this context is if Malcolm is currently trusting in salvation by grace and in Christ alone to save him, but is worried that he may turn to legalism and justification by works and therefore be "alienated" from Christ and "fall away from grace" - thus, not making it to heaven.

So there are two possible solutions:

1. Malcolm is crazy / an idiot / in denial / lying through his teeth.
2. Premise #1 ("Malcolm is legalistic and is trying to justify himself by his own works.") is false.

[Sparko]

1. Malcolm is crazy / an idiot / in denial / lying through his teeth.
2. Premise #1 ("Malcolm is legalistic and is trying to justify himself by his own works.") is false.

I am gonna go with #1 on this. :yes:

[semmie]

Instead of making vaguely condescending remarks about context, you might try being a little more constructive by explaining exactly how the context of a particular verse changes the plain meaning of it as I have quoted it. Then we might have the basis of a scriptural discussion.uhm, mal? let me fill you in. semmie'sbrother was not making "vaguely condescending remarks." he started his post with an apology for speaking in a manner that was misunderstood. you could be one of the big kids and start by thanking him for trying to clear that up. further, posting one verse without regard to context is not healthy, and usually doesn't prove much of a point. i think semmie'sbrother probably felt you were using a commonly quoted verse to express some opinion of yours that doesn't really represent what the actual text was saying. i could be wrong, after all, i'm just his sister. but he did approach you graciously in his last post; and if you're going to be a nasty critter and throw words like "vaguely condescending" around to pick a fight, then you'll be answering to me, too--not just semmie'sbrother.

The only reason "perfect" is not on the list is because you made the list. I'm not aware of any scriptural basis for your definition of holiness.from crosswalk (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=6942&version=kjv), Strong's #6942 : Qadash

to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate

(Qal)
to be set apart, be consecrated, to be hallowed, consecrated, tabooed

(Niphal)
to show oneself sacred or majestic, to be honoured, be treated as sacred
to be holy

(Piel)
to set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate, to observe as holy, keep sacred, to honour as sacred, hallow, to consecrate

(Pual)
to be consecrated
consecrated, dedicated

(Hiphil)
to set apart, devote, consecrate, to regard or treat as sacred or hallow
to consecrate

(Hithpael)
to keep oneself apart or separate, to cause Himself to be hallowed (of God)
to be observed as holy, to consecrate oneself
which part of this did you disagree with?

God is holy. But, based on this description, you appear to be implying that this only means that he has "pure intentions" and does not necessarily include Him being blameless and perfect?
let me requote what my brother said.
Holy is having pure intentions...hallowed, blessed, devout, godly, pure, virtuous, faithful, moral, just, upright, honorable and the list goes on but nowhere is perfect in that list.
so far i haven't seen perfect on the list. perhaps some other hebrew dictionary would list it. :shrug: semmie'sbrother isn't saying that god isn't perfect. he's not saying that at all. that's an entirely different discussion, in my opinion (pertaining more to righteousness and justice than holiness, necessarily). what he is saying is that holiness for the body of christ does not mean that we are perfect and blameless people who never struggle or fall down; it means that we are declared (and made) pure by the perpetual redemption of our god.

While I agree with the general sentiments you are expressing here, I seriously question the scriptural accuracy of your definition of holiness. It seems like you're just taking some concepts and mashing them together to suit your own understanding. i just gave you the hebraic definition. did you require something more? chances are, semmie'sbrother isn't going to put the time or energy into proving this point to you...because frankly, he doesn't care whether or not you agree with him; and he's not in the least bit offended by your lack of faith in his comprehension of this. but if he does...buckle up. he's not going to prooftext ya the way you did; he's going to dig deep into the text and discuss why he's come to the conclusion he has. i'd personally like to see him humiliate you. but i'll ask god to change my heart; and i doubt my brother is as offended by you as i am.

because my brother could run circles around you,
~semmie

[docjam]

no, perfect is not in there because it wasn't listed. Go ahead and look it up, cross check it, look in a thesaurus if you want to. Perfect and Holy and not the same. If you look at your original verse for argument, it's Romans 3:10,11 which reads. "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God." This is an example of where a New Testament author is taking a text from the old testament (look it up, try psalms) to make a point. If you look at the verse directly in front of it, it says basically we're all under sin and we're all alike in that sense. Then it goes and uses the cross-referance posted above (V.10,11) to show that apart from God, there is none that are holy. He's talking about the difference between being a Jew or Gentile here and basically saying it's no different, we're all under God's righteousness and that neither or the other is better. Then it continues to go on and speak of ways that make us unrighteous, or unholy- as humans. But if you keep reading, 3:21-23 states "BUT now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, top which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22.) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23.) for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." It's a cross-referance my friend to an old testament scripture and in days of the Old Testament, it was a different story than in the days of the New Testament. He's giving his cross-referance and saying BUT now a righteousness from God has been made known to those who believe. Read the whole context of the verse my friend.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

(Galatians 5:4 NIV) You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.


I've been to the video game thread. I'm still not aware of having posted any "rules" there. Again, please point them out specifically if there are any - otherwise, please withdraw your accusation.

Um. Malcolm. You might want to try this strategy. It works really well. It's called "Listening to others."

John (Cup of Piracy) is right about this one. If you trust in the law, you have good reason to say "I'm not sure if I'll make it to Heaven." If you trust in grace, you don't. If you have fallen from grace, what does it mean but that you are trusting in the law? What is it to trust in the law to save you? Legalism!

Malcolm. You won't take the time to see it, but you do reek of legalism. List any rules on the video game thread? Go read any post. The rest of us are wicked and sinful beings because we don't measure up to your criteria of holiness.

In fact, I was telling a friend of mine on here last night if they'd seen your thread and referred to it as "Malcolm's thread." Without even mentioning which one they said, "You mean the legalist?" You are a legalist. How can you possibly try to justify yourself even? You can't justify yourself any more than you can jump in the ocean and turn yourself into a fish.

Malcolm. Wake up. You don't get to Heaven by your own bootstraps. You know Malcolm, the good people of the day liked to hear what Jesus said. They wanted to be around him. He was showing them and teaching them grace, but I honestly don't see a lick of grace in you.

And as for your question to John, I'd go with #1 also.

[malcolm]

Malcolm. You won't take the time to see it, but you do reek of legalism. List any rules on the video game thread? Go read any post. The rest of us are wicked and sinful beings because we don't measure up to your criteria of holiness.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has yet come up with any of these so-called "rules" that I have posted. I have read the video game thread. I have posted on it. Please show me where I have posted any "rules" that dictate what video games you should or should not play.

If I am a legalist as you so insistently claim, please show me the "rules" and "laws" that I have posted which I am accused of living by.

And, again, if you have no actual evidence to support your accusation, I'm asking you to withdraw it.

[malcolm]

I want to apologize for my poor use of words. In no way did I intend to come across as meaning the word of God to be garbage. It was more the intentions behind what was being written that I didn't agree with.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[malcolm]

he started his post with an apology for speaking in a manner that was misunderstood. you could be one of the big kids and start by thanking him for trying to clear that up.

Done.


from crosswalk (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=6942&version=kjv), Strong's #6942 : Qadash

to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate

(Qal)
to be set apart, be consecrated, to be hallowed, consecrated, tabooed

(Niphal)
to show oneself sacred or majestic, to be honoured, be treated as sacred
to be holy

(Piel)
to set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate, to observe as holy, keep sacred, to honour as sacred, hallow, to consecrate

(Pual)
to be consecrated
consecrated, dedicated

(Hiphil)
to set apart, devote, consecrate, to regard or treat as sacred or hallow
to consecrate

(Hithpael)
to keep oneself apart or separate, to cause Himself to be hallowed (of God)
to be observed as holy, to consecrate oneself
which part of this did you disagree with?

I don't disagree with any of that. The only part I actually disagreed with was the first part where he said that holiness was having "pure intentions."

semmie'sbrother isn't saying that god isn't perfect. he's not saying that at all.
Fair enough.

what he is saying is that holiness for the body of christ does not mean that we are perfect and blameless people who never struggle or fall down;
I agree.

i just gave you the hebraic definition. did you require something more?
No, that's fine. I asked for scriptural support for his definition because he didn't provide any. Nor did he provide the source for his list, which you have now done.

The point that I actually disagreed with, however, the "holy is having pure intentions" part, does not appear anywhere in the hebraic definition that you posted.

So, just for the record, I agree with all the rest of your list and definition. But I still don't believe or accept in any way that holiness is "having pure intentions."

[malcolm]

no, perfect is not in there because it wasn't listed. Go ahead and look it up, cross check it, look in a thesaurus if you want to.
You didn't give me the source of your list, so I had no way of looking it up. Sorry. Your sister has now quoted the hebraic definition from CrossWalk, which is just fine. I asked for some scriptural support for your definition and (minus the "pure intentions" part) I have received it.

Perfect and Holy and not the same.
Fair enough.

If you look at your original verse for argument, it's Romans 3:10,11 which reads. "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God." This is an example of where a New Testament author is taking a text from the old testament (look it up, try psalms) to make a point.

Okay, now, without accusing you of being condescending or anything like that, I'd just like to point out that I have read the Bible, I have read the whole chapter of Romans 3, and I was fully aware that Paul was quoting from the OT such as Psalm 53 or Psalm 14.

If you look at the verse directly in front of it, it says basically we're all under sin and we're all alike in that sense. Then it goes and uses the cross-referance posted above (V.10,11) to show that apart from God, there is none that are holy.
Yes, that's the point I thought I was making too.

He's talking about the difference between being a Jew or Gentile here and basically saying it's no different, we're all under God's righteousness and that neither or the other is better.
That's fair enough too.

Then it continues to go on and speak of ways that make us unrighteous, or unholy- as humans. But if you keep reading, 3:21-23 states "BUT now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, top which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22.) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23.) for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Yes, again, I was aware of that also.

It's a cross-referance my friend to an old testament scripture and in days of the Old Testament, it was a different story than in the days of the New Testament. He's giving his cross-referance and saying BUT now a righteousness from God has been made known to those who believe. Read the whole context of the verse my friend.

I did. Like I said before.

Now, sorry, but how is any of this disagreeing with my OP? :huh:

[Sparko]

Alright who went and blabbed to Malcolm that he has been using the Atheist symbol as an Avatar all this time? I see he finally removed it.

It made my irony meter go ping.

:irony:

[semmie]

Alright who went and blabbed to Malcolm that he has been using the Atheist symbol as an Avatar all this time? I see he finally removed it.

It made my irony meter go ping.

:irony:
:lmbo:

[docjam]

It was from a thesaurus, go find one and look up holy...I looked in five different thesaurus's and that was a list of words which I took from them.

[Swardus]

Bold text by Swardus, regular text by me.

But I think Max is an alright kind of guy.
I'm sure he is an "alright kind of guy." I'm sure there are a lot of worse guys in the world. Just being an "alright kind of guy" doesn't cut it with God, though.
You like to take things out of context, don't you? An "alright kind of guy" was not referring to Max's salvantion.

You may be mixing up Max with the "name it and claim it" folks- usually full-throttle charismatics, but not always- that still preach their selfish and self-centered brand of evangelism.
No, Max Lucado has his own brand of lukewarm, inoffensive Christianity. It's much harder to disagree with than the obvious blasphemy of "name it and claim it" - which is what makes it so much more dangerous.
Dangerous? You'll have to provide examples from some of Max's writings to back that up. After all, that is what you're expecting of everyone else in this thread!

I used to go to a church where there are an elderly man and his wife who are millionaires, but you couldn't tell it by looking at them or talking to them. They had one car (at that time)-a late model Lincoln, and up until about fourteen years ago, they lived in a very small farmhouse with four children. They are a very humble and friendly couple who often invite newcomers over to their house for Sunday dinner and an afternoon nap.
And so why were they still millionaires?
This was an example of two people that don't use their wealth to make others feel like second-class Christians. And so what is your point to your question: "And so why are they still millionaires?"

You do need to research your information before putting it into print.
I agree.
If you so readily agree to this statement, then why don't "you research your information before putting it into print?"

The parts that you have contributed to in this thread have been elusive, insulting at times, and totally "talking down" to others the rest of the time. You have made very few statements in context of where they are found, and, yes, since you lack the ability to take a good you at yourself, you are being a legalist. In addition, your statements are so loaded with your own pride, they come across not unlike someone passing ill wind.

[malcolm]

The parts that you have contributed to in this thread have been elusive, insulting at times, and totally "talking down" to others the rest of the time. You have made very few statements in context of where they are found, and, yes, since you lack the ability to take a good you at yourself, you are being a legalist. In addition, your statements are so loaded with your own pride, they come across not unlike someone passing ill wind.

Ah, yes. :ahem: While your contributions have been such a fine example of logical argument and rational cohesive communication. And, spiritually, what a classic demonstration of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, you've certainly shown me the right path and set me straight!

If you're going to complain about my posts, you might at least present something worthwhile to show me what kind of level I should be aiming for.

But if you're goal was to simply be a whining cry baby then I congratulate you - you have certainly surpassed yourself. :tongue:

[kd1023]

One of the prevalent methods of preaching the "gospel" these days is to be "seeker-friendly," to appeal to people in whatever way will get them into church and get them to say a canned prayer and be added to someone's list of souls saved. This is simply an extension of the kind of humanistic teaching that has increasingly been taking over the church. One of the prime examples and proponents of this is Max Lucado - apparently the biggest selling Christian inspirational author in the market today.

Now, according to Max (and countless other preachers and evangelists), God thinks you are wonderful. He thinks you're special. He thinks you need to have more confidence in yourself and get your self-esteem boosted to the heavens. You see, God loves you more than anything. He thinks you're so valuable and precious that He sent His Son to die for you. Yes, when Jesus was dying on the cross He was thinking of you. Even if you were the only person on earth, Jesus would still have died for you. Because you are just that wonderful and valuable to God.

And, hey, since that's the case, why not come to church and let God bless you even more. After all, you're so special that God wants to give you whatever your heart desires. He wants to fill your life with prosperity and happiness and solve all your problems. Of course, even if He doesn't solve all your problems, you'll still feel better about them in the knowldedge that you're so wonderful and special! All you have to do is come as you are - because God loves you and values you just as you are. And then join in all the social events, pray and read the Bible, read a nice inspirational story every day, and wait for the blessings to pour in. Well, who wouldn't want to be a Christian? Certainly sounds better and cheaper than any other kind of therapy!

It's a little puzzling, though. If everyone is so wonderful, so special, so valuable, and so loved by God, why ever would they need to be saved from His wrath? Why would Jesus have needed to die for them in the first place?

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

But, of course, we're valuable and precious to God. It's not as if Scripture says we're worthless ...

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

And don't forget how special we are! It's not as if Scripture says that God was grieved to have even made us ...

Genesis 6:6-7 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

And our self-esteem could really use a boost by thinking of how important we are to God. After all, it's not as if Scripture tells us that God's real concern in our salvation is His own glory ...

Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time

I mean, it's not like we're really wicked or anything. We deserve to be told that there's something good in us that makes God love us and think we're worth saving. Because it's not as if Scripture tells us that there is nothing good in us at all ...

Romans 7:18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

So, even though we're sinners, it's really not all that bad. Look at all the positives.

Psalms 14:1-3The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalms 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Isaiah 64:6-7 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us and made us waste away because of our sins.

Yes, when it's all said and done, I have to give God credit and glory for saving me - it was a good decision for Him to save someone as great and special and wonderful and valuable as me! I appreciate His love and Jesus' sacrifice for me, but of course it's understandable that God would love someone like me. Sure, I was a sinner and made a few mistakes in life, but I've put all that behind me now and am ready to be blessed by God with all the good things that I've always wanted. Yes, I'm thankful for God's grace and His salvation, and now that I've got it all wrapped up in a nice package and am guaranteed of going to heaven and living happily ever after for eternity, well, it just motivates me so much to be an even better person than I was. After all, it's the least I can do.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.

It's incredible how pervasive the "Max Lucado" syndrome is throughout the church today. Such utter deception and selfishness, all propogated in the name of Jesus, hiding behind noble sounding words and doctrines, and hiding behind one of the most "taken out of context" Scriptures ever: John 3:16.

Paul was correct in Romans 3:11. People are so busy seeking to feel good about themselves that there is no one who really seeks God.
Quite simply, you have aptly defined the problem with modern evangelicalism. It is quite sickening.

[semmie]

kd,

how much time have you spent in modern evangelicalism?

[malcolm]

Quite simply, you have aptly defined the problem with modern evangelicalism. It is quite sickening.

Yes, modern evangelicalism is fundamentally humanist as opposed to simply Fundamentally Biblical. It is, in every sense of the word, a different gospel - or, more descriptively, a cross-less gospel.

[Swardus]

Ah, yes. :ahem: While your contributions have been such a fine example of logical argument and rational cohesive communication. And, spiritually, what a classic demonstration of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, you've certainly shown me the right path and set me straight!

You must be looking in a mirror while making such comments. I don't know what brand of logic you subscribe to, but it doesn't seem to fit with the status quo. Now rationalism, you seem to have a gift for it. And, concerning the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I haven't seen much of any example on your part.

If you're going to complain about my posts, you might at least present something worthwhile to show me what kind of level I should be aiming for.

As far as a "level to shot for" you may consider being much more civilized towards others, if not towards me. It's on their behave that I have stepped into this thread, to try and show you what you are doing to them.

But if you're goal was to simply be a whining cry baby then I congratulate you - you have certainly surpassed yourself. :tongue:

Oh, thank you for reminding me-you could act a little more mature, as well.