http://www.graceforums.com/ Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:48:07 -0500 MyBB http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3198 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:52:44 -0500 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3198
Whilst thinking about what I would say on this post I was reminded of Prov 10:19 “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise.” If ever there was a verse for me to take to heart, it would be this one! That being said, this post is not going to be a short one, however it is my prayer that sin will indeed be lacking in the multitude of my words here.

I am writing this because recently the mods here have been discussing what is acceptable language and what is not. Let me say right from the start though that this is my own personal view and not a consensus of moderator thought on the matter, for actually we have not reached a consensus on the matter. I will be perhaps addressing the things we were discussing, but also there is a bigger picture then just this forum (where I am very glad to say the language is usually of the highest caliber, even by my ultra conservative standards and typical English prudishness.) The fact is though that a cursory search of the internet reveals that many who claim the name of Christ feel free to swear and curse like any unbeliever. It seems to me that in some Christian circles there is a real problem with this type of worldliness. For that is what I perceive it to be.

In writing this, though, I realise that different Christians draw the line in different places in regards to what is acceptable language and what is not acceptable language. Almost certainly I am hyper conservative on this matter. There are some, who are a little less conservative then I who find the language of people like Driscol acceptable in the pulpit. There may be people who think certain graphic terms used to describe particularly distasteful sexual sin are acceptable terms, and there may be some Christians who have no problem at all with swearing. These Christians are good people, loyal servants of Christ and folk that can certainly teach me a thing or too. So yes I know some (perhaps many) will disagree with where I draw the line, and this is not a criticism of such people at all. However I would like to try and explain my thinking if I may. All I ask is for enough benefit of the doubt to consider my words. I am nottelling anyone where the line should be drawn, just explaining why I draw the line where I do, and also perhaps asking us all to look to ourselves and see if we need to redraw our own lines.

Does scripture address this issue?

The Bible has much to say about how we should talk and the language we use. Most of which is laid in “do” language, rather then “don’t” language, by that I mean we are told how to speak, more then we are told how not to speak. For example;

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Now that may not be a verse that tells us how not to speak, but does give us a positive instruction how we should be using our tongue. The scriptures not only give us specific commands though, they also (in my opinion) set an example by the language that they use themselves as they talk about subjects that are somewhat distasteful.

One of the reasons our speech is so important is simply because our speech testifies about the condition of our heart and is a key element of our Christian witness. That is really what I want to explore.

Stating the obvious

I do however at this point have to state the obvious, there is no verse in the bible which says “thou shalt not use these words ………” followed by a list of unacceptable words. However that doesn’t mean the bible has nothing to say on this subject at all, for it does, as I have already tried to demonstrate and as I will do on to enlarge upon.

Dwelling on honourable things

Many of the words that I don’t like to read or hear are terms used to describe immoral acts, the emission of bodily waste, or sexual organs. Some are (in origin) legal terms, some are commonly understood as swear words (vulgarity), others are slang terms. But they all call to mind either the acts or the objects that they represent in either a demeaning or derogatory way. For example, we can all think of terms used for the joyful union of man and woman that God has given us to exercise within the marriage relationship. Such words sully something God has created as beautiful and wonderful.

Although the origins of these words are good and proper in many cases (legal terms, or terms once acceptable to society) now they often have vulgar or derogatory connotations, and are used more often in derogatory ways. What was acceptable in Elizabethan England, and also reformation Germany, is not always acceptable in modern English.

Even when one uses such words as ‘damn’ one needs to be aware of what is actually being said. One is actually calling down a curse upon who ever, or whatever that term is being addressed to. To damn someone is actually to wish eternal judgement upon them, so even words that the world find pretty inoffensive today should not jump to our lips, simply because of the light we have been given by the grace of God.

With all that in mind, we recall that Paul wishes Christians to dwell on things that are honourable, pure, lovely and excellent (Phil 4:8). When we use language that calls to mind some obscene act or private body part, we are (perhaps) dwelling on the wrong objects ourselves, or at least thinking about them in the wrong way. We are also making it difficult for our hearer to focus on the right things, or at least on the things that need to be said in the right way. We need to ask ourselves “do our words make our point, or distract from our point?” That is an issue we need to think over even if we use delicate language, but some terms obscure the message more then others, simply due to their potential to offend.

Not even naming these things

Paul goes further when speaking to the Ephesian Christians when he says Ephesians 5:3 “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.” This is an interesting passage to take young people through, discussing with them how they should respond to ‘dirty jokes’ for example at school. Remember we are called to be holy, as God is Holy 1 Pe 1:16. If Jesus wouldn’t have laughed at it, can we? Likewise, if we have no example of Jesus using the type of words we are using can we? It is not just about sexual terms either, covetousness is in there as well I note!

But what about when we do need to talk about such things!

Of course , there are times when we do need to talk about these things, scriptures itself does not shy away from talking about these things when there is a need. But interestingly, despite the way the KJV translates some of these terms, the Hebrew and Greek is actually very delicate, which is surprising for such earthy languages.

The Hebrew and homosexuality

This is, I suppose the classic example of Elizabethan English that the AV retains in such places as Deut 23:17. The term our older translation use (you can look it up if you wish) is term that has entered into English through the language of law. The term springs from the eccesiastical latin "peccatum Sodomiticum" which means 'sin of Sodom.' It is a word that even the 18th century had such negative conations in its use that even when talked about in legal situations idiomatic language was used, for example "that which is unfit to be named among Christians" So do we as Christians need to retain that type of language today? If 18th century folk didn’t think it was a fitting word to be used in Christian circles even in the legal situation in which evolved? I would say not, if our Victorian brethren felt it inappropriate, before there was ever such a thing as being PC shouldn’t we also be wary?

The Old Testament is actually referring to male prostitutes in that text. קדשׁ (qāḏaš) which is the term used to describe these men is also used to talk about items or people set apart to be holy unto God, for example it is used of Aaron and his sons in Ex 29:21. Literally, in the OT a male prostitute is ‘a consecrated one.’

Now I realise some Christians do not find this particular word as offensive, merely descriptive, like Murderer or adulterer. However the question I would ask us to consider is; is this a biblical example of how delicate our language should be when we address such gross and distasteful sin? It certainly seems to be the case that Paul thought so, for when he talked about homosexuality in Romans 1 he too choose to be as delicate as possible Romans 1:27 “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” He leaves us in absolutely no doubt as to what he is reffering to, but he does it in a way that no one can accuse him of using derogatory terms, he is purely factual. He also makes it clear that he disapproves of the sin.

Another example of Elizabethan English

It might also be worth looking at verses like 1 Kings 14:10 (read it in the AV if you want to know what I am talking about) In the context of the verse, the expression means “a male.” The origin of the expression in ancient Israel is a matter of discussion. What is clear is that it is an idiomatic phrase that the Av translates rather woodenly into language that was acceptable in Elizabethan England. Whilst earthy to be sure, there is no reason for us to think the Hebrew word for urinate (שׁתן:) was considered anything other then proper though somewhat contemptuous when used to describe a male in this idiom. My point though is that the words were acceptable, today some (including myself) question the Av translation and I would certainly be reluctant to read it in public, and preach from that text in the KJV.

A brief summary of where we are

So to summarise where we are at;

1) Paul does not want us dwelling on such things, he would rather our thoughts dwell upon positive things, and I would suggest that he would even have consider these matters is most delicate way we can when we must consider them.

2) When we really must discuss them, the scriptures give the example of being very delicate in their language.

It’s about our witness

When the Christian uses questionable language in public we waste the opportunity to set ourselves apart from the ungodly in the world. Do we want folk to look at us and say ‘he is no different to me, look he talks just as I do!” or do want them to look at us and see that there is something very different about us. The fact is, a swearing Christian will make the unsaved stand up and take notice, but for all the wrongs reasons - they know that it is improper for someone taking the name of Christ to do this.

Also, there is the issue of men like Phelps who the world label as Christian, how will it help our witness if we are associated with them simply because we use the same language they do to describe gross sin? We do not want to label as those who hate, but as those who weep other the nations for their sin. We can denounce sin, and also the sinner, as indeed we must from our pulpits, and in other ways, but we can do so in a way that actually encourages people to listen to us. If we talk about gross sin as Phelps or Anderson do, we will be lumped with them.

My friends, by our speech, we need to give people a reason to listen to what we have to say. That doesn’t mean we tread so softly that we do not denounce sin when see it. We are not talking about being PC here! It does mean, however, that we denounce sin in a way that demonstrates our awareness of the great beam of wood in our own eye, and also we must denounce sin in great love. Paul described himself as the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15), when we talk about homosexuality what do the words we use say about our attitude towards sinners, does it come across as holier than thou, do we sound like the Pharisee ‘I thank you God that I am not like other men’, or do we sound like Paul, the chief of sinners speaking to sinners?

It is not just homosexuality either, but all gross sin. You see, I am not just talking about the pathos of our message, I am more concerned the ethos of our message, the perceived character of the speaker. We can things from a genuine heart of love, but that might be how it is heard, simply because we choose our language poorly. In explaining why one preacher’s ministry was struggling Wesley once said to the man.


Quote: Your temper is uneven; you lack love for your neighbors. You grow angry too easily; your tongue is too sharp – thus, the people will not hear you.


Cultural norms do matter

When it comes to the ethos of our witness cultural norms do matter. Cultural norms have been set, and certain dividing lines have been drawn on what is proper and fitting, and what is vulgar, and inappropriate. Terms may be correct, they be accurate and descriptive, but are they accepted as the highest calibre of language in the culture within which we witness? Those lines differ from community to community, and from time to time. The internet though, for example, transcends such cultural barriers, so demand a little more awareness then we might exercise in private amongst a close group of friends say.

The real need to be inoffensive

Paul wrote to Corinth, saying, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He did not want Christians to offend anyone unnecessarily, not even the unbelievers around them, and certainly not a fellow Christian. He was not referring to the offense of the gospel, of course, or an offense taken by someone who despises certain Christian beliefs or practices. He is not referring to causing offence not by what we say but actually how we say it.

There are many words we can use that we do not have to use, we can be much more delicate, these words are not part of the gospel message, why do we need to use them? Is it really acceptable to say “I am just denouncing sin” for example?

Causing offence is a sin

My friends, the point I am trying to make is very simple. If even a single Christian (or an unbeliever, for that matter) is offended by our language, we have sinned, and perhaps presented a stumbling block to the gospel. Now perhaps that has to caveated, for there are some who will take offence at all we say if it is in disagreement with their on views. That is playing the ‘weaker brother’ trump card and I have little time for such antics myself.

However some Christians (I am glad to say non post here in this fashion) it would seem claim as a personal liberty something that; (1) we do not need to use, and (2) something our pagan society recognizes as offensive. Some Christians use terms freely that would put an 18 certificate on a program in the UK. To my mind that is unacceptable. We need to be sensitive to ensure that the only offense we cause is the offence of the gospel. The way is already narrow, and there are few who find it. If our perceived tone makes it narrower still will we be judged for that?

Now, of course, because we are talking cross cultures, there will be times we inadvertently step over lines other people have drawn. The important factor then is how we respond, on both sides. The one who is offended needs to show grace as well!

The appearance of Evil

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

The word “form” here means outward appearance. It might be that what we say, we do genuinely say out love for the lost and a desire for them to see their sin and just how abhorrent it is. But again we come back to the perceived character that we demonstrate through the word we use. Sometimes when I listen to some preachers (especially) as they denounce sin from the pulpit it almost seems as they are glorifying in the sin themselves by the way they denounce the sin, they seem to be dwelling upon it just too much – is that an appearance of evil?

James tells us that though the tongue is a small member it is the cause of great mischief, just like a little rudder can turn a great ship, or a small spark start a huge fire, so the tongue can do great things – that is both positive and negative isn’t it? The ships rudder can either guide a ship safely into port or to it’s destruction on the rocks. The words we use either direct people into port, or drive them onto the rocks.

Some further scriptures to consider

These I will list without comment, for time is getting on. They are for your consideration;

Proverbs 10:31 The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, But the perverse tongue will be cut out.

Proverbs 10:32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable,

Matthew 12:35 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.”

Matthew 15:11 "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

Colossians 3:8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

Leviticus 20:7 'Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.

Our default setting - being wary of our tongue

The tongue is “a restless evil and full of deadly poison,” which cannot be tamed and which “defiles the body” (James 3:6, 8) As Christians we should have as our “default setting” a suspicion of what comes out of our mouths. Proverbs 10:19 “he who restrains his lips is wise.” If there is any question as to whether or not something produced by the tongue is sinful or potentially offensive I would always advise we err on the side of caution rather than appealing to our liberty.

So where do we draw the line

Well as I said at the start, I am not going to tell you that. I am not trying to curtail anyone’s Christian liberty. Perhaps though, we all (including myself) need to look at where we draw the line.

The questions I need to ask myself are things like;

1) Am I too relaxed or am I too conservative?
2) What does the way I talk, and the language I use convey, about me, my saviour and my salvation?

I would however say, that in my opinion, there is no need for even the mildest expletive, nor is there any need to use any terms that might actually have the potential to offend. For to my mind that is largely what it is about, are these things needful, if they are not needed why bother with them.

Some may make the objection, "but we can use a word like excrement, so why don’t you believe I should use the other word which conveys the very same thing?" Well to my mind one word is the profane language that the world uses in open contempt and disdain. And the other is a universally acceptable term for waste matter. Again, it really goes to the "heart" of the matter why would a Christian want to use that other term? Is there really a legitimate reason to do so. 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

My conclusion – at last

I would urge upon us the great need to control our tongues, we should ask ourselves are the words I am going to say or write needful. If they are not do not use them. If they are needful, and there are times when we do need to talk about things, then again we need to think about how we should say them. It is not so much about ‘we shouldn’t it say that way’, rather it is about promoting Christlikeness in ourselves by saying it in the most ‘positive’ way we can.

Your turn

All that being said, I invite comment back. What do others think about the language of our mouths? Do you think I am barking up the wrong tree? Perhaps you don’t think there is an issue? Let’s chat about this openly, for I am used to speaking and teaching in particular Baptist circles where actually all I would need to say is such language is unacceptable, for in our ‘particular’ culture that is widely accepted. But here it is different we have a much wider panorama of Christian perspectives, and each view does have something to add to the rich tapestry of Christian belief and history. All I would ask is that you keep it as clean as you possibly can :D]]>
Whilst thinking about what I would say on this post I was reminded of Prov 10:19 “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise.” If ever there was a verse for me to take to heart, it would be this one! That being said, this post is not going to be a short one, however it is my prayer that sin will indeed be lacking in the multitude of my words here.

I am writing this because recently the mods here have been discussing what is acceptable language and what is not. Let me say right from the start though that this is my own personal view and not a consensus of moderator thought on the matter, for actually we have not reached a consensus on the matter. I will be perhaps addressing the things we were discussing, but also there is a bigger picture then just this forum (where I am very glad to say the language is usually of the highest caliber, even by my ultra conservative standards and typical English prudishness.) The fact is though that a cursory search of the internet reveals that many who claim the name of Christ feel free to swear and curse like any unbeliever. It seems to me that in some Christian circles there is a real problem with this type of worldliness. For that is what I perceive it to be.

In writing this, though, I realise that different Christians draw the line in different places in regards to what is acceptable language and what is not acceptable language. Almost certainly I am hyper conservative on this matter. There are some, who are a little less conservative then I who find the language of people like Driscol acceptable in the pulpit. There may be people who think certain graphic terms used to describe particularly distasteful sexual sin are acceptable terms, and there may be some Christians who have no problem at all with swearing. These Christians are good people, loyal servants of Christ and folk that can certainly teach me a thing or too. So yes I know some (perhaps many) will disagree with where I draw the line, and this is not a criticism of such people at all. However I would like to try and explain my thinking if I may. All I ask is for enough benefit of the doubt to consider my words. I am nottelling anyone where the line should be drawn, just explaining why I draw the line where I do, and also perhaps asking us all to look to ourselves and see if we need to redraw our own lines.

Does scripture address this issue?

The Bible has much to say about how we should talk and the language we use. Most of which is laid in “do” language, rather then “don’t” language, by that I mean we are told how to speak, more then we are told how not to speak. For example;

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Now that may not be a verse that tells us how not to speak, but does give us a positive instruction how we should be using our tongue. The scriptures not only give us specific commands though, they also (in my opinion) set an example by the language that they use themselves as they talk about subjects that are somewhat distasteful.

One of the reasons our speech is so important is simply because our speech testifies about the condition of our heart and is a key element of our Christian witness. That is really what I want to explore.

Stating the obvious

I do however at this point have to state the obvious, there is no verse in the bible which says “thou shalt not use these words ………” followed by a list of unacceptable words. However that doesn’t mean the bible has nothing to say on this subject at all, for it does, as I have already tried to demonstrate and as I will do on to enlarge upon.

Dwelling on honourable things

Many of the words that I don’t like to read or hear are terms used to describe immoral acts, the emission of bodily waste, or sexual organs. Some are (in origin) legal terms, some are commonly understood as swear words (vulgarity), others are slang terms. But they all call to mind either the acts or the objects that they represent in either a demeaning or derogatory way. For example, we can all think of terms used for the joyful union of man and woman that God has given us to exercise within the marriage relationship. Such words sully something God has created as beautiful and wonderful.

Although the origins of these words are good and proper in many cases (legal terms, or terms once acceptable to society) now they often have vulgar or derogatory connotations, and are used more often in derogatory ways. What was acceptable in Elizabethan England, and also reformation Germany, is not always acceptable in modern English.

Even when one uses such words as ‘damn’ one needs to be aware of what is actually being said. One is actually calling down a curse upon who ever, or whatever that term is being addressed to. To damn someone is actually to wish eternal judgement upon them, so even words that the world find pretty inoffensive today should not jump to our lips, simply because of the light we have been given by the grace of God.

With all that in mind, we recall that Paul wishes Christians to dwell on things that are honourable, pure, lovely and excellent (Phil 4:8). When we use language that calls to mind some obscene act or private body part, we are (perhaps) dwelling on the wrong objects ourselves, or at least thinking about them in the wrong way. We are also making it difficult for our hearer to focus on the right things, or at least on the things that need to be said in the right way. We need to ask ourselves “do our words make our point, or distract from our point?” That is an issue we need to think over even if we use delicate language, but some terms obscure the message more then others, simply due to their potential to offend.

Not even naming these things

Paul goes further when speaking to the Ephesian Christians when he says Ephesians 5:3 “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.” This is an interesting passage to take young people through, discussing with them how they should respond to ‘dirty jokes’ for example at school. Remember we are called to be holy, as God is Holy 1 Pe 1:16. If Jesus wouldn’t have laughed at it, can we? Likewise, if we have no example of Jesus using the type of words we are using can we? It is not just about sexual terms either, covetousness is in there as well I note!

But what about when we do need to talk about such things!

Of course , there are times when we do need to talk about these things, scriptures itself does not shy away from talking about these things when there is a need. But interestingly, despite the way the KJV translates some of these terms, the Hebrew and Greek is actually very delicate, which is surprising for such earthy languages.

The Hebrew and homosexuality

This is, I suppose the classic example of Elizabethan English that the AV retains in such places as Deut 23:17. The term our older translation use (you can look it up if you wish) is term that has entered into English through the language of law. The term springs from the eccesiastical latin "peccatum Sodomiticum" which means 'sin of Sodom.' It is a word that even the 18th century had such negative conations in its use that even when talked about in legal situations idiomatic language was used, for example "that which is unfit to be named among Christians" So do we as Christians need to retain that type of language today? If 18th century folk didn’t think it was a fitting word to be used in Christian circles even in the legal situation in which evolved? I would say not, if our Victorian brethren felt it inappropriate, before there was ever such a thing as being PC shouldn’t we also be wary?

The Old Testament is actually referring to male prostitutes in that text. קדשׁ (qāḏaš) which is the term used to describe these men is also used to talk about items or people set apart to be holy unto God, for example it is used of Aaron and his sons in Ex 29:21. Literally, in the OT a male prostitute is ‘a consecrated one.’

Now I realise some Christians do not find this particular word as offensive, merely descriptive, like Murderer or adulterer. However the question I would ask us to consider is; is this a biblical example of how delicate our language should be when we address such gross and distasteful sin? It certainly seems to be the case that Paul thought so, for when he talked about homosexuality in Romans 1 he too choose to be as delicate as possible Romans 1:27 “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” He leaves us in absolutely no doubt as to what he is reffering to, but he does it in a way that no one can accuse him of using derogatory terms, he is purely factual. He also makes it clear that he disapproves of the sin.

Another example of Elizabethan English

It might also be worth looking at verses like 1 Kings 14:10 (read it in the AV if you want to know what I am talking about) In the context of the verse, the expression means “a male.” The origin of the expression in ancient Israel is a matter of discussion. What is clear is that it is an idiomatic phrase that the Av translates rather woodenly into language that was acceptable in Elizabethan England. Whilst earthy to be sure, there is no reason for us to think the Hebrew word for urinate (שׁתן:) was considered anything other then proper though somewhat contemptuous when used to describe a male in this idiom. My point though is that the words were acceptable, today some (including myself) question the Av translation and I would certainly be reluctant to read it in public, and preach from that text in the KJV.

A brief summary of where we are

So to summarise where we are at;

1) Paul does not want us dwelling on such things, he would rather our thoughts dwell upon positive things, and I would suggest that he would even have consider these matters is most delicate way we can when we must consider them.

2) When we really must discuss them, the scriptures give the example of being very delicate in their language.

It’s about our witness

When the Christian uses questionable language in public we waste the opportunity to set ourselves apart from the ungodly in the world. Do we want folk to look at us and say ‘he is no different to me, look he talks just as I do!” or do want them to look at us and see that there is something very different about us. The fact is, a swearing Christian will make the unsaved stand up and take notice, but for all the wrongs reasons - they know that it is improper for someone taking the name of Christ to do this.

Also, there is the issue of men like Phelps who the world label as Christian, how will it help our witness if we are associated with them simply because we use the same language they do to describe gross sin? We do not want to label as those who hate, but as those who weep other the nations for their sin. We can denounce sin, and also the sinner, as indeed we must from our pulpits, and in other ways, but we can do so in a way that actually encourages people to listen to us. If we talk about gross sin as Phelps or Anderson do, we will be lumped with them.

My friends, by our speech, we need to give people a reason to listen to what we have to say. That doesn’t mean we tread so softly that we do not denounce sin when see it. We are not talking about being PC here! It does mean, however, that we denounce sin in a way that demonstrates our awareness of the great beam of wood in our own eye, and also we must denounce sin in great love. Paul described himself as the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15), when we talk about homosexuality what do the words we use say about our attitude towards sinners, does it come across as holier than thou, do we sound like the Pharisee ‘I thank you God that I am not like other men’, or do we sound like Paul, the chief of sinners speaking to sinners?

It is not just homosexuality either, but all gross sin. You see, I am not just talking about the pathos of our message, I am more concerned the ethos of our message, the perceived character of the speaker. We can things from a genuine heart of love, but that might be how it is heard, simply because we choose our language poorly. In explaining why one preacher’s ministry was struggling Wesley once said to the man.


Quote: Your temper is uneven; you lack love for your neighbors. You grow angry too easily; your tongue is too sharp – thus, the people will not hear you.


Cultural norms do matter

When it comes to the ethos of our witness cultural norms do matter. Cultural norms have been set, and certain dividing lines have been drawn on what is proper and fitting, and what is vulgar, and inappropriate. Terms may be correct, they be accurate and descriptive, but are they accepted as the highest calibre of language in the culture within which we witness? Those lines differ from community to community, and from time to time. The internet though, for example, transcends such cultural barriers, so demand a little more awareness then we might exercise in private amongst a close group of friends say.

The real need to be inoffensive

Paul wrote to Corinth, saying, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He did not want Christians to offend anyone unnecessarily, not even the unbelievers around them, and certainly not a fellow Christian. He was not referring to the offense of the gospel, of course, or an offense taken by someone who despises certain Christian beliefs or practices. He is not referring to causing offence not by what we say but actually how we say it.

There are many words we can use that we do not have to use, we can be much more delicate, these words are not part of the gospel message, why do we need to use them? Is it really acceptable to say “I am just denouncing sin” for example?

Causing offence is a sin

My friends, the point I am trying to make is very simple. If even a single Christian (or an unbeliever, for that matter) is offended by our language, we have sinned, and perhaps presented a stumbling block to the gospel. Now perhaps that has to caveated, for there are some who will take offence at all we say if it is in disagreement with their on views. That is playing the ‘weaker brother’ trump card and I have little time for such antics myself.

However some Christians (I am glad to say non post here in this fashion) it would seem claim as a personal liberty something that; (1) we do not need to use, and (2) something our pagan society recognizes as offensive. Some Christians use terms freely that would put an 18 certificate on a program in the UK. To my mind that is unacceptable. We need to be sensitive to ensure that the only offense we cause is the offence of the gospel. The way is already narrow, and there are few who find it. If our perceived tone makes it narrower still will we be judged for that?

Now, of course, because we are talking cross cultures, there will be times we inadvertently step over lines other people have drawn. The important factor then is how we respond, on both sides. The one who is offended needs to show grace as well!

The appearance of Evil

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

The word “form” here means outward appearance. It might be that what we say, we do genuinely say out love for the lost and a desire for them to see their sin and just how abhorrent it is. But again we come back to the perceived character that we demonstrate through the word we use. Sometimes when I listen to some preachers (especially) as they denounce sin from the pulpit it almost seems as they are glorifying in the sin themselves by the way they denounce the sin, they seem to be dwelling upon it just too much – is that an appearance of evil?

James tells us that though the tongue is a small member it is the cause of great mischief, just like a little rudder can turn a great ship, or a small spark start a huge fire, so the tongue can do great things – that is both positive and negative isn’t it? The ships rudder can either guide a ship safely into port or to it’s destruction on the rocks. The words we use either direct people into port, or drive them onto the rocks.

Some further scriptures to consider

These I will list without comment, for time is getting on. They are for your consideration;

Proverbs 10:31 The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, But the perverse tongue will be cut out.

Proverbs 10:32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable,

Matthew 12:35 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.”

Matthew 15:11 "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

Colossians 3:8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

Leviticus 20:7 'Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.

Our default setting - being wary of our tongue

The tongue is “a restless evil and full of deadly poison,” which cannot be tamed and which “defiles the body” (James 3:6, 8) As Christians we should have as our “default setting” a suspicion of what comes out of our mouths. Proverbs 10:19 “he who restrains his lips is wise.” If there is any question as to whether or not something produced by the tongue is sinful or potentially offensive I would always advise we err on the side of caution rather than appealing to our liberty.

So where do we draw the line

Well as I said at the start, I am not going to tell you that. I am not trying to curtail anyone’s Christian liberty. Perhaps though, we all (including myself) need to look at where we draw the line.

The questions I need to ask myself are things like;

1) Am I too relaxed or am I too conservative?
2) What does the way I talk, and the language I use convey, about me, my saviour and my salvation?

I would however say, that in my opinion, there is no need for even the mildest expletive, nor is there any need to use any terms that might actually have the potential to offend. For to my mind that is largely what it is about, are these things needful, if they are not needed why bother with them.

Some may make the objection, "but we can use a word like excrement, so why don’t you believe I should use the other word which conveys the very same thing?" Well to my mind one word is the profane language that the world uses in open contempt and disdain. And the other is a universally acceptable term for waste matter. Again, it really goes to the "heart" of the matter why would a Christian want to use that other term? Is there really a legitimate reason to do so. 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

My conclusion – at last

I would urge upon us the great need to control our tongues, we should ask ourselves are the words I am going to say or write needful. If they are not do not use them. If they are needful, and there are times when we do need to talk about things, then again we need to think about how we should say them. It is not so much about ‘we shouldn’t it say that way’, rather it is about promoting Christlikeness in ourselves by saying it in the most ‘positive’ way we can.

Your turn

All that being said, I invite comment back. What do others think about the language of our mouths? Do you think I am barking up the wrong tree? Perhaps you don’t think there is an issue? Let’s chat about this openly, for I am used to speaking and teaching in particular Baptist circles where actually all I would need to say is such language is unacceptable, for in our ‘particular’ culture that is widely accepted. But here it is different we have a much wider panorama of Christian perspectives, and each view does have something to add to the rich tapestry of Christian belief and history. All I would ask is that you keep it as clean as you possibly can :D]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3196 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:15:07 -0500 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3196 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3195 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:24:09 -0500 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3195
It seemed that all around him the opposing armies were gaining ground, taking cities, narrowing the gap between his city and the front line of the war.

The great army would soon be at the king’s door and he was unprepared for war; he would have trouble defending his land because most of his allies had already been defeated.

He had joined in the rebellion against the invading country and was determined not to serve the enemy.

Now he alone was left; all his allies had been defeated, and the war seemed un-winnable. He trusted God and believed that God would help him, because the words of God had come to him by His prophet, but still he was worried.

A military officer from the invading army was dispatched with several other officers to meet with him to discuss terms of peace. The message sent to him by the opposing king was threatening; it was meant to intimidate.


Quote:How dare you rebel against me?!

You see what we’ve done to all your neighbors and allies. There’s no way you can win this war! Who do you think is going to help you? What do you think you can say that can defeat me?

Your army obviously is inadequate. Hey, I’ll even help you out! I’ll give you 2000 horses for your army and all you have to do is come up with the men to ride them. And I’ve heard about your great faith in God, but come on, now.

Do you really think He’s going to help you after everything you did wrong? You know what? God sent me here to destroy you! He’s not with you -- He’s with us! I suggest you sign these papers agreeing to our terms of peace now, before it’s too late.

Strong words, frightening content.

And he was guilty because he, the king had, in fact gone against God and he’d seen his own people sinning against the laws of God. What if God really had changed sides? What if God really had sent this army to teach him a lesson?

He called for the prophet, the man of God, to pray again on their behalf, to be sure that God had meant what He’d said.

And God answered through His servant:


Quote:Do not be afraid! Do not listen to the lies of your enemy concerning Me. Not one of the opposing army will make it into this city. Not one arrow will be shot out against you. Your enemy will go back the way he came because I, Myself will defend the city.



And, of course, the battle was over before it even began.

This is an account of an actual war, won -- without even fighting because the battle belonged to God -- as recorded in Isaiah 36 and 37.

[Other records were written in II Kings 18,19 and II Chron. 32.}

Sennacherib was the conquering Assyrian king from 705-681 BC. The historic attempts to explain the outcome (based on Hezekiah’s prayer to God) naturalistically have claimed that mice carrying a plague defeated the opposing Assyrian army (according to Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary).]

It is also a version of OUR war -- our fight of faith -- that we fight daily.

We hear and/or read the Words of God and then Satan tells us they aren’t true. We hear preachers or hear our own words speaking God’s words of faith and then hear lies from others or our own thoughts trying to convince us that God’s words aren’t relevant now or that they weren’t meant for us, or any number of other things that come against our faith in God’s word as truth.

It works something like this:

God: This is Truth; believe it and be free, be victorious against your enemies.

Enemy: God is against you; you can’t win. I’m bigger than you.

God: Don’t be afraid. He’s lying. I’ve already defeated him.

Enemy: Do you think WORDS will work against me? Hah!

God: I will win; no weapon formed against you will prevail because you are Mine.

Of course, when Satan tells you something won’t work to defeat him you’re pretty much on solid ground believing that it will! He lies! Of course he’s going to tell you it won’t work! And often all we have to do is STAND our ground.

Don’t let the passage of time defeat you. You WILL win. God’s word IS truth. Just hang on.

We can see parallels in our story between Satan coming against us -- represented here by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. We can see our roles in this story as the people chosen by God, represented by Jerusalem’s leader King Hezekiah. The war is one of words, as we see in Isaiah 36:5 (ESV):

Quote:Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? In whom do you now trust, that you have rebelled against me?

God’s words had been sent to King Hezekiah by way of the prophet Isaiah and the King was determined to believe that God would do what He said. Anytime we go against the world’s system based on the perceptions of the five senses we are, in fact, rebelling against Satan! And the spoken word of God -- the Sword of the Spirit -- is more than enough to defeat the enemy. Sennacherib continues his lies meant to deceive and frighten (Is. 36:10b):
Quote:The Lord said to me, Go up against this land and destroy it’.


We often have trouble resisting the enemy, especially in the form of physical sickness, if we believe it is God’s will for us to be sick. This is a common deception used to keep us from standing against the enemy and defending ourselves! Sennacherib continues his bombardment of lies (Is. 36:14 - 16):

Quote:Do not let Hezekiah deceive you! Do not let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord! Make your peace with me and come out to me.

Whenever we operate out of fear we are more likely to want to negotiate with the Devil. And anytime we go with the enemy (and against God) we only end up signing our own death certificates. God will protect us if we don’t get involved with the circumstances!

Quote:Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the young men of the king of Assyria have reviled me.
(Is. 37:6)

God's answer to us is always, FEAR NOT! Satan is defeated! All of the Scriptures are written as examples to us. And we know that Satan has no truth in him. At times you can use his own strategies IN REVERSE to see exactly what he’s doing. He lies and will pervert God’s truth to try to scare you and/or trick you into signing his peace agreement.

But don’t be deceived. His terms are death. There is no life in him. God is light / Satan is darkness. God is goodness / Satan is evil. God is faithful / Satan is fearful. Don’t even negotiate. Trust God -- the battle belongs to Him, and He always wins.

Quote:Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard...

Isaiah 37:6

]]>
It seemed that all around him the opposing armies were gaining ground, taking cities, narrowing the gap between his city and the front line of the war.

The great army would soon be at the king’s door and he was unprepared for war; he would have trouble defending his land because most of his allies had already been defeated.

He had joined in the rebellion against the invading country and was determined not to serve the enemy.

Now he alone was left; all his allies had been defeated, and the war seemed un-winnable. He trusted God and believed that God would help him, because the words of God had come to him by His prophet, but still he was worried.

A military officer from the invading army was dispatched with several other officers to meet with him to discuss terms of peace. The message sent to him by the opposing king was threatening; it was meant to intimidate.


Quote:How dare you rebel against me?!

You see what we’ve done to all your neighbors and allies. There’s no way you can win this war! Who do you think is going to help you? What do you think you can say that can defeat me?

Your army obviously is inadequate. Hey, I’ll even help you out! I’ll give you 2000 horses for your army and all you have to do is come up with the men to ride them. And I’ve heard about your great faith in God, but come on, now.

Do you really think He’s going to help you after everything you did wrong? You know what? God sent me here to destroy you! He’s not with you -- He’s with us! I suggest you sign these papers agreeing to our terms of peace now, before it’s too late.

Strong words, frightening content.

And he was guilty because he, the king had, in fact gone against God and he’d seen his own people sinning against the laws of God. What if God really had changed sides? What if God really had sent this army to teach him a lesson?

He called for the prophet, the man of God, to pray again on their behalf, to be sure that God had meant what He’d said.

And God answered through His servant:


Quote:Do not be afraid! Do not listen to the lies of your enemy concerning Me. Not one of the opposing army will make it into this city. Not one arrow will be shot out against you. Your enemy will go back the way he came because I, Myself will defend the city.



And, of course, the battle was over before it even began.

This is an account of an actual war, won -- without even fighting because the battle belonged to God -- as recorded in Isaiah 36 and 37.

[Other records were written in II Kings 18,19 and II Chron. 32.}

Sennacherib was the conquering Assyrian king from 705-681 BC. The historic attempts to explain the outcome (based on Hezekiah’s prayer to God) naturalistically have claimed that mice carrying a plague defeated the opposing Assyrian army (according to Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary).]

It is also a version of OUR war -- our fight of faith -- that we fight daily.

We hear and/or read the Words of God and then Satan tells us they aren’t true. We hear preachers or hear our own words speaking God’s words of faith and then hear lies from others or our own thoughts trying to convince us that God’s words aren’t relevant now or that they weren’t meant for us, or any number of other things that come against our faith in God’s word as truth.

It works something like this:

God: This is Truth; believe it and be free, be victorious against your enemies.

Enemy: God is against you; you can’t win. I’m bigger than you.

God: Don’t be afraid. He’s lying. I’ve already defeated him.

Enemy: Do you think WORDS will work against me? Hah!

God: I will win; no weapon formed against you will prevail because you are Mine.

Of course, when Satan tells you something won’t work to defeat him you’re pretty much on solid ground believing that it will! He lies! Of course he’s going to tell you it won’t work! And often all we have to do is STAND our ground.

Don’t let the passage of time defeat you. You WILL win. God’s word IS truth. Just hang on.

We can see parallels in our story between Satan coming against us -- represented here by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. We can see our roles in this story as the people chosen by God, represented by Jerusalem’s leader King Hezekiah. The war is one of words, as we see in Isaiah 36:5 (ESV):

Quote:Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? In whom do you now trust, that you have rebelled against me?

God’s words had been sent to King Hezekiah by way of the prophet Isaiah and the King was determined to believe that God would do what He said. Anytime we go against the world’s system based on the perceptions of the five senses we are, in fact, rebelling against Satan! And the spoken word of God -- the Sword of the Spirit -- is more than enough to defeat the enemy. Sennacherib continues his lies meant to deceive and frighten (Is. 36:10b):
Quote:The Lord said to me, Go up against this land and destroy it’.


We often have trouble resisting the enemy, especially in the form of physical sickness, if we believe it is God’s will for us to be sick. This is a common deception used to keep us from standing against the enemy and defending ourselves! Sennacherib continues his bombardment of lies (Is. 36:14 - 16):

Quote:Do not let Hezekiah deceive you! Do not let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord! Make your peace with me and come out to me.

Whenever we operate out of fear we are more likely to want to negotiate with the Devil. And anytime we go with the enemy (and against God) we only end up signing our own death certificates. God will protect us if we don’t get involved with the circumstances!

Quote:Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the young men of the king of Assyria have reviled me.
(Is. 37:6)

God's answer to us is always, FEAR NOT! Satan is defeated! All of the Scriptures are written as examples to us. And we know that Satan has no truth in him. At times you can use his own strategies IN REVERSE to see exactly what he’s doing. He lies and will pervert God’s truth to try to scare you and/or trick you into signing his peace agreement.

But don’t be deceived. His terms are death. There is no life in him. God is light / Satan is darkness. God is goodness / Satan is evil. God is faithful / Satan is fearful. Don’t even negotiate. Trust God -- the battle belongs to Him, and He always wins.

Quote:Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard...

Isaiah 37:6

]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3193 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:45:46 -0500 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3193

Quote:The name, "Christian Church" is not found in the Bible, no, not even once, and be it said to their credit, many of the most brilliant men, preachers and leaders in the "Christian Church", contend it is unscriptural and refuse to wear it or use it. Then why not drop it and use a name that is scriptural and one upon which all can agree. The name "church of Christ" is such a name.

Most "Christian Churches" have a choir and many of the larger city churches have paid singers and musicians who are not even Christians. Many times the choir tends to formalism and show. In some churches it is the source of much contention and ill feelings among its members. Many preachers of the "Christian Church" refer to the choir as their "Standing Army" or "War Department". The choir nearly always tends to lessen the worship in song by the congregation. And, in addition to all this, and of much more importance, is the fact that the choir in the worship of the church is an unauthorized invention of man and not a good work nor of faith, because not mentioned in the Bible.

The use of instrumental music in the worship of the church is purely a man-made innovation which has caused a great deal of trouble and division in the church. It is a bold violation of the divine mandate that we are not to "add to" nor: :go beyond the things which are written". We have just as much right to add to the emblems used in the Lord's Supper as we do to add to the music, which the Holy Spirit has authorized. See! Eph. 5 :19. Instrumental music was not in the early church. It came in about the sixth century from the same source as sprinkling and infant baptism, and is just as unscriptural as either of these other Romanist innovations. It is a sin to use mechanical music in the worship of the church, because not of faith and not of faith, because not heard in God's word. "What preacher of the "Christian Church" is ready to defend, in public discussion, the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church on the ground that it is a scriptural practice? Yes, this is a challenge.

http://www.bible.acu.edu/crs/doc/chch.htm

]]>

Quote:The name, "Christian Church" is not found in the Bible, no, not even once, and be it said to their credit, many of the most brilliant men, preachers and leaders in the "Christian Church", contend it is unscriptural and refuse to wear it or use it. Then why not drop it and use a name that is scriptural and one upon which all can agree. The name "church of Christ" is such a name.

Most "Christian Churches" have a choir and many of the larger city churches have paid singers and musicians who are not even Christians. Many times the choir tends to formalism and show. In some churches it is the source of much contention and ill feelings among its members. Many preachers of the "Christian Church" refer to the choir as their "Standing Army" or "War Department". The choir nearly always tends to lessen the worship in song by the congregation. And, in addition to all this, and of much more importance, is the fact that the choir in the worship of the church is an unauthorized invention of man and not a good work nor of faith, because not mentioned in the Bible.

The use of instrumental music in the worship of the church is purely a man-made innovation which has caused a great deal of trouble and division in the church. It is a bold violation of the divine mandate that we are not to "add to" nor: :go beyond the things which are written". We have just as much right to add to the emblems used in the Lord's Supper as we do to add to the music, which the Holy Spirit has authorized. See! Eph. 5 :19. Instrumental music was not in the early church. It came in about the sixth century from the same source as sprinkling and infant baptism, and is just as unscriptural as either of these other Romanist innovations. It is a sin to use mechanical music in the worship of the church, because not of faith and not of faith, because not heard in God's word. "What preacher of the "Christian Church" is ready to defend, in public discussion, the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church on the ground that it is a scriptural practice? Yes, this is a challenge.

http://www.bible.acu.edu/crs/doc/chch.htm

]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3190 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:20:13 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3190
Got a call from a recruiter a couple weeks back and spent 5 minutes on the phone. Never heard a word.

Got a call at noon today asking if I was available for a phone interview today or tomorrow.

sure, whenever is convenient for them.

call at 2pm went well. spoke with VP for 20 minutes. no prep, no expectation, very nice conversation.

wants to see me down in Durham, NC when I'm available after we move (week after next looks good!)....


:yay: :waves: :dance:

Knew there was a reason we hadn't found a house up here.]]>
Got a call from a recruiter a couple weeks back and spent 5 minutes on the phone. Never heard a word.

Got a call at noon today asking if I was available for a phone interview today or tomorrow.

sure, whenever is convenient for them.

call at 2pm went well. spoke with VP for 20 minutes. no prep, no expectation, very nice conversation.

wants to see me down in Durham, NC when I'm available after we move (week after next looks good!)....


:yay: :waves: :dance:

Knew there was a reason we hadn't found a house up here.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3189 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:22:33 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3189
Thanks in advance

GTM]]>
Thanks in advance

GTM]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3186 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:49:47 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3186
My wife has been going through some rough times for the past few weeks. Her dad is slowly declining, and has been in constant pain for a while. The nature of his problems (which aren't known fully yet) makes pain medication (other than Tylenol) only make the pain worse.

Last year he had lung cancer surgery, and everything seemed to be looking up. Now they fear his cancer spread into his bones. He also has a tumor on his adrenal gland on his kidney. This morning they are doing a biopsy on the tumor to see if it is malignant.

I just ask for prayers for my wife and her parents. She feels helpless knowing her dad is constant pain. Please pray for the Lord to give them a peace that only comes from trusting in Him.

Thank you!

Joseff]]>
My wife has been going through some rough times for the past few weeks. Her dad is slowly declining, and has been in constant pain for a while. The nature of his problems (which aren't known fully yet) makes pain medication (other than Tylenol) only make the pain worse.

Last year he had lung cancer surgery, and everything seemed to be looking up. Now they fear his cancer spread into his bones. He also has a tumor on his adrenal gland on his kidney. This morning they are doing a biopsy on the tumor to see if it is malignant.

I just ask for prayers for my wife and her parents. She feels helpless knowing her dad is constant pain. Please pray for the Lord to give them a peace that only comes from trusting in Him.

Thank you!

Joseff]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3185 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:34:03 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3185
I just really wanted to ask for some prayer because I'm struggling badly now. I've been very stressed lately because of schoolwork and I wish sometimes I could just drop it so I could study God's Word, spend more time in prayer, etc. I haven't been sleeping well and I was up till 3 on a project and woke up at 8, and I listened to a video last night on Hebrews 6 and 10 which just terrified me. I'm just left in a great knot here. Emotionally and just everywhere else, I feel like I'm sinking. Everything feels so busy. I want to handle it all, I want a right attitude for it. I don't really know what to do.

I can't really bring out in this post how I'm feeling. I felt that I just needed to ask you guys to pray. Thank you.]]>
I just really wanted to ask for some prayer because I'm struggling badly now. I've been very stressed lately because of schoolwork and I wish sometimes I could just drop it so I could study God's Word, spend more time in prayer, etc. I haven't been sleeping well and I was up till 3 on a project and woke up at 8, and I listened to a video last night on Hebrews 6 and 10 which just terrified me. I'm just left in a great knot here. Emotionally and just everywhere else, I feel like I'm sinking. Everything feels so busy. I want to handle it all, I want a right attitude for it. I don't really know what to do.

I can't really bring out in this post how I'm feeling. I felt that I just needed to ask you guys to pray. Thank you.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3184 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:58:07 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3184
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010...-31.0.html

It probably doesn't tell us anything new, but just confirms what we've already known.


Quote:Joshua DuBois: Before stepping into politics, DuBois, 27, was a pastor at small Pentecostal church in Massachusetts, and his approach to the president bears traces of his former calling.


Quote:Denis McDonough: Traveling by the president's side on overseas missions, the 40-year-old Minnesotan is a crucial player in Obama's quest to engage Muslims, find common cause with the Vatican, and restore the country's moral authority.

McDonough helped craft Obama's landmark address to Muslims last June in Cairo, and the robust defense of American foreign policy—including the waging of "just wars"—during the president's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Norway.



Quote:Rashad Hussain: Hussain briefed Obama before his first interview as president—with Al Arabiya, a television station based in the United Arab Emirates. He has also contributed to Obama's two major speeches to Muslims—in Ankara, Turkey and Cairo—offering insights about the history of Islam in America and suggesting suitable verses from the Quran.



Quote:Melissa Rogers: DuBois called Rogers, the director of the Center for Religious and Public Affairs at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity, "one of the country's foremost experts on faith and public policy," who is "respected across the board," by liberals and conservatives alike.

Her legal and political acumen helped Rogers guide the council's 25 members, who run the theological gamut from Baptist to Hindu, to reach a consensus on more than 60 recommendations for revamping the White House faith-based office, which were presented on March 9.



Quote:Joel Hunter and Sharon Watkins: When Obama wants to pray privately, he has repeatedly called Joel Hunter, a Florida megachurch pastor, and the Rev. Sharon Watkins, president and general minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

]]>
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010...-31.0.html

It probably doesn't tell us anything new, but just confirms what we've already known.


Quote:Joshua DuBois: Before stepping into politics, DuBois, 27, was a pastor at small Pentecostal church in Massachusetts, and his approach to the president bears traces of his former calling.


Quote:Denis McDonough: Traveling by the president's side on overseas missions, the 40-year-old Minnesotan is a crucial player in Obama's quest to engage Muslims, find common cause with the Vatican, and restore the country's moral authority.

McDonough helped craft Obama's landmark address to Muslims last June in Cairo, and the robust defense of American foreign policy—including the waging of "just wars"—during the president's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Norway.



Quote:Rashad Hussain: Hussain briefed Obama before his first interview as president—with Al Arabiya, a television station based in the United Arab Emirates. He has also contributed to Obama's two major speeches to Muslims—in Ankara, Turkey and Cairo—offering insights about the history of Islam in America and suggesting suitable verses from the Quran.



Quote:Melissa Rogers: DuBois called Rogers, the director of the Center for Religious and Public Affairs at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity, "one of the country's foremost experts on faith and public policy," who is "respected across the board," by liberals and conservatives alike.

Her legal and political acumen helped Rogers guide the council's 25 members, who run the theological gamut from Baptist to Hindu, to reach a consensus on more than 60 recommendations for revamping the White House faith-based office, which were presented on March 9.



Quote:Joel Hunter and Sharon Watkins: When Obama wants to pray privately, he has repeatedly called Joel Hunter, a Florida megachurch pastor, and the Rev. Sharon Watkins, president and general minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3183 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:03:28 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3183

Quote:Over and over, the Bible stresses the fact that God despises iniquity. God told the prophet Jeremiah to speak to the Israelites about their sin, saying: “Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!” (44:4). The Proverbs writer listed seven sins the Lord hates (6:16-19). The prophet Zechariah declared that God hates a false oath and evil done to one’s neighbor (8:17). Jesus Himself said that He hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6). The Bible emphasizes that the Lord hates sin.

Some have suggested that God takes His hatred one step further.

They believe that God hates the sinner as well as the sin he or she commits. It has been suggested that God loves those who obey Him, and hates all who disobey. Those who teach this idea use various Bible verses to “prove” their case. For instance, Psalm 5:5 says that God hates “all workers of iniquity.” Proverbs 6:18-19 says that God hates “a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.” Is it true that God hates sinners and their sin?

]]>

Quote:Over and over, the Bible stresses the fact that God despises iniquity. God told the prophet Jeremiah to speak to the Israelites about their sin, saying: “Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!” (44:4). The Proverbs writer listed seven sins the Lord hates (6:16-19). The prophet Zechariah declared that God hates a false oath and evil done to one’s neighbor (8:17). Jesus Himself said that He hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6). The Bible emphasizes that the Lord hates sin.

Some have suggested that God takes His hatred one step further.

They believe that God hates the sinner as well as the sin he or she commits. It has been suggested that God loves those who obey Him, and hates all who disobey. Those who teach this idea use various Bible verses to “prove” their case. For instance, Psalm 5:5 says that God hates “all workers of iniquity.” Proverbs 6:18-19 says that God hates “a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.” Is it true that God hates sinners and their sin?

]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3182 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:36:52 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3182
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (ESV)

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NASB)

I grew up a KJVOnlyist, and I early on I had this verse memorized. But after I left the cult that is KJVOnlyism, I realized this verse has drastically different implications if in fact the ESV/NASB(etc) are a more accurate rendering of the verse than the KJV.

Young's Literal reads this way:

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us--those being saved--it is the power of God,

Emphasis mine, of course. What's important here is the phrase "those being saved" and how it differs from the statement "those who are saved"

The modern translations lend support to Reformed thought. The idea that a person finds the cross as power, and not foolishness, because they are being saved is tremendously Calvinistic. In the past, I had always read the verse as saying that a person finds the cross as power and not foolishness because they are already saved. That is, because they already decided to become a believer, the cross is power, not foolishness.

But then you go down to verse 23-24 where Paul explains that only those who are called find the cross power and wisdom, the rest find it foolishness and a stumbling block.

Those who are called = those who are being saved?

If so, the verse is saying the reason a person finds Christ's cross as power, and by implication, believes on it, clings to it, is justified by it, is because they are being saved.

Ok you language/Greek experts. Is the KJV a viable/accurate translation here? Is "are saved" and "being saved" the same thing, the same tense, in the Greek here? I guess the KJV makes me thing "are saved" is the perfect tense, but the other translations make me think "being saved" is a present tense thing.

Is Paul actually saying what I think he's saying here, that people are "being saved" (by God) (present tense) and this is precisely why they find the cross as power, and not foolishness?]]>
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (ESV)

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NASB)

I grew up a KJVOnlyist, and I early on I had this verse memorized. But after I left the cult that is KJVOnlyism, I realized this verse has drastically different implications if in fact the ESV/NASB(etc) are a more accurate rendering of the verse than the KJV.

Young's Literal reads this way:

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us--those being saved--it is the power of God,

Emphasis mine, of course. What's important here is the phrase "those being saved" and how it differs from the statement "those who are saved"

The modern translations lend support to Reformed thought. The idea that a person finds the cross as power, and not foolishness, because they are being saved is tremendously Calvinistic. In the past, I had always read the verse as saying that a person finds the cross as power and not foolishness because they are already saved. That is, because they already decided to become a believer, the cross is power, not foolishness.

But then you go down to verse 23-24 where Paul explains that only those who are called find the cross power and wisdom, the rest find it foolishness and a stumbling block.

Those who are called = those who are being saved?

If so, the verse is saying the reason a person finds Christ's cross as power, and by implication, believes on it, clings to it, is justified by it, is because they are being saved.

Ok you language/Greek experts. Is the KJV a viable/accurate translation here? Is "are saved" and "being saved" the same thing, the same tense, in the Greek here? I guess the KJV makes me thing "are saved" is the perfect tense, but the other translations make me think "being saved" is a present tense thing.

Is Paul actually saying what I think he's saying here, that people are "being saved" (by God) (present tense) and this is precisely why they find the cross as power, and not foolishness?]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3181 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:49:03 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3181
The word "draw" is the Greek word helkuo, which is defined this way in Strong's concordance:


Quote: 1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel


(in English, impel is defined this way:
1.to drive or urge forward; press on; incite or constrain to action.
2.to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to)

The word helkuo is used in these verses: (ESV)


Quote:Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)



Quote:Joh 21:6 He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish.


(KJV renders "haul" as "draw")


Quote:Joh 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn.



Quote:Act 16:19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.



Quote:Act 21:30 Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.



Quote:Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?



Quote:Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.


To me, it seems obvious that in every single one of these verses, the word "draw" means exactly what the definition says it means: to drag, to impel. Strong's points out that the word helkuo is akin to another word, #G138, aihreomai, which is defined this way:


Quote:To take for oneself, to prefer, to choose


So the word draw has some power and strength to it. It doesn't even come close to meaning to woo or persuade. Back to John 12:32, I've heard different arguments for the understandings of this verse.

Argument #1 - some say that this verse is teaching that Jesus is saying that he will persuade or woo all individuals to him with the intention of saving them. I immediately dismiss this argument in light of the overwhelming evidence that "draw" does not even come close to meaning "woo" or "persuade" or "entice". This argument ignores the context (See Argument #3) and also the possibility that since draw doesn't mean persuade/woo, Jesus could be saying that he will draw all people, but with the intentions different for each person (Some in a hardening way, some mercifully - See Argument #2)

Argument #2 - Jesus will in fact draw all individuals to himself, but this doesn't necessarily mean in a positive, saving way.

This is an intriguing argument to me. Many people are drawn to Christ's cross, but many times they remain hostile towards it. For example, Paul tells us that the message of the cross is foolishness and a stumbling block. Gill says this:


Quote:There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him


So being drawn to Christ doesn't necessarily mean that Christ is drawing men persuasively with the intention of saving them. Perhaps Christ could draw men with the intentions of hardening them? God could use the cross as an act of justice, or mercy.

This leads to argument #3, which I think is the strongest, and correct interpretation.

Argument #3 - The English translations add the word "people" to the phrase I will draw all people to myself. (notice the italicized "men" in the KJV, signaling an added word) In other words, it literally reads: I will draw all to myself.

I think casual English readers have a tendency to immediately latch onto that phrase "all people" and take it to mean "100% of every individual that ever walked the face of the earth, but again, given that drawn doesn't mean woo or persuade, we are left with either universalism, or the conclusion of Argument #2.

The context suggests that Christ said "all" or "all men" to refer to Jews and Greeks (as opposed to Jews only), because the events immediately preceding v32 were that Greeks had approached Christ.

Joh 12:20-31
(20) Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.
(21) So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
(22) Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
(23) And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
(24) Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
(25) Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
(26) If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
(27) "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.
(28) Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
(29) The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
(30) Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine.
(31) Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

The bolded area is important. James White says:

Quote:John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus' public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus' public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." This then is the context which leads us to Jesus' words in verse 32



Quote:I believe that in its context the "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.


Then White points out what Paul says about Jews and Greeks finding the cross foolishness and a stumbling block, and only those who are called find it wisdom and power. (1 Cor)

Then he says:


Quote:These considerations, along with the immediate context of the Gentiles seeking Christ, make it clear that if He is lifted up in crucifixion, He will draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, to Himself. This is exactly the same as saying that He has sheep not of this fold (John 10:16), the Gentiles, who become one body in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16)


Another thing that amazes me about this passage is not 5 verses later, we are told that God is directly involved in hardening men so that they would not believe, would not turn, and not be healed:


Quote:Joh 12:37-40
(37) Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
(38) so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
(39) Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
(40) "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."


All of that being said, how in the world could a person read John 12:32 any differently than what has been said here? How could it be said that Jesus is saying he is gently and lovingly persuading or wooing all individuals with the intention of saving them, given the facts that 1) "draw" does not mean that, not even close and 2) The very same passage outright says that God hardens and blinds men for the purposes of justice, so that they won't turn and be healed.

:hmm:]]>
The word "draw" is the Greek word helkuo, which is defined this way in Strong's concordance:


Quote: 1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel


(in English, impel is defined this way:
1.to drive or urge forward; press on; incite or constrain to action.
2.to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to)

The word helkuo is used in these verses: (ESV)


Quote:Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)



Quote:Joh 21:6 He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish.


(KJV renders "haul" as "draw")


Quote:Joh 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn.



Quote:Act 16:19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.



Quote:Act 21:30 Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.



Quote:Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?



Quote:Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.


To me, it seems obvious that in every single one of these verses, the word "draw" means exactly what the definition says it means: to drag, to impel. Strong's points out that the word helkuo is akin to another word, #G138, aihreomai, which is defined this way:


Quote:To take for oneself, to prefer, to choose


So the word draw has some power and strength to it. It doesn't even come close to meaning to woo or persuade. Back to John 12:32, I've heard different arguments for the understandings of this verse.

Argument #1 - some say that this verse is teaching that Jesus is saying that he will persuade or woo all individuals to him with the intention of saving them. I immediately dismiss this argument in light of the overwhelming evidence that "draw" does not even come close to meaning "woo" or "persuade" or "entice". This argument ignores the context (See Argument #3) and also the possibility that since draw doesn't mean persuade/woo, Jesus could be saying that he will draw all people, but with the intentions different for each person (Some in a hardening way, some mercifully - See Argument #2)

Argument #2 - Jesus will in fact draw all individuals to himself, but this doesn't necessarily mean in a positive, saving way.

This is an intriguing argument to me. Many people are drawn to Christ's cross, but many times they remain hostile towards it. For example, Paul tells us that the message of the cross is foolishness and a stumbling block. Gill says this:


Quote:There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him


So being drawn to Christ doesn't necessarily mean that Christ is drawing men persuasively with the intention of saving them. Perhaps Christ could draw men with the intentions of hardening them? God could use the cross as an act of justice, or mercy.

This leads to argument #3, which I think is the strongest, and correct interpretation.

Argument #3 - The English translations add the word "people" to the phrase I will draw all people to myself. (notice the italicized "men" in the KJV, signaling an added word) In other words, it literally reads: I will draw all to myself.

I think casual English readers have a tendency to immediately latch onto that phrase "all people" and take it to mean "100% of every individual that ever walked the face of the earth, but again, given that drawn doesn't mean woo or persuade, we are left with either universalism, or the conclusion of Argument #2.

The context suggests that Christ said "all" or "all men" to refer to Jews and Greeks (as opposed to Jews only), because the events immediately preceding v32 were that Greeks had approached Christ.

Joh 12:20-31
(20) Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.
(21) So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
(22) Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
(23) And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
(24) Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
(25) Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
(26) If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
(27) "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.
(28) Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
(29) The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
(30) Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine.
(31) Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

The bolded area is important. James White says:

Quote:John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus' public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus' public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." This then is the context which leads us to Jesus' words in verse 32



Quote:I believe that in its context the "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.


Then White points out what Paul says about Jews and Greeks finding the cross foolishness and a stumbling block, and only those who are called find it wisdom and power. (1 Cor)

Then he says:


Quote:These considerations, along with the immediate context of the Gentiles seeking Christ, make it clear that if He is lifted up in crucifixion, He will draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, to Himself. This is exactly the same as saying that He has sheep not of this fold (John 10:16), the Gentiles, who become one body in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16)


Another thing that amazes me about this passage is not 5 verses later, we are told that God is directly involved in hardening men so that they would not believe, would not turn, and not be healed:


Quote:Joh 12:37-40
(37) Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
(38) so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
(39) Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
(40) "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."


All of that being said, how in the world could a person read John 12:32 any differently than what has been said here? How could it be said that Jesus is saying he is gently and lovingly persuading or wooing all individuals with the intention of saving them, given the facts that 1) "draw" does not mean that, not even close and 2) The very same passage outright says that God hardens and blinds men for the purposes of justice, so that they won't turn and be healed.

:hmm:]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3180 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:21:09 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3180
Premise 1: God is sovereign. He can do anything He decides/wills/pleases/desires to do in keeping with His nature. (Cannot lie, does not change, etc.)

Premise 2: Outside influences do not affect God's will. He does not change.

Premise 3: God has created everything.

Premise 4: God is free to do as He desires and is not constrained by His creations.

Premise 5: God is free to set any conditions He desires for anything. (human cells need oxygen, photosynthesis requires light, etc.)

Question: Can God set a condition on who is of the elect and who is not?]]>
Premise 1: God is sovereign. He can do anything He decides/wills/pleases/desires to do in keeping with His nature. (Cannot lie, does not change, etc.)

Premise 2: Outside influences do not affect God's will. He does not change.

Premise 3: God has created everything.

Premise 4: God is free to do as He desires and is not constrained by His creations.

Premise 5: God is free to set any conditions He desires for anything. (human cells need oxygen, photosynthesis requires light, etc.)

Question: Can God set a condition on who is of the elect and who is not?]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3179 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:08:37 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3179
http://www.coffeewithcalvin.com/

It's observations on daily readings through Calvin's Institutes by a Reformed Theological Seminary student.

Actually found the Facebook page for it first, then found the website itself.]]>
http://www.coffeewithcalvin.com/

It's observations on daily readings through Calvin's Institutes by a Reformed Theological Seminary student.

Actually found the Facebook page for it first, then found the website itself.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3178 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:13:49 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3178
For those who adopted a reformed theology after becoming a Christian, was it in an Arminian church or a Reformed Church that you heard the Gospel and/or was it a reformed beleiver or an arminian believer who shared it with you?

(please please please do not nit pick the word selection here. It is Christ that saves, not a person or church. I'm simply talking of the location, not the method.)

:)]]>
For those who adopted a reformed theology after becoming a Christian, was it in an Arminian church or a Reformed Church that you heard the Gospel and/or was it a reformed beleiver or an arminian believer who shared it with you?

(please please please do not nit pick the word selection here. It is Christ that saves, not a person or church. I'm simply talking of the location, not the method.)

:)]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3177 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:28:11 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3177
But I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to model a modern church after 1 Corinthians. Not the church at Corinth as portrayed in Paul's letters :winkwink:, but rather based upon the instruction Paul gave to the Corinthian church.

Would there be a difference between an 'Acts church' and a 'Corinthians church'?

IMHO, where the Acts model frequently goes wrong when applied to today's church is in the seeking after signs and wonders.]]>
But I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to model a modern church after 1 Corinthians. Not the church at Corinth as portrayed in Paul's letters :winkwink:, but rather based upon the instruction Paul gave to the Corinthian church.

Would there be a difference between an 'Acts church' and a 'Corinthians church'?

IMHO, where the Acts model frequently goes wrong when applied to today's church is in the seeking after signs and wonders.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3176 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:36:36 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3176
Kinda scary, like persecution!]]>
Kinda scary, like persecution!]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3175 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:21:47 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3175

Quote:So when does debating theology become wrong or sinful?

1) When I lose my zeal for Jesus and become zealous for my theological positions.

2) When I forsake evangelism for debating other believers.

3) When I isolate myself from all others because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (Proverbs 18:1 NKJV).

4) When I begin to view the Bible as a textbook to be studied instead of God's inspired Word meant to transform me into His image (Romans 12:1-2).

5) When I fail to be a 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 disciple especially toward those of the household of faith.

6) When I would rather read a theologian above praying and seeking God's face.

7) When the Gospel becomes synonymous with my theological positions or with my favorite Bible teacher.

8) When I begin to filtrate what I see or read by the words of a preacher or Bible teacher instead of with Scripture itself.

9) When I know more quotes by a theologian or by a book I've read than from the Bible itself.

10) When 150,000 people die each day and that doesn't break my heart because I am too busy studying my theological positions.

11) When I treat people in the world with more respect than with my own fellow disciples even with whom I disagree.


http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/

Not implying anything or directing this towards anyone. Just something to ponder.]]>

Quote:So when does debating theology become wrong or sinful?

1) When I lose my zeal for Jesus and become zealous for my theological positions.

2) When I forsake evangelism for debating other believers.

3) When I isolate myself from all others because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (Proverbs 18:1 NKJV).

4) When I begin to view the Bible as a textbook to be studied instead of God's inspired Word meant to transform me into His image (Romans 12:1-2).

5) When I fail to be a 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 disciple especially toward those of the household of faith.

6) When I would rather read a theologian above praying and seeking God's face.

7) When the Gospel becomes synonymous with my theological positions or with my favorite Bible teacher.

8) When I begin to filtrate what I see or read by the words of a preacher or Bible teacher instead of with Scripture itself.

9) When I know more quotes by a theologian or by a book I've read than from the Bible itself.

10) When 150,000 people die each day and that doesn't break my heart because I am too busy studying my theological positions.

11) When I treat people in the world with more respect than with my own fellow disciples even with whom I disagree.


http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/

Not implying anything or directing this towards anyone. Just something to ponder.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3174 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:08:03 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3174

Quote:Historically, new movements like Pentecostalism emerge as a cultural shift in order to remedy the deficiencies of past movements. Whatever may be said of Pentecostalism, there can be no doubt that any one of its positive characteristics should provide a challenge to many a section or another of the wider church; together they provide a monumental reminder of how far we all have go to live up to all that God would have his Church to be.

Paker, J. I. Keep in Step with the Spirit. IVP, 1984, p. 197.

]]>

Quote:Historically, new movements like Pentecostalism emerge as a cultural shift in order to remedy the deficiencies of past movements. Whatever may be said of Pentecostalism, there can be no doubt that any one of its positive characteristics should provide a challenge to many a section or another of the wider church; together they provide a monumental reminder of how far we all have go to live up to all that God would have his Church to be.

Paker, J. I. Keep in Step with the Spirit. IVP, 1984, p. 197.

]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3173 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:47:00 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3173
]]>
]]>