Attitutudinal Issues

[ccrobinson]

And you once again fall prey to the tendency among fundies to categorize those who hold different beliefs about non-essential as "worldly" or compromising in some way. IMHO you are an example of someone living in the "ditch" (a metaphor used earlier) who does not realize it. That's my opinion based on our conversations and you are welcome of course to disagree (which you will naturally do based on the metaphor itself).

Now wait a minute. I made comments questioning your motives, and you dismissed the comments just because I was judging motives. But, here you are, judging bapmom's motives. I drew my conclusions about your motives based on what you wrote and you called foul. But, you drew conclusions about bapmom based on what she wrote, and that's apparently Ok.

Is drawing conclusions based on what somebody writes valid or not? Or is it only valid when you do it?

Attitude is a hard thing to judge on an anonymous discussion board of differing beliefs. I can only tell you that most of my posts were written with a smile on my face. No anger. No hate. No ill will. Life is too short to be angry.

This form of communication is far from perfect, but it's not as hard to judge attitudes as you might think.

...for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Or, his fingers typeth, I might add.

 

[All about Grace]

Now wait a minute. I made comments questioning your motives, and you dismissed the comments just because I was judging motives. But, here you are, judging bapmom's motives. I drew my conclusions about your motives based on what you wrote and you called foul. But, you drew conclusions about bapmom based on what she wrote, and that's apparently Ok.

I am not judging her motives. I am talking about her beliefs. Big difference.

I have said before that legalists and/or liberals often have legitimate motives. That is not the issue.

You claimed that I was "bitter" which could be further from the truth. If you claimed I was seeker-sensitive or something else based on my beliefs, then you would have a case. Oranges and apples.

Is drawing conclusions based on what somebody writes valid or not? Or is it only valid when you do it?

It's according to what you are talking about ... beliefs are easier to judge than motives.

 

[All about Grace]

I don't know that you'd think that if you saw who we minister to here in Milwaukee.....but ok. I do my best (with Jesus' help) to just take people as they are and if they are lost to tell them about the gospel whenever the chance arises....regardless of what they are or are not doing/wearing/drinking/smoking/etc......

I am sure you are reaching out to some people in real need. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

The crux of the discussion centers on expectations post-salvation. Again you blur the lines. Legalism may or may not have anything to do with salvation (what it takes to "get" saved).

 

[bapmom]

So AAG, if the discussion is indeed centering on expectations post-salvation, what does that mean to you?

We'd expect a Christian to be growing, right? And to be living a life that was somehow different than before, right?

I mean that is part of the whole argument against "easy-believism"...sometimes people get saved and they don't seem to change much, if at all.
Yet on the other hand, when we DO have some sort of expectation for how a person ought to act who IS saved....thats somehow not right?

If Im living in a ditch than I believe its a ditch which God called me to live in. The way Im living now is due to how God has worked in my heart and life over the past 15 years. Obviously He's not done working on me! As we all can say.

BTW, AAG, when I commented on the "world", I was not calling anyone "worldly." When I said they "chose not to separate" Im not talking about blatantly living in sin, or joining in with things like orgies. Im only talking about outward appearances.
While outward appearances are not our MAIN focus, they are due some sort of focus. Jesus called the Pharisees whited sepulchres full of dead men's bones....but He also said that the Pharisees did all sorts of things in order to be sure they followed God's commands, and JESUS said that was good! People seem to forget that all the time.

Mt 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

They were not hypocrites because of the tithing on every little thing....they were hypocrites because they did not ALSO care about law, judgement, mercy and faith.

So we would see that as meaning we pay attention to BOTH the outside AND the inside. Its highly important to emphasize the heart attitudes and the walk with God....the outside will be affected by it, though.

 

[All about Grace]

Again not the primary point. No one is suggesting the outside should be neglected. The heart of the problem lies in the fact many fundamentalists hold their standards so highly that anyone who violates those standards is somehow "not right with God."

Rules such as women wearing pants, long hair on men, tatoos, Bible preference, going to movies, etc. are elevated to the point they are spiritual barometers for a person's relationship with God.

That's why I asked you the earlier question about whether a person could do the things listed (listen to U2, drink alcohol, etc.) and still be "right with God." If your answer is "no" then you have elevated personal standards to a position never intended.

 

[bapmom]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
That's why I asked you the earlier question about whether a person could do the things listed (listen to U2, drink alcohol, etc.) and still be "right with God." If your answer is "no" then you have elevated personal standards to a position never intended.

But this is your personal opinion as to what that position would mean. I don't find it in the Bible.

If you remember, I also said "yes" to that question you asked earlier. Though I do think that some of those things will affect his walk with God.....
Being right with God means you are doing the things that God has shown you to do so far. So of course, you can still be right with God, even while still having areas to grow in.

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by bapmom:
We believe we cannot truly reach the lost if we look and act like the world, because then how are we offering them anything different or better than what they already have?

Reaching the lost is a matter of eternal life through Jesus Christ, not dressing or acting different.

 

[bapmom]

Gershom,

I understand that, I didn't say we add dressing right to our salvation.

I SAID we believe the WITNESSER ought to be acting right according to God's Word in order to be the best witness possible.

 

[Gershom]

No, you said we can't reach the lost if we look or act like the world, that we cannot offer anything better than what they already have.

Think about that statement.

 

[bapmom]

I said this....exact quote........
In contrast, the fundamentalist will say that they ARE separated because they want to reach people with the gospel. We believe we cannot truly reach the lost if we look and act like the world, because then how are we offering them anything different or better than what they already have?

and I ALSO said this....exact quote........
I do my best (with Jesus' help) to just take people as they are and if they are lost to tell them about the gospel whenever the chance arises....regardless of what they are or are not doing/wearing/drinking/smoking/etc......

and lastly, I said this.....exact quote.......
So we would see that as meaning we pay attention to BOTH the outside AND the inside. Its highly important to emphasize the heart attitudes and the walk with God....the outside will be affected by it, though.


You've got to look at the entirety of a person's ideas in order to really get them.

IF you're livin' like the world then your witness will be harmed. This doesn't mean I think the person has to stop sinning in order to be saved.......

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by All about Grace:

And just for the record:

John of Japan ~ yes all of those problems exist within the broader evangelical umbrella ... I can live with that ... what makes an evangelical an evangelical is their belief about the gospel ... based on your criticism - you just kicked C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and many others out of the camp b/c they all held to a different view of inspiration than what you probably believe ... and no it is not better to land further right than left ... and no I am not the one who has been so consumed with generalizations (go back and reread).

ABG, you've convinced me with this straw man that you know little about Fundamentalism. For the record, I (and any non-Ruckmanite Fundamentalist) believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the autographs. This puts me right on the same page as Schaeffer, who got his view of inspiration from Machen, his mentor. However, it does leave C. S. Lewis off our page (and yes, I've read his books), since he did not believe in inerrancy, as can be seen in his book, Reflections on the Psalms.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
C4K,

In reponse to your last post; are not all of the issues linked intrinsically; historicity, belief(s), attitude(s), and evolution(s) of the Fundamentalist's movement?

How is it possible to "separate" all of the issues? Forgive the pun!

sdg!

rd

Rhetorician, if you are looking for a doctrinal basis for the attitudinal issues, please go back and interact with my statement many pages ago that how you come out attitudinally depends on your view of God's character: His holiness and His love.

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by bapmom:
We believe we cannot truly reach the lost if we look and act like the world, because then how are we offering them anything different or better than what they already have?

You're saying you can't reach the world if you look or act like the world... because why?... "how are we offering them anything different or better than what they already have?" As if what we have to offer is looking, acting, dressing different, etc.

What we are offering is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what they don't have that we have.

 

[4His_glory]

I think you are right Gershom, I always thought that the argument that our standards make or break our wittness was weak.

We ought to live right because we want to glorify and honor God, and we as you said offer the Gospel of Christ.

But this seems to be a bit far from the subject of the op. Perhaps a differnt thread should be started for this discussion.

 

[bapmom]

Gershom,

no, what we offer is life in Christ.......they get that through the Gospel.

Life in Christ looks different than life without Christ.

The "world" is lookin' for something different. When a person is ready to come to Christ, its because the Holy Spirit has been convicting them, and they want to find the answers. Many of them will look to someone who IS different.
Doesn't God say we are to be IN the world but not OF the world?
The UNsaved know what a Christian is supposed to act like. Just ask them, they have a list. Of course we don't conform to the world's list of how we ought to act and look, we conform to GOD'S list of how we ought to act and look. But you'd maybe be surprised at how similar the two "lists" are.

Of course we preach the gospel first....but then a big part of church is discipleship....teaching people how to conform to GOD's Word and to NOT be conformed to the world.

Im talkin' discipleship here, and STILL being criticized for it.....how ironic.

lol

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Gershom,

no, what we offer is life in Christ.......they get that through the Gospel.

Life in Christ looks different than life without Christ.

The "world" is lookin' for something different. When a person is ready to come to Christ, its because the Holy Spirit has been convicting them, and they want to find the answers. Many of them will look to someone who IS different.
Doesn't God say we are to be IN the world but not OF the world?
The UNsaved know what a Christian is supposed to act like. Just ask them, they have a list. Of course we don't conform to the world's list of how we ought to act and look, we conform to GOD'S list of how we ought to act and look. But you'd maybe be surprised at how similar the two "lists" are.

Of course we preach the gospel first....but then a big part of church is discipleship....teaching people how to conform to GOD's Word and to NOT be conformed to the world.

Im talkin' discipleship here, and STILL being criticized for it.....how ironic.

lol

What we offer to the lost is life THROUGH Christ. What follows is life IN Christ, for the saved. Seems you're putting the cart before the ox.

 

[bapmom]

Seems that your being picky over semantics, Gershom.

You are trying to twist my words to fit your preconceived notions of what I MUST be saying because Im IFB.

Didn't I say that they GET life IN Christ THROUGH the Gospel? I said exactly what you just said, only you said it in two sentences and I said it in one.

 

[Gershom]

I'm not twisting your words, as they are quoted to be read in my posts.

bapmom posted:
We believe we cannot truly reach the lost if we look and act like the world, because then how are we offering them anything different or better than what they already have?

This is saying that we cannot reach the lost if we look or act like the world. That's not true. The power of God is through His Word, not how we dress or act. There's alot of lost folk who look and act a whole lot different than the world, but they are not saved.

The last part of your quote emphasizes that looking and acting different is something better to be had, as if it something they should desire.

 

[bapmom]

Looking and acting different than the world IS something we should desire........

I said "REALLY" reach them.....as in making a difference all around us....having a large impact.

Obviously the Gospel is what sees people saved....Ive said that over and over.

I have not added standards to anyone's salvation. I do not understand why you continue to try and imply that I have.

As someone else said, this is really way off topic. This thread is not about me, never was....although for some reason it keeps going there.

If you want to start another thread then I'll be glad to join in with the rest.

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by bapmom:

As someone else said, this is really way off topic. This thread is not about me, never was....although for some reason it keeps going there.

If you want to start another thread then I'll be glad to join in with the rest.

It's right on topic with the OP, which questions the "fightin' fundy" mindset/attitude, which includes the IFB's mindset in regards to dress, looking, acting, etc. like the world, which is what we're discussing.