Featured Fundamentalists abstaining from the appearance of evil?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 preaching, bible reading, teaching materials, slides, etc.

 

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

 

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