I recently posted here and at RedBlueChristian on the subject of Joe Beam, a heretic in my opinion.
It is apparent, from the comments (six comments at RedBlueChristian), that I’ve stepped on some sensitive body parts. However, if anyone thinks I'm going to recant or apologize, they’re wasting their time. In my mind and heart I know what I said, and believe it emphatically.
I doubt RBC is willing to sacrifice the bandwidth in order for me to adequately answer each complaint in one comment; so, I will respond here and link there. In fact, my response will be in a two part series for practical reasons.
Principally, I will respond to those points made by Terry Hull. A caption will be followed by a coded paste of Hull's comments, followed by my response according to the code.
By the way, I appreciate the tenor and tone of his criticisms; they are for the most part well-framed and sincere questions, deserving a response.
But before I do that - I think I should admit my post was not of the best quality and that some of the criticisms were justified ... but still no change in position on Beam and his filth.
VENUE AND TOPIC QUESTIONED(1) a) Why am I reading about this on RedBlueChristian, b) a blog devoted to discussing Christian involvement in the political arena? c) Has RBC already declined into a free-for-all-blog about anything that strikes one's fancy?I regret my post doesn't appeal to everyone, none of them ever do; however, neither did Lincoln's Gettysburg Address! (insert eye-wink emoticon here). But you really have a choice to read or not to read!
a) You ask for the reason you are reading my post! You read it because you chose to!
b) You challenge the relevancy! I posted this because of the impact of cultural decay (also here, here, and here) on the American family and coincidently on our political system. If this topic is not relevant to Red and Blue Christians, I don't know what would be.
Are my critics suggesting that because immorality is not specifically political we should ignore it?
Are they suggesting that things like Clinton's behavior in the oval office (politics BTW) and the porn industry's influence in on our culture and families are not what they seem to be and have no political element at all?
Are they suggesting Christians are wasting their time trying to change politics for the better through moral outrage and political action?
c) You cast aspersions at the whole body of bloggers at RBC, why?
Where I come from, turnabout is fair play: may I respectively ask how you can indirectly imply that RBC has "already declined into a free-for-all-blog"; and, quoting from your next paragraph, "[where] in the world did you aquire [sic] the authority to deem this"?
What evidence do you offer for a "free-for-all-blog" at RBC?
RELEVANCY & APPLICABILITY QUESTIONED(2) a) Why do you feel it important to call Joe Beam to our attention in the first place? b) Out of all of the topics vying for our attention, c) what is it about this information that you believe deserves our attention? d) My theory is that you just enjoy surfing the Internet for sensational things (or at least what you consider sensational) -- and then shaking your finger at it.
a) You ask why I call attention to this? I didn't, MSNBC did! And over 12 thousand readers (over 50%) agreed with Beam ... possibly many will sit in your church this Sunday and all will probably vote in November.
Someone had to say something ... if not you, why not me?
b) Why this topic? Because what a person does when he thinks no one is watching is a clear indication of his or her worldview, a person's worldview is key to whether a man is worthy of public office ... it speaks to his character.
Also, what a man makes his wife do is an indication of his understanding of Christ and the Church [Ephesians 5:22-33].
Before you say it: no I'm not suggesting we have bedroom police; but, if a candidate's moral character is questionable, it can and should affect how Christians vote.
c) What should get your attention? If I have to tell you, you are not paying attention!
For me, moral decay in America, especialy in the church, as well as in ministry, is of serious concern and a reproach to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Beam wants to turn your church homes into houses of perversion (no citation because that is my interpretation of his ministry). His is a heretical view of Scripture, not an orthodox view.although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.Sexual perversion has invaded every strata of American society: we now have 12 step programs for the sexually addicted in our churches; even for those in fellowship within the Body.Romans 1:32
With over 40% of our adult male population admitting to deviant sexual habits, it is a certainty the universe of quality politicians is shrinking, let alone parishioners.
And it is especially important to me because, before Jesus, I used to be addicted to porn and kinky sex.
d) I'm assuming your ad hominem attack doesn't need a response any more than my hypothetical about Beam. Touché! Actually, after reading your RBC posts, I'm surprised it sprang up from your well at all!
AUTHORITY QUESTIONED(3) a) How in the world did you aquire [sic] the authority to deem this man a "heretic," or the Christians who attend his seminars as b) "fools" and "reprobates"? c) You begin by citing that great theological tome, Dictionary.com, for its definition of heresy. d) A teaching at variance with orthodox doctrine, it says. Please tell us exactly what teaching of Mr. Beam you consider at variance with orthodox doctrine.Tomorrow (24 September 2006) I will post the second half of this two part response.
Don't waste our time telling us e) how Mr. Beam’s teachings ruffle your personal sensibilities. Please tell us d) what orthodox doctrine is at question, citing a suitably authoritative code (e.g., the Scriptures, a denominational doctrinal statement) where that doctrine is recorded.
a) You questioned my authority to call a spade a spade. I don't need no stinking authority to call a spade a spade!
But you do, if you want to call every wolf that comes along a sheep!
That said, I didn't "acquire" anything, I get my authority from Scripture, just as any other authentic believer does, it is the power of God who dwells in me [2 Timothy 1:7; Luke 10:19; Matthew 7:16].
b) You demand to know how I can use certain words to describe certain people. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck ... I guess it's a toad. Is that better? Of course not!
A "fool" is defined as ..."In common language, a person who is somewhat deficient in intellect, but not an idiot; or a person who acts absurdly; one who does not exercise his reason; one who pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom." [Noah Webster (1828)]For me, and others who agree with me, kinky sex demonstrates "a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom."
On the other hand, Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits".
A "reprobate" is defined as ..."a sinner [who] is so hardened as to feel no remorse or misgiving of conscience, it is considered as a sign of reprobation. The word 'reprobation' comes from the Latin reprobates (reproved or condemned), which is the opposite of approbatus (commended or approved)." [Theopedia; Institutes of the Christian Religion; Bk. 3, Ch. 24, Sec. 12; John Calvin; as well as several volumes pack in boxes from my move to Mexico]It is my understanding anyone who demonstrates a consistent lack of spiritual insight [John 3:20] or treats God's word in a common way is demonstrating a hardness of heart [Ephesians 4:18] and lack of spiritual light [2 Corinthians 4:4]. This aspect of the doctrine of Sanctification is not rocket science.
Now here it would be appropriate for me to offer Mike at Ocular Fusion an apology, but I won’t. Because I believe he fills the bill, though not nearly so much as others I've met.
c) You question my use of a dictionary for a word's definition! Terry, what do you have against dictionaries? The definition of heresy is virtualy the same in every source, secular or theological?
d) You challenge me for a teaching of Beam which violates orthodox doctrine. How about the teaching that it is acceptable for a Christian man to insert his penis in his wife's mouth or rectum and his tongue in her vulva? Come on! Have we lost all decency and sensibility?
And you press me to cite sources: Ephesians 5:3-6, Strong's G4202, 4205, G151, G162, 167; Galatians 5:19-25, Strong's G4202-3, G167, G766, G3664, G1466, & G1939.
And most importantly - Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church" ... are you seriously suggesting a sexual element in the marriage of Christ and the Church? An element that has been for centuries one of the boundaries we've struggled not to move? If not, what?
Has the Imago Dei lost its awesome nature, is the Temple of the Living Lamb of God held in that much reproach by His on Children!
Also, The Baptist Faith and Message, Article XV. The Christian and the Social Order & XVIII. The Family.
If this is insufficient for your first three demands, you are guilty of "an unfalsifiable bias against the truth" [Norman Geisler].
Let me say this loud and clear, the fact that commenters said nothing about Beam's program says more about them than it does about me! But I'm a big boy and I can take it!
Read More ...