WOW!!! Has anyone read the latest issue of Northland's Integrity ? On the inside of the front cover is a positive quote about the Puritans! In reading the articles within it should be duly noted that the authors of said articles quotes many of the Calvinistic persuasion. I thought this very interesting seeing as how Dr. O went balistic two years ago over an article written by Sam Horn about missions in which he stated " after reading John Piper's Let the Nations be Glad, I must re-think my position on world missions." That was denounced by Northland and Dr. O in particular, and that specific issue disappeared from print rather mysteriously. So then I guess the question is: what has caused him to change his mind?
-
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!
New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!
- Thread starter Daniel David
- Start date
Pastor Jonathan V. Shore
New Member
Sponge Bob,
By "withdraw my endorsement" I meant that I am deactivating my charter with the organization and removing links to their sites from my website. I didn't mean that they needed an endorsement from me. I just meant that I could no longer promote the organization actively or passively.
I do understand that their are "gray areas". I explicitly stated that previously. I also clearly stated that the application of Biblical principle is subjective. However the interpretation of Biblical principle is less subjective - actually quite narrow.
By the way, my interpretation of Ex. 20 and 32 was not "indoctrinated" into me. It is my conclusion after studying the word of God. I am not a BJU molded tin soldier. I do love the Lord, and this love motivates me to do everything in my power to avoid "gray areas". I would much rather KNOW that I am not offending the Lord with my worship music, than risk offending Him (or my conscience) by using questionable music.
That being said, there is nothing "gray" about the music on the "Oneighty" web page on the GCC site. It is vere clearly the same exact sound that the world uses to worship the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life.
Back to the topic at hand... There is a push in Fundamentalism today to fellowship with any ministry whose written doctrinal statement and public teaching is considered fundamental. I skimmed over the doctrinal state for GCC and I believe I can say that I completely agree with it. However, there is an old statement, "Your talk talks, and your walk talks, but your walk talks louder than your talk talks." You can say in your doctrinal statement that you believe that God is Holy, but the way you choose to worship God says more about your Theology than your written statement. Public worship IS your strongest doctrinal statement!
BTW... I read that Dr. Ollila had shared the platform with Rick Holland before. Can anyone supply a place and date?
By "withdraw my endorsement" I meant that I am deactivating my charter with the organization and removing links to their sites from my website. I didn't mean that they needed an endorsement from me. I just meant that I could no longer promote the organization actively or passively.
I do understand that their are "gray areas". I explicitly stated that previously. I also clearly stated that the application of Biblical principle is subjective. However the interpretation of Biblical principle is less subjective - actually quite narrow.
By the way, my interpretation of Ex. 20 and 32 was not "indoctrinated" into me. It is my conclusion after studying the word of God. I am not a BJU molded tin soldier. I do love the Lord, and this love motivates me to do everything in my power to avoid "gray areas". I would much rather KNOW that I am not offending the Lord with my worship music, than risk offending Him (or my conscience) by using questionable music.
That being said, there is nothing "gray" about the music on the "Oneighty" web page on the GCC site. It is vere clearly the same exact sound that the world uses to worship the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life.
Back to the topic at hand... There is a push in Fundamentalism today to fellowship with any ministry whose written doctrinal statement and public teaching is considered fundamental. I skimmed over the doctrinal state for GCC and I believe I can say that I completely agree with it. However, there is an old statement, "Your talk talks, and your walk talks, but your walk talks louder than your talk talks." You can say in your doctrinal statement that you believe that God is Holy, but the way you choose to worship God says more about your Theology than your written statement. Public worship IS your strongest doctrinal statement!
BTW... I read that Dr. Ollila had shared the platform with Rick Holland before. Can anyone supply a place and date?
Sponge Bob
New Member
I am glad that you have set a standard that causes you to know you are not violating Scripture in you own personal life and in your ministry. But what is your knowledge based on? You conclude that your music is wholly in the white zone. But what if there are people who are more conservative than you who say that your music is worldly. What do you say to them?
Jonathan, this may sound bizarre, but humor me. What if this music on their youth group site isn't for the purpose of worship? I'm thinking out loud here. You say it is worship, but could it be merely for effect or for entertainment?
You have used the "old statement," "Your talk talks..." a couple times and I'm wondering what you know of Grace Communities "walk." You are criticizing them for the music on their website, yet I doubt you have any clue about their ministries. I doubt you know all that that body of brothers in Christ do to advance the Gospel. You seem to be the sort that says, "Yeah, MacArthur has done a lot and has a tremendous preaching/teaching ministry around the world" but HANG HIM! The music on his teen's website is sensual!
Do you have any of MacArthur's books, commentaries, or tapes?
I asked some questions above and made some comments. Could you please answer the direct questions?
Sponge Bob
New Member
Jonathan, I can't say for sure, but I'm 99 percent sure Dr. O has not spoken with Rick (inside sources).
Pastor Jonathan V. Shore
New Member
Sponge Bob,
I am not the type to say "Hang Him". I am the type to walk away from fellowship with him because I do not want any part in his compromise.
The true test for all music (not words) is whether or not the musical sound is associated with the promotion of the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life. If it is, then it has no place in the worship of a holy God - it is profane. If someone were to accuse me of using music in our services that was "worldly" I'd ask them to explain how the sound of our music reflects the music in our culture which glorifies the gods of this world. However, I doubt anyone would seriously make that accusation (we use traditional hymns and gospel songs).
Regarding the music on the website... I used that for illustrative purposes only. If you go to other pages on their site you can read about (and see pictures of) bands that have performed at their church functions.
I do have books by John McArthur. I do not think that reading his writings means that I am "fellowshiping" with him - if that's what you mean. I believe that I can read his books without agreeing/disagreeing with the entire book. Just as I would read books by atheists and discern the truth in them according to the teachings of Scripture.
Thank you for the word about Ollila/Holland. I will wait to see if anyone else might have your 1% of information.
<edited per request>
[ February 10, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
I am not the type to say "Hang Him". I am the type to walk away from fellowship with him because I do not want any part in his compromise.
The true test for all music (not words) is whether or not the musical sound is associated with the promotion of the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life. If it is, then it has no place in the worship of a holy God - it is profane. If someone were to accuse me of using music in our services that was "worldly" I'd ask them to explain how the sound of our music reflects the music in our culture which glorifies the gods of this world. However, I doubt anyone would seriously make that accusation (we use traditional hymns and gospel songs).
Regarding the music on the website... I used that for illustrative purposes only. If you go to other pages on their site you can read about (and see pictures of) bands that have performed at their church functions.
I do have books by John McArthur. I do not think that reading his writings means that I am "fellowshiping" with him - if that's what you mean. I believe that I can read his books without agreeing/disagreeing with the entire book. Just as I would read books by atheists and discern the truth in them according to the teachings of Scripture.
Thank you for the word about Ollila/Holland. I will wait to see if anyone else might have your 1% of information.
<edited per request>
[ February 10, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
Pastor Larry,
I tried to walk away, Larry, but you wouldn't let me.
I will simply say that I have read Pickering's book along with many others. I read 1 book a week by many different authors. It is a personal goal that I have achieved for the past 3 years.
Just a thought...I guess the only way you could do that is if you are like Jonathan and are allowed to read books from "compromising" authors because I don't think Pickering wrote too many books. Actually, there aren't too many books written by people you approve of.
And by the way I'd be interested in seeing the Biblical text one would use to make the difference between reading someone's book which is for all practical purposes a well-prepared set of sermons and listening to them at a conference.
And please don't act like you were quoting Scripture and I wasn't. Check the posts. I asked you to quote 1 verse that defends your position in relationship to this particular matter and issue. You refused and asked me to reference your 12,500 other posts. It would seem it wouldn't be hard for you to just pull 1 verse out of the hat.
Just for the record, the issue isn't the use of Scripture to defend a position or promote a position. Are you telling me that John MacArthur and Rick Holland can't defend Biblically the position of GCC? That is too rediculous to even imagine. The issue is the proper application of Scripture.
For example Jonathan makes some logical leaps in his argument to come up with the applications that he does. I preach the same passage and emphasize the holiness of God (although holiness is just one of His many qualities) but I wouldn't say that "a Mercy Me concert is what is being talked about here!!" I mean if he wants to teach like that and the people who come to his church will listen to him, God bless him. If you want to think you are right. God bless you. I just disagree with his position and the application of the verses. And I disagree with you. Please don't flatter yourself that you are the only one that can use Scripture to defend your position.
And by the way have you checked your shoes, Larry. I'm not smelling anything on this side of the fence.
I tried to walk away, Larry, but you wouldn't let me.
I will simply say that I have read Pickering's book along with many others. I read 1 book a week by many different authors. It is a personal goal that I have achieved for the past 3 years.
Just a thought...I guess the only way you could do that is if you are like Jonathan and are allowed to read books from "compromising" authors because I don't think Pickering wrote too many books. Actually, there aren't too many books written by people you approve of.
And by the way I'd be interested in seeing the Biblical text one would use to make the difference between reading someone's book which is for all practical purposes a well-prepared set of sermons and listening to them at a conference.
And please don't act like you were quoting Scripture and I wasn't. Check the posts. I asked you to quote 1 verse that defends your position in relationship to this particular matter and issue. You refused and asked me to reference your 12,500 other posts. It would seem it wouldn't be hard for you to just pull 1 verse out of the hat.
Just for the record, the issue isn't the use of Scripture to defend a position or promote a position. Are you telling me that John MacArthur and Rick Holland can't defend Biblically the position of GCC? That is too rediculous to even imagine. The issue is the proper application of Scripture.
For example Jonathan makes some logical leaps in his argument to come up with the applications that he does. I preach the same passage and emphasize the holiness of God (although holiness is just one of His many qualities) but I wouldn't say that "a Mercy Me concert is what is being talked about here!!" I mean if he wants to teach like that and the people who come to his church will listen to him, God bless him. If you want to think you are right. God bless you. I just disagree with his position and the application of the verses. And I disagree with you. Please don't flatter yourself that you are the only one that can use Scripture to defend your position.
And by the way have you checked your shoes, Larry. I'm not smelling anything on this side of the fence.
Pastor Jonathan V. Shore
New Member
HappyG,
I make logical leaps in my explanations because I assume that everyone reading on the BB is capable of studying the Scriptures. I have not tried to lay out a step by step Kindergarten level explanation of my interpretation/application of Ex. 20/32. I challenge you to study it out and you will see that it requires no leaps to understand that in Exodus 32 the golden calf was intended to be an image of Jehovah.
God specifically tells Moses that His people have departed from the way he "commanded" them. The only commandments they had received up to this point was the oral giving of the ten commandments in Ex. 20, so therefore they were violating one of these commandments. It is obvious that it was the second because of the presence of an image. A study of Ex. 32 (context/grammar) will reveal that they intended to worship Jehovah in the form of a calf. This was PAGAN WORSHIP attributed to a holy God.
The first commandment is about WHO we worship - the second about HOW we worship.
This is the problem today - People are trying to worship a holy God with the same carnal style that the pagans in our culture glorify their gods.
Those that choose pagan worship of Jehovah should be admonished and seperated from if they fail to turn from their sin.
I make logical leaps in my explanations because I assume that everyone reading on the BB is capable of studying the Scriptures. I have not tried to lay out a step by step Kindergarten level explanation of my interpretation/application of Ex. 20/32. I challenge you to study it out and you will see that it requires no leaps to understand that in Exodus 32 the golden calf was intended to be an image of Jehovah.
God specifically tells Moses that His people have departed from the way he "commanded" them. The only commandments they had received up to this point was the oral giving of the ten commandments in Ex. 20, so therefore they were violating one of these commandments. It is obvious that it was the second because of the presence of an image. A study of Ex. 32 (context/grammar) will reveal that they intended to worship Jehovah in the form of a calf. This was PAGAN WORSHIP attributed to a holy God.
The first commandment is about WHO we worship - the second about HOW we worship.
This is the problem today - People are trying to worship a holy God with the same carnal style that the pagans in our culture glorify their gods.
Those that choose pagan worship of Jehovah should be admonished and seperated from if they fail to turn from their sin.
I tend not to like "one book written by many different authors," although I am reading one of those now
I liek when the same guy writes the whole thing ... Actually I typically read more than one a week on average, and rarely froma fundamenatlist author. But if you have read Pickering, then why are you asking me for the biblical basis for biblical separation? That is confusing to me. If you have read him, then you know what the general principles are. You shouldn't be asking me. You might not agree, but you shouldn't have to ask me what the verses are that are used in its defense.What?? I rarely read books by "people I approve of" in the sense that you use it. I think there in lies a great example of the caricature you and others are participating in. Fundamentalists typically don't believe you should never read, converse with, interact with, or learn from people who disagree with us. If you really think that, then you have that caricature you need to disabuse yourself of.
Right now I am reading a book on the emerging church by Leonard Sweet and five others. I am reading Grenz on Post MOdernism. I am reading Churchhill's history of the English Speaking People. I am reading Leisch on The New Worship. I am reading Raymond's Systematic Theology. And I am reading The Minister as Shepherd by Jefferson. None of those are fundamentalists that I would have to preach in my church. But they have all contributions and perspectives I am interested in.
I don't know why I need to justify that. I have no problem reading or listening to someone at a conference. Neither of the things you mention is troublesome to us. The problem is inviting them to a conference. In inviting them, you are endorsing their ministry or perspective, and therefore, if it is sinful or unbiblical, you are participating in their sin. Scripture makes this principle clear. We should interact with their thoughts and perspectives. Most fundamentalists wouldn't agree with that. We should not endorse their ministries.
My issue here is not that someone would go and listen to RH. My issue is that ProTeens invited him. That is my concern.
No, in fact I referenced several verses, including 1 Tim 5:22, 2 Thess 3, Rom 16:17-18, Matt 24, Gal 2, 1 Tim 1:19-21, etc. I certainly have not been lax in dealing with the text. You on the other hand have yet to give any reasonable answer to these that I have seen. That is troublesome.
Yes absolutely. There is no way that JM can use Scripture to defend his associations with certain people. That is not "too rediculous to even imagine." Just study the Scripture and try to bring it across hte bridge into the modern context. His position on this matter of separation flies in teh face of the biblical text. In order to defend it, I believe he has to severely limit the teaching of Scritpure. I believe his defense is inadequate and misguided.
Exactly my point. When Scripture is misapplied as your side has done on these passages regarding participation and endorsement, you end up in a place you shouldn't be in. I don't think it means you or JM or anyone else is horribly ungodly and rebellious. I don't think it means you don't preach a clear gospel. I don't think it means you aren't a nice person with whom I wouldn't sit down for lunch. I would actually love that opportunity. I think it means that I cannot give someone like JM a formal endorsement by asking him to speak at my conference to represent my church or my philosophy.
I haven't read his posts so I can't comment on that. I don't doubt that you can use Scripture to defend your position. My question is can you use it consistently in its intended meaning to defend your position? I say no.
So? Maybe you are accustomed to it, or maybe you don't recognize it. That's not really the issue. Neither side is without flaws. That's a straw man.
Jonathan,
You just restated your article. I understand your article. And you are missapplying the principle when you say that they apply to "styles" of music. It is as simple as that.
There is a big difference between CCM and the world's music. Huge! People who don't know God don't enjoy listening to Mercy Me. You are making a wrong application.
You just restated your article. I understand your article. And you are missapplying the principle when you say that they apply to "styles" of music. It is as simple as that.
There is a big difference between CCM and the world's music. Huge! People who don't know God don't enjoy listening to Mercy Me. You are making a wrong application.
Pastor Larry,
I read through those passages and don't see how you come to the conclusions you do. I had the same feelings when I read Pickerings book so don't feel bad.
Just a thought, I bet those authors you are reading don't mind that you separate from them and don't invite them to your "conference" (which you probably don't have)as long as you keep those royalty checks high for them!
I read through those passages and don't see how you come to the conclusions you do. I had the same feelings when I read Pickerings book so don't feel bad.
Just a thought, I bet those authors you are reading don't mind that you separate from them and don't invite them to your "conference" (which you probably don't have)as long as you keep those royalty checks high for them!
Pastor Larry,
I read through those passages and don't see how you come to the conclusions you do. I had the same feelings when I read Pickerings book so don't feel bad.
Just a thought, I bet those authors you are reading don't mind that you separate from them and don't invite them to your "conference" (which you probably don't have)as long as you keep those royalty checks high for them!
I read through those passages and don't see how you come to the conclusions you do. I had the same feelings when I read Pickerings book so don't feel bad.
Just a thought, I bet those authors you are reading don't mind that you separate from them and don't invite them to your "conference" (which you probably don't have)as long as you keep those royalty checks high for them!
HappyG,
I cannot see any possible way in which you can read those texts and see no justification for any kind of separation from disobedience. When Pauls says If someone doesn't obey this letter, mark him, separate from him, and admonish him, and he repeats that in numerous of his letters, how in the world do you think it means "maintain minister cooperation and fellowship with him"? If they do not address separation from people who do not obey the word, then what in the world do you think they are talking about?
Secondly, I don't really care that much what those authors think. They are not getting rich off of me I am quite sure, but that is irrelevant. As believers, we should not be living our lives off of what people think. As Paul said, if we please men we cannot be the servant of Christ. It seems like you are putting a great deal of pressure on people to compromise their position to agree with you on this topic. Earlier I asked you (I believe) about the possibility that people's refusal to participate in this event was indeed an indication of their God focusedness. I can't help but notice that was never addressed.
And no, I don't have a conference. It was purely a hypothetical. I thought that would have been clear.
I cannot see any possible way in which you can read those texts and see no justification for any kind of separation from disobedience. When Pauls says If someone doesn't obey this letter, mark him, separate from him, and admonish him, and he repeats that in numerous of his letters, how in the world do you think it means "maintain minister cooperation and fellowship with him"? If they do not address separation from people who do not obey the word, then what in the world do you think they are talking about?
Secondly, I don't really care that much what those authors think. They are not getting rich off of me I am quite sure, but that is irrelevant. As believers, we should not be living our lives off of what people think. As Paul said, if we please men we cannot be the servant of Christ. It seems like you are putting a great deal of pressure on people to compromise their position to agree with you on this topic. Earlier I asked you (I believe) about the possibility that people's refusal to participate in this event was indeed an indication of their God focusedness. I can't help but notice that was never addressed.
And no, I don't have a conference. It was purely a hypothetical. I thought that would have been clear.
Pastor Larry,
You have to define and apply what disobedience is and who Paul is talking too. I don't for one minute think Paul is talking about the JM's or RH's of this world. Nor is he talking about music styles. I know you think the world loves CCM but they don't. It is radically different to them and until their heart understands the things of God they don't enjoy it.
I was just joking about the royalties. It doesn't bother me and it certainly doesn't bother them.
Honestly, I am not trying to change the type of music you have in your church or how your church functions. You can do it as you wish. The only thing I would change is the concept of "seperating" from the likes of the JM's. I don't really think that has much practical application to your everyday ministry but I think it does have application to the group of "fundamentalists" that we have been talking about.
Separating from evil and error when it leads to people not coming to Christ or compromising the true fundamentals of the faith, I agree with 100%. I am a fundamentalist in the scope of evangelicalism.
Bottom line, I believe that Paul would fellowship with JM without any questions asked. And if some from your camp would question it, he would not be swayed for one minute in sharing the stage with JM. And I believe Paul would fellowship and take the stage with Swindoll, Hybels, Andy Stanley, Rick Warren and the like. There is no question about it in my mind. They are not the "disobedient brothers" Paul is describing.
We can agree to disagree.
You have to define and apply what disobedience is and who Paul is talking too. I don't for one minute think Paul is talking about the JM's or RH's of this world. Nor is he talking about music styles. I know you think the world loves CCM but they don't. It is radically different to them and until their heart understands the things of God they don't enjoy it.
I was just joking about the royalties. It doesn't bother me and it certainly doesn't bother them.
Honestly, I am not trying to change the type of music you have in your church or how your church functions. You can do it as you wish. The only thing I would change is the concept of "seperating" from the likes of the JM's. I don't really think that has much practical application to your everyday ministry but I think it does have application to the group of "fundamentalists" that we have been talking about.
Separating from evil and error when it leads to people not coming to Christ or compromising the true fundamentals of the faith, I agree with 100%. I am a fundamentalist in the scope of evangelicalism.
Bottom line, I believe that Paul would fellowship with JM without any questions asked. And if some from your camp would question it, he would not be swayed for one minute in sharing the stage with JM. And I believe Paul would fellowship and take the stage with Swindoll, Hybels, Andy Stanley, Rick Warren and the like. There is no question about it in my mind. They are not the "disobedient brothers" Paul is describing.
We can agree to disagree.
Sponge Bob
New Member
Yeah, yeah, I know. It's not the same thing to buy someone's books as it is to invite them to a conference. It's because inviting them to speak is an endorsement.
I just read Dr. Ollila's article in the new Integrity. In it he quotes JMac twice. I realize that some of you may think that this is fine and dandy and doesn't rise to the level of cooperation. But I contend that even though it may not be to the same level as inviting a person to a conference, it IS an endorsement when it is a quote used to support your viewpoint. It JUST IS.
I contend that if you want to be honest, young men in "fundamentalism" wouldn't even be tempted to go to Masters or "cooperate" with JMac if they had never been required to read his books, or if their professors didn't go to Masters seminary, or if the likes of MacArthur weren't quoted in articles, or if YOU didn't have his books on your shelves. I think it's hypocritical to make the sharp distinction between the conference invitation and the quoting writers do or being trained by the man you must separate from.
I have reread through much of this post and it amazes me how institutions like Bob Jones are exempt from criticisms. Jonathan, why don't you separate from them? I just talked to a buddy who graduated from BJ several years back and the guy who spoke at his commencement opposed immersion baptism, but believed in sprinkling. What about Ian Paisley (a Presbytirian)? If you are doing everything to get as far away from worldliness as possible (as in your argument about music), then why don't you separate from BJ?
I use BJU because you're an alumnist Jonathan (according to your website).
HOW 'BOUT SOME CONSISTENCY BOYS! Get honest about your position.
I just read Dr. Ollila's article in the new Integrity. In it he quotes JMac twice. I realize that some of you may think that this is fine and dandy and doesn't rise to the level of cooperation. But I contend that even though it may not be to the same level as inviting a person to a conference, it IS an endorsement when it is a quote used to support your viewpoint. It JUST IS.
I contend that if you want to be honest, young men in "fundamentalism" wouldn't even be tempted to go to Masters or "cooperate" with JMac if they had never been required to read his books, or if their professors didn't go to Masters seminary, or if the likes of MacArthur weren't quoted in articles, or if YOU didn't have his books on your shelves. I think it's hypocritical to make the sharp distinction between the conference invitation and the quoting writers do or being trained by the man you must separate from.
I have reread through much of this post and it amazes me how institutions like Bob Jones are exempt from criticisms. Jonathan, why don't you separate from them? I just talked to a buddy who graduated from BJ several years back and the guy who spoke at his commencement opposed immersion baptism, but believed in sprinkling. What about Ian Paisley (a Presbytirian)? If you are doing everything to get as far away from worldliness as possible (as in your argument about music), then why don't you separate from BJ?
I use BJU because you're an alumnist Jonathan (according to your website).
HOW 'BOUT SOME CONSISTENCY BOYS! Get honest about your position.
Pastor Jonathan V. Shore
New Member
Sponge Bob,
The "inconsistencies" you mention regarding BJU are differences of opinion on unclear matters. I am not familiar with the guy that does the sprinkling. I do believe baptism is clearly immersion. However this is much different than "worldliness".
Deuteronomy 29:29 says "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed are given to us and our children forever that we may do all the works of this law." The gist of this verse is that God has made clear in His Word everything we need to know to please Him. The less clear something is, then the less important it is for us to live a life that pleases Him. For this reason I do not seperate from good men over doctrines that are not clearly revealed in Scripture.
I didn't say that I would seperate from someone like JM for "worldliness", but I did say that I would seperate from someone who violates the spirit of the second commandment. I do believe that Holy worship is clearly taught in Scripture, therefore I will seperate with a brother who does not practice Holy worship.
I know that a lot of you think that the OT commandments are outdated, but let me ask you to consider a few things:
1. What was Paul talking about when he said, "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God and is profitable..."
2. When God was reintroducing Himself to His people at Mt. Sinai the first thing He did was give them 10 commandments. God is IMMUTABLE (sp?). Don't you think He wants us to know the same things about His character and expectations?
The Bible (including the OT) is the self-revelation of God. We learn volumes about the character of God THROUGH THE LAW. The things God said that He hates in the OT - he still hates them today.
The "inconsistencies" you mention regarding BJU are differences of opinion on unclear matters. I am not familiar with the guy that does the sprinkling. I do believe baptism is clearly immersion. However this is much different than "worldliness".
Deuteronomy 29:29 says "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed are given to us and our children forever that we may do all the works of this law." The gist of this verse is that God has made clear in His Word everything we need to know to please Him. The less clear something is, then the less important it is for us to live a life that pleases Him. For this reason I do not seperate from good men over doctrines that are not clearly revealed in Scripture.
I didn't say that I would seperate from someone like JM for "worldliness", but I did say that I would seperate from someone who violates the spirit of the second commandment. I do believe that Holy worship is clearly taught in Scripture, therefore I will seperate with a brother who does not practice Holy worship.
I know that a lot of you think that the OT commandments are outdated, but let me ask you to consider a few things:
1. What was Paul talking about when he said, "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God and is profitable..."
2. When God was reintroducing Himself to His people at Mt. Sinai the first thing He did was give them 10 commandments. God is IMMUTABLE (sp?). Don't you think He wants us to know the same things about His character and expectations?
The Bible (including the OT) is the self-revelation of God. We learn volumes about the character of God THROUGH THE LAW. The things God said that He hates in the OT - he still hates them today.
I absolutly agree, but I think we might disagree on what constitutes worship that is common, slovenly, and carnal, which is the REAL problem in most fundamental ministries, not whether they would agree with your Biblical philosophy. The application is not so cut and dried
