The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Best Denomination Today?

Well, James you and agree on somethings, but not on others. Of course, I agree on working out problems where one can, but at times one cannot and thus other avenues should be explored. We should not compromise on things such as theology. <br><br>I also noticed you selected Tim Keller's church, Redeemer, and appear to assert that it is conservative? But, from what I know of them they have women deacons, embrace Sonship training, etc... of which I do not see as conservative, but liberal. So, again maybe our ideas of liberal and conservative are different.

Redeemer, as Tenth, may have women deaconesses. Certainly Tenth has no women deacons, and I doubt Redeemer has either since the PCA don't allow them. That's not an issue I would die over. (Women elders is a different topic though.) <br><br>Well I've read bits about Sonship but I've had no in depth encounter with it. I do know that I find Tim Keller's preaching some of the most bibliccally powerful material I've ever come across. His ability to relevantly and faithfully apply scripture most nearly matches the Puritans of anyone I know alive today.<br><br>Liberal? No way! Liberalism is a religion opposed utterly to biblical Christianity which denies the supreme authority of scripture and rejects the work of Christ to save sinners by sin-bearing on the cross. I can't see Redeemer as liberal on such a classic understanding of this term. One might not agree with what they do, but one might be better off labelling them by some other term. The PCUSA, that is liberal. (So is the local Anglican church.) Redeemer certainly is not.<br><br>ISTM you are using the term culturally rather than theologically, in the sense of innovatory rather than reactionary. Thus the Free Presbyterian Church is conservative whilst the PCA is liberal. It's still a bit of a misleading term to use in this context due to its loaded theological meaning. Perhaps we can come up with another term to more accurately reflect your concerns?<br><br>In Christ,<br><br>James.<br><br>PS In the UK I am one of the most conservative theologically in my church, and probably culturally too!

James,<br><br>I think you have made a very good and necessary point. "Liberalism" as a word can and is being used in various ways and which can cause confusion in the minds of some. Theologically, "Liberalism" is most associated with the theology of such men as Albrecht Ritschl, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Adolph Von Harnack, P.T. Forsyth, Walter Rauschenbusch, etc. All these men and their teachings can be classified as anti-supernatural and thus diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity. In more recent days, the term "Liberal" has also been used to describe those who have embraced and taught neo-Orthodoxy, for example, Karl Barth, C.H. Dodd, Emil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, etc. Although these men and their teachings do not deny supernaturalism, they do deny some of the basic tenets of historic Christianity. So, it is probably reasonable to allow the term "Liberal" to be applied to this area of theology as well. However, what Joe is terming "liberal" is far from what either of these groups have taught. It is certainly more of a "cultural" matter, although I am not comfortable with the word "cultural" either. The use of "liberal" in this matter I think is in pointing out those things which are not taught in Scripture or even against Scriptural teaching, practices which are not condoned or even forbidden in Scripture, etc. which the modern church has adopted. And even though these things may not be seen as "fundamentals, essentials" of the faith, they are certainly not OF the faith and can and often do lead to a disintegration, minimization and even denial of the fundamentals of the faith. The word "worldly" really doesn't seem to do justice in describing what Joe is pointing out either, but it might be better than the word "liberal".<br><br>I guess, what I'm trying to say is that I can clearly see and appreciate what Joe is writing about, although "liberal" as a word to describe it is probably not the best of terms to use. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

From Redeemer's web site:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]The Diaconate is a group of men [color:red]and woman</font color=red> who have been elected by the Redeemer congregation and serve the visible (social, emotional, physical and financial) and spiritual needs of the Church and its community. We work with individuals and families in distressing or challenging situations, are available for prayer, questions or counsel after each service, and assist the Elders with membership interviews. As the church grows, so does the need for elders, deacons, and deaconesses. </blockquote></font color=blue> So, yes it does say "deaconesses" which IMHO is just another way of saying female deacons......!<br><br>I do not call PCUSA liberal, but apostate.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The use of "liberal" in this matter I think is in pointing out those things which are not taught in Scripture or even against Scriptural teaching, practices which are not condoned or even forbidden in Scripture, etc. which the modern church has adopted. And even though these things may not be seen as "fundamentals, essentials" of the faith, they are certainly not OF the faith and can and often do lead to a disintegration, minimization and even denial of the fundamentals of the faith. </font><hr></blockquote><p> This is how I am using the term. I see certain practices in the "Church" as liberal because the fail to meet certain Scriptural standards. If you desire to call them "wordily", "un-scriptural", "wanting for full truth", or just plain not "fully" accepting and "fully" practicing the faith once delivered .....is fine. The point is that there is ERROR in the Church that needs to be addressed. I am not saying these are not Christians, but merely mistaken or not fully doctrinal Christians and thus liberal as compared to those that embrace more fully the faith once delivered.<br><br>Albrecht Ritschl, Friedrich Schleiermacher embraced the philosophy of Kant and I believe they were far from being Christians. Schleiermacher asserted that faith was just a feeling of absolute feeling upon God (religion is not a doctrine or action, but a feeling), whom of course they could not know in Kant's system ( Kant's Wall: noumenal world vs. phenoumenal world). He applied Kant's Wall to the attributes of God stating that what knowledge we have of God is an illegal intrusion into the noumenal world and thus we could have not actual knowledge of God. Ritschl was some better exposing the pantheism of Schleiermacher, but none the less adhered to the ethics of Kant's system of justice and said that religion was simply a matter of right action in obedience to a standard of judgment.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I do not call PCUSA liberal, but apostate. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Wow. That's quite a statement. Maybe I'm just soft, but I tend to shy away from such damning words as these, because even I was apostate for a little while. But for the grace of God, I would not be here.

James<br><br>Certainly you have not been in the same PCA churches Joe is talking about if you have gone to Redeemer. I listen to Tim Keller's tapes all the time, and as you know he is very strong on not only the grace of God but the obedience to that same God because of His grace. What Joe is talking about is the same feelings I get when a deacon is talking to you about the problem he has with his athletic director(the deacon is a coach and a teacher) and how he used the "F" word not only at the director but in the conversation with me after the service. (Now, rightly so, I am a 50 year old woman, who some would say too old fashion). Quite honestly, not only am I distraught that he says things like this but that he would repeat them to me after a Sunday service! We also have a man who has a drama ministry, that has a dinner party every week, where, it is a well known fact that he gets drunk(while others drink too much). The pastor knows this, but I think since there always seems to be an excuse for what is going on, he believes this guy. Not only does he believe him, but has had him teach Sunday school. They are both very big believers in Sonship, but my pastor said there were a few things to be careful of. From what I see, the PCA is so afraid of the word Law(actually, I think that is becoming an excuse for their own rebellious heart) that they preach only grace messages, and then live in ways they think pleases God. <br><br>I have seen the breakdown of any real holiness of life over the years. When men spend time with women that are not their wives(traveling 2 hrs with a handful of teenagers to a rafting trip) see no problem with that, something is going haywire! Joe is right, the PCA is going down a road they may never recover frm . Really study what the Sonship training teaches. I know personally of a group of pastors at a "Pooped Pastors conference, that someone came back and told a group of us a terribly dirty joke, that one of these pastors told. No wonder these pastors are pooped!! Without the power of the Spirit of God, I would be pooped too!<br><br>We are to defend the faith that was once delivered to the saints

Dear Linda,<br><br>I am saddened by your description of these situations that are left unaddressed. It seems we have both benefitted from Tim Keller's ministry and haven't learnt any antinomianism from it. Clearly the roots of the the situations you mention lie elsewhere. May the Lord deal with these things for his glory.<br><br>Yours in Christ,<br><br>James.

Thanks James. These things will always be here, the saddest part to me is that the pastors don't address any of it.<br>I feel they let their flock be devoured!

Keller's Tapes are put into MS Word Note files. For those interested in receiving this series of notes send a private e-mail to: tmaywpc@earthlink.net. Just ask to be added to the Keller list. They come sporadically.<br><br>Here is a sample. Please note Keller pushes Sonship Training (PCA) which we have discussed here before. Please note it is here in this particular sermon as well. There is a particular phrase also that troubles me, [color:red]What is meant by spirit of sonship? A healed relationship?</font color=red> especially when it is followed by [color:red]Look at Jesus – we get a mini-version of that</font color=red>, who of course did not need a healed relationship with His Father. Again, these are just tape "notes" and thus the transition from one phrase to another may have been lost. There are some other parts that I am uncomfortable with as well, but I will let you find them so they may be discussed.<br><br>Tape 344 12/08/02<br><br>the Excellence of Jesus Luke 2:41-52; 3:22-23<br><br>Life of Jesus from Luke; he claims this actually happened and he wants us to have a relationship with Christ so he has recorded the life of Jesus. what he records is there to teach us how to meet and encounter Jesus. <br><br>The early events relate to the Sonship of Jesus. – in the temple and the baptism – sonship of boy, man Jesus and his followerers.<br><br>I. amazing sonship of the boy Jesus. <br><br>This was a special year because of his age – 12 – a year of intensive training with his father who trained him in his calling as an adult man. Vocational and religious instruction. Of all the years this would be the year that Joseph would explain the Passover to Jesus. Normally Jesus would be with Joseph for learning, but they find that he is not with the crowd. <br><br>They go back and find him in the temple. <br><br>Mary, “why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been looking for you.” <br><br>Luke has already signaled the significance of this Passover and importance of the father son relationship. “of all the years this should be the year that you learn from your father, walking with him.” <br><br>Jesus says, “mom I am. I am learning from my Father.” <br><br>In some way Jesus was learning from the Father, though we don’t know exactly how, but it was happening. <br><br>God speaks to him about his sonship – “I’m about my Father’s business.” The parents and crowd are perplexed. <br><br>In that day no one spoke like this. Parental obedience was the ultimate duty in that day; Jesus says that his relationship with God transcends his relationship on earth. It is a deeper relationship than anyone claimed to have. No jew spoke of “my father” as Christ did. This is a great claim, and he went home to obey his parents – majesty and humility combined. <br><br>In Luke the next event is the baptism of Jesus; a process of recognition of his sonship began at the temple and continued til his baptism. At baptism the Holy Spirit comes down to empower him for the testing to come and his ministry. <br><br>How does the power come? Not as a jolt or infusion, but as a direct clear communication regarding his identity as a beloved son. <br><br>The power is an assurance of his sonship. The voice spoke and quoted scripture. Jesus would have known this. 3 things:<br><br>1. You are my son – Psalm 2- messianic king<br>2. Isaiah 42 – suffering servant; very different from the king of Ps 2. <br><br>This is a combination of traits that no one expected to find in the same person. <br><br>How could you do both – triumph over evil through death? <br><br>This confirmation of sonship gives Jesus power, but what does it have to do with us? <br><br>Everything. His ministry is to bring others into a relationship of sonship. This is also theme of rest of the bible – EX Rom 8:15; Gal 4-4-7 <br><br>Paul says the power of the Holy Spirit is for us as well, but it is not abstract. It works in us as it did in Jesus. the Holy Spirit assures us of our identity as a child of the Lord of the universe – a loved, accepted child of God. <br><br>In series on Exodus I referred to sin as “building your ID on anything but God.” (Kierkegaard) Making anything about yourself or any relationship more central to your sense of worth, your purpose, your definition, your meaning in life, your hope than God. If you do that there will always be a meltdown; your ID is always fragile; it can easily be affected. <br><br>But this gospel is what we need. Our ID won’t be healed until we hear this in our soul – “you are my child whom I love, with whom I am well- pleased.” You need a parental resonance, a voice, an assurance deep in the center of your being saying, “you are beloved child”. Until you get that from God himself you’ll always be in a form of meltdown. <br><br>Because Christ has that uniquely, we can get it through him. Then we become those who get the combined traits of Jesus. – meekness and majesty; <br><br>What is meant by spirit of sonship? A healed relationship? <br><br>Look at Jesus – we get a mini-version of that: 3 things<br><br>Honor, access, absolute safety<br><br>1. Honor – your are my son Ps 2 – the heir was the son who got all that the father had. All went to the elder son. For Jesus to say this of us gives us infinite value. This is not gender insensitivity, but a radical equality of grace. “Sons” means it is radical for men and women; even women could be counted as heirs. Gal 3 “all heirs in Christ” just use the metaphors, don’t mess with them – sons, brides, sheep. – we need them all, none is rich enough to tell all. <br><br>This incredible honor means, “who cares what people think”? if we really have this in our being we wouldn’t be controlled by others approval and criticism.<br><br>2. Access - “whom I love” - this was unique to Jesus’ rel with God. He called God “abba” – papa- this was bold; he prayed that way and told us to pray that way. Joachim Jeremias did study of religions and showed when Jesus prayed that way he was the first. No one had prayed that way before or dared to say, “I want to open a door to heaven that gives you a relationship this intimate” in luke 11 he teaches how to pray and the word “boldness” really means shameless or irreverent. That is radical; we pray like this because of a family relationship. <br><br>EX: at 2 am who can ask for a drink of water? Friend, spouse? No, but your child can be shameless and ask. She doesn’t need an appointment. <br><br>Jesus gives access like that; we can go right in. he offers a relationship with God that is a different species of any other religion. <br><br>3. Absolute safety – “I am well pleased” Parent love is most unshakable. You lose friend love and romantic love when they act up; but parent love remains; often you get more loving toward the child who acts up than before. “you’re only as happy as your least happy child” if we love like that, how much more is God’s love – Is 59 “can a woman forget the baby who nursed? She may forget, but I won’t forget.” <br><br>That is radical – a nursing mother has no love for the baby compared to the love of God for us. <br><br>If this is true what would it mean if you know it deep in your soul? Majesty and meekness. Who care what they think? But also an ability to admit to God and others our sins and faults. I can finally admit when I’m wrong because I’m safe. <br><br>How to get it? <br><br>Get the understanding and experience of sonship<br><br>The understanding:<br><br>1. sense of the excellence of Jesus Christ – in the west we expect God to be a father, it doesn’t’ amaze or stun or transform us. we take it for granted. Yet it amazed the ancients because they understood the excellence of God. We have a shallow view of God. <br><br> Edwards : an admirable convergence of the excellencies in Christ that meet in one person like in no one else, and this makes him altogether beautiful. <br><br>Do you see that?<br><br>2. see Jesus’ sacrifice – the only way God can be pleased in us is because someone else earned it for us. it is too good to believe. The quote is from Is 42 God is pleased with the servant because of his sacrifice – his work – Is 53. <br><br>God was pleased with the sacrifice of Jesus. when the 12 yr old Jesus saw the Passover lamb he began to understand the meaning of his life. He did it all for us. <br><br>We deserve rejection, but Jesus took it for us. he lost the sonship so we could have it. <br><br>Do you know this? <br><br>You also need the experience of sonship: you need God to speak it to your heart. How? By the Holy Spirit speaking the Word to his heart. Go to God’s word and ask him for it.

Joe<br>Thanks so much for this info. I will take it home and then we can talk about it. I do know about Keller and sonship, but at times when you are starving to death, everything if filling! Tim Keller at least talks of our responsibility along side God's grace. <br><br>

Keller does have some good sermons, at times. He interacts with JE (and the Puritans) allot and has some good balance on some issues. But, on others such as "sonship" I cringe (this is not the only issue). Of course, there is at least one other issue (error) in this sermon as well. It too deals with term "sonship", and it makes for some dreadful thought..........<br><br>I can understand starving to death from what many are preaching from the pulpits today. IMHO God allows us "older books" to "somewhat" fill this void. But, still there is nothing like a great sermon preached right in your presence.......We need to pray for the ministers of today that they will preach the Word biblically. Of course, allot needs to be taken off their plates as well, as many are over run with many "duties" that should be in the hands of others, et. al. <br><br>Poor pulpits make for poor pews, but poor pews make for even poorer pulpits.

Joe<br>Give me the problems in the sermon if you would. Because of my childhood, I enjoy hearing that God accepts me. Althoughwhen I have read about Sonship, and more importantly when I have seen the lives of those that promote it, I don't think it is the end all. I would rather hear a sermon from the scriptures, rather than a "program" or a "system".

I had a severe problem with this quote:<br><br><blockquote>[color:red]We deserve rejection, but Jesus took it for us. <span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]he lost the sonship[/b]</span> so we could have it.</font color=red></blockquote> I am ok with us deserving rejection and that Christ took our rejection for us, but when he goes on to say that Christ lost His sonship, I [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/flee.gif" alt="flee" title="flee[/img]<br><br>In the sermon Keller describes Christ's sonship as: [color:red]I’m about my Father’s business</font color=red>. So I ask, [color:blue]Was Christ ever [color:red]not</font color=red> about His Father's business?</font color=blue> No! Thus how could He have lost His "sonship" (if I dare use that term).<br><br>Of course, the catch-all is when did Christ ever stop being God? If He lost His sonship, that would necessarily follow? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>Notice the last part of the sermon INVITATION. What is the call for? <br><br><blockquote>[color:red]You also need <span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]the experience of sonship[/b]</span>: you need God to speak <span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]it[/b]</span> to your heart. How? By the Holy Spirit speaking <span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]the Word</span>[/b] [now reduced to sonship] to [your] heart. Go to God’s word and ask him for <span style="background-color:yellow;">[b]it[/b]</span>.</font color=red></blockquote> IMHO people need Jesus, not "sonship". If a person is enabled to truly accept Christ would he not necessarily also have "sonship" (if I dare use that term).<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: </blockquote></font color=blue> The Gospel call is to be for "Christ" and not sonship.<br><br>Sonship is also used to describe sanctification. But, is not sanctification more than merely an [color:red]experience</font color=red>? Of course it is. Thus Keller asking his congregation to seek the [color:red]experience of sonship</font color=red> is far from what sanctification "is". It is almost as if "sonship" is replacing the Charismatic's call of, [color:red]Do you have the experience of the Holy Spirit?</font color=red>

Joe<br><br>As usual, thanks for the insight. I didn't like the thought of Him losing His sonship, so we might have it. And it is a great point about experiencign sonship. I have wondered how to do that. I will ask you, seeing my own heart, how do you finely feel safe in our position in Christ? Not safe in a "lose your salvation" safe, but that same trusting that Ruth had with Boaz? It is my lifelong struggle. Feeling as though I am absolutely safe in my relationship and therefore rest in His grace, knowing it doesn't really matter what others think of me.