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

Certainly a Christian should give up practices which can clearly become a stumbling block for himself or for others.

But that does not mean we must always be completely subject to the "convictions" of other Christians. Consider the subject of circumcision in the N.T.--at times Paul went with the flow, other times he opposed those who compelled it.

If I had to bow to every other Christian's list of do's and don'ts all the time I'd tie myself in knots trying to satisfy unreasonable expectations. There's no liberty in that way of life. Those who try to live that way will constantly be racked with false-guilt, or end up in rebellion. That I know from personal experience!

In Christ,

Tim

 

You said it well. One of the things I have only heard preached on once was gluttony. When I was a young Christian I saw so many fat preachers and really was confused about what it was. I am ashamed to associate with fat preachers. I grew up with arentgs who are non-believers and would hear comments about some preacher on TV that was way overweight. I often got the feeling by the comments that who was that preacher to tell someone how to live when he was fat as a pig. I grew up on a dairy farm. We worked hard and those preachers gave the image of being lazy and in need of exercise. My parents drilled in us the value of having food. We never wasted food. They grew up poor and had little. Then to see a fat preacher just drove a wedge between what they saw and what they heard. But when I became a pastor that was like the end of the world. We got a number of letters describing the ills of pastoring from those non-believers. Fortunately today most of them are good solid Christians.

We must try our best to please God and not be an offense to the gospel.

One time I used a refernce who was not a Christian that I had witnessed to and lived across the street from. I received a call asking me to provide another refeernce because they didn't want a non-christian reference. I always thought that pastors are to be above reproach. Christians shoul;d be the same way. I want to be the best neighbor I know how so that the door might be opened by the way I live.

 

QUOTE: I remember well a young man who had just come to Christ that told me he had quit smoking pot and was trying to quit smoking tobacco. Wouldn't you know it the very next day he comes to church and the preacher preaches on the ills of tobacco. I cannot think of a growing Christian that does not have the conviction that they shouldn't be smoking anf if they are they should quit. So when the pastor is preaching about smoking he is preaching to the dead and those who most likely are not reading God's word and growing as a Christian. On another occasion I was working on a man's home remodleing it. He was a Baptist. I saw the hugew pile of beer cans. Never said a word. Just prayed for him. Then after a few weeks he asked me about Jesus drinking wine. I told him that Jesus did drink wine and did not get drunk. Howevere I do not drink because I do not want to be an offense to anyone so as to hinder the gospel in a person's life. I never said a word to him about his beer. But God used what I said and several months later he threw out the beer. The Holy Spirit convicted him not me. He had heard numerous sermons in why it is wrong but also knew that Jesus drank wine. He had never resolved the issue in accordance with what Jesus did, what scripture teaches and what he heard preached. That man became my friend and we still communicate today. That was 13 years ago.

When I meet some people for the first time the baggage they have is incredible. But one thing I want is to teach them to walk with God. I want them to have the convictions that God wants not according to what I say. When I pray for them It seems to never fail that they begin to form their own convictions and so often they ask me about mine. When they ask they are listening for answers because they have probably been struggling with the idea/s. [/QB][/QUOTE]
-------------------------------------------------
REPLY: This is a sensible and balanced approach to a thorny problem. Balance is the key but balance is so hard to maintain. Have you ever noticed the tightrope walker? He constantly adjusts with his balnce stick to keep his balance. It is not a steady, rigid course. The danger here, I suppose, is that it is so easy to drift into acceptance and compromise with sinful behavior. Tennyson said, "It's sin that we first abhor, then tolerate, and then embrace." Some take it that we approve when we don't confront their sinfulness. There is a time for rebuke and confrontation, I believe. On the other hand, there is a time to patiently wait, pray, teach, and allow the Holy Spirit to accomplish His work in the heart. Only, let's not let pray become the passive excuse for not confronting sin. The hard thing is to know when to confront and when to allow time for growth. Scripture does command us to rebuke, exhort, and admonish. Furthermore, you are perfectly correct in pointing out the inner working of the Holy Spirit to produce convictions rather than outward conformity produced by man. Only God can change the heart. I think Philippians 2:12-13 says it very well. Ultimately, it is all of God. To God be the glory!

 

-------------------------------------------------
Why? Was Paul inconsistent? Were the situations the same or different? They were different! What principles did he apply in the two differing situation?

 

There is a time to strongly confront. I think that time is when the person refuses to do what is right. One time I confonted the deacons on a decison they made wthout me. It was wrong what they did and unbiblical as well. I told them that we needed t take a diferent course of action immediately. Well they didn't listen and lost all of the chruch's money except 3000 dollars in a local bank. They were convinced at how good an investment was. I told them how wrong they were and why. They accused me of going aginst them. I had been in business and handled close to one million dollars each month. I knew what they had embarked on did not make any sense either. But they disagreed with me and did their own thing. But they knew what I said. This kind of thing happened numerous times before they got tired of me and asked me ot leave. But since I left the church has not grown one person. Few have even been baptized. While I was there we saw more people come to Christ and were baptized than they had ever seen. But I have had other friends who have had the same experience as pastors.

But have you ever noticed how "A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding Than a hundred blows into a fool."

It seems that the person who wants to grow and do what is right, seldom needs a rebuke but just a gentle correction. But the fool does not listen nor accept your rebuke.

 

-------------------------------------------------

Well, Dr. Bob, Jr. Don't worry, I don't think the Jones boys would want to be associated with you either but I can't really speak for them.

One question. Do you think Baptists are Fundamentalists? There is supposedly correspondence still extant in the Manly family between W. B. Riley, a northern Baptist, and Basil Manly, Jr., a Southern Baptist. Riley asked Manly to join the Fundamentalists during the heat of the Fundamentalist-Modernist war. Manly replied, "I cannot join the Fundamentalists because I am a Baptist, not an ecumenicist." What do you think?

Here's the biggie. Who will win the orange war? CU? UT?

 

------------------------------------------------
Yeah, sometimes they drive by a second or third time. But, you gotta admit that it's pretty good shooting on the run. Huh?

 

paidagogos quoted:
"I cannot join the Fundamentalists because I am a Baptist, not an ecumenicist." What do you think?

That's a really excellent point I'd never considered before...

 

While these activities may not be found in Scripture verbatim, there is a Scripture applicable as to why Christians should avoid most of them.

1 Thess 5:21-22 says "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil."

We disciplined a church member some time ago who allowed her boyfriend to stay in her basement. Now, there is nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not let thy sweetheart sleep in thy house". Now, she says they don't sleep together, and so does her 15 year old daughter, and we trust their word, but, is there appearance of evil here or not.

The Bible says Abstain from all appearance of evil. That's the rule to follow. </font>[/QUOTE]It's a shame someone was disciplined for doing nothing wrong. If the church really trusted their word, it wouldn't have disciplined them without just cause. The Bible doesn't say to abstain from all appearance of evil: I forget whether that's a mistranslation or a case of an Elizabethan English word meaning something different than its modern counterpart nearly 400 years later. But what God's Word says is to avoid every form of evil. If these folks committed no act of evil, their church is in error.

 

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?

 

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? [/QB]</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.

 

Now THAT you will have to explain. How can it be "sinful" and not "sin". Sex in marriage is ALWAYS not sin. Sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS sin. No vascilating there, friend.

=================================================
Dr. Bob, Jr., you sure missed the boat again on this one. Perhaps you are in a hurry and don't read the posts very carefully. You do seem to make many erroneous assumptions and conclusions. A serious academician--assuming your doctorate is an academic doctorate rather than professional (i.e. MD, DDS, DVM, JD, etc.)--should not read his own assumptions into another's words. Also, he should delimit his statements. Over-generalizations are usually false at some point.

You said, "Sex in marriage is ALWAYS not sin." Well, can there be perverted sex between husband and wife? What about S/M? I will not continue here to avoid being accused of being vulgar, which you did accuse me in a previous post, but you can think along these lines and find some reprehensible and sinful things that can be done sexually between husband and wife. So, your absolute statement of "ALWAYS" is FALSE!

Let's rock your boat a little more! Incest between brother and sister is wrong. Right? Can marriage justify the incest between a brother who marries his sister? But, what about Cain and his brothers who married their sisters? Do the standards of what is sin and what is not sin change? Whoa! Now, we're heading down the road of relativism. Do you know the Biblical answer?

 

More attacks. Remember, I AM a historic fundamental Baptist and champion it on the BB. Ask even my enemies.

But the list of pharisaical "standards" - of which NONE, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH are found on any page of any translation of God's Word - like playing cards or wearing slacks are very real areas of very real discussion.

My own "weak standards"? WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE YOUR BROTHER?

Okay. I've wasted enough time. Brother/sister, hang around. Read 20 posts before you post 1. See what people MEAN and a little about them before you launch into an ill-informed diatribe that will only make you look like a clown. [/QB][/QUOTE]
==================================================

You exhort me to understand what you mean? I think that I do. Just what did I misunderstand? Please explain instead of screaming that I should read twenty posts to understand you.

The ball is in your court, Doc!

[ December 20, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

More attacks. Remember, I AM a historic fundamental Baptist and champion it on the BB. Ask even my enemies.

But the list of pharisaical "standards" - of which NONE, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH are found on any page of any translation of God's Word - like playing cards or wearing slacks are very real areas of very real discussion.

My own "weak standards"? WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE YOUR BROTHER?

Okay. I've wasted enough time. Brother/sister, hang around. Read 20 posts before you post 1. See what people MEAN and a little about them before you launch into an ill-informed diatribe that will only make you look like a clown. [/QB][/QUOTE]
==================================================

Bob, why did you leave out part of my post in the above quote? Was it an accident that you left out the and "No offense intended" statement?
Did you want to vilify me?

 

Dr. Bob, I don't think that things ought to be judged by their outward appearances ALL of the time. The only thing I might have a tendency not to really tolerate is the cursing. Why? Because it took so long to quit cursing. If I'm around it much, I might not be able to keep my tongue quiet if I'm ticked off.

Other than that, I don't think ANY of these things other than that are evil in and of themselves. I still consider meself a fundamentalist, but not a Pharisee. Not in any way implying you are. I'm glad you put these kinds of questions forth to make us study and think.

AJL

 

=================================================
Hey Dr. Bob, Jr.

So, I have a problem? Would you please tell me what it is? Your posts are mostly generalities without specific content. Please be specific. It's hard shooting and hitting clouds.

Furthermore, please refute my ideas instead of attacking me. Have you noticed the difference between our posts. I attack your assertions whereas you attack my person by casting doubts about my character or mental state. Sorry, but you are not knowledgeable enough (i.e you do not know anything about me except for what you may guess from my few posts) nor qualified to make such assertions. Ad homenim attacks are considered hitting below the belt in rational argumentation. Contrary to your accusations, I have not attacked your person, character, or mental capacity. Folks generally attack their opponent's person when their arguments are weak.

Yes, we all snip and quote but the important thing what we choose to snip and what we choose to quote. We must be fair as not to skew our opponent's argument. A statement out-of-context can put him in a bad light. Be fair!

BTW, there is NFFENSE intended or given in hitting hard at another's ideas. One must separate the person from the concepts. I can lamblast your ideas without blasting and degrading you. However, there seems to be a deep seated paranoia in our society today. If you disagree stongly with someone, then they think you are attacking them. Wrong! Is not there a place for strong debate and argument? Are we such weaklings and pansies that we cannot stand disagreement? I'm not offended even though you cast doubt on my person--I'm secure! I'll take the high road and you choose whatever road that you would like ............

Bye!

 

=================================================
Yes, I did cut some text from your post but I indicated that I did so that anyone is free to read your whole post in context. I'm being fair.

Yes, "no offense intended" means exactly what it says. I am not trying to offend or belittle you. However, I am challenging your ideas. You may defeat my statements with logic and wit but you have no grounds for personal offense. On the other hand, you have repeatedly been offensive toward me by name-calling, snide remarks and innuendo about my competency, character, motives, intentions, etc. Now, say it ain't true! How can you judge my motives and intentions over the internet? Are you psychic or something? I really don't think that God endued you with a "Word of Knowledge" about me.

Dr. Bob, I 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.

 

=================================================
Hey Dr. Bob! It's me again. Would you please define "pseduo-fundamentalists"? Are you saying that I am one? Have I claimed to be a fundamentalist or a Fundamentalist?

How do you know that I favor "a vapid legalism under the guise of 'standards'"? Please define legalism. Everyone who believes that adultery is sin has some standard. It is just a question of what the standard is. Is this legalism? Does your standard allow for practicing "Christian homosexuals"? From what I perceive your definition of legalism is, then it follows that anyone who has a moral standard prohibiting homosexuality is a legalist too.

I anticipate that you will scream, "But that's forbidden by Scripture." True, but it does not necessarily follow that ALL SIN is specifically named and forbidden in Scripture. The Bible is NOT a book of lists. Principles and precepts also define the sinful. For example, modesty for women is a Biblical principle. In applying the modesty principle, one may come to the conviction that a bathing suit is not modest for a woman. Does this make that person a legalist? Please tell me at what point does modesty become immodesty.

BTW, I sure wish you would try to answer my questions. It is rather worrisome trying to pin you down on specific matters.

BYE!

 

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:

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.

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.

Murph