LIBERTIES

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
OnlyHim	Re: LIBERTIES	#21	[-]
Posts: 210 (07/08/06 20:21:27) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I.Sister I don't think we are off base here. The Law was not removed, the ceremonial law was. We are not talking about removing rules in the church. Read my previous post carefully, without CC bias. No one on this thread supports sinning. No one. If you say that everyone who wears make-up is sinning, you have crossed the line into condemnation. I do agree with you; if one were to wear make-up for the purpose of vanity, it would be sin. In fact, if one were to wear anything for the purpose of vanity, it would be sin. Vanity is not restricted to make-up. My point - forbidding make-up does not eliminate vanity in the church. Creating all kinds of rules to prevent VANITY does not eliminate vanity. I love and respect the traditions of the AC church. Creating rules to prevent sin does not work. Teaching what sin is and where it starts (James 1) is what should be emphasized. You assume that I do not understand the traditional conference, but I came from those traditions. Your Galatians 5&6 references speak of a person working for his/her flesh. This is not liberty. If you think that liberty is a grey-sin area then you have not defined the Biblical "liberty" properly. Paul has instructed those to have their liberties without confusing the weaker; is he saying he is allowing some to "grey-sin" or "almost sin"? The only "good that is left in the church" (as you say) is still only Jesus Christ. I teach my kids to know sin in their hearts -before the hands. So I do not expect to see my daughters in mini skirts and spooned on makeup. Forbidding them to not wear makeup and mini skirts seams easy enough, but will they really learn the sin of vanity by that restriction? What if my son drive to church in a R.Royce? Sin? What if he wears a $5k Armani suit? Sin? If I teach him what sin is, he will not have to have an alphabetical restriction list. There are liberties that are practiced giving praise and honor to the Lord. If any action is done for the flesh, it is not a liberty, it is a sin.
amchiro	Re: Defining liberty part I	#22	[-]
Posts: 246 (07/08/06 22:58:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hiya sis, As I read what you wrote of the "anti-establishment" culture that we both have been exposed to in our growing up, I had to wonder of the culture that the first Christians found themselves in, and of the generation following them. For the first few hundred years, Christianity was not popular, in fact it was dangerous and completely 'anti-establishment', but I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where the believers looked so different from everybody else. Granted they may have been a bit more plain than the Roman or Greek unbelievers, but that is not what made them different, especially if they were poor and could not afford the expensive clothes and the jewelry and makeup to begin with. So what made them different? That's what I kept asking myself, because it has to have relavence to us today. They were different because they professed faith in Jesus Christ. They weren't satisfied with just letting their dress and customs be their testimony of faith. But none of this has to do with liberty. Then with good ol' Constantine, suddenly Christianity became culturally accepted and the whole Western and Eastern empire accepted Christianity. The Christians were now free from being persecuted for their faith, not for their dress. STILL, this has nothing to do with liberty. I do not accept your premise that we are duped into accepting either the culture or the counterculture that we are exposed to. Everything cultural (of this world) that passes over my path must first pass through the filter of God's Word which is alive and active in my life. Whatever is not contrary to His Word, neither do I condemn as sin. I am free, not bound by any ceremonial law including the Law of Moses, the Levitical law, or the Talmud, Mishna or Gemara (pharisaic additions to the Law). You asked me to re-read the Greek definition(s) I gave you of liberty, and reminded me that they all refer to freedom from the law. YES! My point exactly. That is precisely why I listed the definitions for you, because you stated that the word 'liberty' only meant the absence of written commandments (see your previous posting of 6/26). So I am free to do anything, I am not bound by any ceremonial or Levitical law -- but I am not free to sin. That is why I see a clear distinction between liberty and license to sin. I am not one that would be so quick to demonize some of the positive cultural aspects of the traditional ACC, if we are talking about the beautiful four-part harmonious singing we are well known for, the hospitality we offer to each other in church visitation, our greeting each other with "God bless you", the respectful and honorable moderation in all things. But I will be the first to point out hypocrisy (taking pride in one's humility), legalism, a lack of love, self-righteousness, etc. These are the negative aspects of the traditional ACC that you cannot deny exist and (hopefully you will agree with me) MUST be eliminated in our churches. Otherwise we have lost our testimony and the profession of our faith in Jesus Christ by having become the very Pharisees the He couldn't stand, children of vipers, not children of God. As for Mr. Strong, I am not his attorney (grin). I do not have to defend him. I am aware that there are brilliant others that have found fault with Strong, but he still spoke more Hebrew and Greek than I do. So if you prefer Vine's, Eastman, Holman, or Smith that's fine. I do thank you for the reminder to be careful, and I generally read all my authors, even my favorite ones, with a saltshaker nearby. I give Strong credit for doing a mighty work so that common folk like you and I could have clarity. He didn't do this to deceive anyone, unless you have knowledge of his teaching some heresy I am not aware of. Do I know 100 people that are all wrong about something? Hmm, you're baiting me aren't you... Are they all lumped into a conference somewhere? By the way, Giantslayer noted that we are on friendly terms and he enjoys our rapport, but he has NOT noticed that you will not refer to me as your brother in Christ even though we are members of the same denomination, even though I am a ministering brother who is not nor has ever been under any form of discipline in the ACC, just because I don't meet your standards. Actually that hurts a little bit. I know you will come back and say that it's because you don't truly know who I am and you just would rather err on the side of being conservative, but we don't need to sugarcoat this, as it does show the depth of judgements you have made, some of them very ill conceived. If you were to greet me in person, dear interested sister, would I hear you say, "God bless you"? I guess this belongs on yet another thread, so I'll get back to topic. (continued on next post due to length)
amchiro	Re: Defining liberty part II	#23	[-]
Posts: 246 (07/08/06 23:22:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	(continued from part I) I too believe that the Word of God is self-defining. With good hermeneutics, you will find passages that support other passages, but it helps to note the comparisons in the language the words were written in, so that we don't misunderstand because a generic English word was used in translation. You wrote, "The point is that this "liberty to do" does not extend to things that "sow to the flesh"". Amen. I agree. Liberty is a positive thing. We are free to do whatever, no Talmud, no Mishna, we are free. But we are not free to sin. (I think I have said this 10 times now). You wrote, "Are elders allowed to forbid their congregations from entire areas that clearly serve no other purpose than to "mind the things of the flesh?" How do they come to the conclusion that something clearly serves no other purpose than fulfilling the lust of the flesh? That 'something' is not called a liberty, it is called sin. Elders are to guide and counsel and to point to the Word of God where sin is involved, not to their own rulebooks. Shame on anyone who would even assume to have the authority to write such a book. So I still don't understand where you are coming from regarding elders making rules that members are not following. Are you suggesting that the elder then has the right to punish someone for not following their rule? That is setting up another system of laws/rules. Why do we need another set of laws and rules to abide by? I have found the Bible wholly sufficient. If Elders are given the authority to write the rules and we then abide by them, where does one draw the line? Who do the elders answer to? When would they stop writing? How would they cover it all? Would anyone advise them? What if they came up with cap limits on the amount you spent on your house - to protect you from vanity, of course. Or what if they made a rule that we could only drive American cars, (oy yoy they don't make Canadian cars, do they?) or a mandatory 10% of gross income be donated to the church? If you disagreed with these rules, would you have to leave the fellowship? Oh, I know, I'm sounding foolish, overreaching to make my point, but am I really? These rules would be no more enforceable than forbidding a sister to wear pants, or a brother the wearing of a wedding band. You are refusing to see that there can be (and there are) plenty of liberties being taken that are not in and of themselves sinful. But rules have been established that would curtail some of these liberties, for whatever reason, the most common reason being to protect the flock. Still you have those members that just won't follow those rules regarding clothing, makeup, wedding bands, seating arrangements, songbooks, instruments, and you are making a judgement in condemning them because of their liberty, not because of sin. If you are not making a judgement or condemning those members, then you are tolerant of them. And there is your dilemma. The dilemma exists, not because the liberty was taken, but because the unnecessary rule or judgement was made. I hope you have carefully read the above paragraph, because in reality this is what is going on today. I'm not talking about points of church order. Every church should have by-laws and order in their service and administration. All I am saying is that none of us have been called to be the Lawgivers to the people of God. We all have been called to freedom. Freedom from the bondage of sin, and freedom in the newness of life in Jesus Christ, to have life and have it MORE abundantly than the unbeliever. We can walk in that freedom and allow that freedom to be expressed in many ways, just not as a license to sin or a cloak for maliciousness. Again, I ask you, is uniformity neccessary for unity? I welcome your response, and upon reading both this post and my previous post, I meant you no disrespect or dishonor, Sister. I would challenge you as iron sharpening iron, but when iron sharpens iron there are bound to be sparks.
Unregistered(d)	Objectivity and Strong's	#24	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/10/06 06:16:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, Davey. I don't choose some definitions and reject others. I accept all definitions with skepticism. I mainly use Strong's for its exhaustive concordance. That said, as a thinking human being, I can control my own personal bias. Everyone can. Objectivity is within everyones grasp. (Christ referred to it as humbling ourselves.) That's not to say I am always objective; but I can, with Gods help, read the Word objectively to see what it says, rather than indulging myself in a self-serving bias. What I cannot control, however, are the potential biases of Mr. Strong and his 100 collegues that might have affected his definitions. Look at this entry for liberty that amchiro provided: Liberty (Strongs 165 : eleutheros (sim. to 1657) - free, free from yoke of Mosaic law (Romans 6:20 uses this word) Do you really think the ancient Greeks had a word for liberty that had connotations about the Mosaic Law? I doubt it. This entry is not just the definition of the word. This is Mr. Strongs attempt to help the reader. Now, the fact that I happen to agree with the help that Mr. Strong provided here is not the point. The point is that the help itself is evidence of added commentary that 1)could have been influenced by his doctrinal beliefs and 2) is packaged to look like a neutral definition. Mr. Strong should just define the words and let the reader investigate the contexts, no? Grain of salt, Davey.
Unregistered(d)	Ex Cathedra	#25	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/10/06 06:36:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mark, Okay. I never thought I would tell you this, but your posts here are way too brief. :) What am I trying to flip around? You asked, Is the denial of "ex cathedra" a rule in and of itself? If by ex cathedra you mean the elders requirement to reject members of the flock who resist their instruction in righteousness (II Tim. 3:16), the denial of ex cathedra (from what I read) looks like the denial of the Word itself, no?: . . . If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds . . . from such withdraw thyself. (I Tim. 6:3-5) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves . . . (Heb. 13:17) I dont think I understand delegated/representative ruling. What is it, and what support is there for it in the scriptures? The question that I think is at the heart of this problem, though, is: How does a "rule" differ from an instruction or exhortation? Why do we need to differentiate between the two? If we are a group of Christians who are sincerely seeking the way of holiness (Is. 35:8), why would we ask, Is this a recommendation, or a requirement? Doesnt that sound like a Jewish question, rather than a Christian (Grace) question? My point is that with Christians, warnings against activities that make provision for the flesh should not have to be rules before they are accepted. While that is the case for Jews, it should not be the case for spiritual Christians. Don't you think it is significant that Apostle Paul specified in only one chapter that his instructions to the church were not "[commandments] of the Lord?" (I Cor. 7:25)? Doesn't this imply that he assumed his instructions everywhere else would be received as such? That people would not question whether they were exhortations or "rules"? Please be more specific about what the ACC elders have done that you believe is outside of their "scope and jurisdiction".
Unregistered(d)	Re: LIBERTIES	#26	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/10/06 08:22:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, OnlyHim. I appreciate that you may not be talking about removing rules in church, and I apologize if I portrayed you personally as saying this, but there is quite a strong movement out there that casts the existence of rules as the ACCs biggest problem. You stated, If you say that everyone who wears make-up is sinning, you have crossed the line into condemnation. I categorized makeup as a work of the flesh (Gal.5:19) for myself because I am a member of the CC, and in the CC, makeup is inherently variant (see variance, 5:20). My description of putting on makeup as minding the things of the flesh was intended to establish that the tradition (of abstaining from the use of cosmetics) that is still in the CC does not go against the scriptures. It logically fulfills them. That means that I, as a CC member, would not have any justification for my variance regarding this profitable tradition. As for Christians in Truth-believing denominations who do not address makeup, the furthest I would ever go in condemning those who wear it would be in saying that it is not edifying them. Just like the brothers with exhorbitant vehicles in my own denomination. (I believe, by the way, it would be better for the leadership to address the exhorbitant vehicles, and outlandish outfits, etc., as well as the makeup.) I, for instance, can attest that it doesnt edify my spirit when I spend time decorating my home. You stated, "If I teach him what sin is, he will not have to have an alphabetical restriction list." I don't know your church, OnlyHim, but I know of many churches who claim that they do this. And you know what? Their memberships look and behave no different from conservative secular America. I'm sorry, but whatever problems exist in the ACC, the fruit of this particular method is just not there. What is so wrong with getting specific, as long as the specifics are balanced and it is stressed that members need to generalize them to other areas? Returning back to the topic, my point was that if makeup causes a distraction in my church and rebels against godly leadership in a church, it is no longer a liberty. It is a sin -- the sin of sedition (Gal. 5:20). And for what? (What other purpose could makeup possibly serve other than the purpose of vanity, by the way?) We dont talk about sedition very much. Or variance, for that matter. Heres another example. I grew up in an ACC where the sisters covered their heads with all manner of coverings: veils, scarves, pieces (mostly pieces) and hats. God has since moved me to a church in which hats are not accepted. They are not considered modest. Is it right for me to start a debate there by wearing a hat to church and insisting that this is a liberty? Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another, it says. If I cover my head with a modest hat (Not a Sin) in my church, I am shooting my ability to build the congregation (God placed me in) in the foot. I am incapacitating my ability to effectively function in my church by causing needless controversy. God did not give me liberty from a system of an exhaustive list of 600 commandments so that I can turn around and indulge in my personal likes and dislikes. He did it so that I can serve Him more accurately and reflect Him from situation to situation, from era to era. If my personal likes and dislikes do not interfere with that service then I am free to indulge; but the service comes first, the personal preferences come after. P.S. I do not understand your correction, "The only "good that is left in the church" (as you say) is still only Jesus Christ." My original point was that people are trying to eliminate (not all, but) some of what Christ wants the church to keep: " . . . strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God . . . hold fast, and repent . . ." (Rev. 3:1-3)
markJ81	Re: LIBERTIES	#27	[-]
Posts: 1153 (07/10/06 14:28:42) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I appreciate that you may not be talking about removing rules in church, and I apologize if I portrayed you personally as saying this, but there is quite a strong movement out there that casts the existence of rules as the ACCs biggest problem. I.S., I definately don't think the existince of "rules" is the ACC's most serious problem. Perhaps someone else here on the board does?
OnlyHim	Re: LIBERTIES	#28	[-]
Posts: 210 (07/10/06 15:52:05) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, I.Sister You wrote, but there is quite a strong movement out there that casts the existence of rules as the ACCs biggest problem. I know of this movement. I call it the Change for the sake of change movement. It is certainly not wise. I know of some churches that go even further (outside the ACC) that cater to the pagan world for the sake of evangelism (of which I strongly disagree). I still do not make additional rules or avoid maturing change for fear of becoming one of these kinds of churches. You wrote I categorized makeup as a work of the flesh (Gal.5:19). If you find make-up as sinful then you should not wear make-up. But you are also instructed not to condemn those that do. Many Christians wear makeup for other reasons than vanity. I am told to teach those that liberties (like this one) are not sin; not to force anyone to wear it for the sake of change, but so there is an understanding of liberty. [There were Christians that bought meat at the market but it was offered to idols. They knew the meat was fine, but there were some Christians that did not think it was.] I believe you have the right attitude in abstaining, but I wonder if its in entirety. I assume you do not wear deodorant nor perfume as this would also be construed by some as vanity. I would also assume that cover-up and night-cream or face conditioners are also out. This would be proper abstention for one that sees this issue as vanity. My de***ion of putting on makeup as minding the things of the flesh was intended to establish that the tradition (of abstaining from the use of cosmetics) that is still in the CC does not go against the ***ures. It logically fulfills themThis abstaining does not logically fulfill scripture. If you have weak believers who are deeply affected by make-up as vanity, then you would be obedient to scripture as to abstain. But this is done for a time, until they grow out of that misunderstanding. This is how we grow as a Body. The rule of no-makeup does not fulfill scripture. I will not go anywhere without deodorant and cologne. Otherwise the garlic from last nights sausage and head cheese would offend everyone. Is this vanity? No. I call it love for those who sit by me Some women (in the Church) stay out of the sun as to keep the wrinkles down at 60. Vanity? You: (I believe, by the way, it would be better for the leadership to address the exhorbitant vehicles, and outlandish outfits, etc., as well as the makeup.) I, for instance, can attest that it doesnt edify my spirit when I spend time decorating my home. First, I agree about the Look-at-me cars. Leadership must address it with each member that does this. Should the leaders put a specific dollar cap or restriction on the type of car one can buy? This is where specifics can run out of control. What scripture is used to forbid make-up? If you look at those scriptures, you will find a longer list of possible sins of vanity. You:You stated, "If I teach him what sin is, he will not have to have an alphabetical restriction list." I don't know your church, OnlyHim, but I know of many churches who claim that they do this. And you know what? Their memberships look and behave no different from conservative secular America. As you have stated of your elders, the western elders are also doing the best they can. I do not condemn them for some of their flock going overboard. I would suggest an on going curriculum for those churches in teaching the sin of vanity. Even when I say I teach my kids, it is not a one day, or even one year event. I am continuously addressing issues of the heart, training the conscience of my kids to see sin at its inception. Maybe the churches you see have some members that look secular, but I am sure you are not assuming the WHOLE church is like this. Its like when I saw a CC sister wearing a bikini and a babushka at the beach. I do not assume you all are like that silly woman. I'm sorry, but whatever problems exist in the ACC, the fruit of this particular method is just not there.You do not know this. Just because you do not see the results, it does not mean it is not fruitful. I have given many examples of the CC method of more man-mead laws not working. This method is the only method that should be used as the Bible teaches this. Scripture does not teach us to create more laws. What is so wrong with getting specific, as long as the specifics are balanced and it is stressed that members need to generalize them to other areas? Specific restrictions are subject to loop holes. For 30 years I have been witness to hundreds of loop-hole Christians. And I mean hundreds. East coast, West coast, Canada, Europe Getting specific is subject to MAN determining HOW specific. cont.....
OnlyHim	Re: LIBERTIES / pt.2	#29	[-]
Posts: 210 (07/10/06 15:54:47) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I.sister continued - You: my point was that if makeup causes a distraction in my church and rebels against godly leadership in a church, it is no longer a liberty. It is a sin -- the sin of sedition (Gal. 5:20). We dont talk about sedition very much. Or variance, for that matter. When you question your leaders, do they give you scripture to support what they teach? And I dont mean Obey my commandments - This scripture has been used in the past for every church law from separate seating to no pianos. I think you have a binocular view of sedition. Please if you find this an issue you want to address begin a thread and I will gladly respond. You: God has since moved me to a church in which hats are not accepted. They are not considered modest. Is it right for me to start a debate there by wearing a hat to church and insisting that this is a liberty? Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another, it says. If I cover my head with a modest hat (Not a Sin) in my church, I am shooting my ability to build the congregation (God placed me in) in the foot. I am incapacitating my ability to effectively function in my church by causing needless controversy. The Controversy over the hats was made by those who no longer thought hats were acceptable. Now you fear you are being controversial EVEN THOUGH they are the ones who were in changing the nearly 60 year tradition of hats on women in the ACC. So this tradition was changed wasnt it? You are in a tough place. But NOT addressing this issue is not what God wants for the church, nor is it for you to rebel against you leaders. Addressing the issue is not rebelling!! Wearing one in rebellion is sin. God did not give me liberty from a system of an exhaustive list of 600 commandments so that I can turn around and indulge in my personal likes and dislikes. He did it so that I can serve Him more accurately and reflect Him from situation to situation, from era to era. If my personal likes and dislikes do not interfere with that service then I am free to indulge; but the service comes first, the personal preferences come after. God demands holiness. God demands obedience. Restrictions that are man-made other than HIS laws are meant to be for better proper living, but the Pharisees and Sads did the same thing. We have to be careful in the way we live, but adding another Book of the Law is not the answer. You are right in saying; personal preferences come after the needs of the church. My original point was that people are trying to eliminate (not all, but) some of what Christ wants the church to keep: I understand your point and your frustration. Misapplying Rev 3 to traditions does not help the point. And it is further your opinion that Christ wants these things in the ACC CC to stay. I will clarify my statement by saying; The One perfect goodness we share is Jesus Christ. Hope this helped.
Unregistered(d)	Re: Defining liberty part I	#30	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/19/06 14:43:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello, chiro. There is an enormous difference between our culture today and "the culture that the first Christians found themselves in." The early Church was not exposed to secular culture the way we are today. They did not have music playing in every public place they went. We do. They did not have television. Many do. Most did not send their children to schools. We do. Most did not have books. We do. Get the picture? All of these venues communicate a value system that, by the way, is considerably more dysfunctional than even that of the ancient Greeks and I am going to tell you why. (You may know more about this than I, so feel free to correct:) Up until about 150 years ago, secular intellectuals in the West adhered to the "Aristotelian logic of non-contradiction". As obvious as this may sound, this law established that two statements that contradict one another cannot both be true. While this system countered isolated statements in the Bible (God created the universe out of nothing), at least it gave people a guide they could use to gage whether or not they were understanding the Bible. The guide: if I encounter a verse that contradicts my understanding, than I need to check my understanding, and alter it until all statements harmonize. (This system of logic is endorsed in the scriptures in II Tim. 2's statement that "he cannot deny (contradict) himself.") In the 1800s some "Christian" men named Kant & Hegel (who apparently did not want to heed Paul's warning to avoid oppositions of science falsely so called) decided to strike back at the Enlightenment by creating a philosophy that stated that contradiction is the essence of truth. By the 1960s, most universities began teaching this brand of intellectualism that says that contradictions are built into reason and reality. This absurd assumption dominates post-modern culture. It has created schools and universities who "teach" students relativistic (subjective) reading comprehension. Most college graduates think they can interpret a text because they passed their English courses. But the truth is, the standards their professors used were deplorable (steeped in subjectivity, rather than accuracy): "What does Fitzgerald's pink light symbolize to you?" Students only learn disciplined interpretive skills by being CORRECTED when they make an insupportable assertion about a text. But this stopped happening in schools in the 70s. That is why so many people tolerate theologies that are clearly contradicted by the Word of God. This is why so many are impressed by the grandiose-sounding theologians who spend years trying to reconcile Bible verses that contradict (disprove) their theologies. This is why so many do not feel intellectually obligated to acknowledge the logical connection between "fleeing fornication" and "no dating". This is why so many people think that "diversity" in a church is perfectly okay, when, in actuality, it reflects a broad way, rather than a narrow one. "Variance" became a value. And submission became a sign of ignorance.
Unregistered(d)	Re: LIBERTIES	#31	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/20/06 06:54:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	amchiro & OnlyHim, I appreciate the obvious time you both took with both of your posts. Overall, I think we do not agree on the definition of liberty because we do not agree on the definition of sin. Here's my understanding, based on Rom. 7 & 8: Sin for Jews -- disobeying the Law of Moses Sin for Christians -- disobeying the Holy Spirit P.S. OnlyHim, would you please give a specific "non-vanity" reason for makeup? I'm not pursuing this to be obnoxious; I'm just trying to understand your logic here. Also, are you saying that you teach your children principles exclusively, or a combination of principles and specifics -- even to the point of making specific rules? I suspect it's the latter. You don't just teach your children why they need to avoid hot things, you tell them they are not allowed to touch the stove, right? And even if your older children wanted to help with dinner, you would probably hesitate to let them, because you know it would create a situation where the younger ones decide they should be able to "help" too, perhaps when their mother is out of the room.
N789DB	Re: LIBERTIES	#32	[-]
Posts: 372 (07/20/06 09:52:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* P.S. OnlyHim, would you please give a specific "non-vanity" reason for makeup? I'm not pursuing this to be obnoxious; I'm just trying to understand your logic here. Can you give a specific "non-vanity" reason for a fancy watch, fancy car, fancy home etc. I suppose you only wear dreary clothes too. This can easily turn into legalism an ever growing list of no's. This approach hinders Christian growth and promotes the opposite, a dead religion. Interestingly when a bride is mentioned in the bible, she is often "well adorned," clothing and jewelry are mentioned. The bride of Christ (the church) is also described as a much adorned bride. I wonder why this picture is so common in the Bible if the other scriptures regarding the external mean exactly what you believe they do. I believe that the Bible is teaching what the priorities are regarding the internal beauty of a committed Christian.
amchiro	Re: liberties continued	#33	[-]
Posts: 246 (07/20/06 10:27:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	IS, Although you posted a reply, I felt like you replied to very little of what I wrote. My point in comparing the present culture with the past, is that both the early church and the present day church had equal opportunity to sin, even to wear that sin as a badge, according to the values system of the culture. In trying to keep on the thread of liberties, I pointed out that the believers looked much like everybody else. And they were encouraged to keep their liberties in check. You took a philosophical bend in the road and discussed logic, the world's influence on education (do we expect different?), and how that influences our approach to studying and understanding Scripture. A good course in hermeneutics should clear this right up. Gone are the days of "this is what it means to me". Who cares what it means to me?? What does the Scripture actually mean? Yet, you and I cannot come to a conclusive definition of liberty. Why? Because of my attempt to understand what the word meant in its original setting, original language, and the author's intent, or because of your reading into a text your own feelings, opinion? Perhaps you can be more clear as to which tolerated theologies are clearly contradicted by the Word of God. Again you were mixing liberties with sins and accused some of tolerating both in the name of diversity; e.g. acknowledge the logical connection between "fleeing fornication" and "no dating" I do not encourage or tolerate dating, and I would not consider fornication a liberty. How can you even insinuate that? I would like your response to the following statements I made in my previous two posts: 1. Everything cultural (of this world) that passes over my path must first pass through the filter of God's Word which is alive and active in my life. Whatever is not contrary to His Word, neither do I condemn as sin. I am free, not bound by any ceremonial law including the Law of Moses, the Levitical law, or the Talmud, Mishna or Gemara (pharisaic additions to the Law). Do you agree? Does the Holy Spirit not guide us in this way? 2. I see a clear distinction between liberty and license to sin. 3. Have we lost our testimony and the profession of our faith in Jesus Christ by having become the very Pharisees that He couldn't stand, children of vipers, not children of God? 3. What judgement has led you to not refer to me as your brother in Christ even though we are members of the same denomination, albeit different conference? 4. If you were to greet me in person, dear interested sister, would I hear you say, "God bless you"? 5. How do the elders come to the conclusion that something clearly serves no other purpose than fulfilling the lust of the flesh? Is that 'something' not a sin? I maintain that we are not talking about a liberty. 6. I still don't understand where you are coming from regarding elders making rules that members are not following. Are you suggesting that the elder then has the right to punish someone for not following their rule? That is setting up another system of laws/rules. Why do we need another set of laws and rules to abide by? I have found the Bible wholly sufficient. If Elders are given the authority to write the rules and we then abide by them, where does one draw the line? Who do the elders answer to? When would they stop writing? How would they cover it all? Would anyone advise them? 7. You are either making a judgement in condemning someone because of their liberty (not sin) or you are not making a judgement and thus are 'tolerant'. And there is your dilemma. But it is only a dilemma if you consider the liberty to be sin, and not a liberty. Your thoughts?
OnlyHim	Re: LIBERTIES	#34	[-]
Posts: 210 (07/20/06 17:58:12) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, sis You have yet to respond to all my points, but I will still respond to your latest post. MAKEUP DOES NOT PROVE SIN NOR DISPROVES SIN. Eating meat offered to idols was not proof of a sinning Christian nor was it proof of a holy Christian. Just like having makeup or NO makeup is NOT proof of a holy or mature Christian. You wrote give a specific "non-vanity" reason for makeup? I am now looking like I am justifying wearing makeup with the following list, but I am actually going to give you reasons why I think some have worn makeup: My intention is not to convince you to wear makeup, I sister: 1) cover a pimple that is making one look like a Hindu; 2) covering a bruise, scar, cut on a face; 3) lightening facial hairs to look more feminine; 4) when sick, some have had rouge on to liven up there face. 5) looking presentable - discretion challenge... The sin of vanity is much more than makeup. Even if a woman wanted to wear makeup to look presentable it is not sin. You may still think it sin but it is not. You probably wear deodorant and wash with a scented soap. You probably pluck you hairs and shave your arm pits and legs. But these are all considered sinful to some Christians. You say it is hygiene, and they say it is sin. You dont HAVE to pluck, you dont HAVE to wear deodorant, you dont have to put wrinkle cream on at night, you dont have to shave. The sin of vanity is not reserved for flaunters and show-offs. Many sin in the mirror (in private)! Where does one draw the line? And to N789s point when does it become legalism to you, Sister? Here is a parallel for you. I have listed the following in order of SIN severity. Where is your line drawn here? Sin-o-meter...............the sin act...............the ACC accepted sin act For sure sinning...............eyeshadow...............brooch on outfit Probably sinning...............mascara..................gold/silver watch Might be sinning...............lip stick/gloss...........lace collar on dress Sometimes sinning............rouge......................matching purse to outfit Maybe sinning..................cover up..................matching shoes to outfit Exceptions to sin..........ladies mustache bleach....matching head covering to outfit Justified private sinning......wrinkle creams...........hair salon cuts I can give you so many examples of this. I think you lost the main message of my last novelette. Using the "hot stove" analogy works for children. But it is an analogy for warning against sin and its consequence. Adding rules to prevent them from getting "burned" is like a band-aid on an amputation. Restricting my kids from entering the kitchen is your idea of additional rules that prevent burning? What about the fireplace? How about the curling iron? (wrong analogy) How about the exhaust pipe on a car, motorcycle, lawn mower? Hot pan off the stove? So now we restrict them from the bathroom, driveway, diningroom, livingroom, etc? If I teach my kids what sin is(hot stove) IN THE HEART, they will know they are going to be "burned". There is no loop-holes in the heart, Sis! When I teach the sin of vanity it is like saying, "don't touch...HOT" but it will include ALL aspects of the sin not just certain restrictions that do nothing but make self-righteous judgmentalism with no vanity cure! I have successfully taught 2 of my kids that "HOT" burns, and they do not get burned! AND they are not restricted from the kitchen. I will not restrict the other 2 from the kitchen, but be there saying "HOT, ...HOT....HOT" to everything that burns. YUP, it's more work, but I am not going to have adult children burning themselves because all they knew as adolescents was "stay out of the kitchen". One more point to vanity: One can also be vain and proud of their pious and humble "look" too. Thanks for your post, I.Sister.
giant slayer	Re: Defining liberty part I	#35	[-]
Posts: 821 (07/21/06 11:31:13) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Amchiro: My reference to the rapport between you and IS was tongue in cheek. I am awake enough to have observed several not so chummy exchanges between the two of you in the past, but you are correct in saying that I have not noticed that she has not called you brother. The fact is, she has not called me brother. That I have noticed. I have also noticed that as far as I recall, she has not called anyone on this board brother. But, that is her LIBERTY. Perhaps it is also her SIN, but atleast in regard to myself, I don't think so because she hasen't had the occasion to observe my fruit. What do you think? Is rejection of other professing Christians crossing the line into sin because it is breaking the commandment Jesus left us, "A new commandment I leave you, that ye love one another" "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, because ye have love one for another."?
Unregistered(d)	Re: LIBERTIES	#36	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/21/06 13:53:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	N789DB, You said, "Can you give a specific "non-vanity" reason for a fancy watch, fancy car, fancy home etc." No, I can't. But as I stated before, I think the fancy watches, cars, and homes should have been addressed a long time ago. They have been much more consistently addressed in the conservative portion of ACCA. Do you approve of the conservative ACCA because it is consistent? There is, however, a "non-vanity" reason for watches, cars, and homes, no? This is probably why the CC elders have (unfortunately) not addressed these areas. Don't think I approve of the degree of inconsistency here; I'm just analyzing why the current situation exists. Do you also worry that the CC's stand on "No Barhopping" "hinders Christian growth and promotes the opposite, a dead religion?" I'm not claiming that these traditions aren't arbitrary. They are. My point here is that arbitrary standards that fulfill/harmonize with New Covenant values are a HEALTHY THING for a church, and I have yet to see anyone here establish with scripture that elders should not establish them, or that their existance automatically means the church is "legalistic" or carnal. Phillipians 3:16 talks about spiritual churches being in unity regarding standards & boundaries: "whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule (per Strong's: "standard" or "boundary", let us mind the same thing . . . " Clear boundaries are a great help as long as they are kept in perspective. The CC spent a very long time not keeping them in perspective. This was bad and has yielded carnality in many in the church. I'm not saying the ACC doesn't have problems. I just completely disagree with your diagnosis. P.S. You stated, "Interestingly, when a bride is mentioned in the bible, she is often "well adorned," clothing and jewelry are mentioned." Could you give a reference for this? Also, have you also researched when makeup is mentioned in the bible to see what it is associated with it?
Unregistered(d)	Re: liberties continued	#37	[-]
Posts: 0 (07/21/06 14:24:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	chiro, Sorry I did not give you more specific responses. I thought I was re-routing us to a more basic discussion. Thank you for being patient enough to restate your questions. Here are some answers. 1)."I am free, not bound by any ceremonial law . . . Do you agree? Does the Holy Spirit not guide us in this way?" I am bound -- by the law of the Spirit, per Romans 8. I am "married to another even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (7:4) Christians are married to Christ through His indwelling Spirit, which gives us commands the same way the Law commanded Israel. I know you do not agree, but I read that a Christian's standing before God is just as conditioned on his obeying the commands of the Spirit as Israel's standing before God was conditioned on it's obedience to the Law. 2) "I see a clear distinction between liberty and license to sin." I'm not clear on what you're saying, but the concept of liberty means that we are free from the Mosaic Law. The concept of a written, exhaustive list of what God requires of you, chiro, is gone. It's given to you personally by the Spirit, and confirmed by the Word. 3) "Have we lost our testimony . . .?" I think people who do not try to understand why the Pharisees & Judaizers behaved the way they did, and just dismiss their reactions as "prideful" are at increased risk for becoming just like them. What do I mean? We are not Jews. We were born and raised as Gentiles. If I, as a Gentile, do not really understand the difficulties that even sincere Jews faced in keeping the Law (think about how many times Jews had to stone people they didn't want to for "working" on the Sabbath in cases of extreme urgency), I am not going to understand why sincere Jews were so happy about being liberated from this. As a "lawless" Gentile, I am going to read these writings through my own prism of experience and see "liberty" and associate it with the kind of freedom I've always had. It is documented in the Bible, that while Jews had to be sold on the idea of giving up the Law, Gentiles, which are what you and I are, had to be taught how to live. They were not on the side of celebrating "liberty", although they were forever having to guard their liberty from Judaizers. 4) "3. What judgement has led you to not refer to me as your brother . . . ?" I don't refer to anyone on this site as "brother", chiro. It's a policy that applies to everyone here, regardless of conference. I chose the name, "Interested Sister" because I thought I was going to be a one-time poster. Sure did get that one wrong. You don't have to call me "sister" if you're irritated; call me "rested". (Don't you think it's kind of strange that you are so bent on being my brother, anyway? Haven't you implied like 3 or 4 times that I'm actually Catholic?) 5)"How do the elders come to the conclusion that something . . . " The Spirit of God and the spirit of what is written in the Word -- the same way Mainstream evangelicals have (thankfully) come to the conclusion that abortion is a sin. Chiro, I will have to respond to #s 6&7 later. Sorry I don't have more time.
giant slayer	Re: liberties continued	#38	[-]
Posts: 821 (07/22/06 02:55:24) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Greetings Interested Sister: You said: "The concept of a written, exhaustive list of what God requires of you, chiro, is gone. It's given to you personally by the Spirit, and confirmed by the Word." You also said, "Christians are married to Christ through His indwelling Spirit, which gives us commands the same way the Law commanded Israel." If these things are true, then why do we need elders to make rules and lists of laws and ordinances which govern our behavior? Shouldn't their role be as spiritual shepherds rather than governing authority? Jesus, the Good Shepherd, did not bring us a bunch of rules, on the contrary, He freed us from them and commanded us only to love God and one another. He had nothing to say about jewelry, hair styles, clothing, etc. The things quoted above, I agree with, but they don't seem to fit with other things you have been saying. It appears to me that you are contradicting yourself. God bless David
N789DB	Re: LIBERTIES	#39	[-]
Posts: 372 (07/24/06 07:36:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* You stated, "Interestingly, when a bride is mentioned in the bible, she is often "well adorned," clothing and jewelry are mentioned." Could you give a reference for this? Also, have you also researched when makeup is mentioned in the bible to see what it is associated with it? You own a Strongs IS 61:10, Rev 21:2, Rev 19:7-8 I did not have much time to do this, there are some better ones. Yes I have seen the scriptures on makeup. *Quote:* There is, however, a "non-vanity" reason for watches, cars, and homes, no? This is probably why the CC elders have (unfortunately) not addressed these areas. Don't think I approve of the degree of inconsistency here; I'm just analyzing why the current situation exists. Do you also worry that the CC's stand on "No Barhopping" "hinders Christian growth and promotes the opposite, a dead religion?" There are also nonvanity reasons for makeup. 40 years ago it was A-ok to use face powder in very conservative AC circles. Was this also vanity? Why would a Christian go bar hopping?
OnlyHim	Re: LIBERTIES	#40	[-]
Posts: 210 (07/24/06 19:23:06) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm not claiming that these traditions aren't arbitrary. They are. My point here is that arbitrary standards that fulfill/harmonize with New Covenant values are a HEALTHY THING for a church, and I have yet to see anyone here establish with ****ure that elders should not establish them, or that their existance automatically means the church is "legalistic" or carnal. Phillipians 3:16 talks about spiritual churches being in unity regarding standards & boundaries: Still waiting on you to answer my questions on where to draw the line. Does your sheperd have this line drawn? The Pharisee's harmonized their additional books to the Law and were called legalists. I'm sure their initial years of additional laws were for sanctification purposes too. One more example - staying out of bars has not prevented some in the Church from drinking excessively. Actually, it's okay if you don't address me, Interested girl* j/k. I don't really mind. I think the point is made when there is no response as well.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

LIBERTIES

Quick Reply