Attitutudinal Issues

Is not being "separated from the world" (as you describe above) wrong? In other words if I drink alcohol, listen to U2, etc., does that mean a) I am not "separated from the world" or b) that I simply have a different philosophy of separation than you, not right or wrong, just different?

 

There is no reason to discuss the specifics of what you describe above in relation to "legalism", so let's just address one -- do you think KJV onlyism is a legalistic position?

 

Not in and of itself, no....I dont see it as a legalistic position.

It can admittedly be used legalistically....

such as the group I know of who won't even speak to their former friends because those friends are not KJVonly. Thats using one's position in a legalistic manner....shunning people in personal relationships because of a difference in convictions or standards.

but those of us who are KJVonly hold that belief to be more than a mere standard....it is a conviction based on what we see taught in the Bible and what we've studied in other places as well.

 

drinking alcohol could be seen as an issue where you would be right about that. Only because the Bible only specifically talks about not being drunk. Like Ive said before, though, I still believe it is unwise for the Christian to partake of alcoholic beverages. It too easily leads to drunkenness. And part of the trap of being drunk is its too easy to not realize you are getting too close until after you have already become drunk.

but I don't know how anyone could say that U2 is anything but worldly.

 

I have to excuse myself from the discussion for awhile as I have to go to Reformer's Unanimous and help counsel the kids of people who thought they could handle their alcohol.....among other things.

 

I can see we are reaching an impasse. You hold certain beliefs and maintain they are not legalistic. I respect that. You are entitled to that opinion. I also know that I am entitled to my opinion as well. Once again we must agree to disagree.

By the way, your arguments against alcohol can be used with many "vices" including food and sex.

Go in grace.

 

a big problem occurs when people start to redefine words. Especially when everyone has their own individual idea of what a word actually means.

I was always taught that legalism meant upholding standards to the point that they become a part of salvation. "you have to do such and such, and be this sort of person, in order to be sure you are saved, or in order to BE saved." Most people I know in our churches still think of it this way.

But now I see many people redefining it to also mean anytime anyone holds a standard up so high that it becomes more important than their walk with God.
I see others define it as almost any standard they just don't like, or that they don't think we should ever "require" from anyone else. BTW, the only people we ever "place" standards on are situations like school rules, or guidelines for being a leader or staff member in the church.

Then theres some who will just call a person legalistic for having ANY sort of standard at all. Any degree of separation from the world and they call it legalism.

The amount of definitions out there is staggering. So we have to figure out what each other mean.

Other than that, we most likely have come to an impasse, I agree.

 

Are you realy saying that one is not preaching unless he is yelling?

I reckon then that out of all the mnay, many hours I have spoken from the pulpit I have only preached five or six minutes total in my life then. </font>[/QUOTE]I am just relating a dict. definition, Brother...It sounds like to me from your posts that you could preach just fine without "a-hollerin". I don't rant and rave much myself...but you can tell the difference between my preaching and my teaching! We all have our own style. Preaching should call attention to SIN of men, to the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God, to the EFFECTUAL sacrifice of Calvary, etc. I can think of one man in particular, and he is very old now, but still one of the greatest soulwinners I have ever known...anyway, I have heard him preach maybe 25-30 times on two continents, and I have never heard him raise his voice. Like I say, it depends on the person. Sorry if I didnot clarify myself.

P.S. I have never worn coullottes either!

 

Yes, for the most part.

You really think that a church must be willing to hire the person you mentioned above to not be legalistic? Why must I accept your standards for a church staff? Would you hire the fundamentalist that you so vividly described for your church staff? Do you think he can be right with God?

You seem to expect the same kind of conformity that that you are so quick to condemn in others. Where is our liberty in Christ to worship the way that we feel is proper and Biblical? Where is my liberty in Christ to hold to Bible standards and convictions? Where is my liberty in Christ to decide who should and should not be on my church staff?

Liberty in Christ is fine, as long as you don't use that liberty to be a fundamentalist?

 

So you would agree that a glance at a website that promotes KJVO, gives outlandish numbers regarding people "saved", and has HAC graduates on staff would raise questions of legalism in your mind?

Absolutely not. That was not the reason for the question ... I was more focused on seeing if such a person is considered "not right with God" because of these issues. The best way to get to that answer is to begin with the staff question.

While a church does not have to hire a person like the one described above to not be legalistic, I do think a church could not hire such a person for purely legalistic reasons.

Eg., KJVO is a legalistic position. If I refuse to hire someone b/c they PREFER a NIV in their quiet time ... legalism is behind my decision.

You don't. That was not the point.

No. He would not fit our vision and target...and besides he would be a legalist

Again - I have no problem saying I am "legalistic" in certain areas. I just choose different issues. I am legalistic in the fact that our church will target unbelievers. Does that mean a church that does not is "not right with God"? No. But someone could argue that our position on this is "legalistic" and I would say "okay"...of course the difference would be that I would not use it as a spiritual barometer (or I might at some level -- if a church has no desire to reach unbelievers).

Absolutely.

Again the point had nothing to do with conformity as much as what makes a person "right" with God. The characteristics defined above (certain appearance, dress, preferences) are areas where fundies have a tendency to make judgments regarding someone's spirituality. That was the point I made (successfully I might add).

You have absolute liberty on each of these issues. I have no problem with any of these things. Again, not the point. The probelm comes when your "liberty" decisions become standards that determine the spirituality of others.

No.

Liberty & fundamentalist -- there are two words you do not usually see linked together.

 

Again, your obvious bias shows through. I am a fundamentalist who has liberty in Christ - the two are not mutually exclusive.

I am not going to attack a church's website because they use the KJV and have links to HAC, that is their perogative as a local church.

I also will not judge either of the hypothetical brethren describe above, but probably, without knowing more about them, would not want either on my church staff. Can you point to a single instance where I have judged anyone's spirituality by my standards?

 

You have already admitted KJVO is legalistic.

This thread is not about you necessarily.

And neither can you point to where I judged whether someone was "right with God" based on their preferences.

 

Difference there - KJVOism is, imho, a legalistic stand.

However, I will not attack that local church for their choices any more than I would critise you for your choices.

 

You just said their stand was "legalistic".

In essence, you are doing exactly what I have done for 9 pages ... you call a spade what it is (KJVO is legalistic). And just as I have said repeatedly, it is not a matter of attack. It is simply reality.

 

AAG, I here what you are saying, but I think C4K is right here. You do seem to be showing an attitude as well.

Don't forget this, many fundamentalist Baptist are also independent- that means that we do as we feel God is leading us to do. I don't have to conform to one standard or another, but simply live my live before God faithfuly as I believe He leads me.

Because of this there is a wide spectrum with in IFB churches, some are legalistic, others are not, some have the flavor of Finneyism, others are more God-centered. It all comes down to the I in IFB. Soul liberty is a beautiful thing that God has granted us, lets not abuse it by stepping into the ditch of leagalism on one side, or the the ditch of licentiousness on the other, lets live in the liberty that Christ gives us.

 

I couldn't agree more, 4HisGlory!

 

Perhaps I have an edge about what I say. I am not sure it has to be interpreted a bad attitude. As I have said repeatedly, there is no way to talk about these issues w/o a spirit that might be interpreted as controversial.

I agree with what you say and also quickly point out that no one in either ditch actually believes they are in the ditch. That's why I could post those same words in another context and get "amens" from both KJVOs and seeker-sensitives. Liberty grants freedom but it does not necessarily keep people out of the ditches.

 

I agree AaG. Usually when you are in a ditch you don't see it, which is why we need to maintain a teachable spirit. If our focus of life is that God would be glorified in all things, it does alot in helping us stay out of the ditches.

I believe when we get to heaven though that we will be surprised as some of the things we thought we had a corner on and really didn't.

 

I agree 100% about getting to heaven and seeing where we got it wring .

Even if we are in out own ditches or trenches, are we not better off to shoot at our true common enemy instead of each other?

 

You guys better be careful ... you are starting to sound like one of us "liberals."

I would just note the irony of fundamentalists admitting there are things we thought we had a corner on and do not & that we are better not to attack other Christians and focus on the enemy. These are two characteristics that are very common in fundamentalist circles (and I don't think C4K that I am painting with a broad brush when I say that).