Fair and balanced analysis of Trick or Treat for Christians.

[ALAYMAN]

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. (Titus 3:1-2 ESV)

It is called the fighting forum for a reason, eh?

Nonetheless, what I said was uncalled for, and I apologize.


[quote author=rsc2a]Show me where anyone has bemoaned that they have been "disallowed and deprived" of engaging in activities because of what someone else's conscience says. [/quote]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.  What I said was that Mike and others (elsewhere, and on this forum in its more active days) attempt to persuade others that they are wrong about their convictions.  He has done so most recently by making claims that there is not any valid Scriptural warrant for their beliefs, despite the fact that many would make what they believe to be Biblically sound rationale.

And, if you'd like, I can show you were we have questioned the logical and consistency of those who choose not to engage in particular activities. I can also point out where people (read: you) have questioned the sincerity of others' faith when they don't agree with you. (I also noticed you completely ignored that point.)

I questioned the sincerity of people's faith who always put their liberty ahead of other people's conscience, yep.  If that's you, then I was talking about you.  If it wasn't, then I wasn't.  Pretty simple really, and nothing there is in need of any apology.  Grow some thicker skin if you take such challenges personally as an affront. 

Secondly I've asserted that many evangelicals of today make their "meat and drink" the be all and end all of how they determine their practices, without so much as a regard to weightier spiritual matters such as the promulgation of the gospel as well as the edification and consideration of their brethren.

...as to the narrower point, you are apparently limiting your definition of "gospel" to a proof-text consisting of four verses and then acting like those verses are the end-all, be-all definition. I, and the vast majority of the Church, prefer to consider the whole of Scripture when we define such weighty terms as "gospel".

"prooftexting"???  Do you know the definition of prooftexting?  It is to misrepresent the <doctrinal> truth by taking the passage out of context.  It is beyond ridiculous to assert that the gospel is not accurately and succinctly characterized in the manner I defined, particularly as it relates to Paul's summary in I Cor 15.  This is why it is hard to converse with you.  To use such sloppy langage so as to claim "prooftexting" on such a basis is absolutely laughable.  Indefensible really

No...just pointing out that we mean different things when we talk. It would be beneficial to come to an agreement on the terms before continuing the discussion so we aren't debating over completely separate points and end up talking past each other. Because under "my" definition of gospel, redeeming this issue (and a whole pile of others) is part of "the promulgation of the gospel".

Two requests:
Speak in less ambiguous terms as to what you state the gospel is, and, give me some links to people who would define the gospel in those terms.  You made the claim earlier that the vast majority of "the church" has understood it in terms that you are alluding to, so it shouldn't be hard to cite some sources and give some online reference reading material.

Koine Greek 101: Please give me an reasonable English translation for the word euangelion.

Here's a small hint.

I've defined the gospel already in terms that is sufficient for the manner in which I used it.  I said that the gospel proclamation is one thing, and the implications/effects are a more elaborate thing.  It's your turn to explain how your definition relates to the concept of the OP (conscience, disputations, etc).

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN][quote author=rsc2a]Show me where anyone has bemoaned that they have been "disallowed and deprived" of engaging in activities because of what someone else's conscience says. [/quote]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.  What I said was that Mike and others (elsewhere, and on this forum in its more active days) attempt to persuade others that they are wrong about their convictions.  He has done so most recently by making claims that there is not any valid Scriptural warrant for their beliefs, despite the fact that many would make what they believe to be Biblically sound rationale.[/quote]

Discussing a topic and questioning whether or not a particular belief is "Biblically" (definition please) valid doesn't compel, constrain or oblige anyone. So I'll repeat the question: can you show me where anyone has bemoaned that they have been "disallowed and deprived" of engaging in activities because of what someone else's conscience says?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

And, if you'd like, I can show you were we have questioned the logical and consistency of those who choose not to engage in particular activities. I can also point out where people (read: you) have questioned the sincerity of others' faith when they don't agree with you. (I also noticed you completely ignored that point.)

I questioned the sincerity of people's faith who always put their liberty ahead of other people's conscience, yep.  If that's you, then I was talking about you.  If it wasn't, then I wasn't.  Pretty simple really, and nothing there is in need of any apology.  Grow some thicker skin if you take such challenges personally as an affront.  [/quote]

Just so you are aware that you seem to have a problem with Paul and Titus...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

...as to the narrower point, you are apparently limiting your definition of "gospel" to a proof-text consisting of four verses and then acting like those verses are the end-all, be-all definition. I, and the vast majority of the Church, prefer to consider the whole of Scripture when we define such weighty terms as "gospel".

"prooftexting"???  Do you know the definition of prooftexting?  It is to misrepresent the <doctrinal> truth by taking the passage out of context.  It is beyond ridiculous to assert that the gospel is not accurately and succinctly characterized in the manner I defined, particularly as it relates to Paul's summary in I Cor 15.  This is why it is hard to converse with you.  To use such sloppy langage so as to claim "prooftexting" on such a basis is absolutely laughable.  Indefensible really[/quote]

suc

 

[ALAYMAN]

Discussing a topic and questioning whether or not a particular belief is "Biblically" (definition please) valid doesn't compel, constrain or oblige anyone.

And by such a rationale I have not "forced" anyone to believe either.  I've merely "discussed" and "questioned" varying oppositional beliefs.

So I'll repeat the question: can you show me where anyone has bemoaned that they have been "disallowed and deprived" of engaging in activities because of what someone else's conscience says?

I have no idea where you are coming from.  I never said that Mike's kids are deprived, but rather that people like Mike have talked about how poor little tykes in fundy homes are handcuffed and "forced" to miss out on these wonderful liberties.

Just so you are aware that you seem to have a problem with Paul and Titus...

Paul would use his liberty at the expense of weaker Christian's conscience?  Something just don't ring right.

suc

 

[rsc2a]

Discussing a topic and questioning whether or not a particular belief is "Biblically" (definition please) valid doesn't compel, constrain or oblige anyone.

And by such a rationale I have not "forced" anyone to believe either.  I've merely "discussed" and "questioned" varying oppositional beliefs.

No. Questioning the validity of someone's faith definitely falls under the "compel, constrain, or oblige" category.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So I'll repeat the question: can you show me where anyone has bemoaned that they have been "disallowed and deprived" of engaging in activities because of what someone else's conscience says?

I have no idea where you are coming from.  I never said that Mike's kids are deprived, but rather that people like Mike have talked about how poor little tykes in fundy homes...[/quote]

Missed that part. My apologies.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...are handcuffed and "forced" to miss out on these wonderful liberties.[/quote]

Can you show me where they have made these claims? Because, as I've stated before, what I see is where...

...we have questioned the logical and consistency of those who choose not to engage in particular activities...

...not the actual engagement of said activities.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Just so you are aware that you seem to have a problem with Paul and Titus...

Paul would use his liberty at the expense of weaker Christian's conscience?  Something just don't ring right.[/quote]

But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in

 

[ALAYMAN]

No. Questioning the validity of someone's faith definitely falls under the "compel, constrain, or oblige" category.

When people disagree over whether it is proper to wear a headcovering in worship, do you consider that equivalent to "questioning the validity of someone's faith"?  If not, why not?

Can you show me where they have made these claims? Because, as I've stated before, what I see is where...

...we have questioned the logical and consistency of those who choose not to engage in particular activities...

...not the actual engagement of said activities.

A very odd disconnect seems to be built into your equation.  If something is a "logical and consistent" error within the pale of Christian understanding and practice, aren't you, by virtue of your very argument attempting to assist the errant one to convert to a position of proper belief and praxis?

But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in

 

[rsc2a]

No. Questioning the validity of someone's faith definitely falls under the "compel, constrain, or oblige" category.

When people disagree over whether it is proper to wear a headcovering in worship, do you consider that equivalent to "questioning the validity of someone's faith"?  If not, why not?

No. When either party implies that they are unsure of another's faith because of their belief regarding this debatable practice, then it becomes force.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Can you show me where they have made these claims? Because, as I've stated before, what I see is where...

...we have questioned the logical and consistency of those who choose not to engage in particular activities...

...not the actual engagement of said activities.

A very odd disconnect seems to be built into your equation.  If something is a "logical and consistent" error within the pale of Christian understanding and practice, aren't you, by virtue of your very argument attempting to assist the errant one to convert to a position of proper belief and praxis?[/quote]

So, no, you cannot?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in

 

[ALAYMAN]

As Ahnold said, I'll be bach.

 

[Biker]

This is not biblical and neither was the argument.

What's not Biblical?  Are you saying that in every case where you are in a disagreement with a brother in Christ that you are ALWAYS right?  How arrogant would that be?  If you are unwilling to humbly submit that some disagreements cannot be resolved then you'd have to cut Romans 14 out of your Bible.  Are you ALWAYS the "stronger" brother?  Have you EVER argued for one theological position only to find out sometime later that what you had argued for was Scripturally wrong?  Are you tenaciously dogmatic about every belief you have, or are you willing to concede that there are some situations that calls for you to at least acknowledge that good Christians can disagree on subjects agreeably?  Would you insist that folk who wear headcoverings capitulate to your demands?  Would you assert your dogmatic view and impose your will on a brother in such delicate matters, even to the point of causing them to violate their conscience?

Alayman You've AGAIN AVOIDED SCRIPTURE^^^ See the bolded above

I cannot answer all those questions. I'll attempt the last one only. Lets begin breaking down the vague reference to the one possible scriptural reference you refer to.
It's all I have to go on based in the truth of scripture.

1 Corinthians 8:4

 

[Biker]

Calvin is "the world"?  Puritans is "the world"? Macarthur is "the world"?  Mohler is "the world"?  Don't be ridiculous Mike.

Macarthur, Calvin, Mohler.. these people ARE NOT part of scripture, nor part of my church family or even part my circle of influence. OF course they are the WORLD to me. I have no fruits to judge them by (except MacArthur, I've been around him twice. not NEARLY enough to make that call).

The new Christians in Ephesus (Acts 19:19) could not violate their consciences by holding onto their pagan occult past history (books) and burned them, but people like you and rsc2a would summarily demand that issues of conscience be determined by <your> fiat.

oops! Your verses only prove my point.

Acts 19:19-20
New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.

A few verses before, Acts 19:10 reads  all those in Asia were preached the Word hence the result of the books being burned. The Word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.  Preach the word regarding Oct 31st and the Pharisees and the unsaved may not give creedance to the devil by planting false doctrine that trick or treating in and of itself, is sin. Falsehoods should not be entertained but put to rest with the truth (scripture).

I can't think of a more anti-Biblical (especially anti-Baptist) concept than violate somebody's conscience

I'll let this imaginary "somebody" join this forum and speak for himself.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Alayman You've AGAIN AVOIDED SCRIPTURE^^^ See the bolded above

No Mike, I didn't avoid Scripture.  I gave you a classic argument on matters governing Christians who disagree over gray areas.  As to the rest of your post, you began it by asserting that the "This transition period is an adjustment period".  Please show from the context that the extent of application for this passage is limited to the Corinthian church.

 

[Biker]

Alayman I am STILL WAITING FOR SCRIPTURE. TRY AGAIN OR LET IT BE. YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE LIBERAL, YOU LIVE OFF OF MADE UP SECULAR ARGUMENTS



I've used your own scripture to show your error, admit it. The bible states witchcraft is sin, apples vs oranges AGAIN. Per your way, avoid scripture

or twist it to ensure it somehow confines someone else's liberties. Of course there is a transition period when something WAS SIN, evil, then it suddenly is not.

Show some compassion. Halloween was NEVER a sin, neither is trick or treating.


It never states trick or treating is sin. Witchcraft is sin. There is NO GRAY area there so don't attempt to play devils advocate to invent a possible sin.

Allow God to lead your life. READ your Bible. Repent of your sins, ask GOD to grant you salvation. Pray for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

Join us 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Alayman I am STILL WAITING FOR SCRIPTURE. TRY AGAIN OR LET IT BE. YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE LIBERAL, YOU LIVE OFF OF MADE UP SECULAR ARGUMENTS....

Allow God to lead your life. READ your Bible. Repent of your sins, ask GOD to grant you salvation. Pray for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

Join us 

Romans 14 deals with the conscience and "gray areas".  I'm sorry you're unable to comprehend that.  But I did notice in this latest response, just like your previous response to me, that you avoided questions like the plague.