Doug Batchelor on Hell

[Amelia]

[Woody]

Oh Yeah. I thought he did a great job of that today.

He presented our message very clearly.

It would be good to present this to any nonSDA that is interested in this topic.

[David Koot]

Doug Batchelor does have a distinctive style of presentation. His studies are not compelling intellectually, nor do they appeal so much to serious students of the Word. But he does well with a certain type of person--typically blue-collar, left-brain, high school-educated, 'black is black and white is white' mindset. Nor is that target market uniquely Doug Batchelor's. Years ago, I read studies which had been done, which seemed to indicate that the very same target market is indeed the one with which traditional SDA evangelism does well.

[Amelia]

Not sure, but I think I'm insulted by your comment.

[Woody]

Not sure, but I think I'm insulted by your comment.

Not sure why you would be insulted ... since you didn't indicate you liked or disliked him. How would Dave know if you posted it because you objected to something or not.

I am the one that stuck out my neck and said I thought it was good.

But Dave ... No I am not offended by your "opinion".

[David Koot]

Thanks, Redwood, and you are so right. I did not know what Amelia's views are. And I started my post before yours posted, so hadn't seen your response. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend! I do, however, happen to be familiar with Batchelor's presentations, have watched them, I recognize the appeal to a certain mindset. I am also familiar with the training provided by AFCOE, relying on the KJV. It is simply that I would need quite a bit more in order to be persuaded, and I would want to present a more thorough study of a subject. For example, neither Batchelor nor our other evangelists identify the source of the Rich Man and Lazarus parable, as the Gemara Babylonicum, and its origin in Hellenistic Judaism. Nor have I seen presented the tie-in between Rev. 24, smoke of their torment, and Isaiah's picture of desolation of Edom. Those are a couple of examples.

I have put together a series of Power Point presentations on this and other doctrines, which are designed to reach seminary graduates, and have proved to be quite convincing, so am not speaking from a distance.

[Woody]

Quote:

I have put together a series of Power Point presentations on this and other doctrines, which are designed to reach seminary graduates, and have proved to be quite convincing, so am not speaking from a distance.

Is that something you present or give out? I know of a recent graduate who might be interested. Let me know.

And I agree with what you have said here. But we are not all like you with such an in depth mind. I would say that most would be accepting of what Doug says.

[David Koot]

Hi Redwood, yes, I have made a series of DVD's which I am willing to mail. Once again, when I started my post above, you had not posted yet. I meant no offense.

Dave

[Woody]

Oh, I know you Dave. I would not question your intent.

Anyway ... Questioning ones intent ... only causes harm.

I don't have the ability to read peoples minds yet. And since we have just discovered that even Satan doesn't have that ability ... I doubt that I will get it soon either.

I think this is a valuable lesson that many could benefit from.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree with David Koot's comments regarding Batchelor. Those methods only reach a certain group of people BUT that group of people are those that tend to be the most open to the gospel too - so it is a good group to be reaching.

The wealthier and more educated are a harder group to reach.

[Dr. Rich]

Hi David, just wanted you to know that Doug's programs are a hit with people that want to sit in their chairs and listen to people tell them things that they are to lazy to study on their own. Anyway I think this is what the blogger was saying about rednecks and ignorant SDA members.

On the otherhand, why should I criticise a person for 'selling food sacrificed to idols' if people was to eat such stuff? Here is the thing: Jesus said He sowed truth (wheat) and that Satan would sow lies (weeds) and the New Testament is the field. There is a reason why the group of people found in Rev. 12:17 keep the ten commandments AND have the testimony of Jesus (not Luke, Paul or the unknown writer of Hebrews).

Bottom line: Luke NEVER knew Jesus and was a follower of Paul. There are many errors in Luke's writings (Luke and Acts) and what Luke did was start a slippery slope of confusion with the day of Pentacost. John said Jesus gave the disciples the Holy Spirit in John 20:21. Luke said it was at Pentacost. It can't be both, so which is true?

Try reading the new book called "The Spirit Of The Church" by Neufeld and Sterling. They are SDA members who have a weekly internet live radio show broadcasting their continued 14 year Sabbath School from Calimesa California SDA church at 10 am Pacific time. You can listen live or recorded at www.blogtalkradio.com/spiritoftruth AND it would be very important to hear if you think you are one of the 144,000 or know someone who is. The problem is, some SDA members want the book banned. What do you think?

Dr. Rich

[David Koot]

Hi David, just wanted you to know that Doug's programs are a hit with people that want to sit in their chairs and listen to people tell them things that they are to lazy to study on their own. Anyway I think this is what the blogger was saying about rednecks and ignorant SDA members.

[Bravus]

Whew. It says 'On'.

[Neil D]

Whew. It says 'On'.

Which causes me to think on first hand accounts and how they were brought back to us.....

[Stan]

Quote:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." What Luke wrote was by inspiration of God. The Bible is true.

While I do agree 100% with this, I believe he was specifically talking about what we would call the Old Testament, as the New T came into being a long time after he wrote that.

???

[John317]

Check out 2 Peter 3: 15, 15 where Peter includes the epistles of Paul among the "scriptures."

Also 1 Timothy 5: 18 indicates that Paul already (about 64 A.D.) considered the gospel of Luke to be "scripture." Paul is here quoting Luke 10: 7.

However, it is true that at the time Paul wrote, the vast majority the "scripture" consisted of the Old Testament.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Amelia]

OK, I am very tired of group of people being "taked down to". I don't care if Pastor Doug is thought of as the "blue collar" pastor or the "lazy man's" pastor. He is good for someone and that's all that counts. Those of you out there who hold yourself to a higher intellengce and caste of people, keep that to yourself and stop belittling others.

[John317]

Please explain. I am simply replying to Stan's post about the Scriptures.

[David Koot]

He is good for someone and that's all that counts. Those of you out there who hold yourself to a higher intellengce and caste of people, keep that to yourself and stop belittling others.

IMO that crosses a line. No one here is attacking Doug Batchelor or anyone else. It should be very appropriate to comment about his approach, his presentations, who is receptive or not receptive to them, and why. It is not 'belittling others.' Your comment here, Amelia, could foreseeably have a chilling effect on open discussion.

Dave

[Stan]

Sometimes I wake up thinking... Wow this feels like a great day coming... and then...... :)

[Woody]

Quote:

He is good for someone and that's all that counts.

Amelia ... this is the good point of your post. We are all different and reached differently. We should be happy that Doug can reach such a group of people.

Dave and the others can not appreciate him because he does not reach them personally. That is fine. But we need to acknowledge the good that is done without looking down on it.

God can use ALL means at His disposal. Even legalists can bring people to Christ. But what works for one will not work for another.

[Woody]

Amelia .... do you know how to do polls?

Perhaps we could do a poll to determine how many would agree with the statement below given to us courtesy of Dr. Rich.

Quote:

Hi David, just wanted you to know that Doug's programs are a hit with people that want to sit in their chairs and listen to people tell them things that they are to lazy to study on their own. Anyway I think this is what the blogger was saying about rednecks and ignorant SDA members.

When someone has to resort to name calling ... I would question what they have to say. In fact ... I would not even bother to read their agenda . When I arrived to CA this morning ... I looked at three threads. ALL three had nearly the same post by Dr. Rich. Why would I read the agenda he is promoting when it is not done so with the one thing that Jesus promoted which was LOVE.

And Stan ... sorry this is not going to be a good day. But, let's nip this one in the bud.

[John317]

When I first read Amelia's post, it appeared to be in response to something I had said, but it's clear now that it was in regard to someone else's post.

[David Koot]

Those of you out there who hold yourself to a higher intellengce and caste of people,

That statement itself is quite a negative judgment. You would have no way of knowing if a person thinks that s/he is of higher intelligence or caste of people. That was never mentioned or even considered, at least from my statement. Your statement here, Amelia, is quite a criticism of individuals. You are doing the very thing you are complaining about.

Dave

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Please explain. I am simply replying to Stan's post about the Scriptures.

It's very simple John317 ... just read the posts and you can see what she is saying. Then ... IF the shoe fits ... WEAR it. If not just toss it out.

While I appreciate the view and can understand the meaning somewhat. I do side with Amelia on this one. Keep the demeaning comments on those of us with less intelligence ... to a minimum please.

No offense intended. Just some free advice in conjunction with Amelia's.

OK. Let's all have a group hug ...

:grouphug4:

Actually I like Doug Batchelor, even though I realize that he doesn't go deep into some theological questions and issues. But I don't think he sees that as his specialty. As David and others have mentioned, Doug Batchelor's forte is introducing the Bible subjects to people who haven't studied them very much. I think he does well in that.

But at the same time I don't think it's fair to say that only people with no education like him. I have a feeling the Pharisees said much the same thing about Jesus, who was good at getting the "common people" to listen to him. In fact, the majority of the people Jesus chose as his disciples had very little education.

I think it's important sometimes to write and speak for the ordinary person, for those who have no education. If we don't, we can find ourselves speaking over the heads of people. I doubt anyone would disagree.

I also believe it's vital for the church to have journals and other sources of information that specialize in attracting educated people who might not be completely satisfied with Doug Batchelors' approach. Here's a good source that may do this: http://www.atsjats.org/publication.php?journal=1

Regards,

"John 3: 17"