Subject: Should a Christian be a Mason? |
Bible Note: Norrie: I am truly delighted to see that you are participating in the Forum. Welcome aboard. Please do not take this Note as a personal cricism of you, for in no way is this my intention. This is about the issues, not about you personally. I assure you that you are not the target of my comments and rhetorical questions. Please stay with the Forum and continue to post your input. It is interesting to note that some people can lightly dismiss people like the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. Ryrie, based on very little, if any, factual evidence. Yet at the same time, CRI dares not speak a word against a televangelist, even though CRI can back up its statements with more than sufficient documentation of what the religious superstars teach (both in print and on tape). Also, it has often been said that no man, referring to men like Hank Hanegraaff and Drs. Scofield, Ryrie and MacArthur, is without error. Yet in each of these postings, it is implied that, "Oh, well, we can assume that Copeland, Hagin, Meyer, Hinn, etc. are virtually without error. And even if they occasionally err in their interpretation of Scripture, well, that's no big thing. Look at all the people they have helped." As commendable as they are, helping people, producing sensational experiences, or drawing huge crowds is not the standard. Only the Word of God is our standard. That's what separates Protestants from Catholics, "sola scriptura". (By the way, "sola scriptura" does NOT mean the Bible is our only source for all information in the universe. It means it is the sole authority for all faith and practice. It is not a science book, cook book, motorcycle repair manual, birdwatcher's guide, etc.) What does all this indicate if not a preference for the sensational over the responsible, show over substance, and experience over the Bible? Grace to you, --JVH0212 |