Biblical instruction vs personal opinion

[abcgrad94]

I admittedly do not read all of Luke's posts, but if someone posts something to me that truly bothers me, then either I need it or ignore it, not keep whining about it. And that is what this appears to be- at least to me.

I think what Amy is pointing out, is that Luke continually talks down to others. Phrases like "You're wrong" come across as attacking and if HE is "right." That is attacking the PERSON, not the position. Why can't Luke just say, "I disagree, and here is why" without making everything personal? Telling people they are wrong is arrogance and people do not appreciate that approach. Amy is not the only one to notice this.

I don't care how "right" someone thinks they are, if they can't be "right" without making others feel stupid or "in darkness" I'm not going to listen to a word they say.

 

[Luke2427]

Well of course I am. :laugh:
Have you ever agreed with me on anything?


I just left my church of several years because the pastor claimed this very thing, so I am against it. But I know the pastor loves the Lord. He is in error and I pray the Lord corrects him. But I did not scream heretic at him when I left. I told him why I was leaving, told him the truth, but I did it in love. What he does with it is between him and God. This is where I think you go wrong. Tell the truth, yes. But you don't have to be rude and condescending. We do our job and trust God to do His.

If I am right that kjvo is heresy then you did wrong. The bible is not ambiguous about how God expects you to address heresy. Nobody said anything about screaming. But plain, blunt, clear condemnation of it with the goal of demolishing it is your duty before God. You don't get to shirk your duty because you think you know better than God and then pretend that that is actually more Christian.

 

[Amy.G]

If I am right that kjvo is heresy then you did wrong. The bible is not ambiguous about how God expects you to address heresy. Nobody said anything about screaming. But plain, blunt, clear condemnation of it with the goal of demolishing it is your duty before God. You don't get to shirk your duty because you think you know better than God and then pretend that that is actually more Christian.

Did you read my post? I told the pastor the truth. How is that shirking my duty??? I did the right thing. What is your problem with me?

 

[Mexdeaf]

O,k I took a few minutes and read a few of both Luke's and "Seeking"s posts on various subjects and this is my decision:






"Boys, go to your rooms and don't come out until I tell you to!"

 

[seekingthetruth]

You are wrong, Amy. And many reputable Christian scholars attest to this.

When a man says that his version of the Bible is the only reliable version in the world today and that all others are perversions- that man has blatantly undermined the doctrine of inspiration.

STT may not believe this- I have not said that he does- but if you read his HORRIBLE- absolutely HORRIBLE comments about the NIV- you'd be an absolute HYPOCRITE to correct me here and not LAMBASTE him for the same thing.

I have NEVER said anything on baptistboard as horrible about someone as he said about our brothers in Christ who translated the NIV (that at least some of them were Christian cannot be questioned).

People who say those kinds of horrifc things about the NIV usually belong to this KJVO cult that I am condemning and that God commands you to condemn as well.

And the KJVO is not the only heresy found within the ranks of IFB and movements like them. Baptist Bride, a belief that most if not all SBC are going to hell and just about every other movement along with them, a type of ex cathedra from the pastors of this movement, a cultic isolationism, a legalism based on extrabiblical standards, and the list goes on and on and on and on....

Please point to the scriptures that state that IFB and KJVO are declared to be cults, and then show me where God "commands you to codemn them"?

Isn't the Baptist Bride doctrine from the Landmarkists? It is certainly not from the IFB church I go to. We do believe in being seperate from the world, but not "isolated" as you state. And we don't have extrabiblical standards as you suggest. You can wear what you want to wear at our church and noone will chastise you. You can use whatever Bible you want to and noone will critisize you.

We do believe the KJV to be the most accurate version available, and I personally believe that the NIV intentionally undermines the Deity of Christ.

None of this makes me a cultist or a heathen or non-christian.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

O,k I took a few minutes and read a few of both Luke's and "Seeking"s posts on various subjects and this is my decision:






"Boys, go to your rooms and don't come out until I tell you to!"

Oh please, put me in the same room with him and lock us in, for just 5 minutes, thats all I ask. I have some brotherly love i would like to share with him.:saint:

John

 

[Robert Snow]

Did you read my post? I told the pastor the truth. How is that shirking my duty??? I did the right thing. What is your problem with me?

He isn't going to change as long as others allow him the ability to continue to be rude and condescending. Ignore his foolishness until he learns how to respond in love.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

 

[glfredrick]

He isn't going to change as long as others allow him the ability to continue to be rude and condescending. Ignore his foolishness until he learns how to respond in love.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Pot/Kettle :BangHead:

 

[freeatlast]

Is it really that simple?

For example, is it wrong to play cards? Many of us grew up being taught it is a sin. I don't think anyone has ever shown me chapter and verse, however is there a concept in Scripture? Such as abstain from all appearances of evil - of which card playing could possibly fall into (gambling).
But then what about other card games such as Uno?

Same goes for dancing. Lets assume dancing is not prohibited by the Bible. So would it be wrong for 2 married people to dance with other partners..........

How about a demarkation line for what movies, TV shows, ect.
I supposed G rated is okay, but what about GP.
A few years ago Christians were encouraged to watch "The Passion of Christ" which was rated "R" (remember before ratings came out we were told that you never know what you might see in a movie?)

What other "Grey Zone" activities are there that may be hard to determine if it is true biblical instruction or simple personal opinion?

Salty

PS, I don't go to movies - why - too expensive - admission and the popcorn.

You make my point! I realize that it is not popular or fashionable to believe the bible today, but Yes it is that simple. If the bible says not to play cards then don't play. If it says not to dance then don't dance. Just believe the bible. And if you are in doubt about something don't do it as anything done without faith is sin. Just believe the bible.

 

[MB]

How do we discern between true biblical instruction and simple personal opinion? It is easy to take our own doctrinal beliefs and state them as fact, even to the point that we rebuke and condemn anyone that disagrees with us. The Cal/non-cal argument is a prime example. Both sides have very strong beliefs that their doctrine is the correct one. It is obvious that only one side can truly be right, but how can man come to a final decision on this that is actually God's doctrine and not man's? I don't think we can.

John

We can't that is why I rely on God I literally lean on Him for understanding and still men object and try to tell me I'm interpreting what I believe myself.
No one here seems to believe that God can and does speak to our hearts. and teaches us what we need to know. With out this I'd be empty.
MB

 

[freeatlast]

We can't that is why I rely on God I literally lean on Him for understanding and still men object and try to tell me I'm interpreting what I believe myself.
No one here seems to believe that God can and does speak to our hearts. and teaches us what we need to know. With out this I'd be empty.
MB

As long as He speaks what is written you are fine. If you start hearing things that disagree with scripture you are not hearing from God.

 

[MB]

Right. I don't think anybody is disputing this.

The point I am desperately trying to get across to STT and anyone else who does not yet realize it, is that we are not to allow darkness to go unchecked.
We are not to fellowship it. We are to reprove it. We are to demolish it. We are to contend against it. This is bible language for how God expects us to deal with darkness wherever we find it.

Darkness is not PEOPLE- it is ideas, philosophies, theologies, etc... that undermine the Christian Faith- the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints.

My enemy is not STT- my enemy is what IT SEEMS he espouses. I am not attacking him personally. I am attacking what appears to be his ideology- and all of us are supposed to do this too.

I am contending that it is unequivocally clear that much of modern fundamentalism does undermine the faith. I am in good company with many reputable evangelical scholars and leaders when I say MUCH of what is called "fundamentalism" today is cultic, legalistic and heretical.

What I am contending is that NO ABLE CHRISTIAN GETS TPT OUT OF HIS DUTY BEFORE GOD TO DEMOLISH THIS DARKNESS.

You don't get to say, "I think I will speak sweetly about it," or "I don't think I will be condemnatory; I will be more amiable towards it," etc...

That option is not available to you. You do not get to bypass your duty to DEMOLISH it (II Corinthians 10:5 for one of MANY examples).

And I am contending that we are losing our culture because we DON'T do this like we should- like God has commanded us to.

Luke Christ told us to separate our selves from the world not destroy it.
MB

 

[Mexdeaf]

Oh please, put me in the same room with him and lock us in, for just 5 minutes, thats all I ask. I have some brotherly love i would like to share with him.:saint:

John

This speaks volumes to me.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Obviously, everyone believes what they believe because they believe it is right. If someone believes differently than me, then I think they are wrong. It really is that simple.

What is not simple is how we handle it. Like it has been suggested, we have a duty to point out and destroy beliefs that harm the cause of Christ. However, if it does not harm the cause of Christ, there is no reason to cause a rift in the church(es) because of it.

If I am a KJVO (which I am preferred, but not an only), then how does that destroy/lessen the cause of Christ? Am I keeping (hindering) people from getting saved through this? Is my insistence that they use only the KJV stunting their Christian growth? In both cases my response would be a resounding "no". So, there is no need to "destroy" this belief.

Now, if someone is believing something that is hindering the cause of Christ, then yes, destroy that belief. But keep in mind that the method you use to rebuke the person may also hinder the cause of Christ. "Abstain from all appearance of evil". If it looks as if you are unrighteously indignant, and are out of control in your anger, it appears evil. If you show no love towards the person, it appears evil. Also, your method may look to others like a division, causing them to reject all teaching, not just the one it is directed at.

It's kind of like a "Mom vs Dad" arguement; if those on the outside see us bickering amongst ourselves constantly, they will think that we don't know what we are talking about on any subject. We need a united front against sin, and realize that things that don't hinder Christ's cause are not worth losing our testimony over.

 

[freeatlast]

Obviously, everyone believes what they believe because they believe it is right. If someone believes differently than me, then I think they are wrong. It really is that simple.

What is not simple is how we handle it. Like it has been suggested, we have a duty to point out and destroy beliefs that harm the cause of Christ. However, if it does not harm the cause of Christ, there is no reason to cause a rift in the church(es) because of it.

If I am a KJVO (which I am preferred, but not an only), then how does that destroy/lessen the cause of Christ? Am I keeping (hindering) people from getting saved through this? Is my insistence that they use only the KJV stunting their Christian growth? In both cases my response would be a resounding "no". So, there is no need to "destroy" this belief.

Now, if someone is believing something that is hindering the cause of Christ, then yes, destroy that belief. But keep in mind that the method you use to rebuke the person may also hinder the cause of Christ. "Abstain from all appearance of evil". If it looks as if you are unrighteously indignant, and are out of control in your anger, it appears evil. If you show no love towards the person, it appears evil. Also, your method may look to others like a division, causing them to reject all teaching, not just the one it is directed at.

It's kind of like a "Mom vs Dad" arguement; if those on the outside see us bickering amongst ourselves constantly, they will think that we don't know what we are talking about on any subject. We need a united front against sin, and realize that things that don't hinder Christ's cause are not worth losing our testimony over.

Woody I understand your desire to see harmony through compromise as that is the common answer today, but compromise always leads to error in some form as there is no compromise in truth and all error needs confronting. You gave the example of the KJV only as not hindering Christ, but it does. There are places in the KJV that are wrong as in any translation so that means the teaching stands against truth and Christ. There is no error that is not against Christ as Christ is truth and anything short of that is against Christ and hinders.

 

[HankD]

There is another test besides the doctrinal test as outlined in 1 John and other books. There must be both.

The walk and not just the talk.

I believe this issue is related to Luther's statement that the Epistle of James is an "epistle of straw".

As insightful as he was it appears to be an overreaction coming out of the works religion with which he was involved. Understandable.

If we take the passage with which Paul deals with "works-deeds" and don't truncate verse 10:

Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

That is; Faith causes good works, good works are not the cause of faith.​

So the only visible (since we cannot see the heart) is the "good works" or the walk of those who claim to be Christians.​

If we see the fruit of the Spirit in the life of those who make the claim of being born-again then if there is doctrinal disagreement (other than the essentials) we can have some assurity that their claim is valid.​

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.​

Because the fruit of the Spirit cannot be a product of unregenerate humanity.​

True, they can be mimicked but it's usually very shallow especially longsuffering, gentleness and goodness.​

That is not to say that we are incapable of the works of the flesh. If we are delinquent in the crucifying of the flesh then we will manifest its works and grieve the Spirit.​

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.​

HankD​

 

[Mexdeaf]

This speaks volumes to me.

As does the PM which I received in response. Someone needs to grow up.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Woody I understand your desire to see harmony through compromise as that is the common answer today...

I maintain that it is not compromise if you hold your ground. Compromise is a meeting in the middle. If a person told me that you could only get saved using the KJV, I would tell him why I believe he is wrong, not change my opinion, and go about my way. I would not associate myself with that person in any way that made it look as if I were of the same belief he was.

Same thing with "Baptist Briders". I don't believe the way they do. But, as long as they are working towards the same goal (of winning the lost) I would not cause a confrontation about it. But I would not compromise my position, either.

It is all about attitude, and making priorities. If I rebuke him in the wrong spirit, then I am guilty of the same if not a worse sin than the person I am rebuking. If I fail to use tact, and cause others to stumble or not get saved because of my actions, I am guilty of far worse than the one who is working to win the lost, yet has some doctrinal issues.

 

[freeatlast]

I maintain that it is not compromise if you hold your ground. Compromise is a meeting in the middle. If a person told me that you could only get saved using the KJV, I would tell him why I believe he is wrong, not change my opinion, and go about my way. I would not associate myself with that person in any way that made it look as if I were of the same belief he was.

Same thing with "Baptist Briders". I don't believe the way they do. But, as long as they are working towards the same goal (of winning the lost) I would not cause a confrontation about it. But I would not compromise my position, either.

It is all about attitude, and making priorities. If I rebuke him in the wrong spirit, then I am guilty of the same if not a worse sin than the person I am rebuking. If I fail to use tact, and cause others to stumble or not get saved because of my actions, I am guilty of far worse than the one who is working to win the lost, yet has some doctrinal issues.

There is only one side and no middle. if you see God compromising let me know and I will join in, but to date I know of no such thing in the bible. It is either His way or no way and I stand on that. No compromise or middle ground as you put it. Error is error and it needs to be stated, not met with compromise (middle ground).
By the way I certainly agree that we are to do the following.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
However that does not mean we are to compromise (meet at the middle).
I agree we need top state the truth in a proper manner, but that is not done by compromise (meeting at the middle).

 

[Sapper Woody]

No compromise or middle ground as you put it.

If that was aimed at me, I never said anything about middle ground. I am as anti-compromise as it gets. I will not compromise my beliefs (however, if I am found to be in error, and this is proven to me, I will change them to accurately reflect God's word). However, I think the difference we are having here is that once my stance is known to the person in error, I feel that I have lived up to my side of God's command. I have done my part by explaining to the person why I believe they are wrong. It is up to God to convict them and up to them to listen to God.

Error is error and it needs to be stated, not met with compromise (middle ground).
By the way I certainly agree that we are to do the following.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
However that does not mean we are to compromise (meet at the middle).
I agree we need top state the truth in a proper manner, but that is not done by compromise (meeting at the middle).

Again, I think we are now saying the same thing, only differing on what we consider to be compromise.