Another IFB preacher shows his fangs with the sheep

[graceandtruth]

Why is it, do you think, that the Pharisees thought that this situation would provide ought to take Him with?

The Pharisees attempted to put Jesus into a dilemma. On the one hand, if Jesus said to stone the woman, they could accuse Him to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, if Jesus told them not to stone her, they could accuse him in their own religious court.

Jesus did not advocate either position. He simply chose a third option the Pharisees didn't know about: Let the sinless execute judgment

One may say that Jesus dodged the question, and that the proper thing to do was to stone the woman, but he later said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." He took the same line of reasoning with the woman at the well.


I condemn child molestation in any form (especially when perpetrated by so called spiritual leaders). I believe the best way to handle such cases is for the pastor to call the police and assist them in any way possible. I condemn the decision of any pastor who tries to cover up such sin, or in some cases to "rehabilitate" such men by moving them to another facet of the "ministry." Pastors should sweep nothing under the rug. Give such cases over to the police.


As for millstones, Jesus said: "Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

This is important. Jesus said that it was better for that man to be drowned. What He is teaching here is that the one who offends a child will face a very severe punishment when he stands before God's throne.

What Jesus did not say: Jesus did not command his disciples to hang millstones around the necks of anyone. He did not command his disciples to drown anyone. Jesus neither commanded it, nor did He imply that anyone should do such a thing.


I respectfully disagree with you, Prophet. I mean no disrespect. I enjoy a good dialogue and a good debate. There is no need for name calling. Let's not bring the spirit of the old, unmoderated forum to the new forum.

Boomer you have said what I have been waiting for someone to say.  It is interesting how we misapply the Scripture when it is an area that personally effects us and then don't understand why others do it in areas that effect them.  Excellent Post!

For the record, I believe all criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with equality.  I also know that God does not indicate that He does not forgive and redeem those who engage in sexual sins no matter who they engage in them with.  I have 17 children and I would probably not react with grace and a Christ-like spirit if one of them was molested, though I acknowledge there is a great difference between my 17 year old engaging in a consensual relationship and my 7 year old being molested,  but I would not advocate others to act as I would act or to make it the standard reaction.  It is clear that God acts in grace towards ALL SINNERS or none would be given space to repent. 

I believe the Bible is clear on the responsibilities of those engaged in sexual sins in the congregation--Consenting sinners are to repent and make restitution; Victims are to forgive; Congregations are to break fellowship with consenting sinners and seek their restoration until repentance and restitution are evidenced; Congregations are to comfort and help victims to bear the burden of their experience; Congregations are to ensure that all necessary legal action is taken; Congregations are responsible to do what is possible to ensure that similar sins do not occur again if it is within the context of the corporate ministry; and Congregations are responsible to ensure that an atmosphere of trust in God and welcome to ALL people is maintained through confidence in God's mission to make new creatures of ALL sinners through the power of the Gospel and not replaced with a attitude of distrust, bitterness, and isolation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You say, "Nobody has said that "standards" aren't an outcome of holy living."  Taaa-daaa!!!!  So, if you live holy, from that holy living will come a LIST (oh, the dreaded word!!!) of Biblical standards of life.  Then you want to poo-poo any list of standards

I am not dismissing the idea of "standards" being evident in a Christian's life, but what I am disputing with you is how those standards come about in the believer.  The "standards" that a Christian holds are a result or product of Christ working in us.  They are not to be looked at as a source to empower us to live a holy life.  All the standards in Jack Schaap's exhaustive list failed him, because he didn't walk in the Spirit.  Also, the sense in which some think of the term "standards" is a prideful badge to compare amongst themselves.  This is pharasaism at it's best.  In addition, sometimes those "standards" are used as absolute universal expectations for all Christians alike but they in reality are subjective in nature (like gauchos vs culottes).  In the case where people hold to convictions over such subjective notions of "standards" I have no problem with them so long as they are personal matters of convictions which aren't used to judge all others who don't hold to them as somehow less of a Christian (or even "carnal").
'

No adherence to Biblical standards = no inward holiness.

You need to make the distinction of state vs standing.  In Christ we are all holy, and it is His imputed holiness that will be our only hope of entering heaven,  The most "holy" person you know of by your own estimation of "standards" won't enter heaven because of their own deeds, but rather because of the alien righteousness affored them by God's imputed righteousness in Christ.  Even considering the practical holiness ("state") to which you refer is by virtue of faith in Christ and enabled by the Holy Spirit working in and through us.

All this talk of "walking in the Spirit" -- you evangelicals pretending to be IFB seem to seldom want to use His first name.......He is the HOLY Spirit.

I don't really know what you're getting at here, but regardless of whatever ad hominem you attempt to use as an argument it won't change the fact that standards aren't the origin of holiness, but rather the result of a living relationship with the Holy Spirit as we yield to Him living in us.

 

[4everfsu]

Why is it, do you think, that the Pharisees thought that this situation would provide ought to take Him with?

The Pharisees attempted to put Jesus into a dilemma. On the one hand, if Jesus said to stone the woman, they could accuse Him to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, if Jesus told them not to stone her, they could accuse him in their own religious court.

Jesus did not advocate either position. He simply chose a third option the Pharisees didn't know about: Let the sinless execute judgment

One may say that Jesus dodged the question, and that the proper thing to do was to stone the woman, but he later said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." He took the same line of reasoning with the woman at the well.


I condemn child molestation in any form (especially when perpetrated by so called spiritual leaders). I believe the best way to handle such cases is for the pastor to call the police and assist them in any way possible. I condemn the decision of any pastor who tries to cover up such sin, or in some cases to "rehabilitate" such men by moving them to another facet of the "ministry." Pastors should sweep nothing under the rug. Give such cases over to the police.


As for millstones, Jesus said: "Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

This is important. Jesus said that it was better for that man to be drowned. What He is teaching here is that the one who offends a child will face a very severe punishment when he stands before God's throne.

What Jesus did not say: Jesus did not command his disciples to hang millstones around the necks of anyone. He did not command his disciples to drown anyone. Jesus neither commanded it, nor did He imply that anyone should do such a thing.


I respectfully disagree with you, Prophet. I mean no disrespect. I enjoy a good dialogue and a good debate. There is no need for name calling. Let's not bring the spirit of the old, unmoderated forum to the new forum.

I always thought if Christ said stone her, the pharisees would say what about the love of God and forgiveness preached by you the Son of God. If Christ said let her go, the pharisees, you said you believe in the law of Moses and she needs to be stoned. Do you not follow the law of Moses?

 

[prophet]

Eccl. 8:11 'Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.'
 

Anishinabe

 

[Frag]

More Breaking News!!!  Standards Lead To Kennedy's Assassination!!!!

Grainy black and white video show a seven  year old child near the grassy knoll whose 2nd grade teacher's third cousin had his poodle neutered by a vet whose twin brother's mailman's sister works for a banker who apparently possesses a copy of Blue Denim and Lace. 

STANDARDS KILLED KENNEDY!!!

Still an idiot.

No.  Perfect satire.  Their own arguments taken to the extreme.  Only an IDIOT wouldn't understand that.

You promote this as a "fighting forum".  I you only want sheeple who will tout your viewpoint, then, please ban me.  If effective satire is against policy, then please, ban me.  I come to this forum for the occasional mental break from reality.  Seems you take yourself and your little "god spot" WAY too seriously. 

Which would make you the idiot.

 

[prophet]

More Breaking News!!!  Standards Lead To Kennedy's Assassination!!!!

Grainy black and white video show a seven  year old child near the grassy knoll whose 2nd grade teacher's third cousin had his poodle neutered by a vet whose twin brother's mailman's sister works for a banker who apparently possesses a copy of Blue Denim and Lace. 

STANDARDS KILLED KENNEDY!!!

Still an idiot.

No.  Perfect satire.  Their own arguments taken to the extreme.  Only an IDIOT wouldn't understand that.

You promote this as a "fighting forum".  I you only want sheeple who will tout your viewpoint, then, please ban me.  If effective satire is against policy, then please, ban me.  I come to this forum for the occasional mental break from reality.  Seems you take yourself and your little "god spot" WAY too seriously. 

Which would make you the idiot.

Psst, 'WEB' stands for 'WhyEvenBother', not 'Webmaster'...
Save one 'idiot' for you.

Anishinabe

 

[Boomer]

Why is it, do you think, that the Pharisees thought that this situation would provide ought to take Him with?

The Pharisees attempted to put Jesus into a dilemma. On the one hand, if Jesus said to stone the woman, they could accuse Him to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, if Jesus told them not to stone her, they could accuse him in their own religious court.

Jesus did not advocate either position. He simply chose a third option the Pharisees didn't know about: Let the sinless execute judgment

One may say that Jesus dodged the question, and that the proper thing to do was to stone the woman, but he later said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." He took the same line of reasoning with the woman at the well.


I condemn child molestation in any form (especially when perpetrated by so called spiritual leaders). I believe the best way to handle such cases is for the pastor to call the police and assist them in any way possible. I condemn the decision of any pastor who tries to cover up such sin, or in some cases to "rehabilitate" such men by moving them to another facet of the "ministry." Pastors should sweep nothing under the rug. Give such cases over to the police.


As for millstones, Jesus said: "Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

This is important. Jesus said that it was better for that man to be drowned. What He is teaching here is that the one who offends a child will face a very severe punishment when he stands before God's throne.

What Jesus did not say: Jesus did not command his disciples to hang millstones around the necks of anyone. He did not command his disciples to drown anyone. Jesus neither commanded it, nor did He imply that anyone should do such a thing.


I respectfully disagree with you, Prophet. I mean no disrespect. I enjoy a good dialogue and a good debate. There is no need for name calling. Let's not bring the spirit of the old, unmoderated forum to the new forum.

Boomer you have said what I have been waiting for someone to say.  It is interesting how we misapply the Scripture when it is an area that personally effects us and then don't understand why others do it in areas that effect them.  Excellent Post!

For the record, I believe all criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with equality.  I also know that God does not indicate that He does not forgive and redeem those who engage in sexual sins no matter who they engage in them with.  I have 17 children and I would probably not react with grace and a Christ-like spirit if one of them was molested, though I acknowledge there is a great difference between my 17 year old engaging in a consensual relationship and my 7 year old being molested,  but I would not advocate others to act as I would act or to make it the standard reaction.  It is clear that God acts in grace towards ALL SINNERS or none would be given space to repent. 

I believe the Bible is clear on the responsibilities of those engaged in sexual sins in the congregation--Consenting sinners are to repent and make restitution; Victims are to forgive; Congregations are to break fellowship with consenting sinners and seek their restoration until repentance and restitution are evidenced; Congregations are to comfort and help victims to bear the burden of their experience; Congregations are to ensure that all necessary legal action is taken; Congregations are responsible to do what is possible to ensure that similar sins do not occur again if it is within the context of the corporate ministry; and Congregations are responsible to ensure that an atmosphere of trust in God and welcome to ALL people is maintained through confidence in God's mission to make new creatures of ALL sinners through the power of the Gospel and not replaced with a attitude of distrust, bitterness, and isolation.

Thank-you for those kind remarks.

Seventeen children? You are a saint! I have three children, and they are all I can handle.    Are any of your children adopted, or are they all natural?


Your last paragraph is very good. The part I bolded is a neat, one-sentence paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 5. Excellent post!

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

From the Latin: comdamnare-'To Damn'
Your modern dictionary stinks as bad as your modern 'version'.

You're the one who is in error.  Specifically, you're committing the error of the root fallacy. The best definition of a given word does not necessarily come from its etymology.

Otherwise, telling your girlfriend she looks "nice" will get you stood up - you've just told her she looks stupid.

The primary definition of "condemn" in today's English means to denounce.  When the UN "condemns" the latest antics by North Korea, does anyone think they're sentencing the North Koreans to death? Of course not.

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

From the Latin: comdamnare-'To Damn'
Your modern dictionary stinks as bad as your modern 'version'.

You're the one who is in error.  Specifically, you're committing the error of the root fallacy. The best definition of a given word does not necessarily come from its etymology.

Otherwise, telling your girlfriend she looks "nice" will get you stood up - you've just told her she looks stupid.

The primary definition of "condemn" in today's English means to denounce.  When the UN "condemns" the latest antics by North Korea, does anyone think they're sentencing the North Koreans to death? Of course not.

Who cares?  That doesn't change the def.  Modern usage is modern usage, definition is definition.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

Who cares?  That doesn't change the def. Modern usage is modern usage, definition is definition.

You're really nice. By definition, not by modern usage.

 

[graceandtruth]

Why is it, do you think, that the Pharisees thought that this situation would provide ought to take Him with?

The Pharisees attempted to put Jesus into a dilemma. On the one hand, if Jesus said to stone the woman, they could accuse Him to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, if Jesus told them not to stone her, they could accuse him in their own religious court.

Jesus did not advocate either position. He simply chose a third option the Pharisees didn't know about: Let the sinless execute judgment

One may say that Jesus dodged the question, and that the proper thing to do was to stone the woman, but he later said to the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." He took the same line of reasoning with the woman at the well.


I condemn child molestation in any form (especially when perpetrated by so called spiritual leaders). I believe the best way to handle such cases is for the pastor to call the police and assist them in any way possible. I condemn the decision of any pastor who tries to cover up such sin, or in some cases to "rehabilitate" such men by moving them to another facet of the "ministry." Pastors should sweep nothing under the rug. Give such cases over to the police.


As for millstones, Jesus said: "Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

This is important. Jesus said that it was better for that man to be drowned. What He is teaching here is that the one who offends a child will face a very severe punishment when he stands before God's throne.

What Jesus did not say: Jesus did not command his disciples to hang millstones around the necks of anyone. He did not command his disciples to drown anyone. Jesus neither commanded it, nor did He imply that anyone should do such a thing.


I respectfully disagree with you, Prophet. I mean no disrespect. I enjoy a good dialogue and a good debate. There is no need for name calling. Let's not bring the spirit of the old, unmoderated forum to the new forum.

Boomer you have said what I have been waiting for someone to say.  It is interesting how we misapply the Scripture when it is an area that personally effects us and then don't understand why others do it in areas that effect them.  Excellent Post!

For the record, I believe all criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with equality.  I also know that God does not indicate that He does not forgive and redeem those who engage in sexual sins no matter who they engage in them with.  I have 17 children and I would probably not react with grace and a Christ-like spirit if one of them was molested, though I acknowledge there is a great difference between my 17 year old engaging in a consensual relationship and my 7 year old being molested,  but I would not advocate others to act as I would act or to make it the standard reaction.  It is clear that God acts in grace towards ALL SINNERS or none would be given space to repent. 

I believe the Bible is clear on the responsibilities of those engaged in sexual sins in the congregation--Consenting sinners are to repent and make restitution; Victims are to forgive; Congregations are to break fellowship with consenting sinners and seek their restoration until repentance and restitution are evidenced; Congregations are to comfort and help victims to bear the burden of their experience; Congregations are to ensure that all necessary legal action is taken; Congregations are responsible to do what is possible to ensure that similar sins do not occur again if it is within the context of the corporate ministry; and Congregations are responsible to ensure that an atmosphere of trust in God and welcome to ALL people is maintained through confidence in God's mission to make new creatures of ALL sinners through the power of the Gospel and not replaced with a attitude of distrust, bitterness, and isolation.

Thank-you for those kind remarks.

Seventeen children? You are a saint! I have three children, and they are all I can handle.    Are any of your children adopted, or are they all natural?


Your last paragraph is very good. The part I bolded is a neat, one-sentence paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 5. Excellent post!

All of our children are natural and a handful....well four hands full....LOL. 

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

From the Latin: comdamnare-'To Damn'
Your modern dictionary stinks as bad as your modern 'version'.

You're the one who is in error.  Specifically, you're committing the error of the root fallacy. The best definition of a given word does not necessarily come from its etymology.

Otherwise, telling your girlfriend she looks "nice" will get you stood up - you've just told her she looks stupid.

The primary definition of "condemn" in today's English means to denounce.  When the UN "condemns" the latest antics by North Korea, does anyone think they're sentencing the North Koreans to death? Of course not.

They laugh at the weak- kneed UN 'condemnation'. 
  Lets see what treatment a condemned building still gets, cuz the gov. still knows what 'condemn' means...damn.

Anishinabe

 

[Frag]

More Breaking News!!!  Standards Lead To Kennedy's Assassination!!!!

Grainy black and white video show a seven  year old child near the grassy knoll whose 2nd grade teacher's third cousin had his poodle neutered by a vet whose twin brother's mailman's sister works for a banker who apparently possesses a copy of Blue Denim and Lace. 

STANDARDS KILLED KENNEDY!!!

Still an idiot.

No.  Perfect satire.  Their own arguments taken to the extreme.  Only an IDIOT wouldn't understand that.

You promote this as a "fighting forum".  I you only want sheeple who will tout your viewpoint, then, please ban me.  If effective satire is against policy, then please, ban me.  I come to this forum for the occasional mental break from reality.  Seems you take yourself and your little "god spot" WAY too seriously. 

Which would make you the idiot.

Psst, 'WEB' stands for 'WhyEvenBother', not 'Webmaster'...
Save one 'idiot' for you.

Anishinabe

Wow.  I wasted that tantrum on THAT web.  Shame...

 

[rsc2a]

prophet said:

From the Latin: comdamnare-'To Damn'
Your modern dictionary stinks as bad as your modern 'version'.

You're the one who is in error.  Specifically, you're committing the error of the root fallacy. The best definition of a given word does not necessarily come from its etymology.

Otherwise, telling your girlfriend she looks "nice" will get you stood up - you've just told her she looks stupid.

The primary definition of "condemn" in today's English means to denounce.  When the UN "condemns" the latest antics by North Korea, does anyone think they're sentencing the North Koreans to death? Of course not.

They laugh at the weak- kneed UN 'condemnation'. 
  Lets see what treatment a condemned building still gets, cuz the gov. still knows what 'condemn' means...damn.

Anishinabe

I was unaware that the government "sentence[d] to death, and Hell afterwards" buildings. After all, that was what you said 'condemn' means, right?

 

[Ransom]

I was unaware that the government "sentence[d] to death, and Hell afterwards" buildings. After all, that was what you said 'condemn' means, right?

Indeed, "condemnation" to a government doesn't even necessarily mean that the building is uninhabitable and beyond repair.  Condemnation also refers to the use of the power of eminent domain to transfer ownership to the government.  It's the same as what we call "expropriation" here in Canada, which is probably the more literal term.

Oh, I'm sure this is all part of the great mystery that is "definition" vs. "usage," as if how a word is defined is actually a different thing from how it is used.  :

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

More Breaking News!!!  Standards Lead To Kennedy's Assassination!!!!

Grainy black and white video show a seven  year old child near the grassy knoll whose 2nd grade teacher's third cousin had his poodle neutered by a vet whose twin brother's mailman's sister works for a banker who apparently possesses a copy of Blue Denim and Lace. 

STANDARDS KILLED KENNEDY!!!

Still an idiot.

No.  Perfect satire.  Their own arguments taken to the extreme.  Only an IDIOT wouldn't understand that.

You promote this as a "fighting forum".  I you only want sheeple who will tout your viewpoint, then, please ban me.  If effective satire is against policy, then please, ban me.  I come to this forum for the occasional mental break from reality.  Seems you take yourself and your little "god spot" WAY too seriously. 

Which would make you the idiot.

Psst, 'WEB' stands for 'WhyEvenBother', not 'Webmaster'...
Save one 'idiot' for you.

Anishinabe

Wow.  I wasted that tantrum on THAT web.  Shame...

Don't forget, I/we joined the SBC....you could go off on that again, for the first time... on THIS forum!