I may get back here on Monday. Have fun kids. :type:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is it Christ-Like to Insult?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about Luke, but I am a pastor, evangelist, and occasional street preacher...this is simply an unfair assessment.
Simple: the example of all of scripture. Elijah, Paul,and Jesus Himself all "insulted" (by modern day standards). Jesus called the Pharisees idiots (moros, where we get the word "moron", means idiot). That was not an "insult" it was a descriptive term, meant to awaken them from their stupor. It was done in love. But by the definitions given in this thread, it would be an "insult."
I don't think it is ever o.k. to insult someone out of a desire to belittle. But descriptive terms serve to show the seriousness of a situation, and can be helpful in certain situations.
Soft speech, when harsh speech is called for, is hateful, and unloving. It says, "I care more about propriety and about political correctness, than I do you soul."
I haven't found any Scripture in which Paul used "insults" either toward the assembly members or toward the unsaved.
The statements of Elijah (using the mountain sacrifice scene for example) were not "insults" they were mocking - He didn't "insult" the false prophets, he mocked them in their own actions. They were calling out, and he encouraged them to call louder that perhaps their God was asleep.
He never said words such as, "You idiots, morons and brain dead fools. You cut your bodies and scream because your god is deaf, dumb, and blind and you are dragon breath mush pots."
Perhaps those who desire to excuse for what they think is "hard preaching" attempt to use inappropriate examples for their excess, but when one looks at the principle of approaching the unsaved by the saved, and approaching saved in sin by the saved, there is never a time insults are used. Especially if the ultimate desire is the conversion or correction and not just pronouncing judgment.
This is what separates the statements of Jesus from all others. ONLY the Lord Jesus Christ has the authority to bring judgment. His pronunciations of judgment about and against the religious righteous where not formed by opinion and observation, but by His ability to perceive the heart and as the Word able to separate soul and body.
NO BELIEVER has that standing, and cannot appropriately use the Lord Jesus Christ as some excuse - it is unfounded and takes license where none is warranted.
Mocking, you might have some traction. Mocking is used to mimic or show the foolish thinking and actions. Stand up comedians often use a type of mocking and the results are recognized laughter at the obvious foolishness - people laughing at themselves so to speak. But again, it is the temperament behind the mocking which can turn the mocking from instructive to destructive - a point in which mocking becomes insulting.
When God uses mocking, He puts in terms such as: "you think you are so strong; this is what strength really can do."
Again, I don't see the use of mocking in Scriptures by the Godly as destructive, but in terms of warnings and desire for awakening to the need of reconciliation.
Mocking by the ungodly is most if not clearly always used in destructive belittling which bridges to being insulting.
I agree that "descriptive terms serve to show the seriousness of a situation..."
Folks,
Insults are never used to lift, encourage, warn, or any other benefit. Insults by definition are abusive, hurtful, slanderous... they are never in any manner "helpful." They are not to be a part of the speech of any believer.
Jesus had/has every authority to judge and label. As God He knew the very heart motives and as the Word could divide between soul and spirit. Therefore, when He rebuked, it was with all the authority of God for that is His right - but it is not ours.
Jude uses the example of Michael, who did not rail accusation upon the Devil, but called upon God as the authority. If Michael as an archangel has no such authority, then we who are "lower than the angels" certainly should not assume to have, either.
The believer has none of that in our earthly form nor do we have permission to assume that authority. In eternity, we SHALL be like Him, but to what extent that will include the full manifestation of every trait, is unknown.
Until then the believers are not to condemn (Matt. 7).
The believers are to guard the speech (Ephesians 4).
The believers are not to be insulting (Matt 5).
The believers are to use the Word which is what is effective (Hebrews 4).
The believer should use wise words and not be contentious (James 3).
The believer should speak blessing not cursing (contrasting words of nourishment with that which one might flush away as harmful not only to the body health, but socially unacceptable) (James 3).
The believer should always speak tenderly when opposed (Proverbs 12, 15).
The believer should beware because what is said is lived (Proverbs 18).
There is a problem with this line of reasoning. It might suggest that there is some exalted discernment that extends beyond how God speaks.
How does God speak to humankind?
When Elijah was in the cave, in what manor did God speak?
When Jesus calmed the waves did He use insults?
When Godly conviction fell upon Paul, were they destructive mauling blows or sharp pricks?
When the whole of creation was without any form and order, did God shout and insult or did he calmly speak?
How does the Holy Spirit speak to the believer?
As a commentary, it is sad that most believers have very little real attention to the voice of God, being greatly distracted by the worldly lusts.
As a teacher, I used speech to bring correction, redirection, and edification. But, NEVER was it acceptable to use hateful, unloving, insulting speech. In fact, one found in repeated infractions (be it student or teacher) would be removed from the classroom. The student would be put in a reassignment room (name changed from area to area) and the teacher contract in danger of being voided.
Usually the gentlest response was the most effective. Very rarely was it necessary to even raise my voice above a conversational level.
Perhaps some equate "soft" as weak or wimpy.
Such comparison(s) would be most inaccurate.
Here is something the folks need to remember.
Psalms 126:6He who goes to and fro weeping, carrying his bag of seed, Shall indeed come again with a shout of joy, bringing his sheaves with him.
There is no insulting or mocking when one is weeping.
If one really loves (and not some fleshly ungodly sensationalistic expression) they will weep over the lost (Jesus looking over Jerusalem), and humbly approach those believers who are out of the way because they may find they too are caught up in some trap, too.
How did Paul "speak" on this matter?:
2 Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; 3 praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; 4 that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak.
5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Anytime you say, "Jesus' actions are not a model for a believer," you have lost. That is completely unorthodox. Jesus was 100 percent man. If He did it, it is righteous and good for us to do. He called people "idiots", and He called people names. To say that His actions were unrighteous, is heresy. To say that He did things that were only righteous "for Him" because He was God, is heresy, that denies that Christ was 100 percent man. You cannot pit Christ's deity against His humanity.
Christ called names. He did. That is a fact of scripture. Paul told OTHER BELIEVERS, "why don't you emasculate yourselves?" That is insulting. Jesus called believers perverse and faithless. Those are insults, according to the criteria laid out in the OP.
I am not going to continue to read through 6000 word rants. At no time in your previous post, did you approach anything that could be called a logical progression of thought. I suggest you examine your beliefs...because you are wrong.
First, I never stated that Christ was not a "model for the believer."
I have shown you that Paul specifically states what is appropriate in speech.
I have shown you what James (the brother of Christ) shows as appropriate in speech.
You are assuming that the "hypostatic union" is also a part of humankind.
Christ did many things that are not 100 percent for man.
He died for all humankind's sin.
He brings reconciliation between the Father and man.
He is our advocate.
He could and does command all nature and forces of both earthly and heavenly.
He has dominion and authority that humankind does not.
The list could go on.
You in contrast cannot by thought alone add one hair to your head or foot to your statue. Yet Christ could raise the dead, and sustain all things while He was dead.
He could perceive the thoughts and motives of the heart, you have no such ability.
He could spend forty days without food and drink, you have no such ability.
He could open the understanding or close the mind to understand, you have no such ability.
He could speak with authority and in terms without uttering a word, but making scratches on the ground, you have no such ability.
He could command the wind and waves, kill a tree, heal the sick, lame, blind, deaf, even raise the dead by his speech, you have no such ability.
He alone could claim to be God, you have no such ability.
The list could go on, but I'll stop it here.
The claim "he did it" and therefore "it is righteous and good for us to do" isn't Scripturally sound.
No one on this thread is "pit(ting) Christ's deity against His humanity." Such claims at times are used merely as a distraction by those whose agenda is faulty and are blustering with no substance.
Is it possible the post you made is actually an indication of a desire to exalt humankind to that of deity by the claims you are making in the thread?
The posts I wrote demonstrated the consistency with the Scriptures on this matter of name calling.
In contrast you are relying upon some assumption that is not Scriptural and therefore not consistent concerning the authority and relationship structures presented in the Scriptures.
Is this not an expression of one "puffed up?"
Perhaps you didn't read because you can't stand the truth and it would force you into recognizing the error.
For the record, at no time did Paul say that believers who were men were to become unmanly (what emasculate means).
For you to "assume" such is again inappropriate to the whole of Scriptures.
More to the point:
Is seems doubtful that further interaction with you on this topic will be of little benefit to the BB folks, there will remain no changed in your thinking because it fits what YOU assume and opine is correct and not what has been clearly showed the Scriptures hold.
Unless you have taken what I wrote more seriously and show by Scriptures where I did not use them correctly, then there is little more to discuss on this matter.
You have your opinions and assumptions, I have the Scriptures.
You have given opinion and assumption, I have given Scriptures.
You don't want to look at the Scriptures and Scripture applications, because it might interfere with your opinion and assumption.
Last edited by a moderator:
I continually quote scripture. You just reinterpret it through your feeling driven mindset. You give scripture that is twisted by your opinion.
The list you give, of Christ, are things that we CANNOT do, not things that we SHOULD NOT DO, because they are wrong.
Again, when you say Jesus did something that would be sinful for us, you are in SERIOUS error. He fulfilled all righteousness. He became in every way like us. To say otherwise, is completely unbiblical, unfounded, and dangerous.
Jesus called names. Therefore, calling names isn't morally wrong. Period.
Second, you need to spend more time studying, and less time spouting your politically correct paraphrase of the Bible.
Here is Paul getting very nasty.
5:10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is.
Gal 5:11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.
Gal 5:12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
Paul just told people who profess Christ, "You think circumcision makes you holy? Why don't you get REAL holy, then, and cut it all off."
You have reinterpreted Paul to make him say what you want him to say, to fit your feeling driven mindset.
You have reinterpreted James to make him say what you want him to say.
Whatever their commands mean, they cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make Jesus a sinner.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Thank you, Captain Grammar.
You are welcome, but you may have missed the point. And just so you know, I am not much of a grammar "nazi".
Last edited by a moderator:
Because you have made very serious accusations against me, I will answer this post.
Really? Feeling driven? I know some on the BB who would consider me rather the opposite.
You listed not a single verse, nor shown, other than by your opinion, how I took any Scriptures out of context and contextual meaning.
Your accusation remains false.
You were the one posting that if Christ did it - we have permission, too.
Now you want to place exclusionary statements because I dare show that when taken at face value your view is unsupported?
Accordingly, using then YOUR own standard, I have merely presented YOUR standard to include speech. Using YOUR standard of exclusion would appoint statements that only God could state and not given to the believers to "copy."
However, I didn't use YOUR standard, but took what the balance of Scriptures indicate both in example and in the actual statements made on topic as the principle to hold.
Just because you want to be inclusive when the balance of Scriptures refutes your thinking does not oblige me to agree with your opines - and especially when the veracity of your statements can be held in question.
Your accusation remains false.
You sure seem to read into my statements what was not even considered.
At no time in this tread did I post the "Jesus did something that would be sinful for us."
In effect I stated He was ABLE and PERMITTED by being a part of the God head to make judgments that humankind are not to take part for it is NOT GIVEN as our responsibility. (Condemn not lest you be condemned)
As applicable, HE could pronounce condemnation, we cannot. He can pronounce what is in the heart and motives of the inner person because HE has complete knowledge, we cannot, and must be cautious about assuming what may not be factual. He, being the very Word of God, can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart - we cannot.
Again, your accusation against my posts is false.
I never posted that Jesus was morally wrong to call names.
Again, you accusation against my post is false.
This is laughable for two reasons.
First, it regards me as being political. Something you have absolutely no proof nor no substance in which to be so inclined.
Second, it regards me as "paraphrasing" the Bible. You make such a claim without regard to proof.
Again, your accusation remains false.
Folks look at the CONTEXT:
The answer to both is: No. Paul is not even suggesting the action.
I don't.
I see a person that is greatly troubled that those he led to the Lord are being led astray. Do you?
I see that he desires the believers remember the truth. Do you?
I see that those who teach untruth bring upon themselves the judgment. Do you?
I see Paul would rather those folks spend time removing from themselves what they think offensive rather than troubling the truth holding believers. Do you?
What I do not see is Paul calling anyone a name, but refuting untruth, encouraging consistency in the Lord, and warning that some want to burden the believers in a manner that would actually distract from the truth. The same occurs even in this modern age by those who would put some obligation upon the humankind to be saved, or remain saved, or right with God...
Again, your accusation is false.
First,
You posting that I have "reinterpreted James to make him say what (I) want him to say" is not PROVING I did.
You have presented no foundation in which to rest such an accusation but rely solely upon opinion.
Second,
At no time did I even allude to Jesus being made a sinner.
To make that accusation is profoundly inaccurate.
Again, your accusation remains false as has been shown throughout the your post.
Really? Feeling driven? I know some on the BB who would consider me rather the opposite.
You listed not a single verse, nor shown, other than by your opinion, how I took any Scriptures out of context and contextual meaning.
Your accusation remains false.
You were the one posting that if Christ did it - we have permission, too.
Now you want to place exclusionary statements because I dare show that when taken at face value your view is unsupported?
Accordingly, using then YOUR own standard, I have merely presented YOUR standard to include speech. Using YOUR standard of exclusion would appoint statements that only God could state and not given to the believers to "copy."
However, I didn't use YOUR standard, but took what the balance of Scriptures indicate both in example and in the actual statements made on topic as the principle to hold.
Just because you want to be inclusive when the balance of Scriptures refutes your thinking does not oblige me to agree with your opines - and especially when the veracity of your statements can be held in question.
Your accusation remains false.
You sure seem to read into my statements what was not even considered.
At no time in this tread did I post the "Jesus did something that would be sinful for us."
In effect I stated He was ABLE and PERMITTED by being a part of the God head to make judgments that humankind are not to take part for it is NOT GIVEN as our responsibility. (Condemn not lest you be condemned)
As applicable, HE could pronounce condemnation, we cannot. He can pronounce what is in the heart and motives of the inner person because HE has complete knowledge, we cannot, and must be cautious about assuming what may not be factual. He, being the very Word of God, can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart - we cannot.
Again, your accusation against my posts is false.
I never posted that Jesus was morally wrong to call names.
Again, you accusation against my post is false.
This is laughable for two reasons.
First, it regards me as being political. Something you have absolutely no proof nor no substance in which to be so inclined.
Second, it regards me as "paraphrasing" the Bible. You make such a claim without regard to proof.
Again, your accusation remains false.
Folks look at the CONTEXT:
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10 I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.
I will make a break that all see that Paul is encouraging the believers not to adopt what does not come from the Lord. That the person who is hindering them is one who is not presenting what came from the Lord, and will bear the judgment of God no matter who they are.
11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
Is Paul actually telling the believers to surgically remove their privates? Is Paul telling those who oppose him to surgically remove their privates?
The answer to both is: No. Paul is not even suggesting the action.
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
OK, folks. Do you read in the passage where Paul called ANYONE a name?
I don't.
I see a person that is greatly troubled that those he led to the Lord are being led astray. Do you?
I see that he desires the believers remember the truth. Do you?
I see that those who teach untruth bring upon themselves the judgment. Do you?
I see Paul would rather those folks spend time removing from themselves what they think offensive rather than troubling the truth holding believers. Do you?
What I do not see is Paul calling anyone a name, but refuting untruth, encouraging consistency in the Lord, and warning that some want to burden the believers in a manner that would actually distract from the truth. The same occurs even in this modern age by those who would put some obligation upon the humankind to be saved, or remain saved, or right with God...
Again, your accusation is false.
First,
You posting that I have "reinterpreted James to make him say what (I) want him to say" is not PROVING I did.
You have presented no foundation in which to rest such an accusation but rely solely upon opinion.
Second,
At no time did I even allude to Jesus being made a sinner.
To make that accusation is profoundly inaccurate.
Again, your accusation remains false as has been shown throughout the your post.
preacher4truth
Active Member
IMO that's an insulting, broad-brushed and presumptuous post. Not all are called to a mission field ACROSS AN OCEAN and those who are are in no way superior to others who aren't. This spirit has been seen in too many missionaries toward those who have stayed by the stuff. It's high and mighty banter and such comparisons are imprudent and prideful, 2 Corinthians 10:12.
Are you trying to say that calling out Charismatics and the falsehoods and phonies of the IFB movement is bad? It is certainly warranted to expose such types are false teachers and heretics. Its perfectly okay to call out the KJVO radicals and expose their false teachings and their wolf in sheeps clothing antics. Why not?
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
An interesting post.
"Not are all called." That is right. Not are all called to stay home.
The Great Commission, given to all believers, has a command to go. It is given in every gospel and in the Book of Acts. The command is to go into all the world. There is no command anywhere that I know of "to stay home." Perhaps if you don't receive a special call "to stay home," then God has called you to be a missionary and you are in disobedience to the Great Commission.
Furthermore, you are Reformed Baptist, and generally follow the teachings of John MacArthur et.al. who espouse Lordship Salvation. If that doctrine were true, you would have "forsaken all and followed Christ," long ago. What happened to the "forsaking all" part. Or, "to taking up your cross, denying yourself, and following Christ." A cross is an instrument to die on. Putting yourself to death every day: saying no to self and yes to Christ every day. Does that mean the mission field also? Perhaps.
I don't know what you do. If you are the pastor of a church do you support missions? If you do, do you visit the missionaries that you support? Next year will be my 30th year on the mission field. In that time I can count the number of people that have visited me here on one hand.
The Bible: "And they all with one consent began to make excuse:"
"It's too dangerous."
"It's too hot."
"I might get sick from the food or water."
"I don't like the living conditions."
"Its too far away."
"You're a brave man; but I would never go there." (Note: flattery with straight denial). Sad!
Your conclusion that a person who sacrifices and leaves all, is proud and arrogant, is unwarranted until you walk a mile in their shoes. My guess is that you won't do it.
Here is something else to ponder.
The Great Commission was given to the early believers (as it is to us).
They weren't being as serious about it as God wanted them to be. Therefore to get them out of Jerusalem, the Lord sent a great persecution (Acts 8:1-4), and all the church scattered, preaching the gospel everywhere. Only the apostles remained behind.
Perhaps God will have to send a great persecution to get Christians off their feet. He did it shortly after the Reformation. Those who settled America came here seeking religious tolerance, something they couldn't find elsewhere. If you keep up with the news you will note that "Christian freedoms" are being eroded at an alarming rate in the U.S.
He that forsakes not all that he has cannot be my disciple.
I want to reflect on a few items in your post both of agreement and perhaps a bit of disagreement. 
I agree that we are to "go" and that we are to be "witnesses." Both words are part of the great commission.
I also understand that God appoints some to a more specific influence. John is in Japan, you are (traveling), if I recall Rippon is in China, and me I am here in my easy chair. We all are witnessing in the place we are found. As we travel from place to place, we are witnesses. Right now, I am a witness on the BB.
What I would point out is that it is the "witness" cannot be escaped from or set aside. Be it on the "foreign," "home," or traveling in between, we "shall be witnesses."
IF I recall correctly (which is most unlikely anymore) the "commission" isn't stated by Christ as a choice, suggestion, or even a command. Rather, it is the default condition of each believer - they cannot help but be a witness. Be it through "life style" or oral proclamation, written communication, or some other. The believer will be a witness - cannot not be a witness. Please, forgive if I am incorrect in this and correct with proper rendering.
One of the hallmarks of misdirected teaching is that missionaries are called to be a missionary.
We are all missionaries - just some are appointed to a land that others are not. I wonder if some are missionaries to a land by chance rather than choice. That God moves the circumstances of life (as He did in Paul's) that places a person in a land and in a service. What a blessedness to be in the providence of God.
I agree that complacency is one of the tools of the adversary. Too often believers of all "viewpoints" and "breeds" are not "about the Father's business."
I also like how you point out the life lived is to be that of Christ - alone. Too often we are encumbered by the "cares of this world."
Remarkable!
Thank you for your faithful service and dedication.
My wife and I have spent years personally supporting missionaries, and have a more personal relationship than a church might have with them. We are fortunate. It is important to note that we don't decide on a missionary based if they are reformed or not reformed.
That brings a problem that I think is part of the difference between modern missions and NT missionaries (thinking specifically of Paul).
Folks knew Paul. If they hadn't met him (as there isn't any record that Colossi (Collosse) was visited by him) they certainly had heard about him and knew something about him.
The typical church members don't seem to know their missionaries. Not on a personal level. This is particularly true among the SBC missionaries programs.
Certainly, the scattering happened, but the reason for the scattering in my opinion was to protect the "church" from the enormous destruction by Rome that would come some decades latter. By then issues were resolved such as the gentile conflict, the law conflict, the structure of leadership...
Another element of the scattering was so no "central" authority structure would be established such as the papists have. For not long after Paul's conversion, the apostles also left the Jerusalem church (leaving James in charge if I have read correctly from outside Scripture history sources) to all parts of the "world."
But your point is well taken. Complacency is not a word to use in relationship to those who are witnesses. If we are not "about the Father's business" God will make it His business to put us to work.
Though I pray that God will spare my loved ones, my spirit is exercised in agreement with you in this matter.
I do not find the U.S. as a dominant world authority in the Scriptures, and fear that some have puffed up this land as untouchable by God.
Not only are Christians complacent, but the willfully shallow assemblies that chase after sensual service rather than Godly worship will not stand in the day of persecution.
But, the world is also following that same path.
Again, the rhetorical question asked by Christ, "However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Ah, such judgment will fall - such as the world has never known.
I agree that we are to "go" and that we are to be "witnesses." Both words are part of the great commission.
I also understand that God appoints some to a more specific influence. John is in Japan, you are (traveling), if I recall Rippon is in China, and me I am here in my easy chair. We all are witnessing in the place we are found. As we travel from place to place, we are witnesses. Right now, I am a witness on the BB.
What I would point out is that it is the "witness" cannot be escaped from or set aside. Be it on the "foreign," "home," or traveling in between, we "shall be witnesses."
IF I recall correctly (which is most unlikely anymore) the "commission" isn't stated by Christ as a choice, suggestion, or even a command. Rather, it is the default condition of each believer - they cannot help but be a witness. Be it through "life style" or oral proclamation, written communication, or some other. The believer will be a witness - cannot not be a witness. Please, forgive if I am incorrect in this and correct with proper rendering.
One of the hallmarks of misdirected teaching is that missionaries are called to be a missionary.
We are all missionaries - just some are appointed to a land that others are not. I wonder if some are missionaries to a land by chance rather than choice. That God moves the circumstances of life (as He did in Paul's) that places a person in a land and in a service. What a blessedness to be in the providence of God.
I agree that complacency is one of the tools of the adversary. Too often believers of all "viewpoints" and "breeds" are not "about the Father's business."
I also like how you point out the life lived is to be that of Christ - alone. Too often we are encumbered by the "cares of this world."
Remarkable!
Thank you for your faithful service and dedication.
My wife and I have spent years personally supporting missionaries, and have a more personal relationship than a church might have with them. We are fortunate. It is important to note that we don't decide on a missionary based if they are reformed or not reformed.
That brings a problem that I think is part of the difference between modern missions and NT missionaries (thinking specifically of Paul).
Folks knew Paul. If they hadn't met him (as there isn't any record that Colossi (Collosse) was visited by him) they certainly had heard about him and knew something about him.
The typical church members don't seem to know their missionaries. Not on a personal level. This is particularly true among the SBC missionaries programs.
I am not certain I agree that the reason God sent persecution was to scatter the believers.
Certainly, the scattering happened, but the reason for the scattering in my opinion was to protect the "church" from the enormous destruction by Rome that would come some decades latter. By then issues were resolved such as the gentile conflict, the law conflict, the structure of leadership...
Another element of the scattering was so no "central" authority structure would be established such as the papists have. For not long after Paul's conversion, the apostles also left the Jerusalem church (leaving James in charge if I have read correctly from outside Scripture history sources) to all parts of the "world."
But your point is well taken. Complacency is not a word to use in relationship to those who are witnesses. If we are not "about the Father's business" God will make it His business to put us to work.
Oh, but I so do agree.
Though I pray that God will spare my loved ones, my spirit is exercised in agreement with you in this matter.
I do not find the U.S. as a dominant world authority in the Scriptures, and fear that some have puffed up this land as untouchable by God.
Not only are Christians complacent, but the willfully shallow assemblies that chase after sensual service rather than Godly worship will not stand in the day of persecution.
But, the world is also following that same path.
Again, the rhetorical question asked by Christ, "However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Ah, such judgment will fall - such as the world has never known.
John, do you think everyone on this board who is saying "Lord, Lord" is anymore a true believer than the Pharisees?
One rule on here that I do not care for is that one cannot question another person's faith. I think that as believers, it might be the kindest thing we are allowed to do when we see people who seem off the charts. I'd rather be roughed up word-wise and questioned by someone who cared about my soul than patted on the back and sent on my way if they really wondered.
I was pretty sure at one point in my life that I had a handle on the truth. A "fellow believer" sent his wife out of the room with my/their kids, got up in my face, and insulted the TAR out of me and sent me on my way on off his property after telling me exactly where I was messed up theologically, how I wasn't a believer (and I wasn't) and telling me the TRUTH.
I continue to be grateful to this day.
The majority of people who claim to be believers? If they really were, our country wouldn't be in the state it is now. If just as many as are on this board were honest to goodness believers, we'd likely think we were seeing miracles all over the place just for the power of the prayer of the faithful.
One rule on here that I do not care for is that one cannot question another person's faith. I think that as believers, it might be the kindest thing we are allowed to do when we see people who seem off the charts. I'd rather be roughed up word-wise and questioned by someone who cared about my soul than patted on the back and sent on my way if they really wondered.
I was pretty sure at one point in my life that I had a handle on the truth. A "fellow believer" sent his wife out of the room with my/their kids, got up in my face, and insulted the TAR out of me and sent me on my way on off his property after telling me exactly where I was messed up theologically, how I wasn't a believer (and I wasn't) and telling me the TRUTH.
I continue to be grateful to this day.
The majority of people who claim to be believers? If they really were, our country wouldn't be in the state it is now. If just as many as are on this board were honest to goodness believers, we'd likely think we were seeing miracles all over the place just for the power of the prayer of the faithful.
I appreciate your post agedman. I believe it is a well-balanced approach.I want to reflect on a few items in your post both of agreement and perhaps a bit of disagreement.
I agree that we are to "go" and that we are to be "witnesses." Both words are part of the great commission.
I also understand that God appoints some to a more specific influence. John is in Japan, you are (traveling), if I recall Rippon is in China, and me I am here in my easy chair. We all are witnessing in the place we are found. As we travel from place to place, we are witnesses. Right now, I am a witness on the BB.
What I would point out is that it is the "witness" cannot be escaped from or set aside. Be it on the "foreign," "home," or traveling in between, we "shall be witnesses."
IF I recall correctly (which is most unlikely anymore) the "commission" isn't stated by Christ as a choice, suggestion, or even a command. Rather, it is the default condition of each believer - they cannot help but be a witness. Be it through "life style" or oral proclamation, written communication, or some other. The believer will be a witness - cannot not be a witness. Please, forgive if I am incorrect in this and correct with proper rendering.
One of the hallmarks of misdirected teaching is that missionaries are called to be a missionary.
We are all missionaries - just some are appointed to a land that others are not. I wonder if some are missionaries to a land by chance rather than choice. That God moves the circumstances of life (as He did in Paul's) that places a person in a land and in a service. What a blessedness to be in the providence of God.
I agree that complacency is one of the tools of the adversary. Too often believers of all "viewpoints" and "breeds" are not "about the Father's business."
I also like how you point out the life lived is to be that of Christ - alone. Too often we are encumbered by the "cares of this world."
Remarkable!
Thank you for your faithful service and dedication.
My wife and I have spent years personally supporting missionaries, and have a more personal relationship than a church might have with them. We are fortunate. It is important to note that we don't decide on a missionary based if they are reformed or not reformed.
That brings a problem that I think is part of the difference between modern missions and NT missionaries (thinking specifically of Paul).
Folks knew Paul. If they hadn't met him (as there isn't any record that Colossi (Collosse) was visited by him) they certainly had heard about him and knew something about him.
The typical church members don't seem to know their missionaries. Not on a personal level. This is particularly true among the SBC missionaries programs.
I am not certain I agree that the reason God sent persecution was to scatter the believers.
Certainly, the scattering happened, but the reason for the scattering in my opinion was to protect the "church" from the enormous destruction by Rome that would come some decades latter. By then issues were resolved such as the gentile conflict, the law conflict, the structure of leadership...
Another element of the scattering was so no "central" authority structure would be established such as the papists have. For not long after Paul's conversion, the apostles also left the Jerusalem church (leaving James in charge if I have read correctly from outside Scripture history sources) to all parts of the "world."
But your point is well taken. Complacency is not a word to use in relationship to those who are witnesses. If we are not "about the Father's business" God will make it His business to put us to work.
Oh, but I so do agree.
Though I pray that God will spare my loved ones, my spirit is exercised in agreement with you in this matter.
I do not find the U.S. as a dominant world authority in the Scriptures, and fear that some have puffed up this land as untouchable by God.
Not only are Christians complacent, but the willfully shallow assemblies that chase after sensual service rather than Godly worship will not stand in the day of persecution.
But, the world is also following that same path.
Again, the rhetorical question asked by Christ, "However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Ah, such judgment will fall - such as the world has never known.
I fully realize that there are some who cannot go--elderly, disabled, etc.
I also believe that there are more that could go that do not go, for whatever reason I do not know. That is basically who I was addressing, though it may not have sounded that way.
But as you say, we are all called to be a witness (Acts 1:8).
Check your shoe size. If if fits, I was talking about you. If it doesn't fit, I wasn't thinking of you. :saint:
Check your shoe size. If it fits, I meant you. If it doesn't fit, I wasn't thinking about you. :saint:
With this, you are pre-supposing that my parents were not getting my upbringing from the Bible. They were good, dedicated servants of Christ who tried to raise us according to the Word of God, with family devotions every day and encouragement to us kids to have our own personal devotions. In the case of calling one another names, I'm positive (it's been 5 decades since I thought about it) that they were basing that on Matt. 5:22. Now I'm still shaking my head that you passed that verse off so casually by referring to Eccl. 3:1, instead of exegeting Matt. in context. Now, if my parents based their upbringing in this case (no name calling), who are you to say they did not get that from the Bible? You might say that they interpreted it wrongly because of Eccl. 3:1, but you can't say they didn't get that principle from the Bible.
You are still not answering my point. I never said Christ was being immoral or unethical; that was not my point at all. Of course everything Christ did was righteous. Let me put it a different way. Can you say everything that Christ said? Did you have His authority to say some of the things He said? Or are there some things you cannot say that Christ did because of his authority?
Nope, sorry, I disagree. The disciples never did anything remotely similar after the Ascension, and I have no doubt the practice Jesus objected to was still there. And I also don't agree with the comparison with OT prophets (not the average saint).
So then, your answer to the OP is that it is okay to insult another believer, correct? If so, what are the limits?
- Status