What is "Old Time Religion"

[preacher4truth]

Ahhh, sorry but no thanks:smilewinkgrin:

Amen and Amen.

And a moment of...

laughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :tongue3::thumbsup::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you saying that some people do not like grits????



Unthinkable. I love grits. Does that make me Southern or IFB?

Whats a Grit?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[DiamondLady]

Whats a Grit?:smilewinkgrin:

Why Girls Raised In The South of course! :saint:

 

[BobinKy]

Ahhh, sorry but no thanks:smilewinkgrin:

...Bob

 

[John of Japan]

To use the South as your basis for justification...well, it's flawed. That's like saying everyone likes grits.

At last, something on this thread I am deeply concerned with. Grits--that's just the southern term for "manna." :thumbsup:

Alas, the Japanese don't have grits. They have raw fish, they have octopus-on-a-stick, they have various UFOs (Unidentified Frying Objects), but they have no grits. They truly need a huge dose of southern USA Christianity.

 

[preacher4truth]

At last, something on this thread I am deeply concerned with. Grits--that's just the southern term for "manna." :thumbsup:

Alas, the Japanese don't have grits. They have raw fish, they have octopus-on-a-stick, they have various UFOs (Unidentified Frying Objects), but they have no grits. They truly need a huge dose of southern USA Christianity.

Yes, and gluttony and the obesity epedemic to go with it! :laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, and gluttony and the obesity epedemic to go with it! :laugh:

Careful, don't go to preachin' brother. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, Luke, Luke. You just hate being wrong, don't you? Your original hypothesis was in error because no one disagreed with you.

Don this is very simple. My original hypothesis is not what you say it is. It certainly isn't what you say it is JUST because you say it is.

You got that?

My original hypothesis is that "OTR" is a myth.

Others have concurred.

So we have consensus that my original hypothesis is sound.

You stated in your opening post that "old time religion" isn't the thing it's purported to be in some circles; but in the post that I called you on, you very clearly stated the expected outcome of your first post: You expected IFBers to vehemently argue against you, and you expected IFBers to rant and rave. You didn't get either.

Read above.

In other words, you purposely introduced a thread expecting a certain combative response; yet, you didn't get that response. Instead, you got a reasoned, amicable discussion about the definition of your original topic.

There you go- "DEFINITION OF ORIGINAL TOPIC". Another way to say that is MY ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS.

Got it now? By the above statement you just agreed with me that my original hypothesis was NOT undermined.

I expected to have to fight IFBers. I have not yet had much of that to do.

I NOW hypothesize that this is because the type of IFBer to which I am referring has not caught this thread, cannot defend "OTR" or has abandoned this thread since I remember them being far more active when I first arrived on BB.

THAT is OBVIOUSLY NOT my ORIGINAL hypothesis.

So you are sadly mistaken that my original hypothesis is flawed or has been proven wrong.

Instead of focusing on the fact that you got a reasonable discussion about your topic, you chose to post on the fact that you didn't get your expected combative response.

TOPIC= ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS. Got it?

Instead of focusing on the positive outcome of this thread, you *chose* to focus on the lack of negativity, and in so doing, were derogatory towards your Christian brethren.

Derogatory remarks about brethren who did not show up but clearly exist.

The lack of disagreement is where you're in error. You further compounded the error by being derogatory towards fellow Christians.

This has nothing to do with my original hypothesis that "OTR" is a myth.

Here are my expectations: I expect you to continue to claim that you were right, and have committed no error. I do not expect you to apologize to your fellow Christians. My expectations are simple: I expect you to continue being Luke.

This is derogatory which makes you a hypocrite for lambasting me about being derogatory.

 

[Luke2427]

No offense to Luke, but Don, you are correct. Spinning to avoid being wrong is what is going on (with Luke). It's not that his intentions were deeper than the outcome of he being wrong. It's OK to be wrong Luke. We all are once in awhile. I mean, we all can't be like me, always right! :smilewinkgrin:

AND: I luvz ya man! :thumbsup:

Look, I admit when I am know I am wrong, but I am not going to be dishonest and say I am wrong when I am not just to suit you or just to win some worthless favor.

My original hypothesis was that "OTR" is a myth.

Any intelligent person can see that this has NOT been proven fallacious.

Had you read the whole thread before you posted here? If not then you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, do you?

Dis you have any REAL idea what my original hypothesis was? If not why did you chime in?

Does it make you feel more accepted if you agree with someone who resists someone like me?

 

[Luke2427]

We hear fundamentalists (by that slippery term I refer to IFB type people) speak of "Old Time Religion" a great deal.

I came up in such a movement and heard it at camp meetings and in church constantly.

I preached for it vigorously for the first five or so years of my preaching ministry.

Like my mentors I loved to take a text like Jeremiah 6 and preach "Return to the OLD PATHS!!"

Now, I am convinced that my doing so was in complete ignorance of facts both biblical and historical, and am also convinced that most preachers I've heard harp on that issue didn't know what they were talking about.

Can someone define "Old Paths" and "Old Time Religion" from a "fundamentalist" perspective?

Here is my original hypothesis in the VERY FIRST POST- in my very OP.

How much clearer can this be?

 

[Luke2427]

See, in the grand scheme of church history "Just as I am" and "Softly and Tenderly" is contemporary music- about a 120 years old or so is my estimate.

I have heard people speak of the "old music" and be referring to "Because He Lives" and "He Touched Me" and "Mansion Over the Hill Top".

These songs are just a few decades old. The authors of a couple of them are still alive!!


This is the problem with "Old Time Religion"- IT AIN'T.

It's usually just the styles and songs of old people's childhoods.

That's the sum of it in my experience.

If the people are alive who enjoyed it- IT AIN'T TRULY OLD.

And the INVITATION that I imagine you are referring to is BRAND NEW!! At least comparably.

It is not much more than a hundred years old!

So "Old Time Religion" is really just something that makes us feel nostalgic because it stirs some childhood feelings up in older people- isn't that right?

Simplicity has nothing to do with "Old Time Religion" unless "OTR" is just something old people remember fondly from their younger days.

The Old Paths in the Bible had NOTHING to do with shaking hands or songs barely a hundred years old or simplicity and it SURELY didn't have anything to do with Altar Calls.


So would you be willing to concede that what you think of as old time religion is really just a matter of preference and has no REAL Bible roots?

Here it is repeated on page 2.

This could not be clearer.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree with Luke too. Old time is more a matter of taste than of an actual reality of the way it was 200 years ago. Quite frankly I don't want to return to 200 years age nor even to the 70's and 80's which were my formative years.

Here is one recognizing my hypothesis and confirming it on the top of PAGE 3.

 

[Luke2427]

When Jeremiah spoke of "the old paths" in Jeremiah 6 he was speaking of the Law. What he was experiencing WHILE he was speaking about it was what Moses said in Deuteronomy 29 and 30.

Jeremiah was reminding them that if they'd turn back to the Word of God there was hope. But they would NOT.

The Old Paths is the OLDEST PATHS. It has NOTHING whatsoEVER to do with the way church was done in the 1930's, or 40's, or 50's, etc...

It has to do with proclaiming, receiving and practicing the Word of God JUST as it is written in proper context.

And here I am again on post 29, page 3, CLEARLY stating my hypothesis.

 

[preacher4truth]

Look, I admit when I am know I am wrong, but I am not going to be dishonest and say I am wrong when I am not just to suit you or just to win some worthless favor.

My original hypothesis was that "OTR" is a myth.

Any intelligent person can see that this has NOT been proven fallacious.

Had you read the whole thread before you posted here? If not then you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, do you?

Dis you have any REAL idea what my original hypothesis was? If not why did you chime in?

Does it make you feel more accepted if you agree with someone who resists someone like me?

"Look?"

lol. The word of choice of anger to initiate a response.

You're hilarious.

I read enough to know you're wrong. Get it? No? Well keep trying. I know it's hard because your intellect is not nearly at the level that your lip flapping is.

You seem like an angry kid, son. In fact, you are an angry person. And insecure, while trying to come across superior in your condescension. This is why there is internet, so you can act like this online.

I still chalk this one up to Don. You are clealry wrong and at least one of you handled it like a brother and a man. And it "weren't" you.

But I still love ya.

 

[Luke2427]

I suppose we made a good case against "old time religion" as it is commonly purported here.

I expected a vigorous debate and some of our fundy brethren vehemently defending the ideas that contemporary praise and worship is wrong, Southern Gospel or Bill Gaither music is superior because it stems from the sacred "Old Time Religion", etc...

I expected some of our IFBers to rant and rave that preachers ought to wear white shirts and black ties (tongue in cheek) and that Billy Sunday, John R. Rice and Bob Jones Sr. were the real heroes of the Old Time Religion and that we all ought to get up at 4 o'clock every morning, and clean our rooms, and have Sargent York as our favorite movie, subscribe to the Sword of the Lord (that mag which edits all the Calvinism out of Spurgeon's Sermons and attacks SBC incessantly), and our wives and daughters ought to wear culottes and grow their hair to their wastes, and we ought to dress like folks from the fifties, etc... if we want to be right with God.

BTW, why is it the music these type people always want to sing is usually older than 40 years and younger than 135 years old?

And finally here is the VERY POST to which you are referring where I clearly confirmed my hypothesis in the first line: my case against OLD TIME RELIGION.

Here in this post I OBVIOUSLY am stating my surprise that no IFBers attacked as I attempted to PROVE my hypothesis.

Clear as crystal.

My expectation of what would take place in the proving of my hypothesis was wrong (much to my pleasure). My hypothesis has barely been challenged- MUCH LESS proven to be flawed.

 

[Don]

Quote:
Here are my expectations: I expect you to continue to claim that you were right, and have committed no error. I do not expect you to apologize to your fellow Christians. My expectations are simple: I expect you to continue being Luke.

Reading Luke's response: Looks like I called that one, didn't I?

This is derogatory which makes you a hypocrite for lambasting me about being derogatory

Me, hypocritical? Here's the difference between you and me: I didn't introduce a thread with a seeming intent to produce discussion, then later admit that I expected "vehement arguments" and "ranting and raving" from my "fundy brethren."

I never hid my intentions in calling you out for your derogatory, inflammatory remarks. And I don't deny that my remarks towards you could be construed as derogatory and inflammatory.

If you're offended, I'll apologize, as per the guidance in Matthew 18. But in the posts that I've made since calling you out, identifying your remarks as derogatory and inflammatory, and thus identifying them as offensive, you haven't offered once to apologize for offending your Christian brethren.

 

[Luke2427]

"Look?"

lol. The word of choice of anger to initiate a response.

You're hilarious.

I read enough to know you're wrong. Get it? No? Well keep trying. I know it's hard because your intellect is not nearly at the level that your lip flapping is.

You seem like an angry kid, son. In fact, you are an angry person. And insecure, while trying to come across superior in your condescension. This is why there is internet, so you can act like this online.

I still chalk this one up to Don. You are clealry wrong and at least one of you handled it like a brother and a man. And it "weren't" you.

But I still love ya.

Prove it or this is just a pointless antagonistic drive-by post.

And I am not your son.

 

[Luke2427]

Reading Luke's response: Looks like I called that one, didn't I?



Me, hypocritical? Here's the difference between you and me: I didn't introduce a thread with a seeming intent to produce discussion, then later admit that I expected "vehement arguments" and "ranting and raving" from my "fundy brethren."

I never hid my intentions in calling you out for your derogatory, inflammatory remarks. And I don't deny that my remarks towards you could be construed as derogatory and inflammatory.

If you're offended, I'll apologize, as per the guidance in Matthew 18. But in the posts that I've made since calling you out, identifying your remarks as derogatory and inflammatory, and thus identifying them as offensive, you haven't offered once to apologize for offending your Christian brethren.

OK- I am offended.

I'm waiting.

 

[preacher4truth]

Prove it or this is just a pointless antagonistic drive-by post.

And I am not your son.

You're proving it well enough on your own, son.

You act like a kid. An uptight kid. Thus...son is fitting. Go blow your nose, it's runny. :wavey:

 

[Don]

OK- I am offended.

I'm waiting.

I apologize.

Now I'm waiting.