Sadly, another reuinon that won't happen

Came across this on CMR. Pretty sad. Definitley need to keep these guys in prayer. Long live BC.


http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=41848505&blogID=451312796

Wow. I have to agree with Mike.

Wow over at the CMR they are standing with the other 3 guys and blaming Mike Lee. In a sense it's becoming more like the Bride debate. Many people are down on Dale for his UV beliefs even thou he still believes in Jesus and has a difference with salvation. I mean I know what the bible says and what God expects from me as a Christian. I just think Mike may need to really look at his Christian beliefs and seek the one true expert on the word of God

That's very sad news, as a new album by BC would have been great. One thing that shouldn't happen is to pick fights with each other, so I'm glad they have separated now rather than after the album release, or even on tour.

Another one bites the dust!

Let's all hold a candle for Sacred Warrior!

Fundy

Sounds like I have heard this before....pretty familiar what's been said from both sides. So, no BC at Legends of rock?

That is sad, Mike Lee seems to be transparrent and accountable to the fans which is commendable but all in all its between them and God, I dont think anybody should be taking sides but praying for both sides just my opinion

From what I have read on Mike's site, the problem lies in the definition of sin. Mike is apparently understanding sin from a Wesleyan perspective, "Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God." This is what I believe.

Calvin propsed that anything short of Scriptural perfection is sin, a "missing of the mark".

Mike is not proposing a "works salvation", he is trying to fulfill the Scriptures by living a life that does not violate what the Scriptures indicate are God's known laws.

ChosenOne wrote:

Wow over at the CMR they are standing with the other 3 guys and blaming Mike Lee.

I don't see how they can. I don't have the time to look at all the member's sites, but if what Mike quoted them as saying is true, THEY are the ones who didn't want to work with him so how could it be his fault? He's supposed to change his beliefs to keep the band together? I don't think so. Plus, IMHO, he has the correct scriptural position. I also believe we should be praying for all members to see the Truth and come to reconciliation.

Hmm I haven't yet read what Mike wrote. But it is sad.
I would rather they part ways then have any sort of "important" theological difference and hence an unnecessary tension between the members.

Ok I read Mikes post, and I don't think I can see anything (theologically at least) wrong with what he is saying. I think I'm gonna have to agree with topshot.

nazpastor wrote:

From what I have read on Mike's site, the problem lies in the definition of sin. Mike is apparently understanding sin from a Wesleyan perspective, "Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God." This is what I believe.

Could you elaborate more on this "Wesleyn perspective" I'm not sure I get the difference (you can pm me if you don't want to go into it here). I certainly don't want to argue, just understand.

Post it here, Naz. I would like to know more about that myself.

As far as the split, I hope that the remaining members of B.C. would find another singer and make some new music whether under the Barren Cross name or not.

If Mike really loves hard rock, maybe he'll release something old school again.

John Wesley said that sin was a "willful transgression of a known law of God." Sin does not occur unless you know it is wrong and do it anyhow.

John Calvin said that sin was a "missing of the mark", thus his position that we sin every day in word, thought and deed.

The two positions both agree that the blood of Christ is the only way for forgiveness of sins. The difference is in the view of what that sin is. When one sees sin from a Wesleyan perspective, it is possible to live a "sinless" life, meaning that we do not purposely disobey what God has revealed to us as wrong. With Calvin's definition, it is not possible because we all "miss the mark" of the perfect measure of Scripture.

While Wesley did not believe these "missings of the mark" were sin, he called them infirmities of the flesh, which still require us to ask for forgiveness.

Scripture repeatedly tells us not to sin, but with Calvin's definition, that is just not possible and as such requries a lot of speculation about why it is OK to continue in sin and just let God take care of it at the judgement. With a Wesleyan understanding, when those same verses are read with a command not to willfully disobey God, well, that is possible.

I believe Mike Lee is interpreting Scripture with a Wesleyan understanding and as such he is standing for a different perspective that the rest of the band are standing for when they say that a sinless life is not possible.

For your own sakes, read all of the references you want in the Bible and when you get to the word "sin", insert the phrase "willfully transgress against a known law of God." Then re-read it again and put "miss the mark" and see what you come to understand. Determine if you believe we can live without "sin" as defined by Wesley, or if we are condemned to live a life of sin because we are human.

Wow, thanks Nazpastor that was very imformative.

I think I might try to error on the side of conservatism and agree with Calvin that it is not possible to live a sinless life (I mean, we are fallen creatures). But I think I would agree with Wesley that we are commanded not to transcend God's laws (although I don't believe it is humanly possible to keep them all in thought, word and deed).

alldatndensum wrote:

As far as the split, I hope that the remaining members of B.C. would find another singer and make some new music whether under the Barren Cross name or not.

If Mike really loves hard rock, maybe he'll release something old school again.

I agree. Maybe we will get lucky and there will be 2 seperate releases in the next year (or so) in the hard rock/metal vein.

If all this boils down to one's definition of sin and the others disagreement than it is sad. The way I see is this. I'm sure each one of the band members can agree on one thing:That Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the light. Being a rock band with christian values then they can use that to try and win people to Christ. After all isn't that what being a Christian is about it. However they look at, Jesus is the only one who can free you from your sin. I'm sure there are many bands in the christian market that have members that were raised differently and in different denominations. I mean I was raised in the Nazarene church and if I had a band and there was a Catholic member in the band it wouldn't matter to me. Ultimatley as a christian band you have the responsibility to share Gods love & forgiveness to Christians and non-chrisitans.
One band that I am so impressed with is Disciple. They are huge in the Christian market and could very easily be big in the mainstream market. But there is one thing they will not do that others will do and that is compromise thier faith. they are very open about spreading the word of God. I'm guessing there are some members in Disciple that were raised differently but they stand for God.
Who's right in the whole Barren Cross debacle, I don't know. I see both sides. To me we are all sinners and fall short of Gods glory. Is it possible to lead a sinless life? Probably. But the beauty of Gods love is that Jesus forgives us because he loves us. Maybe down the line the guys in Barren Cross will see that is more about spreading the message of God then each others views.

Naz, thanks for breaking that down in a very cool way. I love for people ot share their ideas on the gospel on forums, but I get tired of those who insist that their view is the only right one. You've laid out the differences in a great way that makes you want to dig a little deeper on your own. To me, that is a great teacher that can make you do that.

My belief is my belief. If I convince someone to believe what I believe, what keeps someone else from changing their minds? If Scripture changes someone's mind, then it is much more difficult to pull them away from Scripture.

nazpastor wrote:

My belief is my belief. If I convince someone to believe what I believe, what keeps someone else from changing their minds? If Scripture changes someone's mind, then it is much more difficult to pull them away from Scripture.

I completely agree. I always feel a little quesy when people tell me some best selling novel or movie (or even some pastor), changed the way they think about God. IMO there should only be one physical thing that influences our view of God and that is His book the Bible.
Not that we can have our eyes opened by other things, but if it isn't support by the Bible, I would be very leary of it.

Well, I've heard Mike in person talking about his new views and read the things he's written, and here is where I disagree with him:

1. He claims that if you repent of a sin just once and then committ it again a second time, you never really repented the first time. Basically, a two strikes and you're out.

2. He implies that a person who falls back into a sin a second time is not really saved, and in fact, he says that while he "introduced people to Jesus Christ" during his time in BC, he was not himself saved until he had this revelation in 2006.

By Mike's standard, I am not saved and neither is anyone else who commits a sin more than once. That is simply not Biblical at all.

TT, I think it depends on how you define sin (or even what sins we are talking about). If Mike is talking about willful sin I might have to at least partially agree with what he has said (according to your post).

Many of those "sins" that people talk about are avoidable, some are not.
Take for instance adultry. I don't think it is possible to "accidently" fall into adultry. It is a sin that takes work, you have to search for a willing participant, you have to find a place to commit that act etc. I believe this is one of those sins every true Christian should be able to avoid.
However if that sin is gossip, I can understand how a completely saved person would struggle with it, and at times fail. I don't think that means the person who "gossiped" was never saved in the first place. But it can be very difficult to avoid (without cutting off your tongue and destorying your hearing).

Staybrite wrote:

Take for instance adultry. I don't think it is possible to "accidently" fall into adultry. It is a sin that takes work, you have to search for a willing participant,

Mmm... not so sure about that. I've been in the doghouse for a long time now for this one and I sure didn't go looking for "a willing participant". Almost any 40ish guy with all of his hair, a higher paying job and a nice car will eventually be faced with this obsticle whether looking or not. That said I can honestly say it's changed me for the better and to me that's the most important part.

Staybrite wrote:

TT, I think it depends on how you define sin (or even what sins we are talking about). If Mike is talking about willful sin I might have to at least partially agree with what he has said (according to your post).

Well, Jesus did not define sin that way. He said that sin is primarily an issue of the heart, not an action. He said that if we look at a woman lustfully, then we have committed adultery already in our hearts. While I have never cheated on my wife physically, I am guilty of adultery many times in my heart.

According to Michael, I am not yet saved and am in danger of going to hell, since I have not forsaken all sin. I just don't see any way to justify that view Biblically. We are saved because of what He did, not because of what we do.

For those who can become saved and never struggle with sin ever again, I applaud you. I'm not sure if it's even possible, but if so, that's great. It's just not my experience.

It's all there in the blog post. Read it and see if you agree.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

Well, Jesus did not define sin that way. He said that sin is primarily an issue of the heart, not an action. He said that if we look at a woman lustfully, then we have committed adultery already in our hearts. While I have never cheated on my wife physically, I am guilty of adultery many times in my heart.

So are you saying Jesus is telling us that sin is only an issue of the heart? Or that God judges sin not only by our actions but also by what is in our heart?

Tall Tyrion wrote:

For those who can become saved and never struggle with sin ever again, I applaud you. I'm not sure if it's even possible, but if so, that's great. It's just not my experience.

If you reread what I wrote on page one you will see that is not at all what I am trying to say.

Staybrite wrote:

we are commanded not to transcend God's laws (although I don't believe it is humanly possible to keep them all in thought, word and deed).

Staybrite wrote:

So are you saying Jesus is telling us that sin is only an issue of the heart? Or that God judges sin not only by our actions but also by what is in our heart?

Certainly. Our hearts are deceitfully wicked. Clearly there are sins that occur that are accidents, but intent is involved in the great majority I'd say. I've broken all 10 commandments.

Staybrite wrote:

So are you saying Jesus is telling us that sin is only an issue of the heart? Or that God judges sin not only by our actions but also by what is in our heart?

I'm saying that he judges us by both and while we should be progressing upward and slowly ridding ourselves of sin in thought word and deed, it is a process, not a POW! By Mike's standard, we can NEVER have assurance of salvation, because if we ever sin again, we are condemed.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

Quote :

For those who can become saved and never struggle with sin ever again, I applaud you. I'm not sure if it's even possible, but if so, that's great. It's just not my experience.

If you reread what I wrote on page one you will see that is not at all what I am trying to say.

Staybrite wrote:

we are commanded not to transcend God's laws (although I don't believe it is humanly possible to keep them all in thought, word and deed).

[/quote]

Well first, my bad for using the word "you". I was not trying to call anyone out here specifically, it was more general in the way I was trying to use it.

Second, according to Mike, you are not saved, either.

topshot rhit wrote:

Staybrite wrote:

So are you saying Jesus is telling us that sin is only an issue of the heart? Or that God judges sin not only by our actions but also by what is in our heart?

Certainly. Our hearts are deceitfully wicked. Clearly there are sins that occur that are accidents, but intent is involved in the great majority I'd say. I've broken all 10 commandments.

Oh man, I'm sorry, bro, you're not saved either....


Obviously, I'm just kidding, and applying Mike's standard of "holiness" here. I really feel sorry for him, because I think that climbing up on this particular pedestal is just setting himself up for a big time fall.