Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Discount Actos, I recently read a couple of "First Person" articles in Baptist Press, and left with a good deal of concern over some of the things expressed in one of them. The first article was by Dr, Actos australia. 200mg Actos, Denny Burk, and it addressed his concern about a decline in literacy in America, 100mg Actos. Actos paypal, It is clear from the article that Dr. Burk is not concerned so much with a lack of ability to read, 10mg Actos, Actos us, but a decline in people actually reading, and what effect that might have on the spread of the gospel, 500mg Actos.
But the article that caused me concern was written by Dr, Discount Actos. Actos craiglist, Grant Lovejoy. In it, 150mg Actos, Actos japan, he responds to what he percieved as some misconceptions in Dr. Burk's piece, Actos coupon. 250mg Actos, In his response, Dr, 750mg Actos. Lovejoy makes the following statements:
"God has never limited Himself to a book as His only means of making Himself known to man."
Discount Actos, "...we should not overstate the linkage between literacy and Christian faith, because that would misrepresent the historical reality of the Old and New Testament eras. 30mg Actos, Additionally, it overlooks the experience of IMB missionaries on mission fields."
"Such groups [Christians who are functionally illiterate] have proven to have the doctrinal basics right, Actos uk, Actos usa, by the way. We've checked."
Gospel's Advance Can't Wait for Literacy by Grant Lovejoy
[UPDATE: I just learned that Dr. Burk has posted a response to Dr, Actos mexico. Actos canada, Lovejoy's response to his original article. This response to the response can be found here, 20mg Actos, Actos overseas, and it addresses some of the concerns I have mentioned.]. Actos ebay.
Similar posts: Where Can I Buy Aldactone. No RX Buspar. Buy Deltasone Over The Counter. Where Can I Buy Avodart. 150mg Medrol. Hydrochlorothiazide australia. 40mg Tindamax. Indometacin us.
Trackbacks from: Discount Actos. Discount Actos. Discount Actos. Discount Actos. Actos canada. 1000mg Actos. 750mg Actos. 10mg Actos.
Wes Kenney
Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
Paul Sep 4 2007 - 9:41 am
No cause for concern here. Lovejoy is right on. By the way, he is an outstanding preacher of the Word and was a great preaching professor of mine at SWBTS (that is, if one can publicly admit that there were great professors at SWBTS during Russell Dilday’s tenure).
Reply
jasonk Sep 4 2007 - 12:10 pm
My fear is that people will take Dr. Lovejoy’s words, and in an attempt to “sniff out a liberal,” as it were, they will twist his comments around. It is good that you encouraged people to actually read his article for themselves.
I never had Lovejoy for a professor at SWBTS, however, I did have lunch with him once, several years ago. He was extremely brilliant, very cordial, and I enjoyed the exchange we had. I could not agree with his words more. It is a dangerous and ignorant thing to limit the work of God.
Reply
Les Puryear Sep 4 2007 - 12:21 pm
I also had Dr. Lovejoy for Preaching class and he was great. He was more like a mentor to me than a professor. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Lovejoy and he does not have a liberal bone in his body.
Les
Reply
Tim Rogers Sep 4 2007 - 1:20 pm
Brother Wes,
Have I missed something here? After reading Dr. Burke’s article and then reading the comments here I for the life of me think I must have missed something somewhere. Two of the three already posted comments insinuate that others are painting Dr. Lovejoy as a liberal. I have not seen anyone even come close. Now, with the two that are trying to protect against someone painting him that way, it makes me wonder if they have seen something that may point to charges of liberalism.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
Joe Kennedy Sep 4 2007 - 4:05 pm
Wes, what’s wrong with the first statement you quoted by Lovejoy?
Actually… what’s wrong with any of those three statements?
And if there isn’t anything wrong with those statements, then why did you even write this post?
By the way, I’m a fan of reading.
Reply
Scott Gordon Sep 4 2007 - 4:13 pm
Reading is fundamental!
Reply
Paul Sep 4 2007 - 11:59 pm
I guess I would echo Joe’s questions. I don’t know that the implication is that Dr. Lovejoy is liberal, but I do wonder what the implication being made is.
Reply
Tim Rogers Sep 5 2007 - 4:50 am
Brother Joe,
I am not speaking for Brother Wes, but I can see something wrong with each of these quotes.
The first one leaves a gap big enough to drive a transfer truck through as to final revelation. John 1:1 is completely thrown out of the window along with 1 John 5:13.
The second one presumes Oral Tradition as the only teaching device used. While Oral Tradition was relevant, we must remember that the final revelation had not been completed–The Scriptures. Also, it presumes there was no written word at all. Just one thought, Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. Did Philip teach him from Oral Tradition or Isaiah?
The third question, while not so prevalent of a concern, still raises some concern. For me, it has more to do with the “we checked” statement. There are other doctrinal issues the IMB has promoted that causes question as to their doctrinal discernment. Two words; Camel Method.
Brother Paul,
It seems that Brother’s JasonK and Les are trying to defend this issue by saying Dr. Lovejoy is not a liberal. I was merely trying to point out that no one has accused him of being one.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
jasonk Sep 5 2007 - 7:04 am
Tim, I wasn’t really trying to defend Grant’s position one way or the other. Like Paul, I wasn’t really sure what the implication was when Wes wrote this. Only he can say for sure.
It would be purely conjecture on my part, and forgive me Wes if I missed it here. After all, Wes did strongly suggest that we go and read the articles for ourselves, rather than try to figure out what it means by reading a mined quote. But to me, the implication was that Grant is a liberal who rejects the suffiency of Scripture.
It reminded me of a lady once who was speaking to a group of women at the church, and she said, “I saw the pastor’s car parked outside of a bar last week. What do you think that means?” She didn’t accuse him of anything, she just planted a seed, and let them run with it.
You asked why I felt the need to stand up for Grant’s position on Scripture, and that is why, in all honesty. If was misinterpreted your intent, Brother Wes, forgive me please.
Reply
jasonk Sep 5 2007 - 7:06 am
Dang it, I mixed my metaphors in that last comment. So sorry.
You can’t plant a seed and then run with it. You can hand someone a ball, and let them run with it. You can plant a seed, and then let someone else pick the flower.
I HATE it when that happens.
Reply
Wes Kenney Sep 5 2007 - 8:06 am
Tim can speak for me anytime, as he has eloquently described the concerns I had with Dr. Lovejoy’s article. The quotes I have admittedly mined are those that most stood out to me as I read his piece, so I wanted to share them here, with links to the full article, to see if anyone else came away with those same concerns.
Paul and Jason, I’ll put you guys down as a “no.” Tim is a “yes,” and Les didn’t really answer, although he’s sure Dr. Lovejoy isn’t a liberal, an accusation made by precisely no one.
Reply
Paul Sep 5 2007 - 11:01 am
Tim and Wes,
Could you please explain how the first quote isn’t almost exactly what Hebrews 1:1 says? I don’t see any correlation between the quote and John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”). John 1:1 isn’t addressing final revelation. It is addressing the eternality of the incarnate Word of God (Jesus), as it is almost surely a play off of Genesis 1:1. 1 John 5:13 isn’t a statement about the Bible, but a statement about John’s particular letter to the recipients, and it is there to give them assurance, not to tell them that the only way God speaks is through the Bible. Thus, Grant Lovejoy has not thrown those verses anywhere.
As for the second, the quote does not presume oral tradition as the only device used. It presumes that written tradition is not the only device used. Thus, “we should not overstate….” That doesn’t mean that we don’t state the fact at all. It means that we don’t overstate it. Wes, having read the entire article you should have known this. He mentions the some 4000 languages for which there is no Bible. If we take the opposite view – that we must have a written Bible in those languages, then we are saying those people have no hope of salvation and never have all because they don’t have a Bible in their own language. And Lovejoy’s point is not that when missionaries share the gospel that they aren’t sharing the Scriptures with them, but that they hear it orally, they do not read it.
This, to me, is yet another example of how Wes seems to be increasingly unable/unwilling to give those with whom he disagrees the benefit of the doubt. I guess in the new translation “love suspects all things.” It will even admittedly quote mine to do so.
Reply
Paul Oct 28 2007 - 12:25 am
Wes,
Yesterday I received an e-mail from Dr. Lovejoy because he had noticed this post and my last comment. He confirmed that what I have said there is a proper understanding of what he was saying in the article you’ve mentioned.
Perhaps you could post a correction?
Reply
Todd Oct 31 2007 - 5:07 pm
Dr. Lovejoy spoke during a “Scholars In Ministry Week” (intended for those with terminal degrees who desired not to be terminal in their learning) at SWBTS during the Hemphill era at SWBTS. He later offered a course titled, “Chronological Bible Storying” which I audited in about 2001. He clarified the distinction of his course from others. He noted when one is telling the story of the Scriptures in an oral culture a person should not embellish the text beyond what would be warranted through translation. His reason – a high view of Scripture. In both of these instances Dr. Lovejoy offered compelling evidence we will increasingly need to account for the lack of literacy in the US. It seems to me elitist to argue from the vantage point of literacy when it comes to the effect of the Gospel. Further, it seems one missed the mediation of the text by the Spirit.
Add me to those who find no problems with what Dr. Lovejoy stated. Also, mark me as one who finds the silence deafening when Dr. Lovejoy sends an e-mail clarification and the owner of this blog says nothing.
Reply