Pagan-Friendly Worship

Hello Aaron,

It might be useful for everyone to know that there is a thread on 'What is worldly' on the Fundamental Baptist Forum at the minute.

Here's a section from a sermon I have linked to on that thread. It speaks of the verse you are discussing here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God' (James 4.4).


'Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever' (1 John 2.15-17).


'And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities' (Revelation 18.4-5).


Worldliness is consorting with the enemy. It includes covetousness and vainglory, where a person has an undue thirst for recognition, honour and possessions. Worldliness is seen in extravagance and self-indulgence. It flourishes when believers are chiefly devoted to the affairs of this life, and chiefly intent on the things of this life. It occurs when the distinctive lifestyle of a world-system that is against God is adopted (or adapted). It is seen in worldly-style parties, and the visiting of pubs.


The sin of worldliness on the part of a Christian may not encompass golf, but it will certainly be found in the clubhouse. It is attached to immoral films and TV programmes. It may not involve every movie, but it will definitely be involved in the overwhelming majority.


Worldliness is in loving (and using) the style of music and song which is the 'badge' of an anti-God, anti-morality culture. It is a sin committed wherever Christian distinctiveness is surrendered. It is committed in any pursuit of activities or goals clearly identified with this world's aims.


Worldliness is seen in fear of the consequences of separation from the world, and indifference to the jealousy of God. 'The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy,' says James. The Holy Spirit of God yearns jealously for us – to protect us and carry us forward in the walk of godliness and faith. Will we grieve Him away?


If there are two opposing kingdoms, which do we serve? It cannot be both. To which do we really belong? Which do we love? For which would we die – or rather – for which will we die, one day?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

God Bless

Enda

 

Excellent reply, enda.

I believe Mike Mck was challenged at one time to present a definition of worldliness and he has yet to rise to the occassion.

 

Do you even have one relavent statement to make on the issue of evangelism? Do you go on with this spiritual milk because you actually believe I don't agree with it? Is this deep thinking to you?

I demonstrated that you took a verse out of context to support an assertion that the saved should not build relationships with the unsaved. James is clearly chastising those who are still living in the lusts of the world, hence the term adulteresses. If we are to be missionaries in any capacity it is dependant entirely on the manner which God uses us to relate the Gospel of salvation to the lost. We are commanded to love everyone, and everyone is everyone, not just those we deem worthy.

I met a guy at work recently who just graduated seminary. You know what I saw him doing? He was making friends out of everyone he could speak to in his free time. This guy took the time to get to know many of our coworkers intimately. He asked them about their lives, their interests, their needs, and most importantly their relationship with God. Does it logically follow that he falls into the category of an adulteress?I should think not. God is using him and using him mightily.

So go ahead Aaron and sit by idily posting your dissent, but know this: God's work will be accomplished with or without you.

 

As usual, Travelsong, you're merely dodging the real issue. You could open a fish market with the number of red herrings you have manage to drag across our discussions.

The issue is not about me, you or enda, or whether one is or isn't doing evangelism. It is about the kind and form of evangelism. I have posted irrefutable evidence that God does not desire us to be friends of the world. I have also posted irrefutable evidence that close associations with worldly people will not, contrary to Crampton's vomitus, acclimate them to the Gospel, but will only acclimate Christians to the devil.

Now, nothing was taken out of context, it's just that you ignored the real context. You explained nothing, but attempted to limit the idea of "the world" to only those who all but the very dregs of humanity would find repulsive: warmongers and adulterers.

That's what you wanted, and to maintain your position you have to have it that way.

But, as is my custom, I again presented irrefutable, simple and straightforward evidence that the world includes those that all but the very elect would find to be pillars of morality and righteous living. I hoped the connection would be made that when James calls friends of the world "adulterers," he doesn't mean they are committing sexual sin, but that they are adulterers in the sense that they have waxed wanton against Christ in their affections. And you made that connection, but you still avoided the question making a vague allusion to "the lusts of the world."

But, the question has already been answered by myself and enda. The man who postponed Christ to care for his father in his old age was as guilty of worldliness as is are the prostitutes on Independence Avenue.

"But doesn't the Law say to 'Honor mother and father?'"

Yes, it does, and you may recall that Mr. Worldly Wiseman also esteemed the Law of God very highly. (Or so he thought.)

Now. Quit snivelling and answer the question. Illuminate for us what you deem to constitute "friendship of the world."

 

I believe the question may have become how to be relevant in the world, and yet not be part of it. A tough one to be sure... and where's the line?

 

At last, someone who would venture to answer the question. Now, we're getting somewhere. Let's look at the examples you provided and see if they can truly characterized as you have characterized them. You said that Jesus "befriended" the woman at the well. There is a request, an immediate confrontation, and a demonstration of the power of the Spirit in the conviction of sin and a revelation of the Son of God.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, that even remotely resembles what was described by Crampton, or what you intended to relate with the word "befriend." Are you saying, as Crampton, that Jesus would have gone to the local pub with her, or wherever it was she would "hang-out?"

She certainly didn't "hang-out" at the well.

You said he "befriended" Zacchaeus. First, Zacchaeus was not a pagan tax collector. He was a Jewish tax collector. This meeting was not a casual meeting, as you imply. Jesus was already well known as a rabbi. He had a crowd of followers and Zacchaeus had climbed into the tree in order to catch a glimpse of Him as He walked by.

When Jesus said, "Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house," it was understood in what context he was visiting and the kind of activities that were appropriate.

It is nothing like going and indulging in the same kind of entertainments that sinners indulge. Nothing like "befriending" as you intend to communicate.

Now you aren't even close in your third example. It was not a sinner who threw a party at his home. It was a publican who "left all" to follow Christ. He made a feast, not as a sinner, but as a convert. Secondly, it was in the convert's home that Jesus went to visit. (Actually, hang out is a profane term and not properly used to describe any activity of Christ.) And the publicans and sinners that came, came to hear Jesus. Quite a contrast to Crampton's advice who tells us to go to where the sinners hang out and hear them. Thirdly, the Pharisee's accusation was a false accusation. Jesus did not go to eat with sinners. They came to eat with Him. Not because he fostered a close friendship with them, but because He taught "as one with authority, and not as the Scribes."

And you're no closer with your example of Paul. As far as this account you will note that he was "taken" to the Areopagus for the express purpose of expounding upon Christ. In other words, all the normal activities were put on hold while Paul preached the Gospel. Not at all like going and hanging out on the fringe while these pagans went about their idolatry and hoping to get into a conversation with them.

I have already dealt with Crampton's article, and what being a friend to the world means. There is no need to repeat myself on those except in one point.

The Scriptures say "BE NOT DECEIVED, evil communications corrupt good manners." This is a universal, non-optional principle. It doesn't mean that only some people are corrupted. The "weak" ones. You have grossly mischaracterized the Scriptural accounts you alluded to. But you have to in order to sanctify your methods.

 

I had just stopped by for a short visit, but I'm gone again, much to the relief of Travelsong. I'll back in the swing of things in September.

 

Christians should be at least alittle different
from the world. If they are not, then perhaps
they are not...

 

Yesterday I received the book mentioned in the opening threads web site. I'll post a review in the Books forum this weekend.

Rob

 

Just couldn't stay away. Had to see Scott's reply. Glad I did.

Read again a little closer. See her reaction to Him.

Sure. "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." And that is the response Paul says we will receive when the gifts of the Spirit are in operation.

He went to the place where Jews didn't even go - Samaria. Jews absolutely despised them. That didn't phase Jesus, did it? Nor should it phase us.

I'm not talking about the Jews' erroneous, carnal, faithless understanding of the Law. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about the Scriptural vs Un-Scriptural methods of evangelization and your gross mischaracterizations of these passages.

He wasn't a believer - and if you are not for Christ, you are against Him. The point stands that he was a sinner, who was despised by society.

Only in your paradigm is this undersood as not befriending Zaccheus. The point is that he went THERE - to the place where you say he shouldn't be.

This is not befriending Zacchaeus according to Crampton's teaching. Crampton's drivel is what I assume you to mean by "befriending." He and you mean to nuture close friendships with unsaved people. Get them to feel comfortable around you so that you can tell them about Jesus. Nowhere do you see Jesus or the Apostles doing anything of the sort.

Going to sinners to preach to them is the way to do it. You do not gain an inroad through the carnal means of friendships. The Spirit must call them, and whether you're a Calvinist or an Armenian you must admit that THAT is the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures.

And that's where you miss the point. Christians shouldn't go there to enjoy the entertainment. They should go and make friends with unbelievers as to win them over for Christ.

I didn't miss any point, and you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. What did your teacher say?

You agreed with him saying:

And lest you try to say that he and you didn't really mean "patronize," see how your teacher expounds upon the concept:

And of the "sharing time," your teacher said:

Crampton meant to go and enjoy the entertainment. So did you.

Hang out is a profane term? Are you serious here?

You cannot discern the Spirit. You extol a carnal means of fulfilling God's will. You can't comprehend the most straightforward Scriptural accounts.

How can you be a judge of what is profane and what is not?

Jesus was in a den of unbelievers. You cannot deny that.

I absolutely deny that. They came OUT of their dens to hear Him.

As we befriend non-believers, we will hear them say, "Man! That guy speaks with authority - not like those 'Christians' who won't even talk to us."

Scriptures say that it is as we prophesy, not as we "befriend." See 1 Cor. 14:24-25 above.

I said: And you're no closer with your example of Paul. As far as this account you will note that he was "taken" to the Areopagus for the express purpose of expounding upon Christ. In other words, all the normal activities were put on hold while Paul preached the Gospel. Not at all like going and hanging out on the fringe while these pagans went about their idolatry and hoping to get into a conversation with them.

To which you replied: And you found that where? Read your BIble again - you're adding a lot of stuff that isn't there.

Okay. Let's look at it again. (It would be beneficial if you read it at least once.)

He was taken to the Areopagus for the express purpose of expounding upon the Gospel: And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? Acts 17:19.

Did he just happen to go in, as you implied, just to visit with these idle babblers and "hang out?" Was he "patronizing" the Areopagus and listening to poems and stories many of which were offensive and stupid? Did he applaud every item to foster a "sense of community in that venue?"

That is an aboslutely ridiculous, un-Scriptural—and dishonest—reading of that account.

Daily he was in the synagogues and market place preaching to those who "met with him." Acts 17:17.

Seriously, how can you believe that this verse is talking about befriending non-believers?

Can't you read?

Let's place the rubber on the road here, Aaron. How many people have you led to Jesus Christ this month? What do non-Christians say about you behind your back? What kind of witness are you, really? Are you an effective Christian, or do you hide behind your separation and cower inside church walls, afraid of being somehow tainted with the world.

I'll be glad to answer these questions if you want.

And here you go trying to make this an argument about me. What a desperate ploy. You're out of ammo and you don't have one verse to stand on unless you wrench it from its context and completely wrest it. So you turn on me.

I don't know what non-Christians are saying about me behind my back. I hope to God that I am being reviled and that they are saying all manner of evil against me falsely. For as Christ said, this is the real blessing.

Now if all men are speaking well of me, then I'd better examine myself and see whether I really am in the faith. For Christ said, Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Am I effective? That's for God to judge.

Do I cower? Do my posts look like someone who cowers? Come to my place of work and see. You'll see the homosexual wanting to debate me everytime I come around.

I make no effort to befriend him, but you'll hear my answers to him. I won't eat with him, visit with him or go to the bar with him. But when he is perplexed, as he often is, who does he ask for clarification?

When matters of the Bible are raised, who does he ask? I have been told that when these things come up he will often say, "I wonder what Aaron would say?"

The man who left his wife for another woman often seeks me for counsel, but we don't eat together, or even see each other outside of work. We don't take breaks together. We're not friends. But who is the one person there he unloaded on when his children turned against him and his wife's lawyers got their hooks in him?

One man there simply began asking me to tell him when I preach. He's never missed a date. Christian? Not on your granny's corset cover. Not yet. But one said, "I never thought I would see the day when ***** would step a foot in church." I have never entered into a conversation with that man except to exchange greetings. I don't eat with him or ever see him outside of work except for when he comes to hear me preach. The first time he came to hear me he invited all his friends from work.

Why did he do that? Because I preach by the power of the Spirit.

Here's an email I was sent after that first experience.

You want to compare statistics? You're just growing weeds, because you do not labor in the power of the Spirit. When I walk from a piece of ground it is plowed under, broken up and prepared to recieve seed. Not because I went out of my way to befriend anyone. Not because I did anything, but because of the Spirit of God working through me.

But, this isn't about you and me. Don't even try to compare score cards. That's horse poop.

This is about what the Scriptures say in contrast to Crampton's devilish tripe. And the Scriptures say what they say despite what you or I do or don't do.

THAT'S where the rubber meets the road, and you forget that to your own destruction.

 

What is so sad isn't that he would condemn you based on a couple of posts on an internet messageboard, never having examined your life, but can you imagine what sort of massive ego it must take to say such things about himself?

God bless you, Scott. Don't listen to Aaron. Follow Jesus as best you can. He's the one who called you, not Aaron.

 

Scott,

You crack me up. I should clarify that the email was from a believing couple at the church. That should have been evident from the wording.

Go ahead chasing cars, hanging out in bars and howling at the moon.

I'm done for now. Will revisit this thread in a few weeks if I get a moment to cast down the vain imagination of Pagan-friendly Worship.

 

I just can't stay away! This is too good! First, I will abandon the try-to-answer-every-trifling-jab reply. I seldom use it, as you know. It makes for interminable posts and very easily gets the thread off track.

But there are a couple of doozies that I can't resist.

Second, I will get this thread back on track by getting us into the Scriptures and philosophies that are contended here.

Now, the doozies...

Psychological studies that have examined the internet have shown that those who are the most fearful in person are often the most outspoken on the internet. People say things on a computer and write things they would never say.

You must picture me smiling as I type this, because my problem is just the opposite. I often say things in person I would never commit to writing!

Seriously, though, one of the evidences of being filled with the Spirit is being bold to speak. Whatever character flaw inflicts the carnal mind, I can assure you, the fear of confrontation is not one of mine. I'm not scared of anyone—anyone!

Well, except my wife !

Now take some friendly advice. Next time you want to make a personal jab, don't use one that will poke just about everyone on your side, too, including yourself.

The second doozie is your praise for the scandalous revision of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Your saying it could be just as true when told as The Good Homosexual? What's next? The Good Pedophile? How about The Good Voyeur? Now, you think of some. The Good (insert term for sexual deviant here).

Absolutely hellish. It says alot about the fountainhead of your theology. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

Now, the Scriptures:

First, your impression of the word prophesy is somewhat puerile. The word means simply to speak forth, and is used to signify one who speaks forth the mind and will of God. It is used in the NT not only of future-telling, but also of the ordinary act of preaching.

This is elementary. So you can see that I have not misapplied anything. Quite the contrary, I have eminently applied it in its proper sense.

Secondly, you have completely missed my point about Paul and the Areopagus, even though I highlighted the key word for you. Why am I finding myself having to actually say, "I am focusing on Paul's activity in the market place. It was to preach to those he met. I apologize if my borrowing of the King James wording, those who met him, confused you a bit.

But lest you repeat the mistake of saying that "preach" can take many forms, I suggest you follow your own advice and study the Greek word behing the word "preach," and look at its usage in the NT.