• 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!

Moderation is what helps- not teetotalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Where is our disagreement here?
In the extent that Paul commends that one support the weak. He didn't say just would just be careful about when and where he ate meat. To the contrary, he said he would totally abstain as long as the world stood.

The title of the thread is a direct contradiction of the verse I posted.

But, just so there is no confusion, a weak brother, Scripturally, is not one who has a propensity to overindulge or to be drunken (which means an excess of food as well as drink), but one who has a conscience toward certain meats or wine as evil things, and the propensity to go beyond what his faith will allow.
 

Herald

New Member
In the extent that Paul commends that one support the weak. He didn't say just would just be careful about when and where he ate meat. To the contrary, he said he would totally abstain as long as the world stood.

The title of the thread is a direct contradiction of the verse I posted.

But, just so there is no confusion, a weak brother, Scripturally, is not one who has a propensity to overindulge or to be drunken (which means an excess of food as well as drink), but one who has a conscience toward certain meats or wine as evil things, and the propensity to go beyond what his faith will allow.

OK. Well, I simply disagree, and after the both of us making point and counter point, I am content to let our disagreement be.
 

evangelist6589

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well that's fine...but nobody listens to you anymore....so whether you preach abstinence, moderation, or drinking till your crapfaced...it doesn't matter. For the most part the IFB influence is shattered...it has no influence. But the scripture does. So you make too much of these people when for the most part, they are irrelevant.

You have a point. IFB are often fringe and have little influence in the modern evangelical circles. They are ignored by most and labeled as legalists. However I'd rather have a IFB anyday over a compromising evangelical.

John of Japan I do not agree with in some areas but at least he knows where he stands. He knows the Bible, and although he may be legalistic he at least knows the true gospel.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
All my life I heard about the evils of drinking. No drinking, period, was the rule. It was even posted on the wall in front of the church (Church Covenant). It was bad and evil. It was this terrible sin. So, what do you think was one of the first thing I tried when I went into the Army?
LSD? Cocaine? murder? polygamy?
Or did you never hear about those things when you were younger?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LSD? Cocaine? murder? polygamy?
Or did you never hear about those things when you were younger?

Those things were not legal, were not continually preached against, and were not posted on the church wall.
 

Winman

Active Member
Those things were not legal, were not continually preached against, and were not posted on the church wall.

Actually, LSD was quite legal when I was a teen and the police could not prevent people from taking it. Laws had to be passed before they could legally stop people from using it. It is similar to Salvia the kids were using just a year or two ago, there were no laws against it's use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pfs8sqOX0o

I believe LSD (and Salvia) would come under sorcery, the word "sorceries" used in several places in scripture is pharmakeia, very similar to our word pharmaceuticals, meaning to take drugs.
 

saturneptune

New Member
LSD? Cocaine? murder? polygamy?
Or did you never hear about those things when you were younger?

Some things in the Bible are absolutes, not given to moderation such as the things you mention above. Then there are items that fall under moderation like drinking. Those unable to distinguish between the two need to use common sense.

The bottom line is those who make moderation items absolutes and choose to impose their will on others have a Pharisee type mindset, which has nothing to do with Scripture or the Gospel.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
As a kid, were you ever emboldened to jump ramps with your bike by watching Evel Knieval? I don't mean little ramps. I mean something really daring? Something you truly did not possess the ability to do?

Then boom. Wrecked bike and broken collar bone, not to mention the bruising and the missing skin.

That's what it means to cause a weaker brother to offend. He wants the faith to do things that he just can't do, but doesn't really have it.

No, that is not what being a weaker brother means. In this scenario the "weakness" is wanting to do something that is dangerous but being convinced it is okay.

But the actual "weaker" brother in Scripture is the one who THINKS it is not okay to do something that is, unbeknownst to him, is actually perfectly okay.

World of difference.

The weaker brother in Scripture is one who thinks something, like eating meat offered to idols, is a sin when it is not a sin.

Paul could not have been clearer that his problem is not his lack of self-control but his "KNOWLEDGE"- he thought it was a sin to eat meat offered to idols. The weaker brother did NOT think eating meat offered to idols was okay while, for him as a weaker brother, he was just not able to do it in moderation. That is not the issue at all.

You have totally misunderstood the weaker brother principle.

If you had explained your understanding of the weaker brother principle two days ago when I asked you to, I could have corrected your error and saved us all a lot of time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have a point. IFB are often fringe and have little influence in the modern evangelical circles. They are ignored by most and labeled as legalists. However I'd rather have a IFB anyday over a compromising evangelical.

John of Japan I do not agree with in some areas but at least he knows where he stands. He knows the Bible, and although he may be legalistic he at least knows the true gospel.

Wow..... not me.....I dont see it bearing fruit. But thats my perception. Now I just open up my bible & read. The Holy Spirit is a much better teacher than, "you must not" & "obey me because I am gods chosen representative" folks.

BTW, I don't agree with SBC churches either.....they are just as useless. Both the IFB & the SBC are two extremes & both misrepresent what Christ was trying to teach. As for me, I have jettisoned both from my life. I need a church I can trust, not a malformed bastardized gathering place. They accomplish nothing & leave people empty & wanting the true Christ. And you wont find it there, I am sorry to say.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those things were not legal, were not continually preached against, and were not posted on the church wall.

Well said & very true.....Im afraid ITL you have a realistic understanding of things & to some in here you need to stop viewing things like that ..... so just stop! :laugh:
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
BTW, I don't agree with SBC churches either.....they are just as useless. Both the IFB & the SBC are two extremes & both misrepresent what Christ was trying to teach. As for me, I have jettisoned both from my life. I need a church I can trust, not a malformed bastardized gathering place. They accomplish nothing & leave people empty & wanting the true Christ. And you wont find it there, I am sorry to say.

That's a sad statement up there. There are several good SBC churches here in town and are solid in reformed teaching. To call them all malformed and bastardized is ridiculous knee jerk arrogance. You know better than this.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
OK. Well, I simply disagree, and after the both of us making point and counter point, I am content to let our disagreement be.
Fine. But consider what you do, and what Paul said is good in the verse I posted.
 

Herald

New Member
BTW, I don't agree with SBC churches either.....they are just as useless.

That is painting with a pretty wide brush. While I have some disagreements with the actual Southern Baptist Convention, there are quite a few member churches that faithfully proclaim the gospel. Two come to mind right away: Capital Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C. (Pastor Mark Dever) and Grace Baptist Church of Cape Coral, FL (Pastor Tom Ascol).
 

Luke2427

Active Member
That's a sad statement up there. There are several good SBC churches here in town and are solid in reformed teaching. To call them all malformed and bastardized is ridiculous knee jerk arrogance. You know better than this.

I agree.

The SBC has all kinds of problems but I love how people who either DON'T GO TO CHURCH or prefer churches that are doing SQUAT for the Kingdom crap on the largest most theologically conservative Baptist denomination on EARTH that sends more missionaries around the globe than any other movement in history- and the VAST majority of those missionaries are amazingly theologically sound.

It's like a roach calling an elephant small and gross.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

preacher4truth

Active Member
I agree.

The SBC has all kinds of problems but I love how people who either DON'T GO TO CHURCH or prefer churches that are doing SQUAT for the Kingdom crap on the largest most theologically conservative Baptist denomination on EARTH that sends more missionaries around the globe than any other movement in history- and the VAST majority of those missionaries are amazingly theologically sound.

It's like roach calling an elephant small.

Yep. Agreed. It's hypocritical to boot. It's like the old saying people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top