YES, you can!!!
This talk about clothing reminded me of one of those sayings that really bothers me. You know the saying, "You can't judge a book by its cover"? I can't stand that saying because what is the first thing you do when you are deciding if you want to buy a book or not? You turn it over and read the back cover. So, YES, you can tell a book by its cover, that is exactly HOW you tell what the book is about! I'm sure the saying was stated before books had the description on the back cover, but I wish people would stop saying it now since it is not true anymore.
posted by Pastor Jim | 7:24 PM
16 Comments:
PJ, I commented to your latest comment on the other post. When I have more time I'm going to read your post just before this one.
BTW, we need to see some more pictures of your little one!
I have a friend who is 19, he wears tight punk pants, he has a tattoo. Spikes his hair and Loves the Lord so much. He really reaches out to younger people in our town.
Cheatwoods, I am happy your friend loves the Lord so much, but this post was mainly about the saying. I agree that you can't tell everything about a person from his/her clothing, but you can tell quite a bit. Ask your friend why he dresses this way and spikes his hair. I'm sure he will say something to the affect of "I like to be different" or "I don't like to fit into the mainstream". Then let him know that there are hundreds of thousands of other kids dressed just like him with their hair spiked. So, he is not as unique as he thinks he is. Then, ask him if it helps him get his foot into the door of many people's houses to let him share the story of God. As much as we don't want to admit it; appearance matters!
I asked him, he said he dresses like that becuase he likes to.
Cheatwoods, that about says it all.
pastor Jim, I wasnt arguing with you! I love Jesus so much it hurts, I would never argue with you! I was just saying that I love the way people all look different, it dosent bother me at all! I mean no disrespect! My pastor actully surfs, he is awsome, he is 52! People probubly dont think he is a pastor when they see him out there. But Ill tell you what this man loves God with such passion it pours out of him and is so strong that its encouraging just to be in the same room with him. I think its always good to get to know the inside before you judge the outside wich from the scriptures I ahve read God dosent want you to judge anyone, that is his job. But again, I mean no disrespect, I have read your blog a few times and I like to visit it!! Kieth is my old fationed christian friend who I enjoy so much reading his blogs!!!
Cheatwoods, I am not trying to argue with you either. I'm just stating a fact that unfortunately how we dress makes a difference. I don't judge people on appearance alone. I do judge people, though. I think we should all judge people. We shouldn't associate ourselves with people who lead a sinful life. There is too much temptation if we are constantly around sin. If they want to be around us on our terms, then it is o.k. But, it is important for us to be able to judge character. I'm sorry if I came off harsh. I hope everything goes well with your pregnancy and the birth. Its probably starting to get a bit uncomfortable about now (to say the least), huh?
Jim: I posted this same comment on St.Brianstine's blog. I wasn't sure if you'd see it. I hope you receive my comments in the light they are intended. That said...
May I offer some unsolicited "advice"? I have been reading both of your blogs for several weeks now and I may be overstating the obvious here, but I don't think you two are ever going to agree on this topic of "dress" (and I do realize that the topic of this post is not about what we wear to church, however, the subject still managed to be brought up!). Your conversations remind me of my own father; he is a "gap theorist" and it doesn't matter WHAT the original topic is, he manages to work the subject into the conversation. He is bound and determined to convert everyone he meets to his belief. It gets really old.
The same kinda applies here: Brian loves his sandals and takes great joy/pride in wearing them to church. More than likely, at his church, this is more the norm. Jim, I note from your profile that you are located in the Midwest, as am I. At my church, sandals and shorts would "stick out like a sore thumb." We are more suits/business casual, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some people that wear jeans, t-shirts, etc. All are welcome to come and hear the Word of God preached. I've been to the Shepherds' Conference numerous times—I've never seen (I doubt I ever will) John MacArthur or ANY of the Grace Staff in shorts or sandals. Does that make them the "standard"? Obviously not in California, right Brian?
Jim, I have no doubt that you are convinced of your belief re: appropriate dress at church. I would probably lean more toward your beliefs. BUT, Brian is obviously just as adamant about his beliefs in this area. No amount of "proofs" from either side is going to change the other's mind, so…in the spirit of Christian fellowship/unity, might I suggest that you both "agree to disagree" and just drop it. These discussions are becoming (and at times) have appeared very unkind. Brothers, we're on the same "side." In the words of that great theologian, Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" My "two-cents."
Keith, thanks again for your input. I agree with you that Brian nor myself will probably never agree on this subject. I (as well as Brian) like to push each others buttons. I take it as nothing personal, just a discussion over the internet.
You say, Keith, "Brothers, we're on the same 'side.' In the words of that great theologian, Rodney King: 'Can't we all just get along?'"
I have a problem with "we're on the same 'side'." What "side" are we on, and are we all on it? As I mentioned in another post, there are thousands of denominations...are we all "Christians?" Are we all on the same "side?" I believe we must be baptized to be saved. I believe we can fall away from Christ. I believe if we do fall away we must repent in order to be saved. These are significant issues in regard to our everlasting life, yet others disagree with them...so, are we on the same "side?" These are "large" issues, are there "small" issues; i.e. clothing, music, or women taking on leadership positions? I try to be nice to people. I try to be civil and respectful, but as far as "can't we all just get along," I refer you to the tower of Babel.
I believe the term "Christian" is thrown around way too loosely, like Brian says on his latest post. I don't believe we are all on the same "side." That might sound arrogant. That might sound judgemental. That might sound mean. But, I think we need to really BELIEVE what we believe. If you believe something different, that's fine with me. I won't think anything less of you. My wife is Catholic. I am not. I love her with all of my heart, but we disagree on many things (obviously). She is also a democrat, and I am a republican (atleast we don't have to go vote; we would just cancel each other out). If I think you are wrong about something I will tell you. Don't take it personal. I won't when you disagree with me. If we agreed we would go to the same church.
The "same side...can't we all get along" comment was simply an (obviously futile) attempt at some light hearted commentary.
I agree, there are "big" issues (for me: inerrancy of Scripture, salvation by faith alone, through Christ alone to name a few) vs. "small" issues (suit and tie vs. Dockers, etc).
I don't believe baptism imparts salvation--
1) no record of Zaccheus being baptized.
2) same for the tax collector ("Lord be merciful to me a sinner")-- Jesus declared him saved (justified)
3) thief on the cross
to name a few.
I don't believe you can lose your salvation. God keeps those He saves.
I don't believe Muslims, Mormons, JW's, Catholics teach or believe the same thing I believe. I don't believe they teach the Bible. I don't believe I'm on the same side as they are.
As Bible-believing Christians, I believe you and I are "on the same side."
You're right--lots of people think they are Christians and they are not. "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord', but I will say 'Depart from me, I never knew you.'" Jesus said you would know who is and who isn't "by their fruits."
"I don't believe baptism imparts salvation--"
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Are we suppose to ignore this command to be baptized? I know you will say something like read the next line where it says if you do not believe you will be condemned. I know it says that, but you can't be baptized properly unless you believe first. If you do not believe then of course you will not be baptized and you will be condemned.
As far as your 3 examples; you are using Brian's excuse of its not in the Bible so it must be so. The Bible doesn't say whether or not any of these men had been baptized or not. Since God tells us we must believe and be baptized, I think its safer to say they were baptized than to guess they were not.
"I don't believe you can lose your salvation. God keeps those He saves."
Is this not what the prodigal son is all about? What about:
2 Peter 2:
20)If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21)It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22)Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
It is obvious here God is talking about those who once believed and have now turned their back. He says, " It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them."
"As Bible-believing Christians, I believe you and I are 'on the same side.'"
This is my point exactly! We believe different things, yet we still say we believe in the Bible. How is that? You say you are on a different side than catholics, yet they say they believe in the Bible. We obviously believe that to become saved we must do different things, so how are we on the same side?
Again, I'm not trying to be mean and confrontational. This has been something I have been wrestling with for a while. I just don't get it. I am not mad at anyone. I am not looking down on anyone. I am just confused by people, and I am trying to work it out. I am confused how someone can say they are on the "same side" as me, yet have a different salvation plan. I am confused how someone says they are on the "same side" as me, yet we don't believe the other person understands the Bible properly. Its all a little frustrating.
"WOW there big fella!" Jim, you're jumping to some conclusions. Let me try (briefly) to clarify:
1) I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. I DO believe that genuinely saved people are baptized--they will desire to be baptized. I don't believe it is the act of baptism that saves. I believe baptism is an act of obedience, symbolically demonstrating what has occured in the life of the believer, i.e. death to self/old life, raising to new life in Christ. I have been baptized. I would question anyone that calls themself a Christian, yet refuses to be baptized.
According to John 4:2, Jesus wasn't baptizing anyone. Paul "thank[ed] God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius..." (1 Cor 1:14) If baptism saved, don't you think Jesus and Paul would have been doing it?
I stand by the three examples I gave you. There's not enough room (or time today) to go into the details. I know you don't agree, but there are MANY people that would agree with my understanding of those situations...but let's move on.
2) The story of the prodigal is (from my understanding) more about the Father and his forgiveness. This parable would have been mind-boggling to the Pharisees and Scribes that were hearing it. Jesus (in Luke 15) had already spoken of the "lost sheep" and the "lost coin", both of which emphasize God's seeking "that which was lost." The "prodigal" tells of the Father's patience in dealing with his son, his unconditional love for him, his mercy and forgiveness. The "lesson" or focus (in context) is not losing and regaining ones' salvation. John MacArthur has an excellent series you should check out on this very passage.
3) You said: We believe different things, yet we still say we believe in the Bible. How is that? You say you are on a different side than catholics, yet they say they believe in the Bible. We obviously believe that to become saved we must do different things, so how are we on the same side? Gosh, Jim. I don't know where to begin. A couple of quick points:
a) Catholics pray to Mary - not found in the Bible
b) Catholics refer to the Pope as the "vicar" (replacement) of Christ - definetly not in the Bible
c) Catholics teach a works salvation, i.e. indulgences, etc. - the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9)
d) Mormons don't believe in the Trinity
I am not on the "same side" as someone that teaches/believes something that is "extra-Biblical." I read the Bible through a "reformed" set of lenses; you sound more Arminian. That's OK, Jim. I think we are still agreeing on the essentials.
I have a very good friend in the Christian Church. He believes he can lose his salvation (although he says it's never happened to him), and that Baptism is the exact moment in which he received the Holy Spirit and was saved. He believes that we have "free will" to choose or reject God. I, on the other hand, don't believe those things. I believe genuine salvation is secure. I believe taht salvation is by grace alone, throug faith alone. I believe that God chooses some for salvation and leaves others to their rightful punishment. But those differences don't make us enemies! We are both Christians--we just happen to interpret how we got there differently.
Like you said, Keith, there is not enough time to go into all of the differences. The reason I bring up catholicism is that they have their scriptures which they feel back up all of their beliefs the same way I do, and the same way you do. I don't see us as enemies. I enjoy discussions about this kind of thing. It makes me do more studying.
Also, be careful of taking one verse at a time out of context, which you have done with your two verses on baptism.
"The story of the prodigal is (from my understanding) more about the Father and his forgiveness."
The Father's forgiveness of what? Of children who have lost their way. God is letting us know when we stray away from Him, He will accept us back if our hearts our right.
The story of the prodigal only becomes a story of "falling away and returning" if your theology is bent that direction. (I don't see it as someone losing their salvation and then getting "re-saved.") Because of my theology, I read "those He foreknew" and think "those He chose"-- others think "those He looked into the future and saw would believe."
You're talking to one of the biggest advocates of "context" around. I STILL stand by my understanding of the passages cited based on context.
I'm in the middle of a discussion with a guy about John 3:16. He thinks that verse "proves" that God loves everybody and extends salvation to everyone. In context, I see it as Jesus telling Nicodemus that the Jews aren't the only ones that will be saved.
Our understanding (predispostion) of the context is influenced by our theology. We obviously have two different theologies. That doesn't necessarily make one of us "right" and the other "wrong."
Footnote: re: The 2 Peter passage you quoted-- in context, Peter is referring to false teachers that were never regenerated to begin with. Verse 1 clearly tells us the context of the chapter.
I couldnt disagree more. I have bought book swith very pretty covers and glowing reviews on the back only to find that it stunk.
The only thing you can tell by the back cover is what the publisher wants you to think.
Its true and its always been true. A cover is cosmetic its the contents that you will ultimately be either pleased or displeased with.
Unless you only read the covers that is
Post a Comment
<< Home