Conference yukon::christian_v7

To be sure, there is a boundary outside which misperception leaves off and
heresy begins.  Heresy leads to destruction.  If error is the meter by
which we must enter heaven, few of us - very few of us - will enter.

Now, please let's not quote the "broad is the way but narrow is the gate"
because I'm talking about those persons who would define narrow as "us
alone."  Two reminders:

If 2 aspirin are good for a headache, then 100 aspirin is NOT 50 times
as good.

The "Eye of the Needle" was a phrase used to describe the small door in 
the city gate to allow traffic (one at a time) into and out of the city 
after dark when the gates were closed.  A camel could not pass through 
this small door unless all of his packs were unloaded first and he
came through on his knees.  In other words, a camel COULD get through
and it wasn't impossible.  

Let's be careful how we define "narrow," folks.

MM

    You simply can't ignore unscriptural fundamental doctrines of a church, 
    and just focus in on commonality, all in the name of unity.  I posted a
    summary by Dave Hunt on Colson's book in another topic that was set
    hidden.  If you really want more info, send mail.
    
    Mike

>    You simply can't ignore unscriptural fundamental doctrines of a church, 
>    and just focus in on commonality,

I suppose it depends on your focus, Mike.  Are we talking church organizations
of individuals within those organizations?

Yeah, I don't like some positions some of the Christian churches take 
on [let's pick a subject].  And I argue against them to the best of my
biblical knowledge and training.  But I restate that Christianity is about
Christ (in me) and in the individual (relationship) and NOT about whose
membership roll you happen to be signed with.  "We are Abraham's children"
(Matthew 3:9) was not enough for the Jews to become saved.  And
don't forget the Samritan woman, and the Roman Centurion, and others.

Traditions encumber and are not shed easily, but truth will set you free,
and that means that *THOSE* who diligently seek God will be rewarded 
(Heb. 11:6).  (Those who do not diligently seek but rest on  - perhaps
having the correct doctrine - will not be rewarded.)

Let's proclaim the truth and allow it to free from bondage.

Mark

I had Mike send me some of his previous, hidden posts criticizing Colson's
book.

Let me just extend my gratitude to the moderators for setting these posts
hidden.  I am most grateful for this course of action.

Apparently Dave Hunt finds Chuck's book violently objectionable because
of his non-critical views of the Catholic Church, and because of the
fellowship and cooperation he wishes to extend to Catholics.  That is
too bad; I expected more from Dave Hunt.

Is there any [other] good reason to reject Chuck Colson's book, other
than the fact that he extends the right hand of fellowship to Catholics?

Eric

One more thing:

"Us" versus "them" is Christ versus Antichrist, not what people tell us or
what we think about ourselves versus what people tell us or what we think 
about themselves.

    Mark, I don't intend this to be a "my denomination is better that your
    denomination" type thing.  The big problem is over fundamental
    doctrines (i.e., salvation) and the differences between these
    denominations.
    
    Consider what you will about Dave Hunt, but there's a lot of truth in
    the issues he raises.  Neither does he selectively ignore doctrine and
    history, as Colson does, in the name of unity.  No matter what is said
    and done, Catholic documents call Christians heretics.  Until the
    Vatican officially corrects some of these stances, it is still an
    official church stance and prevents 100% support from evangelicals.
    
    We should be unified, and we could really turn the world on its ear if
    we are, but it won't happen this way.  I'm all for it, but for the
    right reasons.  If we're faking it, the world will laugh at us and give
    all Christians an even worse image than they already have.  The recent 
    Christian-Catholic agreement appears to be forced and not 100% unified. 
    Both sides promised to not try and convert the other.  It appears to be 
    done to combine forces against political and moral issues (abortion, 
    corrupt politicians, and lifestyles) only.  In any marriage, the spiritual 
    bond must be pure for it to be successful.
    
    Mike

    Re: Note 498.1 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
�The "Eye of the Needle" was a phrase used to describe the small door in 
�the city gate to allow traffic (one at a time) into and out of the city 
�after dark when the gates were closed.  A camel could not pass through 
�this small door unless all of his packs were unloaded first and he
�came through on his knees.  In other words, a camel COULD get through
�and it wasn't impossible.  
    
    Not that this has anything to do with Colson's book, but this "eye of
    the needle" thing is an urban (or Christian?) legend. This
    "interpretation" of Jesus' words has been advanced off and on through
    the years, but as best as I can tell it has no support.
    
    	BD�

.6  (Mike)

> In any marriage, the spiritual bond must be pure for it to be successful.

But we are to be siblings, not mates.  The Bridegroom comes for the virgins.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

.7 (Barry)

>    ...the years, but as best as I can tell it has no support.

Ok, Barry.  I can't support it either, so I'll concede it.

There are two much more likely possibilities.

The Aramaic word for "rope" and for "camel" are very similar.

It's possible that is was an error translating from Aramaic
to Greek -- rope (as opposed to thread) would be hard to get
through the eye of a needle -- or, if not an error, it was a
clever pun on the words rope and camel.

/john

>or, if not an error, it was a clever pun on the words rope and camel.

Yep.  And Jesus was a good one to use words well.

    I looked into this note for some discussion about Colson's book and
    reasons that he's become controversial.  I can't figure what you guys
    are talking about, so I'm disappointed.  What does the eye of the
    needle and ropes have to do with "The Body"?
    
    I've been a Colson enthusiast at times, heard him speak and he has had
    a lot to say.  Good solid Christian stuff.  What's he said now that we
    can't agree with?
    
    - Don

This topic, though started with the intention of discussing his book, was
an extension of a criticism Dave Hunt had against Colson, brought to our
attention by Mike Heiser.  Hunt's criticism (those posted by Mike Heiser)
prompted the note replies here.  They are a criticism of Hunt's criticism,
if you will.

However, it would be nice to see some of the Colson heresy, if there is
such a thing.

Mark

    If you read 58.26, you'll see Colson started compromising Christianity
    in other ways besides what he wrote in "The Body."

>    If you read 58.26, you'll see Colson started compromising Christianity
>    in other ways besides what he wrote in "The Body."

I just re-read 58.26, Mike.  Please define how it "compromises Christianity."
And what do you mean by "uncompromised Christianity?"

Mark

    I read 58.26, which talks about Colson's speech to, and acceptance of a
    prize at the world religious conference.  The scripture quoted is II
    Cor 6:14, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.  For what do
    righteousness and wickedness have in common?  Or, what fellowship can
    light have with darkness?"  I infer that Colson is thought to have
    either been yoked to (usually thought to mean become married to) an
    unbeliever, or to have had fellowship with darkness.  There were
    representatives there from the Wiccans, from shamanistic religions,
    etc., so the question is open, though I doubt that Colson married one.
    
    Did Colson go there to fellowship with these people?  my understanding
    is, not.  He gave a talk that was a clear gospel presentation, and
    didn't participate in the rituals, etc.  If he did, we should know. 
    Others have taken similar opportunities to meet with pagans for the
    sake of the Gospel.  Paul, for one.
    
    As far as Colson's book, The Body, what are the issues?
    
    As far as meeting with those terrible Catholics, I guess I'm guilty,
    too.  I have breakfast with a Catholic every week, with two others who
    are Christians.  We're studying Luke together.  Life is more
    complicated than some make it seem.  What I've learned is that there
    are all types of Catholics, and some of them are even Christians! 
    Sorry if I'm getting sarcastic, but it's wise to be charitable and
    loving if it's possible, not to condemn Catholicism without going a bit
    deeper.  I can't think of one denomination that hasn't had a
    controversy in its history.
    
    Just my thoughts, to add some fuel.
    
    Don Randall

    Being unequally yoked goes beyond marriage.  It can apply to *close*
    friendships and business *partnerships* as well.
    
    He accepted quite a bit of cash from religions diametrically opposed to
    the Gospel of Christ.  He rubbed elbows with these people and got all
    wrapped up in this New Age-styled religious unification movement.  The
    sole purpose of this organization is a one-world religion and smacks of
    the great harlot of Revelation 17.
    
    It appears that Colson has sold out his witness to the flesh.  He
    compromised the Gospel of Christ by giving these people the idea that
    the "many roads, many truths" philosophy is correct.
    
    Mike

    re:  -1
    
    evidence?  Quotes, statements, financial commitments?
    
    - Don

What if an employer is diametrically opposed to the Gospel of Christ?
  (Pays for abortions, pays spousal benefits to unmarried couples, etc.)

-.18

Good point, John.. I know someone who left Wang (of all places) because they
were going to make their operating system security compliant for the 
Federal Government to put some computers in the Military PXs!  This
person (who happened to be Jewish by birth; through little was shown
by action), conscientiously objected and would not be "yoked" to a company
who would have even remote ties to the military.

As for being unequally yoked: perhaps we need to consider what it means 
a bit further because we certainly have come to understand it differently.

Mark

Hmmmm.  This is very grave .... give me a clue; is the [mis]spelling of
vegetable significant?  Do asparagus hearts come into it?  ;-) 

�                         -< Joke of the day (century) >-

If it were  -< Joke of the day (millennium) >-, would that make you a 
dispensationalist?

							&