Anon

Thanks to the Duggar family, Christians are now officially the most despised group in America.  We were already almost there, but now I think the world officially hates us.  Even though I don't consider their brand of Christianity to be the same as mine, the world doesn't care.  They lump everybody in together, and now they equate anti-gay with being a pervert.

Great.

I have been pretty sad to see all the businesses who have added a rainbow to their logo and friends who have added a rainbow to their Facebook profile.  Even the White House added a rainbow.   So much has changed since he 80s and I remember asking my Dad what AIDS was, and why it was in the news.

Religious freedom has been restricted already but it will be gone soon.  The dissenting justices even said as much.

​Did you read my post????   I never said such a thing......  :-)

I will be surprised and dismayed if the Supreme Court is willing to change a definition that has been present since the beginning of time...namely, marriage being a man and a woman.   

If they do change the definition, many churches will be put out of commission because they will not be able to handle losing their tax exempt status.  (Our church, for example, is NOT 501c3 but we are still tax exempt as a non-profit).   If we lose that non-profit tax exempt status, we will not be able to afford the taxes we would own on our property and on our "income" (tithes and offerings).  Of course we will have to just lose it and let God take care of us, in that case.  He will have to provide the taxes...maybe we'll have to go fishing and look in fish mouths!  haha.

Anyway if it happens, it will be a very solemn day for everyone still for family values in America.

​I didn't know that.....very cool!

I agree also with the second choice.

The entire country is cranky and oversensitive, I think.....Christians definitely not excluded.

I was looking at an article about the Amazon drones that were approved by the FAA..... and was thinking about prophecy and how there are really strange "beings" described in Revelation....like the ones that have the head of a man and wings of a grasshopper and whatever.... they sound like robotic beings or drones to me!   I bet by then, the world will have the technology to fight entire wars via drone technology.

I've believed for awhile that this was describing some sort of technology, but more and more I believe it for sure.  Can you imagine John being given glimpses of the end times full of technology, and him trying to write down what he was seeing?!   It must have seemed soooo unbelievable to him!

NOBody knows what the mark is.   Everyone only has their own guesses.

Many people thought the rapture was near during the world wars.....also during the Great Depression....and of course all the way during Nero's time it certainly must have felt like the end of the world.

Of course Jesus very well may come tomorrow......but sometimes we in America think things are bad when things have been bad worldwide for centuries.

My two biggest hints are how close we are to human microchip technology (mark of the beast) and the developments in Israel.

 

 

Bottom line:  Ken Ham's "ministry" is simply NOT NEEDED, and that money could be spent in much better ways.

I have to respectfully disagree....because unfortunately people do NOT understand about Creation.  Christians today have no clue about how to refute the Gap Theory or Theistic evolution.  Yet so much hinges on these beliefs.   

Racism began with the theory of evolution.....the entire premise of our world revolves around Creation.   Our origins...races....everything.  Of course, I am a Science teacher by nature (and by degree, but not currently teaching) and my dad is also a self made geologist and does Creation classes at times as well, so to me this is a very important thing.   People are absolutely ignorant these days about the true Creation science.   They don't know how to counter the Ice Age or how to explain the Mammoths.  They don't know how important the Great Flood was in light of science today.

It is an entire study that most pastors aren't equipped to teach, or just do not.

I think it's necessary, personally.

I'm sorry, that would prOBably be my fault...I tend to exaggerate at times to make a point.   So the fact you have to look up any history of "publicly disowning Billy Graham" may as well be in your doctrinal statement.  haha.   But my fault to not be more careful with how I put it forth.

I still think it's silly.   Nowhere in the Bible does it say to make sure you say Billy Graham is bad, or you can't be Baptist.  LOL.

On a serious note, we have to be careful how adamant we are against people.  If Ken Ham is not actively going around teaching heresy, we should be careful not to steer people away from what could otherwise be very helpful.  Many Christians today are jumping on the Gap Theory and Theistic evolution bandwagons, and Ken Ham is fighting that.  There's really no valid reason to write an article about how churches should avoid this type of ministry, is all I'm saying.

And you are free to have your opinion and to take what inference you will, as are we all.  But simply put, he did not say one must have it in one's doctrinal statement.  One takes a stand for many things that are not written down...

True, but....and not to be argumentatitve in spirit here.... really the only way you can prove the ministry has done this is to find it in writing, or in audio....

Too be fair, unless I misread it, what was quoted didn't say that one must have anti-BG stuff in one's doctrinal statement...He did say something about denouncing BG but several folk here have mentioned it as having been stated as necessary to be in one's doctrinal statement.  'Issuing a statement' is not the same thing as having it in one's doctrinal statement.  Just sayin'...

 

 

Fourth, when has that ministry taken a stand against Billy Graham and all of the evil he has done through his New Evangelical philosophy?

Not in the statement, per se, but basically if Ken Ham never said "Billy Graham is evil" then we shouldn't associate with him.  Huh?

Good post, Salyan.

I think also it can be confusing.  For instance, last year in my Science class at the school, I used some of Ken Ham's material for Science.   But if the students had been "warned" against him, they could have been confused as to why I would use his materials.

I wouldn't use Billy Graham's material in school, but I would use Ken Ham's, because it's educational.   We have to be careful not to lump everyone into the same box.

 

 

Funny thing though, whenever I pointed out his error, he always rejected it, even though Scripture revealed him to be wrong. Yes, a watchman on the wall is good. But that watchman should not put his own beliefs above the authority of Scripture.

This happened to my husband as well.  He is not known to admit his own mistakes, though he has no prOBlem pointing out the mistakes of others.

I agree mostly...but Ken's neo-evangelicalism CAN be dangerous to our churches.  I, like you, respect Ken Ham's work.  But, even if Ken is not trying to get into churches, he actually is - just as CCM is. Lack of separation is honestly a serious thing now.

 

I understand your view, and I, too, like Pastor Allison.  But is he perfect?  Are we to only call out those with whom we don't align doctrinally? It's okay to point out the error of the likes of Joel Osteen and Billy Graham, but not one of our own?  Another person would say that at least DCloud is consistent - calling out whomever.  SWIM?

 

I'm not thrilled with negativity, either. But negativity is needed to balance things out. The Bible is both positive and negative.  We should be, too. An argument could be made by some that DC is always negative. But I've heard him preach, and he's not. I'm honestly not trying to defend him. As I said before, I don't always agree with him.  But he is consistent.

I think that Mike Allison would be an example of an Independent Baptist Church pastor whom it's no business of anyone else to criticize, because they are independent....but I see what you are saying.

I guess.  I'm just tired of the negativity I guess.   I feel that there is a time to name names, and a time to just let other people be independent.   I guess we got a sour taste when he called out Dr. Mike Allison, who everyone knows is an amazing pastor.    If that is the sort of guy he calls out publicly, then I honestly lost some respect as far as where he draws the line as far as who he criticizes. 

And I greatly respect Ken Ham's ministry as well.

In my opinion, the greatest danger to our churches right now is not Ken Ham, and it is not West Coast Baptist College.  It is Casting Crowns, it is other various Christian rock groups, and it is the apathy and modernization that is influencing the church today.   I think David Cloud needs to focus on those on the outside trying to get INTO our churches, rather than those minding their own busineses and their own ministry.  Ken Ham is not trying to overthrow or change anyone's ministry, thus he is NOT a danger.

The dangers that were mentioned in the church age in Scripture were people who were actively trying to hurt or destroy the church, or change the church.  Ken Ham is not trying to do that.   So thus he is not a valid danger to need to speak about IMO.

There are dangerous music groups trying to get into our churches, and compromising colleges (not Baptist) that take our churches' kids (like Liberty U) and other dangers who ARE trying to get into our churches and influence our families.  To me, that is valid to warn against.

There are a few churches that sort of follow a man instead of a denomination...I think those would be the "baptistic" ones which I agree, that's silly.

Ruckmanite and Hyles type churches come to mind, particularly the "Bible" churches.

I don't totally agree with the secondary separation, either.  And I agree that a para-church organization would not be the same as a church. But, still - the trumpet needs to be sounded so folks understand the background of said para-church organization and its founder(s).

Who is David Cloud's primary audience?  Is it pastors, or laypeople?

If pastors, the pastors should be able to figure out what organizations are okay based on doctrine alone.

If laypeople, then it isn't David Cloud's jOB to name names...it's their pastor's jOB to name what names God would have him name.

I think this would be sort of like this analogy:

All Baptists are considered Christians (OBviously only God knows the heart), but not all Christians are considered Baptists.

You can be a Christian and not be a Baptist.   So if people say they are "like a Baptist" it really means they are saying they are saved, but not taking on the Baptist name.  Which can happen.  But if they aren't Baptist, then they aren't Baptist.

True, but I think the yardstick with which he is measuring some of these places is the wrong measuring tool.  You would not measure a self proclaiming Independent Baptist Church College with the same yardstick as you would measure a self proclaimed para church ministry that does not identify with a denomination.

Just like we do not judge a President we vote for with the same yardstick as we judge the pastor we vote in.

You have to be careful to use appropriate measuring tools.  I think David Cloud is trying to lump Ken Ham in with other IFB ministries, but that's not comparing them correctly.

And I guess I don't agree fully with the degree of secondary separation David Cloud espouses, especially considering some of the VERY good men he has called out in the past.

Yes I think Ken Ham's ministry is most appropriate done para-church so that he can reach more people for the truth, and for his museum.

As such, I don't think it's even appropriate for David Cloud to address it negatively, because it does not even disguise itself as a Baptist church ministry.  It's a totally separate entity and never claims to be anything else.

My husband preaches against Billy Graham as a side note when speaking of heretics but I didn't know it was a required doctrinal statement...kwim?

Here's a thought....churches will have soldiers visit their church, or public officials, or maybe even a fireman to speak to the kids, or whatever.  What would be bad about having Ken Ham in your church to teach your members how to refute evolution?

I'm not saying we would have him...we haven't and prOBably won't....my dad does seminars on Creation anyway.  haha.  But still....if a person is not claiming to be an evangelist or something....what is the prOBlem?   He says himself his focus is Creation...not doctrine or splitting hairs on things like that...he wants to reach as many people as possible with Creation, and you can't do that if you narrow yourself to one single religion.    We can't overturn the country's stronghold on evolution without having someone willing to go to ALL churches and discuss Creation....right?