Stone and Iron Don't mix!

Perry, don't try to mix the the modern gospel with the Biblical wedding tradition, they are not complimentary. Just stay with Rogers and Finney-like revivals. Go ahead and make your fortune on TV marketing tapes.

The modern evangelical gospel came from Britain to America in the form of divine enablements for the sinner to repent. This message is pervasive through out American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. You are pouring new acidic wine into old wine skins. Your message is highly acidic.* The modern wooing of the sinner to decide for himself is as foreigh to the Bible as Elvis is to the Apostle Paul!

You have young middle eastern virgins acting like harlots. That is not a problem for our traditions but for the conservative Jews and Muslims this is offensive. Only "loose women" would be conducting themselves in this manner at a public well or market. Young conservative men would not approach such girls except for one reason and that would not be marriage.

You are assuming that this demonstrates the wooing of the sinner by the Holy Spirit to become a candidate for salvation. This demonstration will not complement a Biblical wedding.

In ancient times, many of the first marriages were by capture, not choice. Bible marriages are arranged, a concept we cannot embrace in modern times. The modern concept of free choice on the part of the maiden did not come until the middle ages. We sing "Love and Marriage", they sing "marriage and love". That is one of the reasons we have so many young girls with baby carriages without a husband. They thought that they had an intended husband but they had only a father. They mistook love for a lust driven male.

French and Italian Mediterraneans cultivated modern romance and Victorian formality firmed up the modern concept of marriage. Sacred to us but not to the Middle East. When their young seek to copy modern romantic intentions it is frowned upon.

Perhaps this may be a reason western modern evangelism has little effect in the middle east while Christian tourism rockets. They take our money and laugh all the way to the bank!
*While Wesleyan theology differs from most Baptist theology both are similar in that they have a divine enablement while admitting to a state of spiritual death, making it possible for the sinner to make a choice for salvation. Those who do not subscribe to a total spiritual death are of a different free will theology. This is why Finneyism is so destructive.
Unitarianism in the form of Liberalism, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormonism are free will theologies without this spiritual death. Many Baptist are coming close to this belief, ie. Rogers and many modern dispensationalist who are dangerously close to denying original sin. The SBC BF&M nearly implies this. Wesleyan theology, IMO, is not as close. Classical Arminianism, those who cling closely to the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, are not as close since they believe in total depravity, original sin. ie. remonstrants

Perry Stone, What Are You Thinking!!!

A few nights ago I couldn't sleep so I was channel surfing and came across Perry Stone Ministries. The elaborate stage production caught my attention and I watched an enactment of Jewish courtship in a marketplace. Four girls and a young man were the cast members.

To see this go to Perry Stone Ministries and click on "Manna-fest" Rapture Revelation - Ancient Jewish Wedding-part 1, program #420. I came from the same Pentecostal denomination as Perry so I was interested in what he had to say. Fast forward to 18 minutes 38 seconds and watch the clip through 22:52. At 22:45 I was saying, "Perry, what are you thinking? Haven't you done any research at all?" (of course earlier he had stated that a lady had prepared the drama portion and she apparently had not done any research)

Cowardice!

click on the picture
Please allow me this frivolity! This is too good! There is going to be some profanity involved, I offer no excuses for it. I'm convinced that Bellevue's response "moral failure" is as profane, perhaps worst than my description. I personally don't want to stand before God having called homosexuality "moral failure." I would expect to be struck by lightening.

If you are offended by my language, bear with me in my outrage. If you can not stand it, move on to other blogs. There is more and not from NASS' cowards.

How Deep Will This Hole Get?

NASS said: "After all, about 10 years ago, when a certain staff minister was caught embezzling money from the church and doing other things he shouldn't have been doing, AR fired him. Then when he couldn't get a job at the seminary because BBC gave him a bad recommendation, he turned around and sued the church for "defamation of character." Instead of standing their ground (what court in the land wouldn't side with BBC in this matter?), AR reportedly had the church pay him off to the tune of $500,000. After all, we wouldn't want the great Bellevue to suffer any "negative publicity." In this case, I believe AR was wrong.Bellevue, like many organizations, has always been very concerned with appearances, and they've never been above sweeping something under the rug that might potentially harm their reputation. There were plenty of things "swept under the rug" at Bellevue over the years. I've always said SG had to replace the carpet in his office when he got here because of the big lump that had accumulated underneath it over the years."

"But PW was not the only staff minister who has strayed. Somehow the "Biblical Guidance" department always seems to be involved. Is that ironic or what? I've been in contact with a man who claims his wife was involved in an affair with the pastor of their church in another state. This pastor had been there for 25 years, but when the heat got too hot there, he ended up in Memphis -- and was soon employed by BBC. He lasted there about a year -- until this man and a group from his church confronted him (reportedly with the "love" letters he'd written to this man's wife) and called Bellevue. Instead of dealing with the situation, Bellevue let him quietly retire. No one is sure if he's moved on to another "ministry" or what. He seems to have dropped off the radar screen. But this is just another example of how churches and other organizations frequently sweep distasteful things under the rug. It's all about maintaining their "image." commented on The Cakes Report

GMOMMY said: "... it is absolutely true about the cash settlement to the minister who had an affair and misappropriated church money. I was very close to him before this came out...(during the time he was having the affair he was actually working with my husband) The "other woman" was a SS friend of my niece. I didn't hear about the pay off until years later...but it now fits with confusing phone calls I had with the minister's wife.I got confirmation from a BBC man who was a deacon and had very close ties with the seminary.There is no confirmation about who actually suggested the settlement or at what point Bro R gave the OK (it was $500,000) but it did happen. During a time when many of us were working together believing we could resolve the issues tearing down the trust....one of our truth seeker friends had a background in finance, budgets and non profits....he took the budget handout along with the questions answered at the budget meeting and explained how money from certain areas could easily be moved around and not bust the budget or raise a red flag." commented on The Cakes Report (mysteriously deleted)

Kicking Up Golddust

“When my time comes, don’t be sorry for me; I’ll be kicking up gold dust on the streets of glory.” “this is a win-win for me.” “I am at perfect peace."

A good friend of Rogers wrote this tribute: "Through the years, Adrian and I rallied for battle, sometimes side-by-side and sometimes on opposite lines. He always liked to pretend that he never quite understood why I was a Presbyterian. I always liked to pretend that I never quite understood why he was a Baptist. None of that really matters any more--I'm guessing he knows better now! Somehow though, I can almost hear his sonorous voice engaging the Apostle Paul--or Polycarp or Augustine or maybe even Calvin, Bucer, and Beza--arguing against the idea of covenantalism, even as he did with me, but all the while punctuating each rhetorical flourish with a familiar jolly chuckle.I know my beloved brother, is going to enjoy being home."

Did Dr Rogers have a personal vision of himself walking down the streets of glory, kicking up gold dust? Was this just a general assumption? Was this just another death bed affirmation?

Did his friend believe strongly that Rogers was his usual self as he had been in the halls of his beloved Bellevue, engaging the residents of heaven with his familiar "sonorous voice" and "jolly chuckle"?

I met him once and ceremoniously shook his hand on the stage at Bellevue. I was impressed as anyone with his persona and courteous nature. However early in 2007 while walking my dog I heard from heaven about Adrian Rogers. In a vision I saw a chair being shoved forward and the angry voice of God say, "Adrian Rogers, sit here in this chair and watch your beloved Bellevue crumble and be destroyed." I had never experienced hurt from Dr Rogers and no vendetta against him. There was no reason for jealously on my part as he was way, way out of my league.

Needlessly, I have been sorely criticized for saying this. It is alright to offer your own affirmation of your state in heaven and for your friends to speculate how you are doing in heaven. If I had said by vision he was walking the streets, kicking up gold dust no one would be questioning the reliability of old men seeing visions.

I shared this vision with a manager at work and he said: "hey, if God had taken time out to show me anything at all I would be leaping up and down excited with joy that he had selected me!" "Charles, how many people in all of America are hearing directly from God about anything?" However all the Christians in my circles are skeptical about visions, particularly mine.

This vision does not diminish with time but intensifies. Scripture rules visions and not the other way around. It is OK to be presumptuous and speculative but I would never ever be so presumptuous to utter these words about any man's heavenly reward. It would be erroneous to do so. This is clearly from the Lord or else it is Satanic! It can also be Satanic to make assumptions or speculations about one's or other's destiny! We say according to God's will let it be so.

We cannot say that so and so was so evil that he surely went to hell. Neither can we say that someone was so good they surely went to heaven. Neither can we speculate who has clearly accepted Christ or has denied his offer of salvation. Heaven will reveal how right our speculations were. (My personal belief that we will error on the negative side and that many we thought would perish in torment will be there. They will be as surprised that we are there!) Anyway heaven will have the same number of mansions as those elected in pre-creation. God will remain just and right, unchangeable in all his ways.

Perhaps God is using me to say to America: "don't be presumptuous about heaven." Heaven is our home, 'oh glorious thought', but there may be surprises there that should cause us to fall on our faces in brokenness, "I am a man of unclean lips and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."

Is Everyman A Liar?

Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission, called Rogers the Apostle Paul of the SBC. "The amazing thing about this man is that he is the same in private as he is in public," Land said. "Who he is comes forth from his inmost self. He's humble, never haughty. Bold, never bombastic. Clear, but never cutting. Scintillating, but never sarcastic. Sanctified, but never sanctimonious."

"Who he is comes forth from his inmost self." Is this a veiled accolade? Was Adrian Rogers a product of his own self-determination? He was never haughty, bombastic, cutting, sarcastic and sanctimonious! This was said about Dr Rogers at his retirement service at Bellevue Baptist. Under pressure to give the best tribute, perhaps nervous, maybe prideful, lie (embellish the truth) in his accolade or perhaps say something that he had not really intended to say. Could this be a "pelagian slip" not meant to be understood by common ears?

Was the apostle Paul ever haughty, bombastic, cutting, sarcastic and sanctimonious? I think so and perhaps Paul would be the first to admit it. Out of his "inmost self" comes forth nothing good but lies. Romans 3: 4,10

My self produced accolades: "I am proud of my humility, bombastically bold, cutting like jagged glass, (you won't detect the long pause but my wife ordered me to go fold the clothes before guest arrive, which I promptly did!) sarcastic and sanctimonious even though I am sanctified.

Let my accolade be "sinner saved by grace"

Nailing Down Adrian Rogers' Theology

I don't consider myself a specialist in theology. Unless you think that studying five years to earn a four year degree in Biblical Education with a minor in Missions ("minor in missions so you will not have to study a biblical language," said my advisor. He knew I could not pass those subjects) in a Pentecostal Liberal Arts College qualifies you to be a theologian. That was almost 40 years ago.


My pastor says that there are some questions that have to be answered in heaven! After I listened to the pastor of my home town church, I announced to him that I was a Calvinist! His short and to the point answer was, " a smart man had said to him years ago that such things should not be discussed by common people, just theologians!" That was after hearing a long rambling Sunday morning sermon about "Conditional Security" (part one had been preached the previous Sunday) It was actually a denial of unconditional security. He proudly held up the book he was using as a guide, "Unconditional Eternal Security Myth or Truth?" by French Arrington. He could preach for forty five minutes against Eternal Security but we could not discuss Calvinism over the dinner table! The odds are stacked against you if you want to defend Calvinism but you can freely attack Calvinism. To make it even more difficult there are Calvinist who will not converse with you if you defend "high Calvinism." So we are stuck this side of heaven about the truth!


Should I discuss theology? Am I qualified? All this said, can I make the claim that Adrian Rogers was Pelagian? Pelagians would be offended by this! Religious Pelagians are by definition Unitarian and Arianist if they can be called "Christian" at all. Rogers retains pelagian views in his belief in free will, though he is trinitarian. That would make him semi-pelagian. The problem is can you be a trinitarian and still hold to pelagian views? Most theologians say, no. I tend to agree with them. Strangely the Second Council of Orange in 529 AD settled this. It was heretical and the council ruled in favor of the views of Augustine of Hippo. This was the position of the Catholic Church, though it never complied in practice with the ruling.


However Adrian Rogers' self-driven goodness assumed upon himself and reassured by his wife and followers was a product of some sort of pelagianism. There was some goodness that allowed free will in choosing. He espoused a personal goodness that could not be attained by mere common men! He nor his wife would allow his goodness to be stained by others less righteous than themselves. This did not come about by the grace of God but a lifelong discipline to each other. Dr and Mrs Rogers carved a place for themselves in a hostile wilderness and evolved loving practices to suit the circumstances. They created an insular world for themselves even as teenagers with a strong self-determination that denied any hold that original sin or depravity had on the common man. They would not allow the corruption of their own Church to soil themselves! Death had a hold on this new order and it unraveled quickly!


It is not correct to say he is Pelagian though in part and principle he is. He was not a heretic. He could be called a semi-Augustinian but that seems just another way of saying he is semi-Pelagian. He called himself a "Biblicist" but aren't we all? Unitarians call themselves "Biblicist"!


I think he was a pseudo-Trinitarian! He was a dysfunctional Trinitarian. Now there is a term that carries a bite!