Fundamentalists abstaining from the appearance of evil?

[JonC]

I would do that without any concern, but just think that at times Chrsitians shoudl grow up a bit, as in judging others for going to see a movie, having a drink, having cable tv etc!

I agree we need to be careful not to descend into "legalism". But more than that I believe we, as a whole, need to be more sensitive to sin than is typically pictured in our churches. We need to stop looking after our "rights" and start living for our brothers and sisters in Christ above living for ourselves. We need to go that extra mile instead of questioning why we should bear the burden of another at the expense of our wants and desires.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree we need to be careful not to descend into "legalism". But more than that I believe we, as a whole, need to be more sensitive to sin than is typically pictured in our churches. We need to stop looking after our "rights" and start living for our brothers and sisters in Christ above living for ourselves. We need to go that extra mile instead of questioning why we should bear the burden of another at the expense of our wants and desires.

But there are times when some just need to grow up, and accepot that at times their preferences and convictions are for them and not for all Christians.

 

[JonC]

But there are times when some just need to grow up, and accepot that at times their preferences and convictions are for them and not for all Christians.

Paul said he would give up what he knew to be lawful in being mindful of the other's convictions. Notice he doesn't see his task as changing a brother on such trivial matters but instead places their conscience above his desires and goes about the business of the Kingdom.

I attend a KJO church. They do not hold the heresy of double inspiration yet they do believe the KJV a superior translation. They cannot understand how the KJV and the NKJV could both be the Word of God (they struggle understanding the fundamental meaning of a translated text vs the original text in this regard). If I argue against their position I would run the risk of causing some to doubt the English Bible could ever be God's Word. I could easily be an obstacle to many. I believe when I hold a KJV (and an ESV or NASB) I hold God's Word. I prefer the NASB or NKJV. Guess which I carry.

 

[Yeshua1]

Paul said he would give up what he knew to be lawful in being mindful of the other's convictions. Notice he doesn't see his task as changing a brother on such trivial matters but instead places their conscience above his desires and goes about the business of the Kingdom.

I attend a KJO church. They do not hold the heresy of double inspiration yet they do believe the KJV a superior translation. They cannot understand how the KJV and the NKJV could both be the Word of God (they struggle understanding the fundamental meaning of a translated text vs the original text in this regard). If I argue against their position I would run the risk of causing some to doubt the English Bible could ever be God's Word. I could easily be an obstacle to many. I believe when I hold a KJV (and an ESV or NASB) I hold God's Word. I prefer the NASB or NKJV. Guess which I carry.

We cannot use our own preferences and convictions though the moral standard for all, for while I would never take win before a Christian offended by that act, neither shoudl they go in fromnt of the ovies to grab away any of their christian friends in line!

 

[JonC]

We cannot use our own preferences and convictions though the moral standard for all, for while I would never take win before a Christian offended by that act, neither shoudl they go in fromnt of the ovies to grab away any of their christian friends in line!

Are you suggesting (going back to Paul's words about the "weaker" brother) that those who believe it is wrong to eat mean sacrificed to idols, those who truly believe it is an abomination to God, should keep quiet about the conviction? Do you see the difference between the weaker and the one who could eat the meat in terms of Christian conduct and liberty?

If not, maybe this would help - If I have a brother who believes attending a movie is a sin and I attend the movie, I am a poor witness to that brother and have placed my desire for entertainment over his conscience (I've considered two hours of worthless entertainment over the communion he and I may have otherwise shared in Christ). If he never attends a movie he offends no one.

Do you see how it's different? Christian liberty is never taken up - it is always laid down.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you suggesting (going back to Paul's words about the "weaker" brother) that those who believe it is wrong to eat mean sacrificed to idols, those who truly believe it is an abomination to God, should keep quiet about the conviction? Do you see the difference between the weaker and the one who could eat the meat in terms of Christian conduct and liberty?

If not, maybe this would help - If I have a brother who believes attending a movie is a sin and I attend the movie, I am a poor witness to that brother and have placed my desire for entertainment over his conscience (I've considered two hours of worthless entertainment over the communion he and I may have otherwise shared in Christ). If he never attends a movie he offends no one.

Do you see how it's different? Christian liberty is never taken up - it is always laid down.

My main point would be that Paul, and God, would ask us never to buy a movie ticket froa Christian friend who sees it as being evil, but that same person should not be in front of the threatre hounding and yelling at Christians who decide to go see a a movie!

 

[JonC]

My main point would be that Paul, and God, would ask us never to buy a movie ticket froa Christian friend who sees it as being evil, but that same person should not be in front of the threatre hounding and yelling at Christians who decide to go see a a movie!

Of course not, I agree. We judge the church, not the world. The issue would be whether or not a church should confront the member who goes to a movie, and this (I believe) depends on the church. If the church as a whole is "anti-alcohol" and that is a doctrine upon which they have determined to stand, then they are right to condemn a brother's consumption of wine.

Taking it a little closer to home for me - If I choose to read aloud in church from my NASB then the congregation is right to correct me because going in I know that they have determined the KJV to be the only translation to be read aloud when we are assembled.

We have somehow come up with a loose idea of what the church (the assembly) actually is. We assemble around the gospel and "in Christ". But we also assemble around other beliefs we have determined important enough to consider dogmatic. And as congregations we disagree as to what these issues are. Given the issues and challenges within each congregation, why on earth would we look to condemn the practices of another church (much less the world). We shouldn't be such busybodies, as we have enough to do with the task God has presented each of us - that is, to function as a working member of a church body....to accomplish the work He has prepared beforehand that we accomplish.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course not, I agree. We judge the church, not the world. The issue would be whether or not a church should confront the member who goes to a movie, and this (I believe) depends on the church. If the church as a whole is "anti-alcohol" and that is a doctrine upon which they have determined to stand, then they are right to condemn a brother's consumption of wine.

Taking it a little closer to home for me - If I choose to read aloud in church from my NASB then the congregation is right to correct me because going in I know that they have determined the KJV to be the only translation to be read aloud when we are assembled.

We have somehow come up with a loose idea of what the church (the assembly) actually is. We assemble around the gospel and "in Christ". But we also assemble around other beliefs we have determined important enough to consider dogmatic. And as congregations we disagree as to what these issues are. Given the issues and challenges within each congregation, why on earth would we look to condemn the practices of another church (much less the world). We shouldn't be such busybodies, as we have enough to do with the task God has presented each of us - that is, to function as a working member of a church body....to accomplish the work He has prepared beforehand that we accomplish.

The Biblacl model though is that my convictions and preferences cannot extend over another in Christ, as in your case, if you are the pastor and are persuaded to preach/teach from the Nas, than the members should be judging you for what you say, not version saying it from!

 

[JonC]

The Biblacl model though is that my convictions and preferences cannot extend over another in Christ, as in your case, if you are the pastor and are persuaded to preach/teach from the Nas, than the members should be judging you for what you say, not version saying it from!

It depends on the convictions of the congregation. While an "overseer" the pastor is not "above" the congregation. Personally, I would not pastor a KJO congregation because I do not believe it to be the most accurate translation in our language. But while I do feel strongly about this, I do not feel so strongly that it would prevent me from setting aside my conviction for the benefit of others. If I did, then I would leave the congregation rather than try to conform them to my convictions.

This is the second church I've attended that mandated what translation was to be used in service. My last church mandated the NASB be used (and I used it for all readings in church). It, like the KJO church I've been attending, is a very active church with a heart for making disciples. But in both cases I believe the decision for one specific translation to be flawed. And in both cases I respect the decision of the congregation.

 

[Yeshua1]

It depends on the convictions of the congregation. While an "overseer" the pastor is not "above" the congregation. Personally, I would not pastor a KJO congregation because I do not believe it to be the most accurate translation in our language. But while I do feel strongly about this, I do not feel so strongly that it would prevent me from setting aside my conviction for the benefit of others. If I did, then I would leave the congregation rather than try to conform them to my convictions.

This is the second church I've attended that mandated what translation was to be used in service. My last church mandated the NASB be used (and I used it for all readings in church). It, like the KJO church I've been attending, is a very active church with a heart for making disciples. But in both cases I believe the decision for one specific translation to be flawed. And in both cases I respect the decision of the congregation.

I have never jeard of a Nas only church or group, I would not mind that one myself!

 

[JonC]

I have never jeard of a Nas only church or group, I would not mind that one myself!

The idea was that it was the most accurate translation (word for word) of the translated text (same with the KJO congregation I am currently visiting). People use different translations, but the church deems one the preferred and only one for use in church.

 

[Yeshua1]

The idea was that it was the most accurate translation (word for word) of the translated text (same with the KJO congregation I am currently visiting). People use different translations, but the church deems one the preferred and only one for use in church.

For use in in preaching/teaching/presentation slides?

 

[JonC]

For use in in preaching/teaching/presentation slides?

For use in preaching, bible reading, teaching materials, slides, etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

For use in preaching, bible reading, teaching materials, slides, etc.

I would have no problem with that, as long as church did not forbid us able to have and use other versions at home...

 

[JonC]

I would have no problem with that, as long as church did not forbid us able to have and use other versions at home...

It's one I wrestled with, but I landed where you are.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's one I wrestled with, but I landed where you are.

Many churches actually do it that way, as they pick one version to be used while on "church business:

 

[Salty]

We cannot use our own preferences and convictions though the moral standard for all, for while I would never take win before a Christian offended by that act, neither shoudl they go in fromnt of the ovies to grab away any of their christian friends in line!

Problem is that some consider a preference to be a conviction.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Paul said he would give up what he knew to be lawful in being mindful of the other's convictions. Notice he doesn't see his task as changing a brother on such trivial matters but instead places their conscience above his desires and goes about the business of the Kingdom.

I attend a KJO church. They do not hold the heresy of double inspiration yet they do believe the KJV a superior translation. They cannot understand how the KJV and the NKJV could both be the Word of God (they struggle understanding the fundamental meaning of a translated text vs the original text in this regard). If I argue against their position I would run the risk of causing some to doubt the English Bible could ever be God's Word. I could easily be an obstacle to many. I believe when I hold a KJV (and an ESV or NASB) I hold God's Word. I prefer the NASB or NKJV. Guess which I carry.

Please Jon, you are tech savvy and use a tablet... who is kidding who???

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You better not have desserts around me... I’m diabetic. Also forget the sweet tea and putting sugar in your coffee. While your at it, no milk or dairy cus I’m lactose intolerant.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One body/one bride/one church!

And what church is that may I ask?