ever heard of anything like this?

Aaron:

You have neglected the NT examples cited.

I stated earlier that I would not use the illustration given, so I have reason to justify it.

Or I could simply reverse the question and ask for scriptural support that such illustrations are wrong (since obviously the Bible contains ones that are equally as extreme).

It has been shown that your "if it is not in Scripture it is wrong" reasoning is flawed at the most basic levels of modern ministry.

 

SBC, I've never said "If it's not in Scripture, it's wrong." I say "If it's not in Scripture, then it's presumptuous."

And of what NT examples are you speaking?

I didn't see any NT examples of exhibitionism. I saw some you presumptuously asserted to be exhibitionism, but I saw no real NT example.

 

If you mean "presumptuous" as overstepping bounds, then you are saying it is wrong. If you are using "presumptuous" to simply mean the liberty to employ methods not found directly in Scripture, then you paint yourself into a corner in that you become the sole determiner of what is exhibitionistic and what is not.

Go back and re-read the posts. One could start with most of Jesus' analogies. "Does anyone here have a coin?" "Go catch a fish and look in its mouth" "I am the shepherd. You are the sheep."

Exhibitionism most often has to do with attracting undue attention to oneself (and usually it is associated with lewdness). That being the case, you cannot determine what is exhibition and what is not b/c in the end, it is a heart/motives matter. I have heard pastors preach sermons w/o using any visual aids who could be considered bring undue attention to himself.

Perhaps you need to spend less time focused upon the container that holds the oxygen and start concerning yourself with getting the breath of life to people in as relative a means as we can (as long as the air itself is not contaminated in the process). Focus on the oxygen and not what is holding it.

Relevance is not an option for the obedient church. It is an absolute necessity.

 

SBC, you make me laugh.

The only one in a corner is you, so you retreat to your catch phrases and erroneous definitions as a means of escape.

I have demonstrated from the Scriptures that the Gospel needs no flavoring to be joyfully received by those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

I have challenged you countless times to present an example from the ministries of Christ or the Apostles to justify the worldly showmanship you defend as "relevant."

Your only argument is the argument which you so vehemently resist from others. You say, "It's not forbidden, so it must be right."

You are a paragon of error and contradiction, but I see you more as a victim of the gross worldliness and compromise of the SBC.

Isaiah 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

 

Aaron,

While you are laughing, you might want to go back and actually deal with the issues. Yes the easy reaction when cornered is to come out swinging that way no one actually sees that you have failed to deal with the actual points.

You tried and failed. I can see through your faulty "methods".

You are welcome to challenge any of the definitions rendered.

Who said anything about adding flavor to the gospel. This is the point you continually miss. The message and the method are entirely distinct. Even your preferred method of preaching (expository I will presume) is a man-created method (you have repeatedly failed to address this point). Take your hands off your eyes and maybe you can recognize your sad state of confusion and inconsistency.

What you have failed to prove is how relevance is worldly showmanship. Remember, your opinion is not the criterion.

I don't resist this accusation. I actually believe that methods that do not violate the message or biblical principles can be employed. It is a very consistent view unlike the "I choose what is right and wrong" approach you take.

And you are a classic example of one whose own illogical fallacies will not allow them to see the error of their own ways. You are the person standing on the side of the road crying, "No the sky is red" while the rest of the evangelical circle rolls their eyes .

And actually I am a victim of your exact breed of legalism, which had far greater influence on my earlier life of bondage than my relatively short time in the SBC.

The only laughable matter here is how convinced you can be of your wrongness. But then again that is what happens in the world of spiritual bondage.

"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery."

 

Aaron are you trying to pick a fight with every person here who is a member of an SBC Church? Make your case without painting me and other SBC members as worldly and compromising.
Murph

 

Aaron has no case. That is why he must resort to such tactics.

To try and disprove the contextualization of the gospel is a task far greater than Aaron's smokescreens can disguise.

 

Anyone who's ever spent any time in the music forums knows this is par for the course with Aaron.

 

I really had no intention to read all NINE pages of this before posting a comment on this Pastor who used a knife and a steel breastplate to illustrate his point. However; having read it anyway, the one thing I noticed in almost every post, (particularly SBC and Aaron) is that many folks are quick to make judgements about whether this man went over the top or not when in fact not one of you people were in that church that day
(with the exception of the topic starter). So none of you have a leg to stand on in judging his use of this illustration. You did not hear the sermon so you do not know if it was applicable, or appropriate.
That being said; I am NOT an anything goes type of guy as some of you know from reading my posts in the music forum. But I do see how it could be argued that this Pastor was very effective in getting his point across. After all, I think the topic starter noted that their kids remembered it. If you can get a kid to remember something you have done SOMETHING! I have 5 grandkids so I do have a little experience in this area. Before making a judgement on this Pastor's illustration, I would have to have either been there or heard his tape to be able to put his illustration in CONTEXT! (Didn't somebody in this thread mention context?)
I still remember an illustration my pastor used to show the difference between a watered down gospel and the whole counsel of God. This happened 6 years ago. The first thing he did was give a short gun saftey class, and then he showed us a 22 cal. pistol and an AK47. Both empty and completely safe. He explained the obvious truth that the whole counsel of God is MUCH more effective than the modern watered down gospel. Then he put the guns away and referred to them throughout his entire message. I must say it was VERY effective. It has lasted these six years hence. The lesson is preach the whole counsel of God not just the "love others social type message" of the modernists.
Just a few comments. Not interested in any debate if my Pastor was wrong or if he was over the top or if he is a prime example of "glassy-eyed fundamentalism gone wacko!"
Jim

 

You might want to clarify that Aaron and I are far from being in the same boat here. I have made no judgment on whether he went over the top. I am assuming you recognize this fact and just did not clearly articulate it above.

This is the first time I have been tied to Aaron on any subject matter. Can't let my reputation take that kind of blow