# Christian Freedom



## LadyFlynt (Dec 23, 2004)

I know I'm just jumping in here...but I thought I would just point out a few things...
LeHaye does believe that the Jewish people need to come to acceptance of Christ as Messiah for salvation. His eschatology though goes furthur to say that those orthodox Jews who reject the anti-Christ and happen to still be living when Christ returns shall be saved (allowed to live into the millineum...not as new people with new bodies) also...but those who have died before His return are hell-bound.
Also, Scott...the reason why many people listen to dispensationalists (before they even understand what eschatology is...and many don't) is because of lifestyle. They are known by how they live (as Peter was known by his speech). It is a sad case that most Reformed churches argue over symantics and yet can't even apply the simplist of commands. I know that there are Reformed churches and groups that are starting to trying to change it. But let me tell you what I see when I read through this board and what I see in Reformed churches...
1) Churches with money and lots of degrees (I'm going somewhere with this)
2) You don't speak English
These two things cause you to not be able to relate to the common man. The working class or those raised in it. I'm not saying having an education is bad...it's excellent...but there is little to no variety of ppl in those churches (that I can see). Common people are not comfortable in these churches. Half the time I have trouble reading these boards (why not say "believer's baptism" and "infant baptism" instead of credo and paedo?). You don't use terms that ppl can understand and therefore you lose them. You aren't reaching out to these ppl. And the fundamental churches teach holiness...something that gets forgotton in todays Reformed churches (modesty, headcovering, serving one another, living in a manner that won't cause others to fall ie. not drinking in public and not smoking, not participating in groups that are counterproductive to our beliefs-lodges, certain clubs, etc.) (That is also why these groups will have Bible schools and not "cemetaries" as they call them...they've seen too many come out of semenary with HUGE loans to pay off, and sooo much schooling that they may be educated, but seem dead spiritually) Ppl notice these things and that is why they are drawn to Dispensational churches. The "Dispensational" part just happens to come along with it...reach out to these ppl and then teach them. Just a lesson I've learned from DH being a working man, leading studies & reaching out at work and on the streets.
We as Reformers of the Reformed can do this. We have friends who have semenary degrees learning to reach out to those on the streets and learning to "communicate" with normal ppl. If you are with someone who understand those phrases (credo, paedo, soteriolgy, ecclesialogy, etc) then fine...but there are times when you've got to step down from the pulpit (so to speak) and eat from THEIR table.
So these ppl aren't believing in Dispensational unreasonabally...just when talked to by covenant ppl, they have no idea what you are saying and therefore think that you are using big words to pull one over on them...to them YOU don't make common sense.
Just my humble opinions and observasances...please don't take offense...we are ALL learning in one way or another.

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## turmeric (Dec 23, 2004)

I Corinthians 14 might apply here!


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Dec 23, 2004)

LadyFlynt, good points, let me throw in my two cents, I believe Dispensationalism is carrying the crowd, because it is much more compatible with American culture. It finds the perfect synthesis with Conservatism which leads to having superficial teachers on doctrine and politics. It is reached such a level, that many believe that Republicanism is synonymous with Christianity which is synonymous with Conservatism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Also, Scott...the reason why many people listen to dispensationalists (before they even understand what eschatology is...and many don't) is because of lifestyle. They are known by how they live (as Peter was known by his speech).



Would you elaborate a tad?




> It is a sad case that most Reformed churches argue over symantics and yet can't even apply the simplist of commands.



Examples?




> I know that there are Reformed churches and groups that are starting to trying to change it. But let me tell you what I see when I read through this board and what I see in Reformed churches...
> 1) Churches with money and lots of degrees (I'm going somewhere with this)
> 2) You don't speak English
> These two things cause you to not be able to relate to the common man.



This venue is a forum of generally educated individuals. We speak in educated terms to each other. It clasifies much of what we say. I am a street evangelist. I do not converse with the street people or the indigent in the same capacity. Why would you think this? Like Paul says, I become all things for all men..........



> I'm not saying having an education is bad...it's excellent...but there is little to no variety of ppl in those churches (that I can see).



I believe you are generalizing and stereotyping.




> Common people are not comfortable in these churches.



Another generalization. Possibly you are not comfortable?



> Half the time I have trouble reading these boards (why not say "believer's baptism" and "infant baptism" instead of credo and paedo?).



See my answer above. 




> You don't use terms that ppl can understand and therefore you lose them. You aren't reaching out to these ppl.



Again, why would you think we speak in these terms to the lay person?



> And the fundamental churches teach holiness...something that gets forgotton in todays Reformed churches (modesty, headcovering, serving one another,



The Puritans were hell bent on Holiness. The reformed live and die for the same rationale. I have no idea where you have been attending church, but any of the assemblies I have been a member of strove for holiness. Do you believe we here at PB do not strive for holiness? Are we all not extensions of our local body's?






> living in a manner that won't cause others to fall ie. not drinking in public and not smoking, not participating in groups that are counterproductive to our beliefs-lodges, certain clubs, etc.



So I should stop smoking cigars and not have a beer in a local tavern because it may cause a brother to fall away from the Lord? First of all, I believe you have misunderstood the teaching in reagrds to this principle. Jesus made wine. He hung around the degenerate. he partook of wine (and in fact, enjoyed it). You have the power of the HS in you. You are called to run the race, fight the good fight. Resist the devil (and he will flee), pray that ye eneter not into temptation. 

Here's a link; this may help:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/cigars.htm



> (That is also why these groups will have Bible schools and not "cemetaries" as they call them...they've seen too many come out of semenary with HUGE loans to pay off, and sooo much schooling that they may be educated, but seem dead spiritually)



Generalization.




> Ppl notice these things and that is why they are drawn to Dispensational churches.



I disagree. The Dispensational churches generally are man centered. They preach a fluffy gospel message (if it can be called a gospel message at all) and have worship music that generally tramples Gods regulative principle and lyrical contentsd that are generally blasphemous. This is why men are drawn here. The gospel (the real gospel) is an offense. it offends men. They hear about sin and hell and thay hate that. They have molded God into their own image (breaking the 2nd commandment) and that God sends no one to hell; there is no such thing as sin.



> The "Dispensational" part just happens to come along with it...reach out to these ppl and then teach them. Just a lesson I've learned from DH being a working man, leading studies & reaching out at work and on the streets.
> We as Reformers of the Reformed can do this. We have friends who have semenary degrees learning to reach out to those on the streets and learning to "communicate" with normal ppl. If you are with someone who understand those phrases (credo, paedo, soteriolgy, ecclesialogy, etc) then fine...but there are times when you've got to step down from the pulpit (so to speak) and eat from THEIR table.



I agree. As the time warrants.



> So these ppl aren't believing in Dispensational unreasonabally...just when talked to by covenant ppl, they have no idea what you are saying and therefore think that you are using big words to pull one over on them...to them YOU don't make common sense.



All covenant people?



> Just my humble opinions and observasances...please don't take offense...we are ALL learning in one way or another.
> 
> [Edited on 23-12-2004 by LadyFlynt]



Not offended. I just believe that you have a misconception. I used to be a member of Calvary Chapel, Ft. lauderdale. I began my ministry there. It was a non denom Dispensational church.


----------



## ANT (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Not offended. I just believe that you have a misconception. I used to be a member of Calvary Chapel, Ft. lauderdale. I began my ministry there. It was a non denom Dispensational church.



Now Scott, You know they do not have a membership at Calvary Ft. Lauderdale.

Sorry, had to throw that in there ..... :bigsmile:

I can remember Pastor Bob even now at the end of the sermon saying "We do not have a membership here at Calvary Chapel."


----------



## bigheavyq (Dec 24, 2004)

Ladyflynt 
I never said that "LaHaye does believe that the Jewish people need to come to acceptance of Christ as Messiah for salvation."
I said most of these men. the ones that have are Hagee, van impe, and stone. Lindsey will almost say it.

As far as MacArthur and calvinistic Dispensational goes they may preach like we would about salvation. Mathison does a good job in his chapter on lordship salvation in his book Dispensationalism-Rightly Dividing the People of God?
Those who hold to Lordship Salvation can come pretty close to the reformed teachings on salvation.

But one of the aspects of Dispensationalism that I find disturbing is that they take many aspects of Christs 1st coming and then place them at His 2nd coming. The true gospel would entail all that Christ did in the 1st Advent.

JohnV please explain yourself. I would not put dispensationalism and liberalism in the same category as Reconstructionism. I am a Recon. mainly because it holds to scripture and the Reformed creeds and confessions. It in no way dilutes the gospel and exalts Christ as King.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 24, 2004)

> So whether it is Dispensationalism, or Liberalism, or Reconstructionism, or Neo-orthodoxy, or any human theoretic, that we placed as central to understanding the Word of God, we are merely following the spirit of the age we are living in. We are only Christianizing that mindset, and justifying it to suit our trains of thought. That is the destructive false gospel gripping our time, as I understand it.



You do realize that you placed Recontructionism in a paragraph that includes an inane sensationalism, girly-man theology, and theological poison, respectively. I can understand why some would not want to hold to reconstructionsim (the naming of the system is bad--reminds one of the horrors perpetrated upon the South), but to classify it alongside systems that deny the faith (excluding dispensationalism) might be going a little too far. Recon. takes the Word seriously, accepts the Reformed faith, and promotes the Kingship of Jesus. BTW, I no longer call myself a reconstructionist--I like the term "Theocrat" better.

Are you suggesting that we throw away systems when we come to interpreting the Word? I did not understand what you are getting at.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I knew someone would take that comment to task; you know what I meant though......:bigsmile:

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 24, 2004)

Scott, you are correct on a several points...some of these ARE generalizations...that's the point. This is what they think of ppl in Reformed churches! Unfortunately it is sometimes true.

I see good ppl here on the board with a heart for God and a drive for defense of the faith. But walk into an Independant Fundamental Baptist church (I was raised in) and then walk into a PCA church and it is like two different worlds. 

Yes, I felt uncomfortable (even after being in liberal churches like the UMC and SBC). And I will tell you why. 

In the IFBC we were not allowed to sing "feel good songs with a man centred beat" (however since becoming reformed I recognized some of the man centred lyrics  ). I can't sing at all in the PCA church...Amazing Grace, A Mighty Fortress, and The Battle Hymn of the Republic are about all I can join in on! And it's not the words...the music is like the Amish...almost intentionally made so there is no flow. But even that is irrelevant and superficial (for me to be picking on) So there's my own personal issue...no one else's, but I do like to sing and our current church chooses songs carefully to make sure the wording is God-centred...but at least you can sing to them and you can be free to lift your hands in praise.

Another reason I am uncomfortable...I walk into the PCA church and everytime I meet someone new I have to explain (to the point of making me feel like I have to make excuses for myself) why this and why that (no chrissy tree, wear a covering, dresses all the time, DH doesn't have a suit-not wasting $300 we don't have for one, why we our children call Easter 'Resurrection Day' instead of Easter, why our children talk about Passover, why we don't let our little girl wear shorts and have Brat dolls, and don't let our boy play Pokemon with the other boys). I understand everyone is learning and not all have come to this point and that they may have come to points that I haven't yet. But they look at you like "why don't you go join the mennonites" (been there/done that/didn't want the T-shirt!). In a little IRB church, I don't get those looks...occasionally questions, yes, but sincere ones. I accept others where they are at and that God is working on them and they accept me the same. Not only that but there is sense of "striving for that which is good" not just for things that they can fit into their current way of living. An adjusting of our way of living to fit what Scripture teaches.

As far as what symantics and simple commands...look around you. I tell you what...go into a conservative Dispensational church and ask them how the women are supposed to behave and what they do, ask them what is important as Christians to them. Then go into a PCA church and ask the same thing...and look around you as you do it. Two totally different things in most cases. It may seem superficial to do this, but this is what the world "sees". Usually you see something before you go listen to it. Actions speak louder than words. If they are looking for a Church they are going to look for one that has ppl that appear to be Christians living like Christians...not Christians that say they are Christians.

You and I know that it's not the outside that counts...but just like in business...appearance matters.

I don't mean to sound dogmatic about this...I'm really not. I'm just trying to make a point...especially if you want to know the "why" behind ppl being attracted to Dispensational churches...they don't care that you (in general) can argue your point when they don't see you living from the same Scriptures that you argue from. (this is where symantics as an example came into play)

DH once said that it is sad that cults and false prophets can be better examples and evangelists than the Christian Church.

BTW, on this board I do have trouble at times understanding what is being said (DH doesn't have this problem as much as I do). I have noticed some that are new to the reformed faith on the board and we are here to learn. But it is difficult at times and it can make a person feel ignorant (though I'll plead ignorance at times I'll admit...lol) Kinda like a Bosnian physicist coming to American but doesn't know English...ends up in a factory with everyone thinking that he is uneducated. (DH knows some Bosnians)

[Edited on 24-12-2004 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 24, 2004)

Jonathan,

I apologize...you had LaHaye listed with the rest of them I believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 24, 2004)

What you describe of a PCA church (I go to an OPC church and the only PCA church I have been in is Auburn Avenue  ) sounds more like American culture and/or the local region.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> What you describe of a PCA church (I go to an OPC church and the only PCA church I have been in is Auburn Avenue  ) sounds more like American culture and/or the local region.



No, actually and sadly, it doesn't. And I have been in dozens of PCA/OPC churches all over the nation.

More later.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_



So I should stop smoking cigars and not have a beer in a local tavern because it may cause a brother to fall away from the Lord? First of all, I believe you have misunderstood the teaching in reagrds to this principle. Jesus made wine. He hung around the degenerate. he partook of wine (and in fact, enjoyed it). You have the power of the HS in you. You are called to run the race, fight the good fight. Resist the devil (and he will flee), pray that ye eneter not into temptation. 

Here's a link; this may help:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/cigars.htm

[/quote]

Scott, personally I...and I do mean I (not expecting everyone to agree) think that you have taken Christian Liberty too far...mayhap to the point of Grace and Christian Liberty being used as a license and excuse?

I would also hate to have to read through or memorize that list (cigars/cancer) just so I could go have a smoke...

We do have an occasional bottle of wine in the house for DH's heart (the kids flipped the first time), or a (1) beer once a month sipped over the course of day while nursing (hops help regulate milk production in women either having trouble producing, nursing longer than most, and those having trouble with ups and downs in producing), or at a restaurant (a christmas party where I forgot my coat and it was freezing rain...1/4 glass of cabernet was the only thing to get rid of the chills and keep me from getting sick...DH didn't have any as he didn't need it)...

but we don't go sit at the local bar! (I believe modern american bars and older european taverns are different in some cases...someone correct or affirm me on this)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2004)

Lady,
Thanks for your reply. If I may comment on a few things.......



> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Scott, you are correct on a several points...some of these ARE generalizations...that's the point. This is what they think of ppl in Reformed churches! Unfortunately it is sometimes true.



Who is "they"? The contemporary evangelical? I would agree. I know they feel that way. The orthodox visible church is much like a living gospel message (Paul says that we are like that; epistles), we are an offense to the world. People are offended by the piety that the HS delivers to the saint. So, ultimately, 'they' are correct, and I can understand their position.



> I see good ppl here on the board with a heart for God and a drive for defense of the faith. But walk into an Independant Fundamental Baptist church (I was raised in) and then walk into a PCA church and it is like two different worlds.



Why do you think that is? First off, churches should not be _independant_. This is exactly what happened in sweden with the anabaptists. They disented from the body of Christ because they wanted to do _their own thing_. Calvin ran them out of Sweden. They were banished and seen as criminals. Independancy creates independant thinking. Independant baptist churches answer (generally) to no one. They have fashioned themselves after the world and not the scriptures; hence your claim that we all could see the difference. I agree, we do! Whom of the two are more truly refined by the word of God? The Dispensational churches today are amass with doctrinal error. Most of these independant churches are _non-denominational_. They generally have no membership, They typically are mega-churches with so many attenders that biblical discipline can not be implemented. They are generally Arminian in their soteriology. The music is worldly and tramples Gods regulative principles of worship. They are generally antinomian or at least hyper in their understanding of Gods grace. The reason that they have such high numbers is that they sound and feel like the world, hence, the world is drawn into their rank and file.




> Yes, I felt uncomfortable (even after being in liberal churches like the UMC and SBC). And I will tell you why.
> 
> In the IFBC we were not allowed to sing "feel good songs with a man centred beat" (however since becoming reformed I recognized some of the man centred lyrics  ). I can't sing at all in the PCA church...Amazing Grace, A Mighty Fortress, and The Battle Hymn of the Republic are about all I can join in on! And it's not the words...the music is like the Amish...almost intentionally made so there is no flow. But even that is irrelevant and superficial (for me to be picking on) So there's my own personal issue...no one else's, but I do like to sing and our current church chooses songs carefully to make sure the wording is God-centred...but at least you can sing to them and you can be free to lift your hands in praise.



I am trying to understand what you are claiming here. You say " I can't sing at all in the PCA church". Do you use hymnals? Why can't you sing? I don't get it??? Also, would you consider worship of this type _dead_?



> Another reason I am uncomfortable...I walk into the PCA church and everytime I meet someone new I have to explain (to the point of making me feel like I have to make excuses for myself) why this and why that (no chrissy tree, wear a covering, dresses all the time, DH doesn't have a suit-not wasting $300 we don't have for one, why we our children call Easter 'Resurrection Day' instead of Easter, why our children talk about Passover, why we don't let our little girl wear shorts and have Brat dolls, and don't let our boy play Pokemon with the other boys). I understand everyone is learning and not all have come to this point and that they may have come to points that I haven't yet. But they look at you like "why don't you go join the mennonites" (been there/done that/didn't want the T-shirt!).



I agree that the people in many of the PCA churches I ahve been in have been traditionally scarred into the denomination. Very few know why they believe what they believe or what their creeds actually mean. However, the leadership generally keeps the flock _reeled in_ in regards to their piety. An excellent point is Matt and my situation. Is it possible that God is trying to refine you in a like manner as He is with Matt and I. The way you may be ahead of the folks in the PCA churches you have visited, could they not learn from you, i.e. modesty, head covering etc., and could you not gleen from them biblical principles that the independants lack, i.e. regulative principles, etc.?





> In a little IRB church, I don't get those looks...occasionally questions, yes, but sincere ones. I accept others where they are at and that God is working on them and they accept me the same. Not only that but there is sense of "striving for that which is good" not just for things that they can fit into their current way of living. An adjusting of our way of living to fit what Scripture teaches.



I don't understand. Are you saying that the body of believers in the reformed setting, i.e the PCA, are not "striving for that which is good"?



> As far as what symantics and simple commands...look around you. I tell you what...go into a conservative Dispensational church and ask them how the women are supposed to behave and what they do, ask them what is important as Christians to them. Then go into a PCA church and ask the same thing...and look around you as you do it. Two totally different things in most cases.



I agree. Can you give me examples of the differences. I believe we have different views.



> It may seem superficial to do this, but this is what the world "sees". Usually you see something before you go listen to it. Actions speak louder than words. If they are looking for a Church they are going to look for one that has ppl that appear to be Christians living like Christians...not Christians that say they are Christians.



Again, you are generalizing. I believe you have a misconception in regards to what a Christian is and looks like. Listen to what you are saying. You are saying that PCA churches have people whom do not look like they are true believers. For the life of me, I don't see how you can say this. Keep in mind, I was schooled in a Calvary Chapel. They are as independant, as overly grace filled, music which uses rock and roll for worship and the table is open to whomever, whenever. I know the two extremes. I have an excellent comparative here. Based upon that, I have no idea where you are coming from......sorry. 



> You and I know that it's not the outside that counts...but just like in business...appearance matters.



What does this mean???



> I don't mean to sound dogmatic about this...I'm really not. I'm just trying to make a point...especially if you want to know the "why" behind ppl being attracted to Dispensational churches...they don't care that you (in general) can argue your point when they don't see you living from the same Scriptures that you argue from. (this is where symantics as an example came into play)



How can you claim this. Were you a member long enough to really elbow up with these people?? We all need refining. There is still loads of garbage in my heart. God is faithfully working with His churches. Sounds like someone really scarred you in one of these assemblies.....



> DH once said that it is sad that cults and false prophets can be better examples and evangelists than the Christian Church.



Who is DH??? Jesus warns us about 'angels of light'. Just because the cults are doing something right, they are ultiamtely dead wrong. To use them as an example against the body is (in my opinion) illicit. Goofy statement!



> BTW, on this board I do have trouble at times understanding what is being said (DH doesn't have this problem as much as I do). I have noticed some that are new to the reformed faith on the board and we are here to learn. But it is difficult at times and it can make a person feel ignorant (though I'll plead ignorance at times I'll admit...lol)



I can relate! This board is academic. No denying it! This is not your everyday forum either. Keep in mind, generally, the reformed are properly taught, hence they know more than the average everyday evan-jelly-fish. This is not a bad thing! God has called us to study.

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Scott, personally I...and I do mean I (not expecting everyone to agree) think that you have taken Christian Liberty too far...mayhap to the point of Grace and Christian Liberty being used as a license and excuse?

I would also hate to have to read through or memorize that list (cigars/cancer) just so I could go have a smoke...

We do have an occasional bottle of wine in the house for DH's heart (the kids flipped the first time), or a (1) beer once a month sipped over the course of day while nursing (hops help regulate milk production in women either having trouble producing, nursing longer than most, and those having trouble with ups and downs in producing), or at a restaurant (a christmas party where I forgot my coat and it was freezing rain...1/4 glass of cabernet was the only thing to get rid of the chills and keep me from getting sick...DH didn't have any as he didn't need it)...

but we don't go sit at the local bar! (I believe modern american bars and older european taverns are different in some cases...someone correct or affirm me on this) [/quote]

So, I am in sin? Based upon my indulgences and abuse of my Christian freedom, I am sinning? And Jesus? He made the wine I partake of. He drake of it, until His heart was "glad". He hung out with the drunkards (Where do drunkards hang out?). Did Christ sin? I believe you are practicing legalism here friend. You have lifted the scriptures above that which they intend. The fathers of our faith. i.e. Luther, Calvin et.al. all drank in pubs......

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 24, 2004)

LadyFlint:

I understand completely where you are coming from! I have recently come to the reformed faith out of dispensationalism. I see and unserstand most of your concerns, I really do! Please allow me to post a few opinions on them and as you have asked, please do not take offense at my take on it.

I left an independant church that is not a "Calvary Chapel" but they are "affiliated" with them (They attend their confrences and sit under their church government). I had an active role in my old church as a "prophet". My opinion was highly regarded. For one example, I was against the 40 days of purpose and and because I was it was not brought into the church.

My old churches music leader played guitar with a keyboard and drum player backing him up. The man even LOOKS like Stephen Curtis Chapman! We sang modern contemporary songs with most of the audience raising their hands and enjoying the music.

The leaders of the church were very friendly and welcoming. The church ranged from those who dressed to kill to those who look like ther were in rags. They had an age range that went from 10 to 90. It had to be the most diverse church I had ever seen in my life with around 200 members.

I *LOVED IT*.

As time went on though something started happening to me. I noticed that the doctrines of grace, that I was just beginning to study and see within the scriptures frightened the pastors when I brought them up! The "prophet" was always listened with respect until he became a Calvanist. I found myself having to hold back when I had never felt that way in the past.

The music began to annoy me. It was still entertaining, but I missed some of the old hymns we sang. I suggested we mix a few hymns into the mix and only got a few polite smiles with head nods.

I wanted to post all of that so you may take my replies to you concerns in context. Here we go.



> I can't sing at all in the PCA church...Amazing Grace, A Mighty Fortress, and The Battle Hymn of the Republic are about all I can join in on! And it's not the words...the music is like the Amish...almost intentionally made so there is no flow. But even that is irrelevant and superficial (for me to be picking on) So there's my own personal issue...no one else's, but I do like to sing and our current church chooses songs carefully to make sure the wording is God-centred...but at least you can sing to them and you can be free to lift your hands in praise.



I understand this! I find it very difficult to sing in my new church! I try, and I want to, but the music doesn't seem to flow very well, and I know about 5 songs. The rest I've never even heard of and if you don't sing deep base or strong tennor, you just can't keep up withthe congregation who all seem able to sing one of these two ways. The way I look at this is, I would rather sing this way doing the best I can because it is meant to not only honor God, but be doctrinely CORRECT and go along with the message that day. I have to realize the music is not for me, but for God. (Not saying you don't feel that way.)



> Another reason I am uncomfortable...I walk into the PCA church and everytime I meet someone new I have to explain (to the point of making me feel like I have to make excuses for myself) why this and why that (no chrissy tree, wear a covering, dresses all the time, DH doesn't have a suit-not wasting $300 we don't have for one, why we our children call Easter 'Resurrection Day' instead of Easter, why our children talk about Passover, why we don't let our little girl wear shorts and have Brat dolls, and don't let our boy play Pokemon with the other boys). I understand everyone is learning and not all have come to this point and that they may have come to points that I haven't yet. But they look at you like "why don't you go join the mennonites" (been there/done that/didn't want the T-shirt!). In a little IRB church, I don't get those looks...occasionally questions, yes, but sincere ones. I accept others where they are at and that God is working on them and they accept me the same. Not only that but there is sense of "striving for that which is good" not just for things that they can fit into their current way of living. An adjusting of our way of living to fit what Scripture teaches.



Wait....are you saying at your local PCA church the people there are *shocked* that you don't have a Christmas tree and your children don't play with worldly or occultic toys? Wow, that's not been my experience at all. In my PCA church I finally feel like I amamongst people who understand and support decisions like that!
-


> As far as what symantics and simple commands...look around you. I tell you what...go into a conservative Dispensational church and ask them how the women are supposed to behave and what they do, ask them what is important as Christians to them. Then go into a PCA church and ask the same thing...and look around you as you do it. Two totally different things in most cases. It may seem superficial to do this, but this is what the world "sees". Usually you see something before you go listen to it. Actions speak louder than words. If they are looking for a Church they are going to look for one that has ppl that appear to be Christians living like Christians...not Christians that say they are Christians.



Can you elaborate on this? The Dispensational church I was married in teaches that the head of the household in the person who manages the finances! I find other odd teachings about role reversals within Dispensational churches. In my PCA church women are treated wonderfully!



> BTW, on this board I do have trouble at times understanding what is being said (DH doesn't have this problem as much as I do). I have noticed some that are new to the reformed faith on the board and we are here to learn. But it is difficult at times and it can make a person feel ignorant (though I'll plead ignorance at times I'll admit...lol) Kinda like a Bosnian physicist coming to American but doesn't know English...ends up in a factory with everyone thinking that he is uneducated. (DH knows some Bosnians)



Now this is intresting!

I just got home from a visit with my parents. My mother visits this board from time to time and her complaint is that many here seem to try and be "intellectual" to the point of silliness. I try and explain to her that Christian education is the driving force behind much of this board. One tends to talk "intellectually" if one is persuing with all of his heart, Christian education and knowledge.

She told me that I even talk differently here. But Ladyflint, I confess, that like you, I often read something and am like 

I've sent a U2U to another member of this board before asking for clarification. I have gone to "Google" and looked up phrases I didn't understand, ect. While I felt "dumb" at times, I have since learned MUCH!

Doctrine is so broad and "open" in most Dispensational churches because "education" is not stressed. Most Dispensational churches are so evangelical that the messages taught can never go too deep! This always frustrated me. Messages had to use cute anograms to help people remember, pie charts, or even jingles or poems. While none of that may be "wrong" eventually one who truely learns will desire to move beyond that.

in my opinion dispensationalism remains where it is in most churches because they are so stuck on end times doctrines! (I suppose I should say eschatology here  )

I seriously mean that. Every teaching must never conflict with the rapture or tribulation! It must never even hint that the Jews are not a special people set aside unto the Lord. It always seemed to me that the bible was written to point to the end of days rather than to the gloy of God.

One other issue I have with my PCA church is a personal one ONLY, but I will still share it. My wife and I are by FAAAR the youngest in our Church. We are 35 years old and the closest ones to our age are in their late 40's. My wife and I have one daughter (we adopted) in College and almost everyone else has a quiver of children. We have a hard time finding anyone to fellowship with. We definately find the time to fellowshp in the word, but we have no friends our age that we can just "hang out" with. It's been something that has saddened us for some time now.

Over all I have found that the PCA church seeks to honor and glorify God and stress learning. The Dispensational churches stress the glory of man and waiting on the rapture. The PCA church is about HIM and the Dispensational churches are about US.

That's how I see it at least.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 24, 2004)

Scott;

DH is "darling Husband"


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2004)

oh. I thought it might have been "Draught Horse".......


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 24, 2004)

I remember having to ask at Rapture Ready as everyone was always saying "DH" and "DW". It's one of the only places I've seen it used.

Ladyflint, have you posted at RR?

[Edited on 24-12-2004 by houseparent]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Lady,
> Thanks for your reply. If I may comment on a few things.......
> 
> ...



I can relate! This board is academic. No denying it! This is not your everyday forum either. Keep in mind, generally, the reformed are properly taught, hence they know more than the average everyday evan-jelly-fish. This is not a bad thing! God has called us to study.

I never called this a bad thing, Scott...I was confessing here. Just so you could understand me a bit better. And I'm on here to be encouraged to study. I love the "evan-jelly-fish" BTW (By The Way)
[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



So, I am in sin? Based upon my indulgences and abuse of my Christian freedom, I am sinning? And Jesus? He made the wine I partake of. He drake of it, until His heart was "glad". He hung out with the drunkards (Where do drunkards hang out?). Did Christ sin? I believe you are practicing legalism here friend. You have lifted the scriptures above that which they intend. The fathers of our faith. i.e. Luther, Calvin et.al. all drank in pubs......

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote]

Yes, if you are abusing that Christian Liberty and placing a stumbling block before another brother.
All things may be allow but all things are not prophitable.
(BTW, I've heard this verse also abused by the pro-gay movement amoungs other things)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 24, 2004)

Adam, never heard of RR...I learned online lingo from homeschool forums and a book. BTW, DH and I cracked up at your "nazerene" joke. We happen to have a friend who looks alot like you!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2004)

> Yes, if you are abusing that Christian Liberty and placing a stumbling block before another brother.
> All things may be allow but all things are not prophitable.
> (BTW, I've heard this verse also abused by the pro-gay movement amoungs other things)




Lady,
By the way, the devil knows the scriptures better than you or I. The fact that certain degenerate groups rally around this passage is at best fellacious and in the least a red herring to this conversation........
Lets take this to an academic setting. I asked you earlier, and compared that which I take liberty in, and contrasted it to Christ and that which he did?Was Christ sinning doing what He did? Was Luther, Calvin and their colleagues sinning? If Christ did not sin in what He did, and I am keeping my christian liberty within those bounds, am I sinning. Let me repeat, here is what I claim as freedom:

1) If I want to go to a pub for a beer, I may. 
2) If I want to have a mixed drink in a restaurant, I may.
3) If I want to go to an 'r' rated movie, I may. 
4) If I want to smoke a cigar, I may.

Scripture assuredly supports this idea. I assume you did not read my paper I provided in the link. Scripture is clear. "Stumbling" is an idea that is secondary to being uneducated in these freedoms. 

1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

** All things* that ARE legal for me as a believer to do, are legal; thay may not be profitable, but none the less, they ARe legal.

1 Cor 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats:

* Abuse your freedom, stuff the belly and fat ye get. Lawfull, not expedient!

Scripture implies that all things that are allowed to the Christian are allowable, but all things do not (necessarily) profit the believer. John MacArthur expounds this passage in an excellent manner. John writes, "All things (that are) allowable, are allowable, and those things which are not allowable, are not allowed." Those things that are legal for the believer to partake of "are legal" and those things which are not legal, the Christian should stay away from.

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

1 Cor 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

1 Cor 10:30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

1 Cor 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Much can be said in regards to contrasting subjects. If smoking is in itself a sin, based upon the same premise, so is overeating. Recent medical reports show that obesity has a higher incidence of morbidity than does, poverty, alcohol abuse and tobacco abuse. What about the over indulgence of coffee, television, internet or computer gaming? The Christian is not to be ruled in any fashion by anything other than God. The sin is when something rules in the life of the believer; the thing becomes an idol and the second commandment is broken. If living in "smog filled" Los Angeles is detrimental to one's health, would it be sin to remain living there?

Drunkeness is sin! Overeating leading to obesity or hypercholesterolemia is sin. Lying on the couch like a bump on a log is a sin. Addiction to tobacco is a sin. Addiction to Hersheys chocolate is a sin. Coffee, routinely in the a.m. is sin if you can't do without it! 

Failure to keep the issue "balanced" will result in a prejudice or double standard.

What about the issue of stumbling a brother or sister? This is the one issue which needs attention. This is the one case where I believe the believer should abstain (for a season only), if in fact there is a chance someone may fall into sin based upon our utilization of a God given freedom. We must be concious and considerate. How can the Chrisitian be concious of people whom they are not aware of, i.e. in a public setting? Obviously the apostle was intending to use the previous passages as a guide. One brother believed that eating meat was allowed; the other only ate plants. What did Paul suggest? 

Paul writes:

Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.


Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:


Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.


Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.


Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.


Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.


Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.


Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


Rom 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.


Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.


And here:

1 Cor 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.

1 Cor 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.


1 Cor 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


If one looks to the beginning of Romans chapter 14, one find that these brethren are weak in faith.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.


Paul is implying that this is a young believer; his knowledge base is shallow. He does not know he has freedom to eat the meat that had been offered to idols. 

1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1 Cor 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.


The ultimate goal is that the stronger believer should abstain for the time. I say "for a time". it should be the goal of the stronger to sit with and educate the weaker. He should endeavor to reason with his friend by "searching the scriptures". It would be almost as large an injustice if the stronger believer was brought into bondage by the weakers conscience.

I suggest you read a few of the archived posts as they will lend some logical information to the idea.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=908





[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 24, 2004)

LadyFlint,

I commend to you for your edification on the subject of Christian Liberty an article by JG Vos called _The Separated Life_. It's a four-part article and this link is to the first part. It answers many of your concerns and shows that liberty consists in the freedom to use or to not use all things indifferent to the glory of God.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/christian-living/full.asp?ID=554


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 24, 2004)

Thanks Andrew! I can use that as well!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Thanks Andrew! I can use that as well!



You're welcome! That tract has been a great blessing to me and I hope it will be to you and others as well.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 24, 2004)

For the sake of time, let me make just a few brief comments.

Everyone:
I would suggest that you take a look at BOTH what Scott and Lady Flynt have been saying. They both raise important points. It is critical that our walk be humble and that we stress obedience. It is also no less critical that we have accountability for that, and that can only truly occur in a connectional, Church context. Why? That is how God designed it.

Lady Flynt:
I would humbly suggest that you are seeing the PCA (or other such denominations) through a small frame. There are many PCA churches that may be like the ones you describe. There are many more that never sing out of the Trinity hymnal. All the songs are modern praise songs. They would find the Fanny Crosby hymns that are sung at the IBC (I guess) to be woefully out of date and unsingable. There are other PCA churches where headcoverings would be the norm, homeschooling viewed as the only option. Others would view homeschooling as "weird." The problem is that we have lost the sense of the Church. This is especially true in IBC circles. If they are "not like us" they don't fit in. Whether it is Bible version, political preference, eschatology position, smoking & drinking & dancing hating, etc., there is no room for toleration. This results in a stagnant Church, where the secondary things (i.e. views on the rapture or smoking) become more important than the primary things (justification by faith alone).

Scott:
You are absolutely correct about Christian liberty. But I think that Lady Flynt raises an important issue about Reformed and PCA churches today. PCA churches are often more concerned about how close to the fence of sin they can get without sinning than with about how far away they can be. The indicative without the imperative. You may not see this so much because you have a strong love for God's law and His holiness. But often I wonder why it is in Reformed circles where the 3rd use of the law is most neglected. While Dispensationalists deny the binding validity of the 4th commandment, they routinely observe the Lord's Day with better aplumb and more consistency. Take a looks at Sunday evening services for example. The fundy takes the view, "I should go, unless hindered." The average PCA member takes the view "you can't bind me, don't be a legalist, I won't go unless I want to." This is sad. It is in PCA churches where men/women's roles are in a huge mess. 

Reform is necessary. Balance is necessary. Greater zeal for God's word is necessary.

This is a good conversation.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 24, 2004)

> Take a looks at Sunday evening services for example. The fundy takes the view, "I should go, unless hindered." The average PCA member takes the view "you can't bind me, don't be a legalist, I won't go unless I want to." This is sad. It is in PCA churches where men/women's roles are in a huge mess.



Now this is absolutely true in my experience! I so miss Sunday evening services!


----------



## JohnV (Dec 24, 2004)

> _posted by bigheavyq
> JohnV please explain yourself. I would not put dispensationalism and liberalism in the same category as Reconstructionism. I am a Recon. mainly because it holds to scripture and the Reformed creeds and confessions. It in no way dilutes the gospel and exalts Christ as King. _


_
Jonathan:
I wrote this according to my experiences. Reconstructionism was clearly placed over top of the Bible to make it normative for interpreting the Bible. That was why it was so necessary to push Presuppositionalism, Postmillennialism, Theonomy, and Dominion Theology so hard. It was clear that if one did not hold to these views first, then one was not really Reformed, or was a second class Reformed, or an ignorant Reformed. This was exactly the same thing as was pushed on me in the Liberal church I was a part of, and has been the very same thing that Arminians push on me, and the Dispensationalists that I have had discourse with as well. It boils down to this: man's theory is placed first, then the Bible is interpreted through that theory. 

This in no way is meant as a disparaging remark against a properly held belief in the application of the particular views such as Reconstructionism when held in proper relation to theology. As long as theology comes first, so that the true gospel is not diluted. 




by Draught Horse
You do realize that you placed Recontructionism in a paragraph that includes an inane sensationalism, girly-man theology, and theological poison, respectively. I can understand why some would not want to hold to reconstructionsim (the naming of the system is bad--reminds one of the horrors perpetrated upon the South), but to classify it alongside systems that deny the faith (excluding dispensationalism) might be going a little too far. Recon. takes the Word seriously, accepts the Reformed faith, and promotes the Kingship of Jesus. BTW, I no longer call myself a reconstructionist--I like the term "Theocrat" better.

Are you suggesting that we throw away systems when we come to interpreting the Word? I did not understand what you are getting at.

Click to expand...


Jacob:
I am not suggesting the throwing away of systems, but I am saying that the Word of God has to interpret itself. Whatever systematic we say we hold to must be subject, not master to the Word. The system must be governed by the Word and sound reason alone, and not the Word by the system. As I said above, some have made havoc in the churches by the various winds of doctrine that they superimposed upon the Word, and no matter what that is it is wrong. We are even familiar with that being done with Calvinism creating an ultra-Calvinism, or better known as Hyper-Calvinism. 

If the Word is trustworthy, then it alone is the basis for instruction in all things. Of course me must be carefull of our reason, that is why it is added that sound reason is also necessary. But that doesn't mean that we can go where ever our reasoning leads us. Sound reason is a restriction, not a licence. And that is where a lot of people have gone wrong, in my opinion. They become convinced of human theories, and then somehow believe that they have leave from God to superimpose them on the Bible. That's all Dispensationalism is, in basis, as well as Liberalism, or any other ism, including the Reconstructionism I ran into. It amounts to being another gospel. 

What I meant in my above post is that it doesn't really matter what ism it is. There are only two basic choices, faithfulness and unfaithfulness. Putting man's systems as more basic than Scripture is being unfaithful, no matter how right it seems. Scripture has to be held as authoritative, perspicuous and normative; it is authored by God. Human theories are authored by man, and so are changeable. Though they may be helpful in certain cases, yet they are to be and remain subject to the unchanging Word of God.

You might take umbrage at the inclusion of Reconstructionism, but that is not my fault. I did not make it what it was, and I did not impose my view of it upon anyone. I merely represent to you what has been represented to me. Those who perpetrated this are at fault, and your umbrage ought to be towards them. I am not a Reconstructionist of either the type forced upon me by a pastor, nor of the kind that you hold to. But I know them both by the same name, and I have done my best on this Board to separate the two from one another, for the latter is not detestable like the former._


----------



## bigheavyq (Dec 26, 2004)

On the christians liberty, I am afraid of the legalism and tyranny of the weaker brothers. If it may be stumbling block to a brother to drink in front of him and therefore no christian should drink or smoke or dance,etc. You have binded the conscienceness of the stronger brother to a law that is man's not God's. This is the essence of LEGALISM, putting man's standard above God's. It is sin for those who don't drink to tell those who have liberty not to. And it is sin for those who drink to tell those who don't they need to drink to be a strong christian and have a beer with them. Personally, I have never drunk nor smoked and never care to. But I have dinner with people who drink ort smoke and have no problem with it. The church I was raised in didn't believe in it but it had other legalisms that I had a problem with: dancing, dress code, etc. I like to dance, especially now with my wife. Do I dress in a suit and tie every service? no, but I try to look nice and christians should dress modest. However, too many churches and christians judge someone's spirituality and competence by how they dress/look or how sucessful they are. This is definitely the case for picking elders and deacons. A sucessful and rich tithing businessman who has a nominal understanding of scriptures has more of chance to be an elder or deacon than a poor man with an advanced understanding of scripture and who exemplifies a heart toward the people and has the wisdom of walking with God for many years. This has happened in many churches that I have been in. why is this? Mainly because one who has maybe more theological and experiencial knowledge to the Pastor is a threat to him or the other elders, even if he just wants to serve.


----------

