The Sword of the Lord is an APOSTATE Baptist Newspaper!

How can it be apostate if it isn't part of a church anyway? Isn't it wayward churches that are apostate?

 

It can't be unless it goes off track from preaching the Word of God. WinDork has applied his own definition to this thread and he's been proven wrong.

 

I think what he said is that the SWOL is not out of a local church which every ministry since Acts 2 has been found to have it's origen from the loval church and under it's authority.

The usage of "apostate" only fits as the SWOL not being under any local church authority but is instead under the authority of a group of preachers since Dr. Rice's departure into the eternal.

I don't care much for the paper myself due to it's tendacy to exalt preachers by preachers.

I do have my favorite preachers, but I am not bust promoting them by the means of a newspaper.

One I don't care too much for either is the one put out by Crown College.

 

Not personal, just wondering if you went to movies or watched TV movies. You seemed to be in agreement with the Sword statement when you said this:

The quote also does not say that if one goes to a movie one is not serious about being a Christian, but only that he/she is not serious about his/her stand on personal separation.

So anyone who goes to a movie is not serious about their stand on personal separation?

You also said this:

This easily fits in with the usual Fundamentalist doctrine that personal separation keeps you from temptation

Do you not associate with people? Or only those who are in the Fundamentalist camp? Does temptation only come from lack of personal separation?

What do you call it if not legalism when men like Hyles stand in the pulpit and tell women they shouldn't wear pants or men they shouldn't have long hair?

 

You still haven't proven that the SOTL is apostate, Windork. I've read The Trail of Blood and it certainly does NOT define apostate as you evidently are--a ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ that is not under the umbrella of the local church. In fact, I have read many books on doctrine, church history, etc., and NONE of them ever defined apostate like you do. You are sadly unique.

And now you are comparing a ministry founded by an evangelist with great love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the winning of souls and the truth of the Word of God--WITH ADULTERY????? RIDICULOUS!!

Can you give me any scripture--ANY AT ALL--that forbids someone to start a ministry that is not under the direct umbrella of the local church. No? I thought not. THERE ARE NONE!! You, sir, with your wild accusations, have no Biblical basis at all for your beliefs.

 

Not personal, just wondering if you went to movies or watched TV movies. You seemed to be in agreement with the Sword statement when you said this:

The quote also does not say that if one goes to a movie one is not serious about being a Christian, but only that he/she is not serious about his/her stand on personal separation.

So anyone who goes to a movie is not serious about their stand on personal separation?

You also said this:

This easily fits in with the usual Fundamentalist doctrine that personal separation keeps you from temptation

Do you not associate with people? Or only those who are in the Fundamentalist camp? Does temptation only come from lack of personal separation?

What do you call it if not legalism when men like Hyles stand in the pulpit and tell women they shouldn't wear pants or men they shouldn't have long hair? </font>[/QUOTE]What I believe is not the subject. The original OP subject is the Sword of the Lord. In this thread I am defending the SOTL from a ridiculous charge that it is apostate. I then saw an attack from the other side of the aisle by you, and I defended it from that direction.

But all of a sudden you started making huge assumptions about who I am and what I believe. What I believe about movies is not the subject here. I am simply making sure the SOTL is quoted correctly and understood correctly. Along the way I am also honestly trying to help folk like you understand the difference between personal separation and legalism.

And your charge that I live a monk's life is ridiculous to all who know me, even those who know me slightly on the BB. I am a missionary to Japan, living in a town of 365,000 heathen Japanese, trying to win them to Christ, and you somehow think I live a monk's life because I believe in personal separation? It is to laugh!!

I have corrected your false view of legalism with a very clear theological definition by a non-Fundamentalist theologian, yet you persist. To answer your question in accordance with that definition, it is not legalism if a preacher preaches against long hair on men and pants on women unless he tells folk they will receive merit from God for such things. Why cannot you allow someone to believe differently than you do on such matters? Why attack them with a spurious "legalism" charge simply because you disagree?

(For the record, I personally have never preached on those subjects. In the Japanese culture issues of personal separation must be dealt with in private to avoid loss of face.)

In order to avoid further sidetracking this thread, I suggest you start another thread on the Fundamentalist doctrine of personal separation, and I would be happy to school you there when I have time off from my monkish existence here among the heathen Japanese.

 

I will end it here, but it is not I that won't allow someone to have a different belief on such matters, it was preachers like Hyles and the "Swordies". Why couldn't Hyles, Curtis, etc allow people within their own church or denomination decide for themselves what their personal conduct would be? If you have a personal conviction about hair length, music, or separation, then great. I support you 100%. But when others decide for me what is and isn't "christian behaviour" then they get into "adding to the bible". Call it what you want, I call it legalism. You don't seem to have a name for it.

It wasn't my order to disassociate from a fellow believer because he had WA Criswell speak at his church.

God bless you in your mission efforts, just hope you don't fall to temptation for associating with lost people.

This easily fits in with the usual Fundamentalist doctrine that personal separation keeps you from temptation

 

I will end it here, but it is not I that won't allow someone to have a different belief on such matters, it was preachers like Hyles and the "Swordies". Why couldn't Hyles, Curtis, etc allow people within their own church or denomination decide for themselves what their personal conduct would be? If you have a personal conviction about hair length, music, or separation, then great. I support you 100%. But when others decide for me what is and isn't "christian behaviour" then they get into "adding to the bible". Call it what you want, I call it legalism. You don't seem to have a name for it.

It wasn't my order to disassociate from a fellow believer because he had WA Criswell speak at his church.

God bless you in your mission efforts, just hope you don't fall to temptation for associating with lost people.

This easily fits in with the usual Fundamentalist doctrine that personal separation keeps you from temptation </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, but I'm going to have one last word here (as you are welcome to do after me ), just to be sure you are understanding, because you still seem to think that personal separation means separation from persons. The doctrine you are referring to in the SOTL is "ecclesiastical separation." To take it as far as the article you are referring to in the SOTL is called "secondary separation," and many Fundamentalists do not take it that far.

"Personal separation" does not mean to separate from lost people or from other saved people. It means to have standards of living that keep your personal life separate from practices that lead into temptation, offend other Christians or fail to present a proper Christian testimony. All Christians have such standards. Fundamentalists have made it a doctrine.

God bless!

 

While no one can rewrite history, surely you are not suggesting that the rethinking of a particular doctrine is the same as justifying scriptural sin? If that were true, then it seems you've just placed historical baptist confessions at the same lever as scripture...but I doubt you really want to do that.

 

Out of the three books listed, I have only read "The Trail of Blood" so I can't comment on the other two, but will try to read them later...but as for the TOB, talk about rewriting history!
The whole point to the TOB is to prove we have a lineage without going through the heretic RCC, but what Carroll does is takes us through other heretics like the monatists, donatists, and paulicians. My question is what does it matter which heretical group we came out of? They were all heretics.

And as for the alien baptism and Local church vs universal church, (along with baptist bridism, which is what Carroll is trying to prove) These doctrines were not around until the mid 19th century.

I guess if you are a landmarker, the SOTL would be apostate to you.

Are there other Landmarkers that agree with Windork?
Windork, are you a landmark Baptist? Just curious.

 

I will end it here, but it is not I that won't allow someone to have a different belief on such matters, it was preachers like Hyles and the "Swordies". Why couldn't Hyles, Curtis, etc allow people within their own church or denomination decide for themselves what their personal conduct would be? If you have a personal conviction about hair length, music, or separation, then great. I support you 100%. But when others decide for me what is and isn't "christian behaviour" then they get into "adding to the bible". Call it what you want, I call it legalism. You don't seem to have a name for it.

It wasn't my order to disassociate from a fellow believer because he had WA Criswell speak at his church.

God bless you in your mission efforts, just hope you don't fall to temptation for associating with lost people.

This easily fits in with the usual Fundamentalist doctrine that personal separation keeps you from temptation </font>[/QUOTE]Grasshopper,

Were you ever a member of any of these congregations? Seems to me you are just speculating as to what these pastors "allow" their members to decide. I grew up in Shelton Smith's church (COD in Westminster, MD.), and I am no longer IFB, however, I do not have anything bad to say about the man or his teaching. Standards were laid out, as they would be in many a church, but people were not shunned or turned away for not following them to a T. In other words, members were permitted to "decide for themselves". In the youth group we, (the girls), were not forced to wear skirts, and many of us wore shorts and/or pants. All that was asked was that they were modest, i.e., "daisy dukes" would be inappropriate.

I may not agree with the all personal standards and convictions of Dr. Smith, however, I cannot, nor can anyone else who actually knows the man, deny that he has a zeal and a passion for the Lord. He has no problem associating with the lost. He is, in fact, a great witness for the Lord. When I saw him at a conference only a few months ago, he did not look down on me, or my husband, because we are filmmakers. He was all kindness, and yes, he knew about our ministry long before the conference.

There are some fundamentalists who are "legalists", however some forms of personal separation are not legalist, as John of Japan has already aptly, and more eloquently, pointed out. You are blurring the lines between the two.

 

Two quotes from Spurgeon came to mind as I read aspects of this thread:

• Spurgeon: Do not say of such-and-such an error, “Oh, it is a mere matter of opinion.” If it be a matter of opinion to-day, it will be a matter of practice to-morrow. No man has an error of judgment, without sooner or later having an error in practice.

• Spurgeon: It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one.

It seems if you have high standards you are a legalist. If you have low standards you are a better Christian.

John of Japan, I enjoyed your posts! Good points well said!

 

Arigato, mnw. ("Thank you!")

 

Which one of your references states that ministries can only exist within the boundaries and under the authority of the local church?

 

Are you or are you not a Landmarker?Knowing that will help us understand you better.

 

The dork is a nut! Should be enough for a "man" to call himself a dork. That ought to tell us something. Dirkie....I am a local "Flaming Tourch" church Baptist with a BIG "B". All the Sword of the Lord paper is is a paper of helps for the Christian, nothing more. The people on here that get bent out of shape over the SOL get the same way about anything or anyone that preaches any kind of separation. If you talk you Dr. Smith, he will tell you that he has no authority over any church nor does he want to any more that any book you endorsed here. Get over it buddy and quit calling people names. Name calling does not help idiots like you on here at all.