Pot calling the kettle black?

[futurehope]

You do an exceptional job of writing and presenting your points in a way that encourages discussion, Futurehope. I'd like to add my thoughts and I hope to achieve the same thing.

I was thinking as I started reading that yours would be an un-biased set of observations. But if you will permit me to summarize what I am understanding about your post, then my thoughts may come through clear.

Thank you and it was my point to encourage calm discussion, but I did not intend bias either direction and appologize if anyone else saw it that way.

You seem to be saying that "liberals" (=sinners) should not defend themselves when they are attacked. And that liberals should stop attacking people for being "ultra-conservative". Well - I haven't seen that here at all. I have never heard a liberal tell someone they are wrong for being "ultra-conservative". But I have heard "Ultras" being challenged for the stance that "others should be just like me or else they are following Satan". That shows up in just about every conversation around here. And the usual response from a liberal is "that isn't in the Bible".
So while I agree that there are folks at both ends of the spectrum, I find myself coming up with a different conclusion than you in my analysis.

If this is what you perceived, again, I appologize. I was hoping to show that both sides have been guilty. My stance is and always will be: If you can back it up with scripture and you are rightly dividing and interpretting the scripture when you do, it's from God and you should, as a Christian, admonish your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ if they are going against God's commands. However, if you can't back it up with the Word(regardless of which end of the spectrum you are coming from), then it is your personal belief and you should not try to push it on others.

In addition to that, I will add that I am a "conservative" fundamentalist (redundant??), and I don't have a problem with someone who has their own beliefs restricting them more than what the Word requires (not eating meat, etc.) as long as they are not pushing it as God's command. I do have a problem with those who excercise liberty beyond what Christ permits and then rebel at loving correction from a fellow Christian. I hope that clarifies. I don't intend, though, to take any side except that of what the KJB teaches and I hope that all my posts make it clear that I don't stand for churches, or denominations, or doctrines of men, but only for the truth found in God's Holy Word.

I would like to add a separate observation here. I'm not IFB - I'm Southern Baptist. That is one reason I've lurked for almost 3 years before posting. I felt it important to understand the issues here and where the posters are "coming from" and to make it a point to respectful as a guest. That being said ... correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like one of the primary spirits among IFB is condemnation. Considering that this is a message board and not a congregation, my impressions may be way off base. I am willing to be straightened out!

First, thank you for trying to understand. I must say, however, that, while that is kind of what this post is about and the reason I started it; that's not the inherent nature of IFBs, but the zeal that they have for God and His Word is often misunderstood when correcting brothers and sisters. Like I said, that's why I started this thread so that others might step back and see that, even though they don't intend condemnation and ill feelings, it is often seen and taken that way. That's why it is so important that we correct eachother in love and truth.

I hope this clarifies my post and thank you for your comments and respectful behavior bambohs. :thumb

Future

[futurehope]

It is difficult to know the exact context of what you are speaking about without your giving specific examples. What you may call "pushing" may be what someone esle considers teaching the Word of God. If you don't get specific it will be hard to address the behavior of which you speak.

Kit is right, but please look at my response to bambohs comments and see if that helps clarify at all. I don't want to even think about specifics as that is sure to hijack the entire thread. This thread is really about the state of mind and behavior of the posters on this site and Christians throughout the world - not so much the specific topics that the excercise those behaviors in.

[futurehope]

One thing that stirs up things is those who do not believe as Independent Fundamental Baptist believes and argue against the beliefs of the Independent Fundamental Baptist in many of the topics that comes up.

They get aggravated for some of us not accepting their way, we sometimes get tired of them tearing down our the Baptist beliefs.

For instant, if I went to a church of Christ message board, and in many of the topics that come up I stressed that I disagree with coC teachings and I'm not a coC member, and continued to argue against their beliefs and teachings over and over, I would not expect them to act very loving to me after I did it a few times.

By the way I would not be surprised at all if I started showing up at every service of a coC service and each time argue against their teaching and proclaimed I'm not a coC that after awhile I would not be treated with love.

But them if I went to such places with the intent to learn, and just asked polite question and not constantly tear their beliefs down and proclaim I'm not a coC and I don't believe that way, that they are wrong, I figure they would treat me with love.

But that said, some seems to think when some express their opinion, that they are trying to force it on them. I feel that most people here are not trying to do that, they're simply expressing their opinion on the matter.

I know of one person here who professes not to be a Christian, but yet in their post they do not tear down the beliefs of the Independent Fundamental Baptist, yet they post quite often, ask and answer post. I've noticed everyone here has shows much respect for this persons post and they are never arguing against Independent Fundamental Baptist beliefs.

Unfortunately, though, I feel like we often use the foolish actions of another to justify our own anger and foolishness in return; or ... we allow our zeal for God's Word and the accuracy of it's use turn into anger and pride in the way that we correct others rather than maintaining a loving approach. Now, all that being said, there are many people that are only receptive to the very firm and blunt types of correction. We just need to pray for wisdom in how we give and take correction.

[JerryNumbers]

Unfortunately, though, I feel like we often use the foolish actions of another to justify our own anger and foolishness in return; or ... we allow our zeal for God's Word and the accuracy of it's use turn into anger and pride in the way that we correct others rather than maintaining a loving approach. Now, all that being said, there are many people that are only receptive to the very firm and blunt types of correction. We just need to pray for wisdom in how we give and take correction.

Yes, and from time to time there is going to be someone who is going to stir it up to bring an argument up, some will argue with a brick wall if there's nothing else available.

Hey, all of that said, we have had some great discussions on here over the time that I've been here, Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:37 pm.

Some of us, as we have got to know one another better seems we're able to discuss almost anything and stay civil without getting mad at one another.

I've noticed this, there are times when 2 or maybe 3 people get into a heated serious discussion, if we will just back off leaving them alone and not saying anything about flame, they're getting mad or such things, many times everything will stay cool. There are times in such situations I just read and don't post.

I know you all have heard, the one you love the most is the one you can get the maddest at, plus the ones you love the most, can hurt you the most.

[Danny Carlton]

I personally think we need to stop using the words "liberal" and "conservative" to describe Christians outside the political realm, since both terms have been hijacked to mean something significantly different than what they originally meant.

As Christians we should be liberal. We should share the word liberally, we should love liberally, we should give liberally, and we should live liberally.

We need more people with faith in God through Christ Jesus and less with faith in their political party.

If you can't say something is sin, don't condemn it... also, get really worried if what everyone else does is sin, but what you do isn't... if that's the case, you've lost focus on Christ and began to focus on You and others.

In seminary there were all kinds of people who wanted to run away from terminology, basically because they found themselves unescapably being defined as something they were pretending they weren't. (Not that I'm pointing fingers here, just explaining why I stand behind the terms).

Theologically speaking Liberals are those that allow their interpritation of "compassion" to always trump morality. Conservatives are those who hold to what the scripture says, because obedience to scripture brings with it it's own, abundant supply of compassion.

Here's an example. In the early 80's a regular speaker at many Christian colleges began using a tactiv to emphasize his approach to theology. He spoke of the coming famine in Africa, then said, "And you people don't give a s***!" He waited while the crowd soakign that in, then followed up with, "And what's even worse is that you're more upset that I used that word than you are about children dying if starvation."

At the time I thought it was a creative way of making a point. Since then I've come to realize his tactic posed a false dichotomy between compassion and morality. A gimmick theological Liberals use all the time. That speaker, BTW, was Anthony Campolo.

Liberals see compassion for homosexuals as more important that any biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Liberals see compassion for women seeking abortion as more important than any biblical admonition to respect life and not shed innicent blood. y declaring compassion (or their version of it) as the utlimate morality, they rationalize their own set of rules and can then toss out all of God's. the use of the term morality is now second nature to even the most anti-religious Liberal, because of the rationalized framework established by theological liberals. Failing to call them what they are, allows them to sneak in in sheep's clothing.

[zealyouthguy]

In seminary there were all kinds of people who wanted to run away from terminology, basically because they found themselves unescapably being defined as something they were pretending they weren't. (Not that I'm pointing fingers here, just explaining why I stand behind the terms).

Theologically speaking Liberals are those that allow their interpritation of "compassion" to always trump morality. Conservatives are those who hold to what the scripture says, because obedience to scripture brings with it it's own, abundant supply of compassion.

Here's an example. In the early 80's a regular speaker at many Christian colleges began using a tactiv to emphasize his approach to theology. He spoke of the coming famine in Africa, then said, "And you people don't give a s***!" He waited while the crowd soakign that in, then followed up with, "And what's even worse is that you're more upset that I used that word than you are about children dying if starvation."

At the time I thought it was a creative way of making a point. Since then I've come to realize his tactic posed a false dichotomy between compassion and morality. A gimmick theological Liberals use all the time. That speaker, BTW, was Anthony Campolo.

Liberals see compassion for homosexuals as more important that any biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Liberals see compassion for women seeking abortion as more important than any biblical admonition to respect life and not shed innicent blood. y declaring compassion (or their version of it) as the utlimate morality, they rationalize their own set of rules and can then toss out all of God's. the use of the term morality is now second nature to even the most anti-religious Liberal, because of the rationalized framework established by theological liberals. Failing to call them what they are, allows them to sneak in in sheep's clothing.

Here's the problem, and most people don't get it. We, (you and I) don't get to define words, how they are used or where they may go from what we have used in the past. There are some words that define themselves by their basic structure.

Example: You had to add a qualifier to your terminology... you had to add the word "theological" to "liberal" to get your point across. Instead of just saying, unscriptural or unbiblical. See because MOST everyone of those "theological liberals" are considered right-wing conservatives by the nation and world at large. many people on here would consider John Piper a "liberal" or John MacArthur a liberal, or Chuck Swindoll, or any number of people. And it's really about trying to put people in a box, because a box is easier to fight than falsehood. It usually has to do with building a straw man argument instead of addressing the issue that we may believe they are falsely teaching.

If you want to call them someone something call them what you are saying they are, call the wolves in sheeps clothing. Call them blind leaders of the blind, call them false teachers. It's harder because then we have to back up our opinion of what they are wrong on. If we stick to biblical terminology it helps eliminate some of the natural evolution of words.

Example: Doug Paggit is a false teacher since he teaches that hell is not a literal place and that no one goes there, he also teaches that there isn't a place called heaven. (along with a multitude of other heresies).

Classically speaking our founding fathers were liberals, but the word has twisted and changed.


It's like using the word "gay" or "fag" to describe homosexuals. Homosexual describes the lifestyle precisely... in general it's a word that the homosexual community doesn't like.

[JerryNumbers]

Big difference in liberals and false teachers.

I've got very liberal brethren around these parts that I do not consider false teachers. The worse thing about them is where their liberal preaching and teachings will lead tomorrows generation.

Of the 3 you mentioned, I would consider Chuck Swindoll liberal, but I don't know that he is a false teacher. All I know of him is a few of his sermons I've heard, they were liberal. Of the other 2, I only know a bit about 1 of them, that he teaches Calvinist.

So I'll have to go with Danny on this one.

[Annie]

Here's the problem, and most people don't get it. We, (you and I) don't get to define words, how they are used or where they may go from what we have used in the past. There are some words that define themselves by their basic structure.

Example: You had to add a qualifier to your terminology... you had to add the word "theological" to "liberal" to get your point across. Instead of just saying, unscriptural or unbiblical.

"Liberal" is one of those words that has a few different meanings, and many, many different connotations, depending on context (political, theological, personal standards, etc.). And, within any given context, "liberal" and "conservative" are not fixed points on a continuum; they define the continuum. For example, I can say that so-and-so is MORE conservative (i.e., closer to the conservative end of whatever spectrum we're talking about) than some other person. So, I think it was great that Mr. Carlton added a qualifier so that we would know exactly what he was talking about.

See because MOST everyone of those "theological liberals" are considered right-wing conservatives by the nation and world at large.

This statement, on the other hand, mixes two different concepts/contexts of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" (political and theological). It is possible for someone to be both theologically liberal and politically conservative, or vice versa.

Many people on here would consider John Piper a "liberal" or John MacArthur a liberal, or Chuck Swindoll, or any number of people. And it's really about trying to put people in a box, because a box is easier to fight than falsehood. It usually has to do with building a straw man argument instead of addressing the issue that we may believe they are falsely teaching.

I think this is a good point. Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are useful only to a point. A person who says that John MacArthur is "liberal" is really saying something about himself: "I am more conservative than John MacArthur" in such-and-such an area. I think you're right that labels like this do not belong in a discussion about theological issues, unless the terms are such that both parties can agree on them. (We would all agree that Robert Schuller is a theological liberal, and so would he.)

If you want to call them someone something call them what you are saying they are, call the wolves in sheeps clothing. Call them blind leaders of the blind, call them false teachers. It's harder because then we have to back up our opinion of what they are wrong on. If we stick to biblical terminology it helps eliminate some of the natural evolution of words.

Yes...I would add that I think we need to be careful about using such strong terminology. Calling Dr. So-and-so a "false teacher" simply because he is more Calvinistic than the labeler, or because he holds to more liberal personal standards, is not an appropriate use of the term. I've seen this done on here before, more than once. It behooves each of us to reserve such terms for the kinds of people the Bible describes in such a way...not to throw them around just because someone happens to apply Scripture differently.

[kevinmiller]

"Liberal" is one of those words that has a few different meanings, and many, many different connotations, depending on context (political, theological, personal standards, etc.). And, within any given context, "liberal" and "conservative" are not fixed points on a continuum; they define the continuum. For example, I can say that so-and-so is MORE conservative (i.e., closer to the conservative end of whatever spectrum we're talking about) than some other person. So, I think it was great that Mr. Carlton added a qualifier so that we would know exactly what he was talking about.



This statement, on the other hand, mixes two different concepts/contexts of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" (political and theological). It is possible for someone to be both theologically liberal and politically conservative, or vice versa.



I think this is a good point. Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are useful only to a point. A person who says that John MacArthur is "liberal" is really saying something about himself: "I am more conservative than John MacArthur" in such-and-such an area. I think you're right that labels like this do not belong in a discussion about theological issues, unless the terms are such that both parties can agree on them. (We would all agree that Robert Schuller is a theological liberal, and so would he.)



Yes...I would add that I think we need to be careful about using such strong terminology. Calling Dr. So-and-so a "false teacher" simply because he is more Calvinistic than the labeler, or because he holds to more liberal personal standards, is not an appropriate use of the term. I've seen this done on here before, more than once. It behooves each of us to reserve such terms for the kinds of people the Bible describes in such a way...not to throw them around just because someone happens to apply Scripture differently.

:goodpost:

[trc123]

Some things are very clear and others are mysteries, all I know is that God made provision for and wants all to be saved!

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

[zealyouthguy]

Yes...I would add that I think we need to be careful about using such strong terminology. Calling Dr. So-and-so a "false teacher" simply because he is more Calvinistic than the labeler' date=' or because he holds to more liberal personal standards, is not an appropriate use of the term. I've seen this done on here before, more than once. It behooves each of us to reserve such terms for the kinds of people the Bible describes in such a way...not to throw them around just because someone happens to apply Scripture differently.[/quote']

Which is the whole purpose of my post. If you call someone a false teacher (like I did Doug Pagitt) you have to identify why. I wasn't saying simply name everyone false teachers, but that when you do, you have to give proof of it. And that's where the rubber meets the road, people can use the label... "liberal" and try to paint someone as wicked because they are. Like I said, then we can fight the box we've constructed instead of the actual issue. The same with even the phrase "conservative" on the other end of the spectrum. (although admittedly that is not a phrase that is hurled as a pejorative around here)

There is, despite the admittance of some, room for disagreement in Christianity. The most militant fundamentalist of the separatist movement (people like John R. Rice) admitted this in their day. The idea of secondary and tertiary separation was born out of an idea that "we are right, and are the only ones that can be right". Ironically, the Catholic church held the extreme view for a long time (there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church) and were condemned (rightfully so) by Protestants and baptists alike. We are quick to condemn Catholicism but we set ourselves up as little Baptist popes.

Like I said, when "sin" is something everyone else does and you don't... you've lost your focus on God and placed it on others and yourself.

[zealyouthguy]

Some things are very clear and others are mysteries, all I know is that God made provision for and wants all to be saved!

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

LOL, apparently you haven't read enough here because whether that's "very clear" or not always seems to get debated.

[JerryNumbers]

Some things are very clear and others are mysteries, all I know is that God made provision for and wants all to be saved!

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

That is true, but please tell me what it has to do with the topic "Pot calling kettle black?"

[kevinmiller]

:goodpost:

[trc123]

That is true, but please tell me what it has to do with the topic "Pot calling kettle black?"

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!