Hey, Jack

BB I feel we have fallen into a dissagreement here my brother, I will hold to the belief that when the Word of God says something it means it. If a person will read the word but rather than accept that the scripture speaks concerning a situation they rationalize or reason it away by claiming it says something else that they are calling God a liar. I for one don't use this as a tactic to control or to disqualify that person but the bible does speak about the heretic after the second admonition. I don't appreciate the title of fantastically arrogant and I don't understand why it is spiritually damning to stand on God's truth as it is clearly written. Are you calling me fanstactically arrogant for stating that I believe the Bible means what it says?
Murph

 

BB I feel we have fallen into a dissagreement here my brother, I will hold to the belief that when the Word of God says something it means it.</font>[/QUOTE]That's right. I do too. But sometimes two believers will honestly come to different conclusions about a teaching. It does happen quite a bit. Does that mean the one with whom you disagree is an enemy of God ("calling God a liar")?

Kind of like how some posters recently did theological backflips to explain away the fact that Phoebe was a deacon in the church in Rome (Romans 16:1)?

Would you say that those who deny that Phoebe was a deacon are "calling God a liar"?

I am not making any specific claims against anyone. I realize that this may be a new way of thinking for some folks because pastors have been spouting the "...calling God a liar" line for many years and it just may be the force of habit that makes people repeat that line of attack.

But I am calling anyone fantastically arrogant, who cannot somehow understand that a person who disagrees with their understanding of scripture is not necessarily "calling God" anything nor is an enemy of God.

To repeat the previous question I posed: Should I describe those who deny that Phoebe was a deacon in the church in Rome as "calling God a liar"?

 

Where do these ideas come from?... That you can't play card games without becoming a 'sharp' or a compulsive gambler? That you can't have a glass of wine with your meal without becoming an alcoholic? That you can't kiss or dance without ending up in bed together?

But of course you CAN kill thousands of Japanese, Vietnames, Iraqis, etc., in defense of 'country,' not God. You CAN sentence a convicted felon to death, to 'life without parole,' or 99 years in spite of "judge not lest you be judged." You CAN sing songs with false or questionable lyrics if they're in the hymnbook, but you can't sing direct quotes from scripture if they are accompanied by a certain style of music.

Thankfully most Baptists don't buy these 'traditional principles' hook, line, and sinker. I trust there were many who never did.

 

Where do these ideas come from?... That you can't play card games without becoming a 'sharp' or a compulsive gambler? That you can't have a glass of wine with your meal without becoming an alcoholic? That you can't kiss or dance without ending up in bed together?

But of course you CAN kill thousands of Japanese, Vietnames, Iraqis, etc., in defense of 'country,' not God. You CAN sentence a convicted felon to death, to 'life without parole,' or 99 years in spite of "judge not lest you be judged." You CAN sing songs with false or questionable lyrics if they're in the hymnbook, but you can't sing direct quotes from scripture if they are accompanied by a certain style of music.

Thankfully most Baptists don't buy these 'traditional principles' hook, line, and sinker. I trust there were many who never did.</font>[/QUOTE]Your posting was going along real good until the part about "judge not that ye be not judged." What in the world are you trying to say? Is society not to put criminals in jail who prey on others in society? In this instance, I judge your logic as being flawed.

 

I didn't grow up being taught that playing cards was wrong -- I did grow up being taught that gambling (particularly in casinos but in other situations too) was poor stewardship of God's blessings, particularly as there is always a risk that one could become addicted to it.

I see a big difference between "playing with cards" in terms of a person who spends all their resources gambling and my mom's bridge clubs (all of whom are ladies who in addition to playing together also pray together!).

 

Folks, when you use the "quote" features of the BB, please do not quote the entire post of the previous person, when in fact you are addressing only a part of what has been written. It is a terrible waste of our resources (bandwidth, etc.). Quote only the essential part of the text. You can always delete the rest of the post but simply highlighting and "cut" or by just using the "backspace" or the "delete" keys on your computer. Thank you for your kind cooperation.

Baptist Believer, I don't like the way this thread is going and your personal disagreement with C.S. Murphy is taking an undesirable turn. Please be careful with the words you are using, and putting into the mouth of the other person. I agree with you that we can respectfully disagree with each other. It happens with me all the time. But I do not make such a big fuss about it, such as I see here taking place. I am a "bottom line" man. Do not like too much discussion for the sake of discussion. If I have a point, I make it and hope that the other person got it without being offended. If offence did occur, then I will be the first to apologize - that is the Christian way.

Now, I have an observation about what you have posted Bro. Baptist Believer (I assume that you are a male of the species) about Phoebe being a "deacon" in the early church. Here is part of your quote: "Phoebe was a deacon in the church in Rome (Romans 16:1)?"

I assume that you are referring to the Greek word, which means "Servant." Because that is what the word meant in the life of the early church (See Acts 6:1-6). However, when Paul commending Phebe (KJV), his fellow laborer, to the church, he calls her a "servant" and then describe her service as a "helper" (Romans 16:1, 2). I trust you agree that this is not to be confused with the "office" of a deacon.

 

When I went to a Baptist University a few (many) years ago, Card playing was against the rules and we would have been expelled if we were caught playing cards.

I don't think they have such a rule now.

I don't see anything wrong with playing games with cards or dice.

 

Yes. It was never my intention to speak specifically about any one person, but the thread deviated when Murph mentioned that he uses the “you are calling God a liar” lingo in his dealings with other people. But he is far from the only person who uses that lingo here and in the “real” world. My remarks are intended to address the general audience, not Murph in particular. If he gets some benefit from it, that’s good too.

Yes. That’s the point I am trying to make. Just because we may disagree with each other on the meaning of scripture does not make one or the other an enemy of God (“calling God a liar”) or an enemy of each other. In my opinion, it is “fantastically arrogant” to assume that we are infallible interpreters of God’s word, so we should act humbly with one another and try to use our common experience, understanding, wisdom, and the expression of the Holy Spirit that is in each believer to help each other understand and obey God’s word more effectively.

That’s what the doctor says…

Actually, I believe Phoebe was a “deacon” or “servant” in the same sense that the male deacons were. (I do not believe that the New Testament church used deacons as a board of elders like so many Baptist churches do today. The “deacons” were simply servants of the church that helped the pastors of the church minister by taking care of practical needs within the church and reached out to the broader community.

I understand this role as being open to both men and women. Our church has a very active deacon ministry with both men and women represented. The deacon body is a servant ministry at our church, not a “ruling” ministry.

But this thread is not about female deacons… I was simply using a recent thread as an example of where honest and faithful believers differed on an issue. If I remember correctly, Murph was on the side that did not allow female deacons. Yet there is a clear verse of scripture that indicates that Phoebe was a deacon (diakon-) in Rome. I was simply pointing out to him that to many of us, it looks like he is ignoring a clear word of scripture because of his understanding of other passages. But others of us find a clearer and more consistent interpretation by accepting Romans 16:1 at face value. I was merely trying to point out that for either side to say that the other is “calling God a liar” is prideful foolishness, since both since are committed to scripture and are not “calling God” anything but “Lord”.

If Murph wants to discuss this issue (“Calling God a Liar”) further, perhaps he can start a new thread so as not to disturb this weighty discussion of keeping up appearances.

Thanks!

 

Baptist Believer, thank you for clarifying your approach. Now, touching on the Phebe issue (although, as you said, this is not the main topic of this thread), I'd like to add some additional details here. Naturally this is not solely for your benefit, but for all who follow the discussion. As I understand the Bible, Phebe was a helper, a patroness of fellow believers. For the word Paul used in Romans 16:2 is prostatis, which means a patron, a defender of a lower person, and she was literally a patroness or a helper of Paul. In contrast, Romans 16:1 uses the word diakonos, which is a servant. Specifically, these servants helped or assisted the pastors (overseers, bishops) with duties pertaining to Acts 6:1-6 and nothing more.

Now I hope that the folks will not faint when they read the following revelation from me. In our church we did have Deaconesses.
As some of you may know, I was born and raised up in a fundamental Baptist Church in Hungary, and our church body consisted of Deacons and Deaconesses. The first was indeed assisting the Pastor with the spiritual growth of the church, while the Deaconesses ministered in the area of mercy. Now contrary to some beliefs that Deaconesses are the wives of Deacons, this is not always so. Some of the Deaconesses I knew were professionals, and in many instances never married. These precious ladies were visiting the sick in the hospitals, cared for the elderly, did house chores for the invalid, and they did many other ministry endeavors which was needed. One of the Deaconesses I knew was a middle aged lady who's fiancé did not return from WWII. He was the casualty of the war. This dear lady never married thereafter, but remained single in honor of her fiancé. She engaged herself in ministering to the need of others. She became one of the Deaconesses. The way I understand Romans 16:1, 2, this is exactly what Phebe was. When we see the earthly ministry of Jesus, we find several women who ministered to His needs, they were also deaconesses (servants).

Now, the way I read some of the preceding posts here, I do not see any major differentiation between the two thoughts expressed by either party on the ministry of the Deaconess. You are only using different words to express your thoughts. But then again, I could be mistaken....

P.S. In order to touch upon the topic of this thread, No, I do not play cards! I consider it an abomination. Now, I hope the proponents of card playing will not stone me for that.

[ January 15, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

I am not kidding myself nor being dishonest when I said that those words were not aimed at you. I certainly hope you can believe that. If you knew me, you would know that I could rarely be accused of mincing words. If I meant those comments to apply to you specifically, I would have said so.

Specifically, I was protesting that people were judging other by appearances and also condemning others as enemies of God ("calling God a liar") because of honest disagreements in regard to the interpretation of scripture.

It was simply a reference back to a recent thread (http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001314) where there seems to be a very clear word in scripture of a woman as a deacon in the early church that is commended by Paul. Many faithful believers cannot accept that at "face value" because they have a different understanding of the role of women in church based on other scripture. I was merely pointing out that it would have been exceptionally arrogant for me to claim those other believers are "calling God a liar" just because they don't seem to recognize a clear biblical fact (clear to me anyway) recorded in Romans 16.

Yes.

I agree with your assessment of scriptural teaching as long as we are talking about homosexual acts, not temptation. I have studied some very compelling-sounding arguments that certainly appealed to my sense of mercy and grace from those who do not believe that a life of homosexual sexual relations is not inherently sinful as long as the same sex couple is "married" to each other in a way that is recognized by society (even if it is not legally recognized). However, there are two fundamental biblical principles that prevent me from embracing that viewpoint.

Actually, I do not agree. Since I have studied the issue very carefully because I have three Christian friends who have "come out" over the years, I have had to confront this issue head on and give counsel to them as a friend as well as a brother in Christ. It is an exceptionally complicated issue that is heavily politicized and has been badly mismanaged by Christians for many years. I have been very clear about what I understand the Bible to teach, but I also recognize that others have been deceived by hype, bad science, appeals to sentimental emotion and such that they are not honestly "calling God a liar", but they have been deceived or have missed some important biblical understanding.

It often takes longer for the Spirit to work through the issues that are closest to us, and claiming someone is an enemy of God ("calling God a liar") when they have a sincerely held (but possibly flawed) interpretation of the scripture is at best counterproductive. Let the Spirit of God convict of truth instead of presuming you can accurately judge the motives of others.

In Southern Baptist life, I heard way too many preachers spout off about those who didn't agree with the so-called "conservative resurgence" as "calling God a liar". If you think someone else is wrong, just say so. Please don't claim that they disagree with God because they disagree with you.

Regarding cards

My parents bought me and my brother playing cards that were not "face cards" so we could play Old Maid and Authors (I think it was essentially Gin Rummy). Do you think games like that (and that evil UNO game) hurt the Christian's witness?

[ January 16, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

How did this evolve from a question about Card Playing?

Personnally, I would be very careful about saying, in fact, I would NOT say that a person is disagreeing with God or that a person is calling God a Liar.

Just because they disagree with me or with a preacher, etc., does not mean that they are disagreeing with God. I am amazed at the attitude of anyone who thinks that they are postively correct in their interpretation of the Bible and that they know exactly what God means.

 

Again, this discussion began as a general statement about how not to judge other people by appearances and personal biases. These are general statements only.

As far as my history with the SBC, I used to be on the “conservative resurgence” side and know a number of the key power brokers who currently lead the SBC personally. All of them know where I stand on the issues. Many of them however have turned demonization of those who do not agree to an art form. I have even faced a situation where I was listening to a service where the pastor brought up a very minor issue where he and I disagree and had him say that “there are those seated in this room who do not believe what I have just told you… they stand in judgment of God’s holy word and they call God a liar to His face.” Everyone knew exactly who he was talking about because he had taken a private casual conversation and made it public because he couldn’t find scriptural justification for his position. The issue? I believe that the devil can know your thoughts and he did not. That’s it. He has some sort of whole spiritual warfare system set up in his mind that you can surprise Satan if you don’t speak or write down your spiritual intentions.

Furthermore, this sort of accusation (“…they are calling God a liar…”) seems to occur when the speaker doesn’t really have a good argument, they just want to paint their opponent as an enemy of God.

I certainly hope you are not the way I have just described. Most preachers are not, but there are too many that are.

And in different places and understandings in our faith journey…

But they may not see it as clearly as you and I do because of their background and the teaching (or false teaching) that they have absorbed.

No. They are disagreeing with you. They may be disagreeing with God. But often they merely misunderstand the biblical teaching. But you see, this is the problem. We don't have enough information to know if they misunderstand biblical teaching or if they are truly "calling God a liar". We can judge a person's actions, the fruit of their spiritual life and ministry and the truth or error of their theology... but we can't know their heart. Judging someone's true motives is something only God can do. This is precisely the kind of sinful judging that Jesus tells us not to do.

And beyond the whole sinning against God issue, telling them that they are an enemy of God does not help them understand. It only alienates.

But this thread is about card playing…

My parents finally relented in their opposition to card playing when I was in my teenage years.

[ January 16, 2003, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

I think the association of gambling with card playing is the reason some Believers think they are wrong. That would be like banning horses because they use them in gambling.

 

Betty no offense but when scripture is so clear on a subject and some who claim to be authorities on scripture say that what the Bible teaches is not true then what should a person do. As the following example shows from Luke chap 1
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:34-35 (KJV)

Now when we read this can we really say that someone is merely dissagreeing with a preacher and is it really that difficult for me to be absolutely correct in my interpretation. There are areas where scripture could be interpreted differently but there are many which cannot, the virgin birth is one of those as I mentioned before and if I am being judgemental and meanspirited by plainly denouncing the denial of scripture then so be it.
Murph