Fundamentalist's "Sins" v Bible's "Sins"?

Now, now, Dr. Bob! Please don't allow my little jibes to agitate you so much. I am really surprised that a man of your sweet, non-judgmental temperment could work up so much venom in such a small space. I love attacking your posts, although not you personally, since they are so full of the classical fallacies when there is more heat than light. Here are a few:
1. You (intended personally) insinuate that I am a clown. You say that your time is wasted on me. You brush away my points without answering them by calling me ill-informed. (BTW, I have read many more of your posts than you have of mine. I really had posted only once before you lamblasted me. Heed your own advice!) Well, show me to be a fool by your wit and wisdom. I'm not embarrassed, except for you.
2. You use heated words such as "clown", "ill-formed", and "diatribe." This doesn't fit well with your sweet, non-judgmental posture.
3. You appeal to a label (fundamental Baptist) instead of giving substantive content. Is a Baptist also a Fundamentalist? What is a fundamental Baptist? Jerry Falwell, Peter Ruckman, Paige Patterson, Cornelius Stam, Ron Comfort, Rod Bell, Phil Kidd or ad infinitum? Which group? SBC, GARB, GARBC, ABA, WBF, BBF, FBF, etc.? What are you?
4. Again, you use labels instead of content? Your word choice is more driven by connotation than denotation. What are "pharisaical 'standards'?" How is the conviction against women wearing pants
Pharisaical?

Finally, please allow me to apply a slight corrective. You asked [screaming], "WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE YOUR BROTHER?" Please read my post carefully. I judged your standard, not you. I cannot and do not claim to know your heart or relationship to God. It is a red herring when people yell and scream that you are judging me whenever one questions their standards. Scripture forbids judging hypocritically, judging motives, and judging persons but nowhere does it forbid judging behavior or ideas. In fact, it commands us to judge and prove all things.

Now, you evidently fail to understand the terms "weak" and "strong" even though they seem to carry some connotation for you. Strong and weak are not synonymous with good and bad. These relative terms are much like conservative and liberal. They are not absolute positions. If your system allows things that mine prohibits, then it is weaker than mine. It's that simply. Your standards are weaker than mine since you appear to tolerate things that I don't. Get the point?

 

Paidagogos said to Dr. Bob:
On the other hand, I wonder what you mean by mellow. I can only relate this to apples. (Please pardon a poor Southerner who must relate abstract words and ideas to known reality.) Used as a verb, mellowing in the final stages is rottening. I trust my attitude will remain tart until the end. You can mellow if you like.

Murph replied:
Indeed we all need to mellow and I agree with Bob that you need a crash course. Since you used apples as your illustration I will continue it by saying that you may choose to remain tart to the end but the question is when will the end be? Some apples remain on the tree until they naturally fall but most are picked either because they look ripe and juicy or because they are rotten.
-------------------------------------------------
Paidagogos laughs:
Well, Murph, I suppose you can delete me if you don't like this post since you are the moderator. However, I'm going to be quite candid with you. You misjudge me. Why have your judged me and my character? You ARE NOT refuting my statements but your ARE ATTACKING my person (ad homenim) when you say, "Indeed we all need to mellow and I agree with Bob that you need a crash course."

Tell me if I am wrong! Both you and Bob question my person when I come across strongly. Don't get in the boxing ring if you're not willing to take a few blows. BTW, what do you mean by your little obfuscation about apples being ripe or rotten. It took the whole metaphor too far--it was an inanity. I really didn't get the point unless you're trying to say that I'm a rotten apple. Is this your point? If so, it's character attack. I thought you guys were the sweet, loving ones and I was the bad guy.

I stand pat on my original statements. Nothing has been refuted. You only ineffectually attacked my character . I think you are harming your arguments (I really haven't seen any rational argument) more than mine. The readers will know.

 

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Dr. Bob, I am challenging you to sustain your assertions with rational argument or withdraw them. Of course, silence is surrender by default. It is so easy just to melt away from a challenge on the internet. Furthermore, I ask you to specifically define my problem. You say that I have a problem; now tell me what it is. [/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murph said:
The problem as I see it is attitude and more specifically lack of respect. Both of these make it difficult to show grace to other posters. Your goading of Dr. Bob is uncalled for, silence is often a sign of maturity and even if one does surrender to your attack by silence you should never point this fact out to them. As most of your posts have dealt with Dr. Bob I know you didn't ask for my opinion but I felt it necessary to share it. I also want to address another quote from you: [snip]
-------------------------------------------------
Murph, I find it very strange and interesting that you come to Dr. Bob's defence. Yes, silence is sometimes maturity but it is sometimes cowardice or being unable to answer. I appreciate your trying to instruct me in good manners but I say, "Take heed to thyself." Of course, you remember what Jesus said about the mote and the beam in the eye.

Yes, I did gently goad Dr. Bob but he is the man who said in his profile that his interests are sarcasm, humor, and judging. It seems that he likes to give it (I've read many of his posts) but he doesn't take it very well in return? What do your think? Do I need to quote some specific examples that I am prepared to do! Of course, you can prevent this by removing my posts. Take me up on this! I can (1) show where Dr. Bob has used sarcasm or humor at other's expense throughout this board but (2) he is offended when the same is directed toward him. Remember that I prepared to back this up with a posting of quotes. So, do the honorable thing and challenge the facts. Don't remove my post or ridicule and judge my person. Let the readers have a chance to judge for themselves instead of feeding them pablum. Of course, the facts can be embarrassing.

BTW, Murph, do you mind telling me specifically what is wrong with my attitude? Where did I step over the line? What is my attitude? Lack of respect? I don't disrespect Dr. Bob. I don't agree with him but I don't disrespect him. Is he an important person or something? Tell me more. I don't know. In fact, Murph, I was wondering a little bit about your attitude toward me. The part that I cut out seemed a bit more heated and judgmental than what I said to Bob. Do the same standards apply to both of us?

Thanks for your time, Murph!

 

By this latest reply of yours IMO you have proven yourself to be dispespectful of other posters as well as moderators. I will now be candid with you, I did not come to the defense of Dr. Bob as I feel he is quite capable of handling himself. I entered into this discussion because I felt you were over the top in your attack of Bob and in your failure to step away from the discussion even after he had. I also feel that as a new poster one should be especially careful in their posting. I responded especially to your declaration that you would remain tart until the end and Bob could mellow if he chose to. This is a christian board and one of the teachings of our Lord is submission. IMO your stance seemed to indicate that you would not yield, this board is a place to discuss and debate but those who refuse to yield are normally the ones who cause trouble. I hope you will grow into a respectful poster and not a troublemaker but you seem to be starting off in the wrong direction. Concerning your advise that I should be ready to take some punches I appreciate it but I have taken a few and have no trouble accepting them. You say that we have not adequately answered your posts but I honestly can't get to your intended points for all your angry spewing at Dr. bob. In closing please keep on laughing, I am glad someone is enjoying this.

Murph

 

The purpose of church discipline is restoration. Did you follow the biblical rules found in Matthrew 18 and what was the result. So you say you disciplined her. What was the result of that discipline. What was her response to the steps you took. Did you help her to rectify the situation first? </font>[/QUOTE]==================================================
Paidagogos replied:
Whereas one purpose of church discipline is restoration, it is not the only purpose. Of equal or greater importance is that others may fear and be warned of doing the same error. Also, church discipline is to preserve the purity of the church and to maintain the testimony of Christ before an unbelieving world. The honor and glory of God is paramount. The sinning church member must bear the burden of his own sin. God does chasten His children (Hebrews 12:5-11). Those who refuse to heed the authority and admonition of the local body of believers is to be considered and treated as a heathen (Matthew 18:17). The response to the original seems to beg the question somewhat. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I would tend to disagree some because I would contend that the point of church discipline is always restoration. There is a given procedure so that the person might listen and be restored. If the person listens they are corrected. If the first step is taken and the person refuses to listen then you take the next step. It is only when the person refuses to listen to those who are entrusted with the care of the church that the person is not allowed to remain. Pastoral authority is not about authority in the sense of a dictatorship but rather responsibility. Remember when it says that the one who desires to be the greatest must be the least and he must be the chief servant. Authority is not about dealing out orders but being patient and being a servant. Leadership is about serving by example. He is to prove himself as an example.

Chastening is always about discipline. Discipline is for the purpose of having a sound mind. God wants us to have self control which is self discipline. When we don’t He disciplines us for our good. When the person repents it is for the health of the church and the individual. When the person does not repent it is still for the health of the individual and the church. If the person is not told to leave after much confrontation then it tells both the person and the church that their sin is okay and it is allowed to flourish. It is much like the fat preachers I mentioned earlier. When I first became a Christian I had to ask people what gluttony was because I saw so many fat preachers and church leaders.

Gluttony is sin. How many people in churches are disciplined for that sin. Is any other sin any worse than a fat preacher who can hardly breathe who tells people how they ought to live when he is huffing and puffing like he has smoked and has emphysema? Have you seen any who are disciplined for that? Oh how we have our pet sins and ignore other sins in scripture–it is all inspired by God

I believe that preachers ought to be held accountable for the spiritual growth of their children. They ought to be discipling people. They ought to be leading the church in personal discipleship among those in the congregation. They ought to be sound both in mind and body. It is sad that the people don’t hold them accountable and give them the time and encouragement to keep themselves in good physical and mental condition. The insurance companies will tell you about why health insurance is so expensive. I know because when I quit pastoring my health insurance went down and I was older too.

We have gross sin in so many of our churches. The majority of pastors and leaders are not discipling anyone. They are busybodies doing what they call the work of ministry. I saw the look on the faces of the deacons of the last church I pastored when I told them I would be exercising for about one hour each day. But when it came time to put a roof on the church some of those same deacons could not even work one six hour day without being tired and sore and they were younger than me.

My personal conviction is that there ought not to be any pastors and leaders in any churches until they are prove themselves by discipling people. If they are not discipling people then they are not leaders. So don’t give them a leadership position until they have proven leadership. We woiuld never think of leaving a baby to fend for itself. Nor would we ever leave a baby to teach itself&gt; Yet so many leave the new Christian to try and grow all by themselves and reproduce spiritually.

So if you discipline in one area should you not exercise discipline in all areas?

You said, “The honor and glory of God is paramount.” I absolutely agree. We must never through our life give the Devil an opportunity. We must be accountable to those who will tell us the things we need to hear both good and critical. God will use it to perfect us.

 

By this latest reply of yours IMO you have proven yourself to be dispespectful of other posters as well as moderators. I will now be candid with you, I did not come to the defense of Dr. Bob as I feel he is quite capable of handling himself. I entered into this discussion because I felt you were over the top in your attack of Bob and in your failure to step away from the discussion even after he had. I also feel that as a new poster one should be especially careful in their posting. I responded especially to your declaration that you would remain tart until the end and Bob could mellow if he chose to. This is a christian board and one of the teachings of our Lord is submission. IMO your stance seemed to indicate that you would not yield, this board is a place to discuss and debate but those who refuse to yield are normally the ones who cause trouble. I hope you will grow into a respectful poster and not a troublemaker but you seem to be starting off in the wrong direction. Concerning your advise that I should be ready to take some punches I appreciate it but I have taken a few and have no trouble accepting them. You say that we have not adequately answered your posts but I honestly can't get to your intended points for all your angry spewing at Dr. bob. In closing please keep on laughing, I am glad someone is enjoying this.

Murph [/QB][/QUOTE]
=================================================
Hey Murph

I think you're a good guy trying to keep this board clean and Christian. Good! It is just that I see nothing disrespectful, angry, or unChristian in our exchanges. On the other hand, if there is something objectionable & unChristian, then Dr. Bob and I both are guilty. It was give and take.

You and I disagree but that's okay. Since further debate along this line is pointless, I will rest my case here and move on to something else.

Thanks for your comments. Best wishes.

Bye

 

I agree with the ladies pants. This is a cultural thing. Pants was not mentioned in the Bible as men or women's clothing. Also, Jesus came and we are no longer under the law in the OT, right? I believe we need to get to the Bible and preach instead of picking and chosing parts of scripture. My father-in-law is a retired Indepedent Baptist preacher and my mother-in-law wears pants. My husband is an ordained minister and he allows me to wear pants just not to church. That is how I was brought up too. But my Independent Baptist preacher condemns ladies wearing pants. But, he also has not had communion in over a year. So what is right and wrong here.