Originally posted by JackRUS:
Windork.
I am sorry to inform you that your local church called, and since you have decided to publicly publish your views here outside to auspices of this said church, you are now an apostate as well.
-
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!
The Sword of the Lord is an APOSTATE Baptist Newspaper!
- Thread starter TheWinDork
- Start date
- Status
I didn't think it was possible to find anyone more legalistic than the Sword of the Lord group. TheWinDork has proved me wrong. It is rather amusing that the Sword of the Lord is getting a taste of their own medicine. Chances are he comes from a church, that at least at one time, adhered to the Sword "mentality".
TheWinDork it not to late. Before you leave your teenage years, assuming you are there yet, get under some Grace teaching and leave the world of legalism forever.
http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Kiss/Kiss30.htm
TheWinDork it not to late. Before you leave your teenage years, assuming you are there yet, get under some Grace teaching and leave the world of legalism forever.
http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Kiss/Kiss30.htm
Oh, no (sigh!) here we go again. It is tiresome refuting the hackneyed idea that us Fundamentalists are ergo, legalists simply because we believe in having standards of separation.
Grasshopper, can you actually give me quotes from the Sword of the Lord saying that one cannot be righteousness unless one meets their standards of personal separation? No? I thought not.
It is a far cry from the Fundamentalist doctrine of personal separation to the false doctrine of salvation called legalism, as taught against in the book of Galations.
TheWinDork
New Member
Shows what kinda [persaonal attack deleted] you are. I'm 33 years old.
[ May 16, 2006, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
But poor TheWinDork is just expressing his view on separation. It seems as if the “Sword” group would support him in his biblical separation stance. Oops, I forgot, it is from the Sword that he wishes to separate from. Therefore his standards of separation are somehow flawed.
Did I make that claim? No, didn’t think so.
Legalism doesn’t have to be a salvation issue. Back when I read the Sword they were separating from fellow IBF’rs because certain IBF’rs would have WA Criswell speak in their church. Why separate you ask? Because Criswell was a Southern Baptist. Why should that matter you ask? Because according to Hyles and Curtis Hudson Southern Baptist associated with liberals.
So you see they had to disassociate from a pastor because he had a pastor in his church who supposedly associated with liberals. Yet both of the Pastors agreed with the Sword on doctrine. Now you are surprised that Windork would want to disassociate from the Sword? It seems a natural progression to me. WinDork is the offspring of this legalistic union. Someday down the road, WinDork will be the liberal in this vicious cycle.
I'm not Grasshopper, but I thought I would try to see how long it took. It took about 20 seconds:Originally posted by John of Japan:
Grasshopper, can you actually give me quotes from the Sword of the Lord saying that one cannot be righteousness unless one meets their standards of personal separation? No? I thought not.
"While we continue to encourage Christians and everyone else to steer clear of Hollywood’s theaters (whatever they’re doing), we are well aware that most Americans and even many Christians are just not that serious about the stand they take."
So if you go to a movie you aren't serious about being a Christian?
Now back to the topic ...
But poor TheWinDork is just expressing his view on separation. It seems as if the “Sword” group would support him in his biblical separation stance. Oops, I forgot, it is from the Sword that he wishes to separate from. Therefore his standards of separation are somehow flawed.
Did I make that claim? No, didn’t think so.
Legalism doesn’t have to be a salvation issue. Back when I read the Sword they were separating from fellow IBF’rs because certain IBF’rs would have WA Criswell speak in their church. Why separate you ask? Because Criswell was a Southern Baptist. Why should that matter you ask? Because according to Hyles and Curtis Hudson Southern Baptist associated with liberals.
So you see they had to disassociate from a pastor because he had a pastor in his church who supposedly associated with liberals. Yet both of the Pastors agreed with the Sword on doctrine. Now you are surprised that Windork would want to disassociate from the Sword? It seems a natural progression to me. WinDork is the offspring of this legalistic union. Someday down the road, WinDork will be the liberal in this vicious cycle. </font>[/QUOTE]So, then, you have decided to depart from the traditional theological definition legalism has always had, and make it mean ecclesiastical separation beyond what you approve. That's handy. Just redefine legalism to mean whatever you disapprove of, and you can use the term at will!!
Originally posted by Shiloh:
I think we just came up with a new category for Biblical intelligence, called dorkhoppers.
Perhaps you can point me to the source of the "real" definition of legalism.
Please, don't use the Sword as a source.
hmmmm, me thinks I don't wanna get into this pool of testosterony diatribes, but....
The Sword of the Lord is a good publication, and a valuable tool for modern day IFB churches in the sense that other Pastors' opinions and sermons are printed there. If Christians cannot have their own newspapers and their own media, we only have the WORLDLY view of any given topic.
We give it away in our church bookstore, and not a copy is left at the end of each month.
The Sword of the Lord is a good publication, and a valuable tool for modern day IFB churches in the sense that other Pastors' opinions and sermons are printed there. If Christians cannot have their own newspapers and their own media, we only have the WORLDLY view of any given topic.
We give it away in our church bookstore, and not a copy is left at the end of each month.
Joseph M. Smith
New Member
So, then, you have decided to depart from the traditional theological definition legalism has always had, and make it mean ecclesiastical separation beyond what you approve. That's handy. Just redefine legalism to mean whatever you disapprove of, and you can use the term at will!!
[/QB][/QUOTE]The same problem those of us who are not fundamentalist have always had with folks who want to define terms and shut us out of the Kingdom! The word "liberal" is so often used as a pejorative of some kind. I think of liberalism as having a low Christology and an optimistic anthropology. But others label some of us as liberals because we are not inerrantists or we affirm women as pastors, etc.
I always have to shake my head in amazement when I see the word "liberal" as applied to any Southern Baptist, whether before or after the last 25 years of the denomination's history.
I'm not Grasshopper, but I thought I would try to see how long it took. It took about 20 seconds:Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Grasshopper, can you actually give me quotes from the Sword of the Lord saying that one cannot be righteousness unless one meets their standards of personal separation? No? I thought not.
"While we continue to encourage Christians and everyone else to steer clear of Hollywood’s theaters (whatever they’re doing), we are well aware that most Americans and even many Christians are just not that serious about the stand they take."
So if you go to a movie you aren't serious about being a Christian?
Now back to the topic ... </font>[/QUOTE]Read your quote again. It is not talking about righteousness per se, but "the stand they take." The quote also does not say that if one goes to a movie one is not serious about being a Christian, but only that he/she is not serious about his/her stand on personal separation. That is still a far cry from legalism. This easily fits in with the usual Fundamentalist doctrine that personal separation keeps you from temptation ("Lead us not into temptation."), as opposed to legalistic personal separation which is supposed to lead to righteousness. You are grasping at straws, whatever.
Perhaps you can point me to the source of the "real" definition of legalism.
Please, don't use the Sword as a source. </font>[/QUOTE]Any systematic theology should give you the historical, theological definition of legalism. I'll use a recent SBC theologian for you, okay?
"Legalism is a slavish following of the law in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law." (Christian Theology 2nd ed., by Millard J. Erickson, p. 990.)
I essentially agree with your definition of "liberal," though it is too vague to me. I also agree that some Fundamentalists (especially the younger ones) don't understand that meaning, and use it in a poorly defined way.
However, just to set the record straight (not meaning to hijack the thread), it was not Fundamentalists (specifically the SOTL) who attacked the doctrine of errancy and defined it as liberalism. It was evangelicals like Harold Lindsell in Battle for the Bible (1976) and Francis Schaeffer, commenting on the Lausanne Covenant in No Final Conflict (1975).
P. S. If you do not believe in an inerrant Scripture (I don't know if you do or don't), please note that this is the "Fundamental Baptist Forum," where one of the rules is that in order to post you must believe in an inerrant Scripture.
So if one goes to a movie then one is not serious about separation? Is this what you are saying? Have you ever been to a movie? Ever watched a movie on TV? You think the IFB’rs you associate with have never seen a movie?
Sounds like you support a “monkish” lifestyle. You think temptation only comes from those you associate with?
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Ever wonder why Jesus would pray this? Why would God lead us to temptation? Somehow I don't think having WA Criswell speak in a church is what Jesus had in mind here. Yet that seems to be the Sword view, that having Criswell speak would lead one into temptation therefore they must separate from anyone who might decide to have Criswell/Southern Baptist speak in there presence.
I accept that definition. “Earn merit” can go beyond a salvation issue. This describes exactly what I think the “Sword” mentality is. I’m sure you’ve heard a sermon by Hyles on rock music, hair length, or women wearing pants before. If these extra biblical stances aren't "legalism", what would you call them?
I will second John of Japan's position on inerrency. To me, inerrency of Scripture is the bedrock fundamental. Without it, all the other ones fall flat.
It also looks like this thread is being highjacked. So, I'm giving it until mid-morning, California time, before I close it.
It also looks like this thread is being highjacked. So, I'm giving it until mid-morning, California time, before I close it.
How did this get personal all of a sudden, Grasshopper? Do you think I'm Shelton Smith or something?
Master Po says to Grasshopper: "Young Grasshopper. Look deep within you. Find your inner Fundamentalist."
- Status