Spiritual Fences (legalism)

[biscuit1953]

    Prov 30:6 ​​​​​​​​Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

I have heard that verse used many times in the context that modern translations add to or take away from the King James Bible.  As a former King James separated Baptist, I believe it along with other verses are referring to adding man made rules and regulations and forcing them on other Christians.   I don't believe anyone wakes up and decides "today I think I will become a legalist."  It is a gradual slide that eventually becomes something ugly and unappealing to not only other Christians but to a lost world. 

Just as the Pharisees started building spiritual fences not called for in the scriptures so we start building fences beyond what the Bible commands and then force them on everyone else.  The law demanded that there be no work on the Sabbath so the Pharisees got together and decided that if you walked too many miles on the Sabbath that was work and limited it to so many yards. They got around that by putting up booths so if they walked a certain distance they could rest and then continue on without breaking the "work" rule.  They decided that if you  had an ox in the ditch you could drag it out but if your child was sick he could wait another day.  Their rules became as thick as an encyclopedia. 

I believe everyone should have spiritual fences in their lives.  If you have a gambling problem don't buy a lottery ticket even if it is "for the children."  If you have a drinking problem stay away from parties that serve alcohol.  If you have a problem with youthful lusts and women avoid the beaches.  The list goes on and on. 

Here is the thing though.  The spiritual fences I have put up  in my life are not necessarily the same fences you need and it is not my job to put up spiritual fences for you! There are many things that have changed and are accepted today that when I was growing up and where I was growing up were unthinkable.  In the public elementary school I went to girls were required to wear dresses to school but in the winter time they were allowed to wear pants under their dresses to stay warm. For many years in America hair styles for men were pretty much standard which included haircuts above the ears.  When the Beatles came along their hair was considerd "long" by societies' standards.  My dad told me that only girls wore bangs and told me to "comb your hair back like a man." 

It is harder for some Christians to accept change than others but the fact is culture changes along with dress and hair style.  It is always wise to assess as to whether change is for the good or not but if the change is not a direct violation of scripture we have no right to lay down an eleventh commandment and pretend that our "standard" represents holiness.

Back to spiritual fences.  Just as I have no right to put up spiritual fences for you, it is just as wrong for you to try to tear down my spiritual fences if I believe it is best for my life.  That would include liberties that you enjoy that others may not have.  I used to believe drinking alcohol was a sin and realize how foolish I was in twisting scripture to the point of absurdity to prove that point.

To flaunt one's liberty to prove how "strong" he is does no good for the body of Christ and I believe that is the point John Piper and John MacArthur were trying to make. 

 

[Izdaari]

Back to spiritual fences.  Just as I have no right to put up spiritual fences for you, it is just as wrong for you to try to tear down my spiritual fences if I believe it is best for my life.  That would include liberties that you enjoy that others may not have.  I used to believe drinking alcohol was a sin and realize how foolish I was in twisting scripture to the point of absurdity to prove that point.

I have no problem with you doing what you feel is best for you. But I do have a problem with anybody who thinks I'm less of a Christian because I don't keep the same 'fences' they do. (I'm not saying you do that.)

To flaunt one's liberty to prove how "strong" he is does no good for the body of Christ and I believe that is the point John Piper and John MacArthur were trying to make.

If my 'fences' are much lower or more liberal than yours, will you still respect them, or does that only go one way?

Here's something to consider: If I drink a beer, maybe it's because I'm thirsty and I like it, not because I'm trying to flaunt anything.

Having heard Piper out (and thanks again for the video), I understand where he's coming from, and he seems a likable and engaging fellow. He's not wrong, for him.

I'm not so sure about Johnny Mac. I own his study bible, and in it he is one pigheaded, 'my way or the highway' pezzonovante. I kind of regret the purchase.

 

[biscuit1953]

Back to spiritual fences.  Just as I have no right to put up spiritual fences for you, it is just as wrong for you to try to tear down my spiritual fences if I believe it is best for my life.  That would include liberties that you enjoy that others may not have.  I used to believe drinking alcohol was a sin and realize how foolish I was in twisting scripture to the point of absurdity to prove that point.

I have no problem with you doing what you feel is best for you. But I do have a problem with anybody who thinks I'm less of a Christian because I don't keep the same 'fences' they do. (I'm not saying you do that.)

To flaunt one's liberty to prove how "strong" he is does no good for the body of Christ and I believe that is the point John Piper and John MacArthur were trying to make.

If my 'fences' are much lower or more liberal than yours, will you still respect them, or does that only go one way?

Here's something to consider: If I drink a beer, maybe it's because I'm thirsty and I like it, not because I'm trying to flaunt anything.

Having heard Piper out (and thanks again for the video), I understand where he's coming from, and he seems a likable and engaging fellow. He's not wrong, for him.

I'm not so sure about Johnny Mac. I own his study bible, and in it he is one pigheaded, 'my way or the highway' pezzonovante. I kind of regret the purchase.

It took me a long to time to learn it but I do allow others the freedom to do things I may not do.  I could be wrong but I don't believe MacArthur tries to force anyone to abstain from alcohol or preaches against it.  I get the impression he is opposed to trying to mix alcohol in with the ministry for the sole purpose of trying to reach others.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not really sure what MacArthur has specifically said on the subject, but having observed his stubborn "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude in his study bible, I am disinclined to take him seriously as a teacher... because a real teacher is just as eager to learn as to teach, and is open to the possibility that he could be wrong about something.

 

[Torrent v.2]

I'm not really sure what MacArthur has specifically said on the subject, but having observed his stubborn "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude in his study bible, I am disinclined to take him seriously as a teacher... because a real teacher is just as eager to learn as to teach, and is open to the possibility that he could be wrong about something.

I have heard him teach in person and that is exactly hw he comes off.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm not really sure what MacArthur has specifically said on the subject, but having observed his stubborn "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude in his study bible, I am disinclined to take him seriously as a teacher... because a real teacher is just as eager to learn as to teach, and is open to the possibility that he could be wrong about something.

I have heard him teach in person and that is exactly hw he comes off.

As have I,on multiple occasions, and that is not how he comes across to me, at all!
His teaching is sound, expositional, scholarly and his application is balanced.
I have heard him, talked with him and read his books on a regular basis...and I don't see it at all!

Go figure....

 

[biscuit1953]

I'm not really sure what MacArthur has specifically said on the subject, but having observed his stubborn "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude in his study bible, I am disinclined to take him seriously as a teacher... because a real teacher is just as eager to learn as to teach, and is open to the possibility that he could be wrong about something.

I have heard him teach in person and that is exactly hw he comes off.

As have I,on multiple occasions, and that is not how he comes across to me, at all!
His teaching is sound, expositional, scholarly and his application is balanced.
I have heard him, talked with him and read his books on a regular basis...and I don't see it at all!

Go figure....

I have to agree with you.  His study bible has been a great help to me also.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not really sure what MacArthur has specifically said on the subject, but having observed his stubborn "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude in his study bible, I am disinclined to take him seriously as a teacher... because a real teacher is just as eager to learn as to teach, and is open to the possibility that he could be wrong about something.

I have heard him teach in person and that is exactly hw he comes off.

As have I,on multiple occasions, and that is not how he comes across to me, at all!
His teaching is sound, expositional, scholarly and his application is balanced.
I have heard him, talked with him and read his books on a regular basis...and I don't see it at all!

Go figure....

I have to agree with you.  His study bible has been a great help to me also.

I have his study bible also, in the NASB version. And I don't use it that often, because the arrogant certainty of his notes sometimes makes me mad enough to want to throw it across the room, which is no way to treat a bible.

 

[biscuit1953]

I'm not really sure what MacArthur has specifically said on the subject, but having observed his stubborn "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude in his study bible, I am disinclined to take him seriously as a teacher... because a real teacher is just as eager to learn as to teach, and is open to the possibility that he could be wrong about something.

I have heard him teach in person and that is exactly hw he comes off.

As have I,on multiple occasions, and that is not how he comes across to me, at all!
His teaching is sound, expositional, scholarly and his application is balanced.
I have heard him, talked with him and read his books on a regular basis...and I don't see it at all!

Go figure....

I have to agree with you.  His study bible has been a great help to me also.

I have his study bible also, in the NASB version. And I don't use it that often, because the arrogant certainty of his notes sometimes makes me mad enough to want to throw it across the room, which is no way to treat a bible.

Are you saying that anyone who holds to any strong belief comes across as arrogant?  Could the same thing not be said of you with your Episcopal beliefs?  What about your belief that some of Paul's teachings aren't inspired?  Can you give a couple of specific examples of MacArthur's unreasonableness?  Holding to sound doctrine does not make one arrogant.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

    Prov 30:6 ​​​​​​​​Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

I have heard that verse used many times in the context that modern translations add to or take away from the King James Bible.  As a former King James separated Baptist, I believe it along with other verses are referring to adding man made rules and regulations and forcing them on other Christians.   I don't believe anyone wakes up and decides "today I think I will become a legalist."  It is a gradual slide that eventually becomes something ugly and unappealing to not only other Christians but to a lost world. 

Just as the Pharisees started building spiritual fences not called for in the scriptures so we start building fences beyond what the Bible commands and then force them on everyone else.  The law demanded that there be no work on the Sabbath so the Pharisees got together and decided that if you walked too many miles on the Sabbath that was work and limited it to so many yards. They got around that by putting up booths so if they walked a certain distance they could rest and then continue on without breaking the "work" rule.  They decided that if you  had an ox in the ditch you could drag it out but if your child was sick he could wait another day.  Their rules became as thick as an encyclopedia. 

I believe everyone should have spiritual fences in their lives.  If you have a gambling problem don't buy a lottery ticket even if it is "for the children."  If you have a drinking problem stay away from parties that serve alcohol.  If you have a problem with youthful lusts and women avoid the beaches.  The list goes on and on. 

Here is the thing though.  The spiritual fences I have put up  in my life are not necessarily the same fences you need and it is not my job to put up spiritual fences for you! There are many things that have changed and are accepted today that when I was growing up and where I was growing up were unthinkable.  In the public elementary school I went to girls were required to wear dresses to school but in the winter time they were allowed to wear pants under their dresses to stay warm. For many years in America hair styles for men were pretty much standard which included haircuts above the ears.  When the Beatles came along their hair was considerd "long" by societies' standards.  My dad told me that only girls wore bangs and told me to "comb your hair back like a man." 

It is harder for some Christians to accept change than others but the fact is culture changes along with dress and hair style.  It is always wise to assess as to whether change is for the good or not but if the change is not a direct violation of scripture we have no right to lay down an eleventh commandment and pretend that our "standard" represents holiness.

Back to spiritual fences.  Just as I have no right to put up spiritual fences for you, it is just as wrong for you to try to tear down my spiritual fences if I believe it is best for my life.  That would include liberties that you enjoy that others may not have.  I used to believe drinking alcohol was a sin and realize how foolish I was in twisting scripture to the point of absurdity to prove that point.

To flaunt one's liberty to prove how "strong" he is does no good for the body of Christ and I believe that is the point John Piper and John MacArthur were trying to make.

Christian separation should not be about legalistic issues, but doctrine and divisiveness.

Romans 16:17-18 (HCSB)
17 Now I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause dissensions and obstacles contrary to the doctrine you have learned. Avoid them,
18 for such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites. They deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting with smooth talk and flattering words.

 

[Izdaari]

Are you saying that anyone who holds to any strong belief comes across as arrogant?  Could the same thing not be said of you with your Episcopal beliefs?  What about your belief that some of Paul's teachings aren't inspired?  Can you give a couple of specific examples of MacArthur's unreasonableness?  Holding to sound doctrine does not make one arrogant.

I don't in any way claim that MacArthur's doctrine is unsound or heretical, or even unreasonable, though I don't agree with some of it.  But I don't expect him (or anyone) to agree with me on everything. It's his "my way or the highway" attitude that I object to and consider unreasonable. I'll try to show you some examples of that when I find my MacArthur SB, which I seem to have misplaced. It should turn up in the process of my current cleaning and re-organization project.

And you're right that I too have strong opinions that I can be pretty stubborn about. But I am willing to admit that I don't always know everything, and that I could be wrong about some things. I don't know him that well, but so far my impression is that MacArthur would have a hard time admitting that he's wrong about anything ever.

That some of Paul's writing is uninspired is something Paul himself says. He admits to at times inserting his own personal opinion, and says he alone and not God is responsible for it. (1 Cor 7:12) It wasn't wrong for him to do that, because he had no idea his letters would someday be considered Scripture and included in the Bible. He's doing his best to shepherd the churches he supervises, and thinks some of his opinions would be good for them. I respect him all the more for it because of his openness and honesty.

 

[biscuit1953]

Are you saying that anyone who holds to any strong belief comes across as arrogant?  Could the same thing not be said of you with your Episcopal beliefs?  What about your belief that some of Paul's teachings aren't inspired?  Can you give a couple of specific examples of MacArthur's unreasonableness?  Holding to sound doctrine does not make one arrogant.

I don't in any way claim that MacArthur's doctrine is unsound or heretical, or even unreasonable, though I don't agree with some of it.  But I don't expect him (or anyone) to agree with me on everything. It's his "my way or the highway" attitude that I object to and consider unreasonable. I'll try to show you some examples of that when I find my MacArthur SB, which I seem to have misplaced. It should turn up in the process of my current cleaning and re-organization project.

And you're right that I too have strong opinions that I can be pretty stubborn about. But I am willing to admit that I don't always know everything, and that I could be wrong about some things. I don't know him that well, but so far my impression is that MacArthur would have a hard time admitting that he's wrong about anything ever.

That some of Paul's writing is uninspired is something Paul himself says. He admits to at times inserting his own personal opinion, and says he alone and not God is responsible for it. (1 Cor 7:12) It wasn't wrong for him to do that, because he had no idea his letters would someday be considered Scripture and included in the Bible. He's doing his best to shepherd the churches he supervises, and thinks some of his opinions would be good for them. I respect him all the more for it because of his openness and honesty.

As far as 1 Corinthians 7:12, that would probably be for another thread but let's look at the context.  I'll use the ESV.

1 Cor  10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

In verse 10 Paul is repeating what the Lord taught while on earth concerning the marriage vows being permanent.  In verse 12, instead of disclaiming divine authority, he is doing just the opposite.  He is giving instructions to the church concerning a matter the Lord never covered in His earthly ministry.  There was a question as to whether Christians were under bondage if an unbelieving spouse deserted them.  Paul not only answers that question but  boldly supersedes the command God gave through Ezra to separate from foreign wives (Ezra 10:11).  In the church he commands a Christian not to divorce a non-Christian spouse. 

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16).  It is very dangerous to cherry pick what one believes to be inspired and what is not. 
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out (inspired) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Castor Muscular]

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). 

2 Peter has always been a suspect book, and IMO that reference to Paul's writings as scripture make it even more suspect.  IMO, it's not something a contemporary of Paul would say. 

 

[biscuit1953]

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). 

2 Peter has always been a suspect book, and IMO that reference to Paul's writings as scripture make it even more suspect.  IMO, it's not something a contemporary of Paul would say.

And you sound like an apostate.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). 

2 Peter has always been a suspect book, and IMO that reference to Paul's writings as scripture make it even more suspect.  IMO, it's not something a contemporary of Paul would say.

And you sound like an apostate.

I'm suspicious of both 2 Peter and James.  I don't think 2 Peter was written by Peter or written when it was supposed to have been written.  James was probably written by James, but it's just a conglomeration of sayings he heard Jesus say, with his own opinions thrown in.  It doesn't belong in canon, IMO. 

Here's more ammunition for you:  I believe the book of Enoch (quoted by Jude) should probably be in the canon, if we had a reliable copy.  I don't think we do, though. 

If all that makes me an apostate in your mind, then so be it.

 

[biscuit1953]

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). 

2 Peter has always been a suspect book, and IMO that reference to Paul's writings as scripture make it even more suspect.  IMO, it's not something a contemporary of Paul would say.

And you sound like an apostate.

I'm suspicious of both 2 Peter and James.  I don't think 2 Peter was written by Peter or written when it was supposed to have been written.  James was probably written by James, but it's just a conglomeration of sayings he heard Jesus say, with his own opinions thrown in.  It doesn't belong in canon, IMO. 

Here's more ammunition for you:  I believe the book of Enoch (quoted by Jude) should probably be in the canon, if we had a reliable copy.  I don't think we do, though. 

If all that makes me an apostate in your mind, then so be it.

Thank you for being honest.  You are duly marked as a heretic (Titus 3:10) and I will exercise my duty to have nothing else to do with you.

A man that is an heretic - The word

 

[Castor Muscular]

Thank you for being honest.  You are duly marked as a heretic (Titus 3:10) and I will exercise my duty to have nothing else to do with you.

A man that is an heretic - The word

 

[Izdaari]

That some of Paul's writing is uninspired is something Paul himself says. He admits to at times inserting his own personal opinion, and says he alone and not God is responsible for it. (1 Cor 7:12) It wasn't wrong for him to do that, because he had no idea his letters would someday be considered Scripture and included in the Bible. He's doing his best to shepherd the churches he supervises, and thinks some of his opinions would be good for them. I respect him all the more for it because of his openness and honesty.

As far as 1 Corinthians 7:12, that would probably be for another thread but let's look at the context.  I'll use the ESV.

1 Cor  10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

In verse 10 Paul is repeating what the Lord taught while on earth concerning the marriage vows being permanent.  In verse 12, instead of disclaiming divine authority, he is doing just the opposite.  He is giving instructions to the church concerning a matter the Lord never covered in His earthly ministry.  There was a question as to whether Christians were under bondage if an unbelieving spouse deserted them.  Paul not only answers that question but  boldly supersedes the command God gave through Ezra to separate from foreign wives (Ezra 10:11).  In the church he commands a Christian not to divorce a non-Christian spouse. 

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16).  It is very dangerous to cherry pick what one believes to be inspired and what is not. 
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out (inspired) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

I don't disagree with any of this. Paul does at times claim divine authority, just as at other times he takes care not to.

I agree that Paul's writings are and deserve to be canonical. But still, there are some things in them that Paul himself declares to be only his own opinion.

 

[Izdaari]

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). 

2 Peter has always been a suspect book, and IMO that reference to Paul's writings as scripture make it even more suspect.  IMO, it's not something a contemporary of Paul would say.

And you sound like an apostate.

I'm suspicious of both 2 Peter and James.  I don't think 2 Peter was written by Peter or written when it was supposed to have been written.  James was probably written by James, but it's just a conglomeration of sayings he heard Jesus say, with his own opinions thrown in.  It doesn't belong in canon, IMO. 

Here's more ammunition for you:  I believe the book of Enoch (quoted by Jude) should probably be in the canon, if we had a reliable copy.  I don't think we do, though. 

If all that makes me an apostate in your mind, then so be it.

I agree that II Peter may not have been written by Peter, and may have been written later. My guess is it was written by a protege or secretary of Peter's, perhaps while Peter was still alive, perhaps not. In any case, it was written by someone part of the early church, and was judged to be canonical by the church councils, just as with several other epistles whose authorship is in doubt (we have no idea who wrote Hebrews), and I have no reason to disagree with them.

I think you've accurately characterized the book of James, but it too was judged canonical by the church councils, and I have no reason to argue with that. As you've noted, Luther didn't at first think it ought to have been included, but perhaps changed his mind later. It makes sense for it to be there when you read James and Galatians together and balance them against each other in dynamic tension. Each guards against taking the other too far.

I have no idea if Enoch would have been/ought to have been judged canonical... because we have no reliable copy. But that we don't is perhaps God's decision that we don't need it.

 

[Izdaari]

Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15,16). 

2 Peter has always been a suspect book, and IMO that reference to Paul's writings as scripture make it even more suspect.  IMO, it's not something a contemporary of Paul would say.

And you sound like an apostate.

I'm suspicious of both 2 Peter and James.  I don't think 2 Peter was written by Peter or written when it was supposed to have been written.  James was probably written by James, but it's just a conglomeration of sayings he heard Jesus say, with his own opinions thrown in.  It doesn't belong in canon, IMO. 

Here's more ammunition for you:  I believe the book of Enoch (quoted by Jude) should probably be in the canon, if we had a reliable copy.  I don't think we do, though. 

If all that makes me an apostate in your mind, then so be it.

Thank you for being honest.  You are duly marked as a heretic (Titus 3:10) and I will exercise my duty to have nothing else to do with you.

A man that is an heretic - The word