Pot calling the kettle black?

[futurehope]

First to Annie's post: I believe that part of your comment is exactly why this post was started: "people applying the scripture a differently". That's part of the big question here. Can scripture be applied by one person in contrast to how a brother does and they both be right?

I'll answer that one myself with a simple: no.

As to the "labeling", isn't it good to call a spade a spade?


Now for zealyouthguy:

I understand what you are saying here. However, just as what was at one time the "King's English" has changed over the years, so has the term liberal. When someone is considered liberal, it is a "label" to let others know the general approach that particular person takes toward scripture or a specific subject within the scriptures. That doesn't make every "liberal" or "conservative" an "extremist". And it doesn't necessarily make one a false teacher because they are one or the other. Also, on the note of false teachers, if they are a false teacher, does it matter why? (If it is because of ignorance, or being mislead by others, etc.)

As to the last statement that you have now made twice: I don't believe that I have seen anyone make a post saying that they don't sin or haven't sinned. I have seen fellow brothers and sisters correct and admonish eachother as the Lord has commanded us. And, bluntly speaking, your "pope" comment was out of line. No one on here has claimed to be holier than another or represented themselves in any was as such a false teaching and arrogant fool as the office of the pope. Don't forget that many of the people on this forum are pastors, deacons, and elders and take their duty to lead and admonish fellow brothers and sisters very seriously. If that bothers anyone, they should honestly look inside themselves and ask why. The duty to correct eachother is not a matter of pride, self-righteousness, baptist, or catholic. It is a matter of being Christian and serving as the Lord commanded us and I would far rather that someone corrects me daily than to passivly allow me to serve satan and proclaim it as service to God.

[zealyouthguy]

[kevinmiller]

I think zeal is right on, to be perfectly honest. He addressed a real problem and one that people far too often prefer to ignore. Many here have indeed acted as though they were better or more "right with God" than those who voice disagreement, whoever they happen to be. And no, we don't have a duty to "correct" one another. Perhaps we're dealing with semantics here but there is a difference between confronting a Christian over sin in his life than confronting him about a different standard or Scriptural interpretation. A Christian should not be hijacking the role of the Holy Spirit in a person's life and it seems to happen a lot.

[futurehope]

You know, I was going to type up a big response but based on the highlighted text above compared to your original post, I think it would be a waste of time because it doesn't even match up to your original post. It does however highlight the hidden agenda of your original post. I get it, if anyone disagrees with your interpretation of scripture they are wrong. So why did we waste 3 pages to get that point. If you already had the answer, just state it. I see a post that was put out there to squelch further disagreement with you. Which has become all to acceptable in our churches today.

Interesting take you place here. My point is, you still think that there is more than one appropriate interpretation for scripture even though the scriptures themselves say that there is no private interpretation of the scriptures. By your definition, that makes you a false teacher, and I have already highlighted why.

Also, what exactly do you feel is contrary to my original post? If you are referring to me being forward with you on things, it precisely what was posted between Jerry#s and I regarding that some are much more forward and hard headed individuals and you must put things bluntly to get their attention. Aparrently, the only thing I did was make you ignore the scriptures rather than look at them, and for that, I appologize.

Two quick notes:
Yes, you have to identify a false teacher by their teaching because they may be teaching a lot of good and right things, which is what makes them so dangerous.

You either didn't read it or I didn't make it clear. I asked if it mattered why, not if it mattered what. The point is, I've seen a lot of defense of false teachers on this site because "it's how they were taught". Does that mean that we should allow them to continue in it or rebuke their teaching the same as we would an intentional attack of the scriptures?

My pope statement was right on line and accurate, and if THAT bothers anyone they should honestly look inside themselves and ask why. As to labeling isn't it good to call a spade a spade?

You are going to have to clarify this one for me in exactly how you compare people on this site to the pope then.

[futurehope]

Many here have indeed acted as though they were better or more "right with God" than those who voice disagreement' date=' whoever they happen to be. [/quote']

I haven't seen that at all. I have seen some with more Biblical understanding try to teach others.



Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
1 Thessalonians 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
2 Thessalonians 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.



If you can show me the difference between misinterpretting the scriptures and then teaching it to others or proclaiming it as truth and sin, I might be inclined to agree with you here Kevin.
I think you probably know me well enough by now to know that my primary concern is truth according to God's Word and not about individuals personal beliefs.

[futurehope]

Titus 2

1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly

[Annie]

First to Annie's post: I believe that part of your comment is exactly why this post was started: "people applying the scripture a differently". That's part of the big question here. Can scripture be applied by one person in contrast to how a brother does and they both be right?

I'll answer that one myself with a simple: no.

If you're talking about being "right," as in "not sinning," then I would say yes, they could both be right. Not everything is spelled out in Scripture. Take the "education" issue, for example. (Should every Christian educate their children at home? Or should we enroll them in a Christian school? Is sending them to a public school wrong?) Scripture doesn't say "thou shalt ______" on this issue; there's no mention of any of these options. Different people, who all want to please God with all of their hearts, read the Scriptures and decide to do different things with their children, based on what they believe is best according to the Scriptures...They apply the Scriptures to their own situation. The applications look totally different, and no one is "sinning." (We know that "sin is the transgression of the law of God.") One person might say, "The Bible says to win the lost. One way our family applies this principle is to be involved in the public school." Another person might talk about "bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and in his mind a public school is out of the question b/c it doesn't aid in that endeavor. Another person might live in a conservative, rural area where all of the public school teachers are professing Christians. Another might live in an area where the Christian school might as well be a public school. The point of all of this is that equally viable applications CAN and DO look different depending on a number of factors. Romans 14 is clear that different applications can be made among believers, and that the key is to "be fully persuaded" in one's own mind.

As to the "labeling", isn't it good to call a spade a spade?

It is...IF it is indeed a spade. How do we know it's a spade? God's word is infallible; but we are fallible. Our perceptions are colored by so many things; we don't "know it all." No human's judgments and applications are the standards by which we judge others. Where the Bible speaks clearly, we may speak clearly. Where the Bible is silent, we should be silent (as far as applications go).

[JerryNumbers]

Whoops, sorry about that. I had intended to paste this in the subject about God drawing people to Christ and whether or not he wants all saved. My mistake!

That's OK, hey, I've done it too. Usually when I catch it I will come back and edit it and letting to be know I messed up usually adding this to it. :ooops

I think tab browsers help be make such mistakes.

[JerryNumbers]

I'm making comments about the 2 things I underlined and put in bold above.

Your absolutely right. I have to use the word liberals, the liberals of this world would disagree.

And they may have many reason for saying that many can do things many different ways and all the ways will be right in the sight of God.

To many of us are blind to God's Word because of our love for earthly ways, most people get teachings of the world more than 6 days per week but only get God's teaching 1 to 6 hours per week.

Plus I can say with my own personal experience way over half of the Baptist people that I have known thru the years have no idea at all what Baptist stand for nor the differences in Baptist and other faith groups.

And in many of the Baptist churches there are teachers who do not know what the Baptist have taught thru the years and will say, it makes no difference what church you go to just as long as you attend church. Sad to say that even many of the Baptist pastors do not know what the Baptist Churches stand for neither.

25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Prov 16:25 (KJV)


Plus, on the other point, we are in a day when people cannot stand to be corrected. Seems they think everyone is suppose to get along with everyone no matter what each claims the truth to be.

Surely looks like we are in the last days on this earth.

[zealyouthguy]

Interesting take you place here. My point is' date=' you still think that there is more than one appropriate interpretation for scripture even though the scriptures themselves say that there is no private interpretation of the scriptures. By your definition, that makes you a false teacher, and I have already highlighted why. [/quote'] Is that really what I think? Actually what I think is that you really need to study the word more. Have you actually read, in context the scripture you are attempting to build your argument on?

2 Peter 1:20 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Here is the context:
2 Peter 1:16-21 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.









Etc. etc. etc. I don't expect you will be open to reading this any different way than what you've been taught, but this speaks of the inspiration of the prophecy, that it wasn't based on something that came of the VOLITION of man, but by God giving it. If you want to start another post on it, I am sure many people would be happy to comment.

If you'll look at the fundamentals of the faith and the battle of early fundamentalist, you'll see that there certainly are things that are spelled out so clearly in scripture that the execution of them are not in question. ie. the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, etc. Much of what is brought up here and in many IFB churches are not fundamentals of faith, but preference of men.

[matie-k]

[Guest Guest]

Was not Jesus a Liberal? By the standards presented on this threads and others about what a Liberal is. Was not Jesus a Liberal?

[zealyouthguy]

Was not Jesus a Liberal? By the standards presented on this threads and others about what a Liberal is. Was not Jesus a Liberal?

No he wasn't... and that was exactly my point. That's an ambiguous word that doesn't do anything but build boxes for us to fight against. You're pulling the "Jesus is on my side and would do what I do" card and it ain't playable... because, (from one to the other) you're a rotten sinner. I don't say that to be "blunt" but because I know my own heart and I know what the Bible clearly states about the heart of men.

[Guest Guest]

No he wasn't... and that was exactly my point. That's an ambiguous word that doesn't do anything but build boxes for us to fight against. You're pulling the "Jesus is on my side and would do what I do" card and it ain't playable... because, (from one to the other) you're a rotten sinner. I don't say that to be "blunt" but because I know my own heart and I know what the Bible clearly states about the heart of men.

Hold On Brother! In the terms of today helping the disadvanteged sinner etc..... Something new and pure to the Jews not traditional yes he would have been labeled a Liberal of his time. I totally agreed with your post. Kinda being sarcastic on the Liberal thing. I am a sinner and have seen God work through my sins some on here will say that is not possible but I see it brother. I was trying to help your point.? Guess I read it different Sorry Tank

[zealyouthguy]

Hold On Brother! In the terms of today helping the disadvanteged sinner etc..... Something new and pure to the Jews not traditional yes he would have been labeled a Liberal of his time. I totally agreed with your post. Kinda being sarcastic on the Liberal thing. I am a sinner and have seen God work through my sins some on here will say that is not possible but I see it brother. I was trying to help your point.? Guess I read it different Sorry Tank

Well, I think we should just say Jesus is Jesus. He wasn't a liberal, he wasn't a conservative, he wasn't a republican or a democrat. He IS God and what he does is right because his nature is right.

Jesus helped the disadvantage sinner by offering them freedom from their sin, securing their position with God by his substitutionary atonement, and by conquering death. Jesus certainly had compassion on their frail needs as humans, but that was driven by their eternal neediness in spirit.

I am sorry I wasn't accusing you of playing that card my "you" was a general you which is why I related to my own sinful condition. When people say Jesus was a liberal, it's because they want to construct Jesus instead of observe, listen and obey him. I see that argument used to promote thinks like "theology pubs" and the ever-changing, ever-questioning emergent church.