Biblical instruction vs personal opinion

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.

 

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?

 

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!"

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

This speaks volumes to me.

 

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.

 

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​

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

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