|
Post by pitbull on Aug 21, 2006 14:20:48 GMT -5
Steve, Yes, it is about motivation and how you came to your conclusion about this article. Nothing more, nothing less. Bryan
|
|
|
Post by stevefredine on Aug 21, 2006 15:50:20 GMT -5
My motivation is because the scriptures used within the context of the article are used outside of the context of the passage they are taken from.
I appreciate the conviction of the author however I found him to be disengenuous (?) on 2 fronts. One the passages do not say what he claims they do and 2 if he really buys in to the passages as being applicable to today, then he should have a full beard.
I came to my conclusion because of the fact the author is mis using scripture. Reading it in context it does not say what he says it does.
Similar to our earlier discussion on music. He is free to have his opinion but I object to his misuse of scripture to make his point.
Really a very, very simple deal. Scripture shouldn't be used if it doesn't apply. Social preferences are ok to have but shouldn't be cloaked has "got to do scripture supported" positions.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 22, 2006 5:35:47 GMT -5
Steve, I guess we will have to end this discussion in disagreement. I prayed about this before posting it. I see his text in context with the passage as well as the Bible as a whole, especially NT principles. I have studied this from both sides, as well as seeing how tattoos affect the lives of believers [as mentioned previously]. Have a good one. Bryan
P.S. On the beard issue, the only ones that I have found that had beards in the nation of Israel were either those who took the Nazarite vow [either temporary or lifetime] or members of the tribe of Levi who were serving in the Tabernacle/Temple. From my studies [historical & Biblical], everyone else was clean shaven.
|
|
|
Post by stevefredine on Aug 22, 2006 10:35:49 GMT -5
Holy crap Bryan you are unbelievable. The verses he brought up were about not doing things like the pagans. They had special marks that religous significance to them. The passage says not to get those marks. Don't cut your self for the dead etc.
Did you not see my post re if you feel strongly about tattoos, don't get them? I wrote SPECIFICALLY about the disengenuous nature of the authors writing. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE for once please try to follow a thread. How many times and how many ways does someone have to say something to you. Unless the answer is zero and you really could care less and it's back to Bryans way or the highway.
It is also clear that you do not understand why I brought up beards. Look at the author's post. The passage HE quoted mentioned them. I could give a flying rodents behind whether he has a beard or not or trims it or not. I was pointing out HIS inconsistancy in the bigger picture of what HE and by posting YOU was writing about. Clue in and focus on the subject matter and context. The mere mention of beard did not mean that beards were the point of the discussion. Literary example. Proving my point that I question the author's and your ability to discern the subject matter of passages. Hey, you do it to what I write. I have seen you do it with scripture. Your tangent and misunderstanding regarding beards is a perfect example. Of course you see it in context. Bryan Kimble the guy behind the Baptist flag couldn't be wrong could he? Bryan you take things out of context and apply them all day long and then as the most prolific poster on this site you try to tell people these religious polka dots are squares and they should dance to Bryans tune.
Have your opinons/postions/convictions. When you try to tell people they are solely based on scripture and they are not, I will publicly confront you on the matter.
I think you are a good guy with some very stubborn dangerous heretical habits. I think your socialization has skewed your reasoning with the Word. I think your pride does a lot of that as well.
Go back and look at Shane's response to me. You might learn something.
I have tried very hard to walk you through textual context and why just because a word is included in a verse it doesn't mean it is the subject of the passage. You argue/debate/exchange in the very same manner as the local mormons here in UT. The fact that you are a shephard that also likes to have an influence out side of his local flock scares the crud out of me. You assume tons and do it so pubilicly. A lot. Check and see how many posts you have on this site. How many threads you finish. You have tons of pride my friend and it doesn't matter how accurate or how nice someone is, you are always correct. Even if you aren't you pray about it and FEEL correct. Just like my mormon friends. Doesn't matter how you feel. The Word is the Word regardless of you and me.
I wanted to keep this lighter but I refuse to accept that your spiritual squares are polka dots. Volumes of articles by like minded folks won't convince me either. Show me how the subject of the passages has 'magicaly' changed and then you have a shot.
Steve
PS if your Flag is not exclusionary, why doesn't it list Lutherans, or Christian Missionary Alliance or Evangelical Free? Don't they get to call upon the Book, The Blood and the Blessed Hope? Independants need to become Baptists to be saved? I thought your big deal was for any promotion of God had to be clear. A spade is a spade buddy. Ahhh, I bet this flag doesn't fall into that category. Convenient. In that case my bad
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 22, 2006 10:42:16 GMT -5
Steve, Where in this world did all this come from? What in the world are you talking about. This has nothing to do with our discussion. Why are you attacking me for not seeing things the way that Steve does?
I could care less what people think about what I believe. I always try to point people to Jesus and the Bible, not what I believe.
If you read the other thread on the main forum, you will see me questioning one of my own convictions.
Forgive me for not being perfect like you. Bryan
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 22, 2006 10:46:38 GMT -5
Steve, Just out of curiousity, do you see that in your comments for this particular topic, you have been doing the very thing that you are accusing me of? Just curious. Bryan
|
|
|
Post by stevefredine on Aug 22, 2006 12:05:42 GMT -5
No sir I am not perfect. Not ever not even. My only hope is the blood of Jesus.
If you get specific about what I am doing like you I can respond.
Where is this coming from? I have tried kindly to show you the error in part of your approach and you side step and dance like the locals here. You present a front that it is your/way or the Baptist way.
Tell me Bryan, what is the subject matter of the leviticus passage? You just say you disagree but you rarely clarify.
Were my posts about beards or consistancy within an authors convictions?
Are you not the most prolific poster here?
Do you ever admit you may have read something wrong?
Do you never not dance around a point? Which is odd because as a Baptist dancing is on the don't ever do list.
Perhaps Bryan you may not be right all the time. Perhaps you struggle with the subject matter of the written word. I am ot even talking Scripture here. You consistantly miss the point of what I write.
Objectively. Go look and see who posts the most here. Go see who has the most 'last word's'. In all of the writing and posting, the majority is about does and don't that may or may not be accurate. How much do you post about relationship based on the positive and not about what not to do?
You forget that I was raised in a church that taught like you teach. I went to a Baptist college of similar ilk. Gospel message write on but the day to day walk was about keeping a list and very joyless.
It doesn't matter that I think you miss the point on the written word. Truly my opinion does not make something right or wrong. Same for you.
Tell me, using the 20 20 rule what is the subject matter, the point of the Leviticus passage the author wrote about?
You just post you disagree. Whoopdeedo. Tell me why. Ours is an objective faith and you seem to deal in bits and pieces that suit you and you refuse to back off even when shown you may have been in accurate.
Where is this comming from? It's from your postings Bryan.
I don't dislike you. I don't know you. I don't like the way you post and I don't think you get how your postings come off.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 22, 2006 13:19:04 GMT -5
Steve, No sir I am not perfect. Not ever not even. My only hope is the blood of Jesus. Glad to hear that humble of an answer from you. Then please don’t expect perfection out of me. Do not put me to that standard. I am only a sinner saved by grace.
If you get specific about what I am doing like you I can respond. If I agree with you, you attack what I say. If I give you the benefit of the doubt even if we disagree, you attack what I say. If I disagree with you, you attack what I say.
When you have no rational point, you continue to resort to comparing me to Mormons. How you like it if I compared you to the Catholics or Church of Christ in my area instead of actually dealing with the facts? What does that prove? Is that specific enough for you?
Where is this coming from? I have tried kindly to show you the error in part of your approach and you side step and dance like the locals here. You present a front that it is your/way or the Baptist way. I present things from the Bible to provoke others to think about. I attempt to never present my own opinion, though I am far from perfect in that area.
I don’t know what the “Baptist way” is other than presenting the Bible and letting the Bible interpret itself. Maybe if I became a Protestant "Baptist", I would learn what this "Baptist way" is.
Tell me Bryan, what is the subject matter of the leviticus passage? "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." [Leviticus 19:28]
How does this fit into context of the Bible? • What does this verse mean in context to the passage that it is found? It is part of a moral code being given on how to avoid sinful behavior. • What does this verse mean in context to the book it is found? It is the book for the Levitical priesthood. • Why type of book [historical, poetry/wisdom, prophecy, etc.] is it found in? It is part of the Law. • Who was the original audience [Israel, Church, individual person, etc.] that God gave it to? The congregation of Israel, especially the sons of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. • Under which covenant [Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Messianic] or dispensation [Innocence, Conscience, Government, Patriarch, Law, Church, Kingdom] was this given? It was given under the Mosaic Covenant during the Age of the Law. • Is there any cultural context that needs to be understood? Customs like eating blood soaked meats, drinking blood, using enchantments, cutting their hair to leave a plot on top, cutting the corners of beards, cutting themselves for the dead, and branding themselves with what we call Tattoos. They all represented things which God's people were not to do because these heathen nations around them did them, and they were to be special. They were commanded to be diverse from the world, a people set apart and sanctified for the service of God. • Why did God originally give this verse? They were a "separated" people, a "called out" people, and a "different" people from those of the world. • Did Moses, David, Solomon, or the Prophets write anything about in a topical fashion? Isaiah 5:20; Malachi 3:6 • Did Jesus or the Apostles say anything about in a topical fashion? Romans 8:4-7; 1 Corinthians 3:3; 6:19-20; 10:23-24, 31; Philippians 3:15-20; Galatians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; 2 Timothy 2:19-20; James 4:3-6; 1 John 2:15-16 • How does this fit into the context of the Biblical doctrine as a whole? We are to be different than the unsaved world. We are not to conform to worldliness but live a holy and separated life unto the Lord. • Does this apply to me today and if so how? We are the priesthood now and need to follow similar guidelines of living a holy life that is separated unto God. [1 Peter 2:5-12]
Is that enough clarification to show this verse in context to its chapter, book and Bible as a whole? If this chapter no longer applies to us as Christians, can I disobey verse 11 now? “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.” Or how about verse 29? “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a sleeper; lest the land fall to sleeperdom, and the land become full of wickedness.” That is the only verse in the whole Bible that forbids me from “pimping” my daughter, so I can disobey it now that we are under grace rather than the law, right? Do you see what I mean about picking and choosing what you wish to obey and believe from the Bible?
So, while you are dealing with the letter of the law, I have been trying to present the spirit of the law. What was the purpose behind it? How does it apply today? That to me is far more important that obeying every single item.
You just say you disagree but you rarely clarify. The same could be said of you. I have asked several times for you to clarify your statements on this thread, but you "dance" [using your term] away from that by saying I am going on a tangent instead of answering me. The particular thread is a very good example of that.
Were my posts about beards or consistancy within an authors convictions? I have no idea. You would have to write the author of that article to find that out. I will not speak on his behalf about his convictions. That is one of the benefits of being independent and non-denominational. I can disagree with people, such as David Cloud, and still have fellowship with him.
Are you not the most prolific poster here? I have no idea. I have not checked CPOA to see one way or another. That really doesn’t matter to me. I could care less. What does that have to do with this topic? Why are you attacking me personally again? That is how you come across when you say something like that.
Do you ever admit you may have read something wrong? Yes. I have apologized before on CPOA for that.
Do you? Do you think that maybe you have been reading what I have been posting wrong? Maybe influenced by your church past rather than dealing with what I have actually posted? Maybe you are taking this thread too personal?
Do you never not dance around a point? No. I am know for being brutally honest to a fault. One Pentecostal brother of mine told me that I am about as subtle as a bulldozer in a China shop. There have been people here on this forum who have accused me of this same thing - being too direct and blunt. They would have to disagree with you strongly on that.
Which is odd because as a Baptist dancing is on the don't ever do list. That’s odd. Never saw a “don’t ever do list” other than the Ten Commandments. Very interesting. The only thing else I find is Biblical principles and guidelines to apply to our lives. These are far more flexible than commandments. That is why I asked you before if you understood the difference before attempting a discussion with you on this thread.
Perhaps Bryan you may not be right all the time. I know I am not right all the time. I have said that numerous times and even pointed out times I am wrong. Only God is always right, that is why I prefer to quote Him. Your point?
Perhaps you struggle with the subject matter of the written word. I am ot even talking Scripture here. You consistantly miss the point of what I write. And I guess that is happening again here. You are saying the same thing that I have said over and over again in life and on CPOA forum, but only to accuse me of the opposite. Why? Is there a reason why you wish to do that?
Objectively. Go look and see who posts the most here. Go see who has the most 'last word's'. Sorry, I have no interest in who is getting the last word as long as God gets all the glory. Go read John 3:30.
In all of the writing and posting, the majority is about does and don't that may or may not be accurate. How much do you post about relationship based on the positive and not about what not to do? Here is something for you to consider, since you are hung up on the “negatives”. The Bible does say “Thou shalt not” and other similar things in it. Many consider these negatives and want to tear down any one who preaches holiness or obedience to the Bible. In doing so, they ignore that behind every negative is two positives – God’s provision and God’s protection. If you take a moment to stop and look at what I have posted from the positive perspective rather than dwelling on what you assume is negative, maybe you will see that. We cannot pick and choose on what we want to accept from the Bible. We cannot take just the "positive" and ignore what someone determines to be "negatives".
You forget that I was raised in a church that taught like you teach. I went to a Baptist college of similar ilk. Gospel message write on but the day to day walk was about keeping a list and very joyless. And you forget that I grew up in a church that is similar to how you present yourself on CPOA. No convictions. No authority. No standards. No separation. No soul winning. No living according to the Bible. Everyone do what they want according to how they see it rather than what God says. It was very joyless legalism, in its own form, just as wrong as those who take Biblical guidelines and make them into commandments. That was my past. Now I walk by the Spirit and live via the power of Christ rather than doing it in my flesh.
It doesn't matter that I think you miss the point on the written word. Truly my opinion does not make something right or wrong. Same for you. Never once claimed that my opinion matters. That is why you rarely find me posting it. I only believe that God’s opinion matters. “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” [Romans 3:4]
Tell me, using the 20 20 rule what is the subject matter, the point of the Leviticus passage the author wrote about? See my previous comments. If you choose to disagree that is between you and God, not me. I am not here to fight or argue with you. I have no problem having a rational discussion with you, but I do hope that you will not continue to try to provoke me into a debate/argument. Please?
What you are missing is that tattoos are really not the main issue here in this article or what I have been talking about. I'm sure that there will be many Christians in heaven who have gotten tattoos. The issues here are arrogance, love of neighbor, separation from the world, and our earnest desire to do the will of God. That is all. It is the heart issues that are far more important than the external. The external is merely a reflection of the heart. Our appearance only demonstrates if we are submitted to God or in rebellion to God. Does that make sense?
You just post you disagree. Whoopdeedo. Tell me why. Ours is an objective faith and you seem to deal in bits and pieces that suit you and you refuse to back off even when shown you may have been in accurate. Show me that I am inaccurate and I will. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have done that many times before when God has either corrected me. Let me give you a few examples of how God has proven me to be wrong over the years: 1. I used to think that the Bible was silent about prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. I WAS WRONG! 2. I used to be a competitive bodybuilder and lifeguard at a public pool, thinking the Bible said nothing about modesty. I WAS WRONG! 3. I used to listen to various secular styles of music, being basically eclectic in tastes, and thought the Bible was silent on music. I WAS WRONG! 4. I used to be ecumenical and think that everyone who claimed to be a Christian actually was one. I WAS WRONG! 5. I used to practice “lifestyle evangelism” rather than Biblical soul winning. I WAS WRONG! 6. I used to believe in theological evolution – which teaches that God created the universe but used evolution as the tool and did it over 6 billion years. I WAS WRONG! 7. I used to support a woman’s “right” to an abortion. I WAS WRONG! 8. I used to think it was a sin to get angry. I WAS WRONG! 9. I used to think that preachers who taught/preached obedience to the Bible [including standards, soul winning, and separation] were legalistic Pharisees. I WAS WRONG! 10. I used to practice secular/pagan dating practices and thought those were acceptable for Christians. I WAS WRONG! I have no problem admitting that I am wrong in light of what is actually recorded in the Bible. I have had to do it enough over the years. What are some of the areas that God has used the Holy Spirit and the Bible to correct you? What are some of the areas that you had to admit that God was right and you were wrong
Where is this comming from? It's from your postings Bryan. Do you realize that you come across as if you have an axe to grind in how you answer my questions and comments? Has someone attacked you on this before in the past? Are you now lashing out at me because of your church history that your previously mentioned? Are you seeing what I post through those glass rather than taking them for what is actually being said?
I don't dislike you. I don't know you. I don't like the way you post and I don't think you get how your postings come off. You can take some wisdom from your own words, brother. You come across as someone who is defensive and very angry. I personally chalk it up to how you were spiritually abused by the church that you were raised in. I will assume that you had a pastor who used Biblical standards as a “hobby horse” and used them as a form of legalism. For that, I apologize for him misrepresenting the Bible and shaming the name of Christ. Bryan
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Aug 22, 2006 20:39:41 GMT -5
Guys, I just want to thank you both for your post. I think there may be many whom agree with both of you.
I am a little lost on the flag Bryan that you have. I have never commented, because I personallly do not find it offensive. I could see where some may think it is saying Baptist is the only way. Bryan, I am a little confused with your statement on Baptist (I take it your saying all Baptist) and their historical stand through history. I thought you did NOT believe in denominations? Also, is this the Independent Baptist Flag? I am not starting anything, just trying to get clarification!
God Bless You Both, Mike
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 23, 2006 4:34:16 GMT -5
I am a little lost on the flag Bryan that you have. I have never commented, because I personallly do not find it offensive. I could see where some may think it is saying Baptist is the only way. Bryan, I am a little confused with your statement on Baptist (I take it your saying all Baptist) and their historical stand through history. I thought you did NOT believe in denominations? Also, is this the Independent Baptist Flag? I am not starting anything, just trying to get clarification! God Bless You Both, Mike That is some good questions. Ask these five questions of any church, and if they can answer all five in truth with a yes, then you will have a true Baptist church. All others miss-use the name. 1. WE ACCEPT ONLY THE NEW TESTAMENT AS OUR AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. This means that we do not accept any authority except the New Testament Scriptures. Christ is head of the Church, and it is His bride. We believe the Word of God, the Bible is complete and it solely, "...is given of by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God many be perfect, thoroughly furnished (equipped) unto all good works." (II Timothy 3:16-17) We reject that God is giving supposed "new" revelations, believing that God forbids any adding to or taking away of the canon of Scriptures. (Rev. 22:18-19) We do not accept any authority over the New Testament Church, but Christ Himself, including any hierarchy to include popes, or councils of churches. 2. WE BELIEVE THE CHURCH IS TO BE MADE UP OF SAVED BAPTIZED BELIEVERS. Baptist reject the baptism of infants flatly! The church is made up of Baptized believers only. (Acts 2:41-42) An infant is not capable of believing, and is protected by the Grace of God until the age of accountability. Further, only those who have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and trusted in Him as their Savior is a member of the body of Christ, and thus can be a member of the body of Christ on earth, the local New Testament church. 3. WE BELIEVE IN STRICT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Jesus said to ""render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Further the Scripture says "what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion that light with darkness?" No power on earth is higher than God's Word, and the church should not be in any way yoked with the state, or controlled by it. We support the rightly appointed authority of government over us and pray for them that we live our lives in peace. 4. WE BELIEVE IN THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER. The Scripture teaches that every believer can without the aid of priests or churchmen go, "boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in the time of need". (Hebrews 4:16) The Scripture states further in Hebrews 10:19, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." The believer does not needed a priest or a church to intercede on their behalf to God. The believer can boldly, by the fact of being washed in the blood of Christ, instantly be in contact with God by simple prayer, and further can bring his petitions or requests for forgiveness of sins directly to God himself. (I John 1:19) No church has the authority to forgive sins or grant intercession to God. 5. WE BELIEVE IN THE AUTONOMY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH. Simply stated the Scriptures gives no higher authority than the local congregation of born again, baptized believers. We believe that the local church is to be governed by the Word of God, and the local church does not need, or does the Scripture teach that the local body rests under the authority of any earthy group. It is a group unto itself, under the authority of God, and solely responsible unto Him for its conduct, direction and affairs. Jesus in Rev. 2:6,15, that he "hated" the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. The group of heretics in the early church along with other doctrinal errors promoted a clerical hierarchy in the church. A church which cannot answer yes to all of these questions can not historically call itself a Baptist church. These are the distinctives which separate Baptists from Protestants, or any organized church or "Christian" cult. The Baptist Flag originated in the heart and mind of Dr. D.L. Green, pastor of the Parker Memorial Baptist Church in Lansing, Michigan. Desiring a flag with which to identify, yet reluctant to embrace the Christian Flag because of its adoption by a broad scope of religious groups that have blurred its distinctiveness, Dr. Green set out to design a flag which would be attractive in appearance and distinct in its message. After sketching a variety of designs and rejecting them as insufficient to express his thoughts, Dr. Green settled on the theme "The Tie That Binds." With this thought in mind, Dr. Green soon developed a flag that embodied the three-fold cord which binds together the Baptists around the world. As Baptists, we hold to THE BOOK, the inspired Word of God, as our rule for faith and practice; THE BLOOD by Christ for the remission of sin; and THE BLESSED HOPE of the return of Christ to unite us together in Heaven with Him for all eternity. The colors are also symbolic and significant in their message. Red is symbolic of the blood of Jesus Christ by which we are redeemed, and white for His purity and the robe of righteousness of the saints. "...and having done all, to stand." [Ephesians 6:13] Of equal importance to Dr. Green is the desire to leave to those who follow a legacy of uncompromising truth and unwavering obedience to the commands of the Scripture in the midst of a day of fallen heroes. Out of this desire came the concept of a flag with which one could be identified without fear of compromise or misunderstanding. The purpose of this flag is that those who see it may know where we stand and by the grace of Almighty God that they may come and stand with us. Hope that helps clarify some of your questions. Bryan
|
|
|
Post by stevefredine on Aug 23, 2006 13:26:04 GMT -5
Bryan,
I apologize for allowing my frustration with our exchange to surface like it did.
Let me try to shorten my objections and perhaps my points will be easier to follow.
1. The author takes ½ of a sentence from Lev 19 to support his point against tattoos being wrong and demonic under any circumstance.
I don’t care that the author doesn’t like tattoos. I mind that he is overstepping what the Word says. I agree that many uses of skin art are in bad taste, sacrilegious and blasphemous. Not all cases are the same. The author exceeds his authority and paints with too broad a brush.
2. Within his support for his position the author uses passages, Lev 19 and 21 that have prohibitions against beard trimming.
So what? Here’s what, the author chooses to support his conviction re tattoos with certain scripture but ignores other verses from those authoritative passages that speak directly to his clean shaven condition. I do not personally care whether the author shaves or not. He is being inconsistent within the context of his own life and writings. Also he ignores the fact that Lev 21 is speaking to Priests and not the average Joe.
3. You mention that most Jews were clean shaven.
I hadn’t intended to comment on this at first but the curiosity within me has really increased. A. God is the author of the Bible. B. God included prohibitions against trimming beards. C. Did God just miss the fact that most of the Jews were clean shaven? D. Jesus had his beard plucked out. Wasn’t it written that he was non-descript and didn’t stand out? Why would he have a beard if every one else was clean shaven? Jesus was a Nazarene not Nazerite so a special vow would not be in effect. I will hazard a guess that Jesus had more than a week or two of beard growth or else people couldn’t grab it and pull it out. E. Perhaps, just perhaps could the God of the Bible have included the prohibition of beard trimming so that the Jews beards didn’t look like the pagan’s beards? So this isn’t necessarily for or against beards but about having the beards of God’s chosen people look like and or be confused with the surrounding pagan culture. I dunno, just a thought.
There is a segment in today’s church that prefers keeping a list rather than seeking God’s face. Performance over relationship. The truth is we can’t do anything that pleases God without God’s help. If we truly, honestly seek a day to day walk with God, don’t you think that we will be empowered and drawn to correct living? A lot of the same things that are included on many people’s lists will be accomplished in the right way for the right reasons. God’s way, God’s reason’s. Within this way there is a lack of fear and guilt. God will do the convicting and not someone on a personal crusade.
A believer is a regenerated individual living in a fleshly body. Life in this body is a daily spiritual wrestling match that only God can win. Man made to do/not do lists and broad brush, indiscriminate scripture application serve to bully and guilt people into “proper” behavior. I submit to you guilt serves to keep people down and from serving God in joy. I submit that guilt is a satanic device and not of God. God says when we come to Him he will forgive and forget our sins.
Why do I feel so passionate about this? For one serving God should be a blessing and not a worry over messing up and receiving punishment. I don’t find a vindictive God in my Bible. A relationship with the Creator is a great and glorious thing that can be hindered by the guilt that Jesus sacrificed Himself to take away.
Secondly, I was raised in a demanding, list making church that wasn’t always accurate with scriptural application. Many of the items on the list were more social institutions than scriptural admonitions. Call me sensitive but making up rules is not what we are called to do. My sister was raised in the same church. The church offered the gospel message in a very clear manner. Christian living came with a heavy church, not Biblical manual. My sister has rejected all of our Christian upbringing. Unless she repents and receives Christ as her savior and allows Him the opportunity to regenerate her, she will remain in her condemnation and spend an unthinkable eternity separated from God.
She rarely talks about our youth. When she does talk it is always about how damaged she was by the people I refer to as the “list makers”. At our home church we learned virtually nothing of a proactive daily relationship with Jesus. Sure heard about it when we went off of the list though. Lots and lots of guilt there. We never quite lived up to the standards. I don’t find that this approach is what Jesus taught.
I find that much of what you write has some truth in it. There is a lot of broad brush application. I find that a lot of the focus to be based on the negative (don’t do this type of admonition) vs. proactive sanctification relationship building. Seeking God first will bring behavior in line without the guilt of not keeping a list.
I don’t think my sister was the only person receiving poor information and feeling damaged. I don’t think she will be the last. I hope I can be an asset for some so that they don’t feel damaged by the well intentioned to the point that they reject God for eternity.
I doubt that this will change your mind at all. I do hope that you consider other methods and manners in presenting what you feel called to present. Perhaps it might mean eternity to someone.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 23, 2006 14:10:05 GMT -5
Steve, No problem. We all get frustrated from time to time or take things wrongly. That happens.
I do want to apologize if I stepped on your toes or kicked you in the shins. If that happened, I am sorry and proves that I am just a falliable person. This article and discussion was aimed at the heart, and obviously I missed. The real issue is not tattoos, beards, etc., but rather the heart being right with God.
May I address three things? 1. I don’t know if Mr. Cloud likes tattoos or not. Biblical standards should never be about personal preferences. 2. I don’t get the same impression as you from this article. I see it as Mr. Cloud is presenting a Biblical guideline rather than a “Thou shalt not”. 3. Biblical standards should be taught and promoted among [not forced on] believers – by both word and example.
Regarding beards, there were Jews with beards and those without. Those with, were supposed to follow this guideline. I have read many historical and archeological articles that state that it was common that Jews were clean shaven for the most part and that Jesus would have been so also. The beard that was plucked would have been 2-3 days growth at the most.
I watched video done by medical doctors on the physical torment that Jesus went through during His last 48 hours. They also comments on the fact that His beard would have been less than 3 days old. It would have been more painful that way and caused more blood on His face.
Whether He did or not, I have no definite answer. I wasn’t there. I can tell you this, if He did, He wouldn’t have violated this commandment.
Sorry to hear about your sister. That to me demonstrates what I said earlier about standards. I hear stories like that and the opposite on a weekly [if not daily] basis. People either won’t get saved due to a church misusing Biblical standards in a form of legalism. Or they won’t get saved because they saw Christians not living according to the Bible. It goes both ways.
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Aug 24, 2006 21:14:48 GMT -5
Hey Bryan, I am a little slow here.
I was wondering about your #1 and #3.
#1 I don't understand why you brought up old testament scripture if you only live by the NT? Maybe I took that out of context?
#3 Also, since you believe in separation of Church and state. Does that mean the Church's do NOT take state/federal aid or tax breaks? Also, do they allow voting at their Church's?
Trying to understand the stance better.
Thank you and God Bless, Mike
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Aug 25, 2006 4:48:51 GMT -5
Mike, Those are both good questions.
Regarding the Old Testament, think of it this way. If I read the book of Revelation, I have to also read Daniel and Ezekiel to understand it. 1/3 of the New Testament is a direct quote from the Old Testament and even more paraphrases it. The book of Hebrews is good about telling us that the Old Testament is full of examples, "shadows", types, and illustrations for us to understand how to live out the New Testament.
Being a separation in church and state, the state should not tax the church. Unfortunately many churches become a 401c non-profit corporation and actually put themselves under the authority of the government. By the IRS tax code, churches are automatically tax exempt without doing that. No, I don't think a church should be used as a voting poll or allow politicians [liberal or conservative] speak from behind the pulpit. Instead of a church dealing with political and social issues, the local church needs to stick to spiritual and moral issues. Yes, these sometimes intersect [i.e. abortion], but we need to be able to explain to others how these were first and formost spiritual and moral issues.
Does that help? Bryan
|
|
|
Post by vince148 on Aug 25, 2006 17:50:11 GMT -5
Steve, Let's say, using your term, that it is just the opinion of preachers that Christians should not have tattoos. I will give you the benefit of doubt for the sake of this discussion. So, let me ask you some questions: 1. Do you consider all of the book of Leviticus for only the tribe of Levi, especially the sons of Aaron? 2. Does part of it still apply to day? How would we know that? 3. How do you distinquish between the ceremonial and the moral parts of the Mosaic Law? I look forward to your answers. Thanks. Bryan Going through this thread, this caught my eye. Here's my response based on these questions. It appears that you're trying to hold us to the Law. If that's the case, then we are judged by the Law. Further, as Paul states, Jesus would then have died in vain. We have freedom from the law because of Christ's victory over death. Saying that we have to keep the Law means that you have to keep the whole law. You can't pick and choose which part of the Law you will follow and which ones you won't. It's an all or none deal. I'll take the freedom that I have in Christ instead. Also, twice in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says that all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, (but I will not be brought under the power of any) (but all things edify not). So while we may be able to do things that were once forbidden by the Law, it does not necessarily mean that they are good for us. If we do things that were once forbidden by the Law, it does not take away from our salvation or keep us out of heaven. Thank God. So in regard to tattoos. Maybe they were forbidden in the Law. However, if a saved person gets a tattoo, I don't believe that God is going to hold that against us in regards to salvation. That's because Jesus has freed us from the curse of the Law. However, even though a tattoo may be "ok" to get because it is "lawful", it is not going to edify you.
|
|