Comments on: Asking “Why?” instead of “Why not?”

By: phil

phil — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:41:36 +0000

Instead of asking what’s wrong with it ask what’s right with it?

By: J Leslie

J Leslie — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:51:15 +0000

Ok, assuming that most if not all Fundamentalists today are Baptist, I often wonder when this standard issue is brought up. I thought it may have been simply the bible college I went to that used BRAPSISS to define Baptists, I have also seen the word BAPTIST used as an acrostic to define it. Either way, Soul Liberty was always in the definition. Everyone with me so far?

B-Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice
R-Regenerated and Immersed Church Membership
A-Autonomy of the Local Church
P-Priesthood of the Believer
S-Soul Liberty
I-Immersion and the Lord’s Supper are the only two Ordinances
S-Seperation Ethically and Ecclesiasticlly
S-Seperation of Church and State

Ok, so these are supposed to be distinctives of Baptists, right? Makes me wonder just how many Fundamentalists really are Baptists…

By: buggy

buggy — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:19:05 +0000

“Every believer is to set their standards according to their conscience established by God’s Word, and to take into account their impact on God and upon others.”

I believe this statement may be defended. We cannot ‘flaunt’ our liberties in-front of other believers and cause their conscience to be stifled, and which may cause them to sin. (Read 1 Cor. 8:12) The purpose of the body of Christ is to build up each other, and not to tear down! There are times where we may have to restrain our liberties for the sake of God and for others.

THAT having being said, the “weaker brother” also has to learn why some Christians partake in certain things they think is sinful (although Scripture is silent on it). And that is our role to teach. The “weaker brother” will then hopefully change their conviction on these matters, and then accept what other believers do.

This was how I was bought out of fundamentalism. Things that were once looked “sinful” to me I now partake because I have been taught by Scripture that these are matters of Christian liberty. And this is how we should minister to fundies too.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:03:46 +0000

@ Alan. There is nothing wrong with loving confrontation of a brother.

However, the tendency of fundies is to accuse and not confront. For instance, instead of going into a confrontation as a learner who is willing to look at something from a different point of view, fundies have already decided that the other person is in sin, and that they are God’s judge. There is no possibility of the fundy being wrong since he alone has been given the ability of correct exegesis of God’s word, and there is nothing for him to learn since Christian liberty only means that everyone must conform to the highest possible standard(his standard) or they are “offending the weaker brother.”

By: Morgan

Morgan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:33:57 +0000

“Every believer is to set their standards according to their conscience established by God’s Word, and to take into account their impact on God and upon others. ”

See SFL – “The Weaker Brother”

By: Loren

Loren — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:25:16 +0000

I vaguely remember the poop in the brownie story.

Camille’s post on the subject that she linked to is very good.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:23:34 +0000

The question is then do you care when you break the heart of God and the Saviour Jesus Christ by partaking through listening or watching the vice that goes on in these movies?

SFL: Begging the question

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:23:12 +0000

I am pretty sure that this post is made from a comment I left on a previous post about PG 13 movies being wrong for a Christian to see. For instance, the Passion of Christ is an R-rated movie, and the generalization that the Passion of the Christ is evil can not be made, just because it is an R-rated movie. So, R-rated movies are not bad in every case. The question is then do you care when you break the heart of God and the Saviour Jesus Christ by partaking through listening or watching the vice that goes on in these movies?
OK, I admit that I needed to clarifify my statement, instead of, painting things with a broad brush. But does it mean that you or I cannot lovingly confront a brother or sister who listens to God’s name taken in vain or watch full blown nudity on the television screen, and want to partake in our fellowships. These are not things that are the highest priority of the Christian life, but this would not have been tolerated in Israel or in the New Testament church. These were and are things God abhors in all places and all times. Where does submitting to one another in the fear of God, as the scripture says, come into place, if you mock another brother who has concerns over outward and inward holiness, as was done in the previous post.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:36:30 +0000

You can never win an argument based on logic when the other person continuously plays the “don’t question authority” trump card.

By: Camille

Camille — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:56:06 +0000

And I heard the poop in the brownies story just recently from a “I’m not THAT kind of fundy” fundy pulpit. It was surreal. I blogged about it too:

http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2009/07/things-i-never-heard-in-fundamentalism-%E2%80%94-sin-11/