ever heard of anything like this?

Amen, Aaron. Thank you for saying this again.

 

This bears repeating.

[ April 05, 2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

O.K. Boys and Girls let's calm it down just a bit and play nice. I have removed a few names that were called and I probuly missed some but I promise that I will watch this thread even closer so please keep it clean. By the way in respect of the Webmaster wishing to save bandwidth I think that PTW might edit a few of Aaron's quotes from his last post, maybe his finger got stuck.
Murph

 

Aaron, PtW, Molly:

No one has said there should be no lines. We have simply stated you guys are not the determiners of where the line is (nor am I, which is why I am not the one saying what is legitimate and what is not).

You want to dismiss some illustrations and methods as over the top but you provide no biblical basis for your decision of what is legitimate and what is not. Aaron even used an irrelevant illustration to the subject matter (which could be said is over the top) and yet he decides in his own mind what is exhibitionistic and what is not (and then accused me of inconsistency ).

As has been stated on more than one occasion, the Bible is full of living and verbal illustrations. Some which were considered over the top (I was say a naked prophet would be considered an exhibitionist), and yet you have refused to deal with these instances.

I have stated the criteria clearly. Scripture is the guideline and standard and since not one person has offered a verse within its context to say what is over the top and what is not your point is moot.

If there is any inconsistency here it comes in the form of the "this is inappropriate but this is not" mentality you have displayed.

Offer some biblical evidence and then we can discuss this matter. Evidently I am not allowed to refer to anyone as The Pope any longer (since others might take my posts more seriously than I do), so I will simply say pope-like assertions do not make someone right.

Show us the money

 

The Bible is also full of animal sacrifice, slavery, violence, sex...etc., but it takes someone with a mature mind to rightly divide the "Word of Truth."

God, who at sundry times and diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers, hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto by His Son...

Heb. 1:1

You can clearly see the Apostle makes a distinction in the way God communicated to ignorant and superstitious infants under the Law and the way He communicates to adults under Grace.

...when I became a man, I put away childish things... 1 Cor. 13.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Acts 17:30.

So go on with your exhibitions and fire-truck shaped baptistries for children, just understand the Scriptures refer to this kind of thing as ignorant, superstitious and childish.

Maybe under the Law, God may have winked at it, but now...

 

So, Molly, I read your post. Are you saying that the illustrations and parables that were used by Jesus Christ and his deciples were okay, because they were recorded in the Bible? But any illustrations and parables used after the Bible was written are disallowed because they are not recorded there? I'm just trying to get this strait in my mind. It seems that that is what you are saying...the parables and illustrations that were done to teach people in the time the Bible was written were fine, because they were recorded in the Book. And now reading of the Bible is the only thing that should be done when teaching by Pastors?

I'm not sure where you stand on my previous post. And P.T.W. and Aaron, have ignored it completely. Which in my experience means that I made a point that they didn't think was wrong, and so didn't need to be addressed.

Forgive this old woman. I'm just trying to understand.

God Bless You,
Charlotte

 

Aaron:

I am amazed at the level of freedom you seem to take in using verses either completely out of their context or to support an assertion foreign to the intent of the passage. One can sure prove many irrational theories based upon such hermeneutics. What is funnier is that you qualify these textual rapes as embracing the "plain" meaning of the passage.

Are you also going to place Jesus' use of illustrations in the realm of childish and immature? Please be consistent here.

You ask for biblical examples and then when they are offered you dismiss them as God's outdated way of dealing with ignorant people. It is very difficult to reason with such distorted hermeneutics (and even harder for you to be consistent with it -- as has been demonstrated through your own faulty logic).

I must have overlooked your support text that defends your brash words here .

Trust me any "exhibition" (your illegitimate term not mine) we employ to share the gospel in a relevant fashion pales in comparison to the exhibition you display on this board in the name of truth.

Once again it simply shows the reality that I do not believe I can wrap my finite mind around the magnitude of the God we serve, but you OTOH believe you have it all figured out (with no room for error).

Maybe you and preach can share the restricted title I posted earlier.

 

Charlotte, sorry, I have to decide which posts to immediately respond to. With a newborn (now 9 days old), my time is limited.

Paul told Timothy to "Preach the Word" (hey, that is a catchy name). It is our job as preachers to preach the word. We are not entertainers. We are not comedians. We are not storytellers. We are not military strategists. We are not bankers. We are not politicians. Oftentimes, preachers try to play those roles. Well, frankly, they need to put up and get an honest job. Our role is of the utmost seriousness. We have been given a divine commission to handle God's word with diligence, care, and with all authority. It is our job to explain those illustrations.

Now, with that in mind, sometimes preachers say something that is hilarious. Fine. Is it there goal to be hilarious? I hope not. The same for the other examples.

Here is a problem with illustrations: people will interpret the Scriptures in light of the illustration. Illustrations are just that. They are not absolute and should not be made to walk on all fours. Their relevance is extremely limited. It must be clarified that it only gives an idea of what something means in a particular area.

Example:
Dad says his son can go to the football game if his room is clean. The son wastes his time and does not clean his room. The dad decides to go clean the room. The son goes to the game because his room is clean. He did nothing to deserve the right to go to the game.

Now, this is a picture of justification. God requires righteousness. We can't and won't be able to have it. He accomplishes it for us. Therefore, all righteous will be given eternal life.

Okay, given the illustration, it does not mean that the Father came and accomplished salvation. It also does not mean that the son (in the illustration) could have accomplished salvation if he tried to.

I hope this illustrates why the use of illustrations should be limited, and completely explained (but then you spend your time preaching about the illustration).

 

SBC, you call me a pope (an utterly reprehensible title for anyone) and think others are immature?

 

Hi,Charlotte....

I think that with anything,esp preaching,one has to be very careful when using illustrations. I do believe that some are okay and can help,but I have also heard them done very poorly. When preaching expositorally,if a pastor/teacher concentrates on teaching the text correctly,there is little time for fluff stuff.

I agree with PTW's explanation. There is need for discernment and caution when thinking about these things. I defintely do not have the *anything goes* attitude as some do here.

 

SBG your not being allowed to call people "the pope" is indeed evident by my PM to you stating that name calling will not be allowed. Maybe you need to take what you say more seriously.
Murph

 

The pope title was simply used to ILLUSTRATE (sorry) the reality that some on here think they have every matter of faith and practice figured out completely (much like the belated Dr Hyles, whom I have heard called the Baptist Pope). A person who has such an attitude deserves such a sarcastic title.

I missed where I referred to anyone as immature. I believe that was the accusation leveled against me (with no admonition by the way, but I could care less b/c BB is sheer entertainment for me and nothing more).

Can I assume Daniel David is Preach the Word?

I would like to reply to the post above but would have to at a later date.

 

Thank You Molly for answering my question.

Mr. David, thank you for answering my question to Molly too. I don't know who you are, but I appreciate your trying to answer for her. Are you her husband or something?

Molly, Who was it that had an "anything goes" attitude that you eluded to? I've read the thread and I can't seem to find what you say is there, would you be a dear and let me know, and I will re-read it. I've seen many people very emotionally involved with their view point. Yourself included dear. But that isn't the same is it.

This thread has caused me to think quite a bit about the issue, I was thinking about it as I sat in church yesterday. My pastor didn't use any illustrations. Does that mean that he's a good pastor? ( retorical)

God Bless You,
Charlotte

 

Hello again,Charlotte!

The anything goes attitude has been evident to many in many forums...not just this one. I have seen it in the music forum,the fundamental,and others. The idea that if it reaches people it is okay seems to be prevalent these days. My thoughts are if it is biblical it is God's ways and He works in ways we don't always understand. My goal is to be biblical,whether it draws a crowd or not. I believe if people love God and His Word,people will be in church to hear His word preached. It is a whole church growth philosophy and I think this thread touches on it. Hopefully some of these I have heard from in the past do not hold to the *anything goes* philosophy. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

Molly,

Rest assured that I have read and studied more about the church growth movement than most represented here and I have never read of anyone who believes "anything goes."

Stop building those top-heavy strawmen

 

I think you make a very strong arguement Charlotte. And I think that maybe the reason it was not challenged, may have had more to do with your useing the Bible to prove your point, than any other factor.

In Christ,
Laurenda

[ April 09, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Wisdom Seeker ]

 

Something sort of funny occurred to me today about this whole thread.

I'm a believer -- a born-again Christian who knows and studies the Bible.

And no matter what I do during my day, whether it be dusting, baking, calling for doctor's appointments, gardening, chauffering, researching and writing -- anything -- there is a picture in it for me of something spiritual, a truth that I have learned theoretically from the Bible and which I see worked out in daily life.

And just like any line or verse in the Bible does not give a complete picture of the entire Biblical message, one illustration or one experience in my daily life cannot give a complete picture, either. But everything helps.

Now if I see these illustrations in my daily life, I assume I am not alone -- that others out there do, too. And I will make the further presumption that some of them are actually ministers! And basically what I am reading here from Preach-Kal-Dan and Molly and any others on that side is that said minister is wrong to use any illustrations which he has seen in his own life to help others see either the impact of God's Word, or the way God has arranged everything to be a testimony to Him, or even to encourage the folks in the congregation to keep their own spiritual eyes open for illustrations in their own lives.

That seems sort of silly to me. If the Lord has given me an insight or an illustration that helps those I teach, I'm more than happy to use it. There is always the proviso that no one illustration is sufficient and all are also quite limited in how much truth they can illustrate, but that does not prevent their use and sharing.

And when one of my deaf women gives me another illustration back to try to share what she is understanding me to mean, I rejoice if my message came through clearly. Same with kids and teens. I would sure rather have any one of them give me a counter-illustration, or work with the one I gave, to show me they understand the point rather than say "Yeah, I get it." There is no assurance of their understanding in those words at all.

Jesus used the common elements of His day to bring home truths to people. I see nothing wrong with following in His footsteps.

 

No,we are not related at all,nor the same person....funny,though. When I began posting a lot here,I thought PTW was John MacArthur. We just agree on some things,that's all...and we probably disagree on some things,too! I just find things I can appreciate in everyone here...even though at times we might disagree.