My posts containing a devotional that encouraged me in my Christian walk was met with great hostility and my introduction of a ministry performing vital work to those enslaved to drugs and alcohol was deleted. This disappointed me greatly and has resulted in this site no longer encouraging me in my Christian walk.

I posted that devotional with great joy regarding the lesson contained in the article, but was shot down, not because of the message, but because the author was in question and is was assumed that the NIV was used. No matter that the message was spot on scripturally and did not contradict the statement of faith. Noooo, you disagree with Max Lucado first and foremost! Max Lucado’s work and doctrinal stances are unknown to me so the hostile response was quite a surprise. The suspicion of NIV use was also pounced on like I’d blasphemed Christ, which is ridiculous. A second reading of the article would have revealed references listed and no quotations of any kind from any translation. I even went as far as to post the KJV verses so we could see if the devotional was scriptural!

I pity a Christian who is willing to condemn a ministry like Teen Challenge to people who are dying in drug addiction. So what if you don’t happen to agree with them on every point of doctrine! Just because they are giving people practical ways to refrain from their old lives of alcoholism/drug addiction doesn’t mean the Gospel is being watered down in any way! The testimonies I heard with my own ears were that of people who first accepted Christ and have been delivered from drug addiction through His power. But instead of an amen that people are coming to Christ, I get a condemnation of the ministry because of who they are supposedly associated with?!?!? People accepting Christ’s gift of salvation is the fruit of this ministry! It does not matter a bit whether they fit your doctrinal mold or not! What matters is their faith in Christ!!!!!!

It has become clear your brand of separation involves separating from Christian brothers and sisters engaged in vital ministries because of your extra biblical, man-made reasons. Your condemnation of the ministry above leaves no doubt in my mind this is true. From what I have seen, some of you folks believe what you assume people are associated with is far more important than the fruit of their ministry. Take a step back and consider what you're doing before you condemn the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of another human being that has brought them to Christ.

I leave you to battle vigorously to defend the corner you've staked out in Christianity. I pray your arrows hit the enemy more than your brothers and sisters in ministry ....

If I stand for nothing...I will fall for anything.

As for your accusations of "great hostility", "was shot down", and "condemnation" I will simply answer thus:

If you had taken any time to read any other posts, you would have seen that Reformers Unanimous is the drug addiction agency we support, but that doesn't matter to you does it? It is all about you and the feel-good world. As long as someone "loves" something, then it must be good right? Great philosophy.......

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue May 06, 2008 08:00 AM by Jim.

For now that is all I have time to post but when I return from my CT scans I shall write a bit more.

In Christ,
George

I have neither seen scorn nor stubbornness come from Nate. I have not seen an argumentative attitude. I have seen a man who is needing to settle some things in his heart about God's Word, and I have seen a man who has evidence of desire to walk with God, but struggles with daily challenges. There are areas in his life that may be hindering him from hearing God's quiet prompting, but that is true of us all to differing degrees. It saddens me that an opportunity to build up a weaker brother is lost.

I do not see that a single verse that has been quoted in this thread is applicable here.

Good day brothers

If you expect us to accept your ways Brother Nate, this concerns the site not encouraging your Christian walk; you are asking us to compromise on things we are not willing to compromise. As far as the ministry of Teen Challenge performing vital work to those enslaved to drugs and alcohol I question that statement. I am very familiar with the Teen Challenge program. Although it is more successful that AA or another of the other A’s it is not nearly as successful as Reformers Unanimous International that is the fastest growing and most successful Faith-based ministry in the world at present. I have had people who have been through Teen Challenge previously. There is a lot of stuff they did not learn there and a lot they learned there that they have to unlearn. Their use of the NIV is really a miss-service to their membership. The NIV is at its worse an abomination and at best it is a watered down version of the True Bible.

While it may be true that Max Lucado at some point may just get something right his brand of religion and his philosophy do not fit this site. In reality I have met a number of people who have gone through the entire Teen Challenge program and are not saved. You said that Lucado’s doctrinal stances and work are unfamiliar to you. Did you not think that perhaps you ought to have investigated him a bit before you posted any of his stuff here? If not I pray that in the future you do so.

It has become clear your brand of separation involves separating from Christian brothers and sisters engaged in vital ministries because of your extra biblical, man-made reasons. Your condemnation of the ministry above leaves no doubt in my mind this is true. From what I have seen, some of you folks believe what you assume people are associated with is far more important than the fruit of their ministry. Take a step back and consider what you're doing before you condemn the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of another human being that has brought them to Christ.
Our “brand’ of separation is that of Biblical separation. We stand behind the King James Bible exclusively.

The Bible tells us specifically to come out from such people and be separated from them. It is not so much the people we are associated with that matters but our defense of the Bible and our often feeble attempts to live as the Bible tells us we ought to live. (I must interject here that posting Max Lucado’s works here on this site DOES violate our Statement of Faith. If you will take the time to read it you see that we reject the use of speaking in tongues. Lucado speaks in tongues, as do many of the people he surrounds himself with. That can be verified rather easily by doing a quick Google search on him.) I do not believe it is the Holy Spirit working on or through Max Lucado. I believe Lucado’s motivation to be that of greed. As with Rick Warren and his Purpose Drive Life series, Lucado has written many, many books and has become quite wealthy from them.

In Christ,
George

Brother, I have witnessed no hostility toward you at any time here on the site. I don't even know that you would call our stand on Max Lucado hostile but rather a rejecting of his works.

I know I did send you a private message asking you to refrain from posting things of Lucado and other folks of his ilk. In your response to me you indicated your understand of the stance we take here.

And yet now you say we have treated you with hostility. I do not understand what has happened. Of course rather than hang out with a group of King James Bible preaching and teaching, separated fundamentalists perhaps you would feel more comfortable hanging out with the Charismatics that Lucado is associated with and a part of. If you do leave that is of course your right to do. However if you do wish to continue here you might want to get into the Spirit of learning. We have fairly clearly spelled out our position here on this forum.

In Christ,
George

I agree, there was no hostility.

It is like a pastor said last night in our revival series, that Americancs have gotten so much pride, that you are no longer allowed to tell someone they are wrong about their doctrine. Do you know why? Because of the accused above:

Just like the democrats will, in a heartbeat, label anyone who votes against amnesty for illegals a bigot.

It's not because they are wrong about doctrine, it's because you hurt their feelings.

When are the tables going to turn, and the responsibility be put on the shoulders of the incorrect?

A good example would be for me to say, "Brother Tim, you are being hostile to me, accusing me of using scripture for my own interpretation, if this is what christianty is about, then I am leaving it!'

You see? It is ridiculous. People want you to hold them to a different standard than they hold you.

(By the way Tim, one of the things I love about you is you are clear when you are disagreeing with someone. That is a man to me, and I am just using what you said as an example. I do disagree that I used scripture accordingly, but I am not going to be childish about it.)

If this Nate person had come in and read the SoF, asked some questions like, "What does everyone think about Max Lucado?"

Comparing Max Lucado's character and doctrine to our Statement of Faith, finds Max Lucado a very different thing altogether. And if ignorance was Nate's plea, to which it seems it was, then he should have studied about someone before supporting and endorsing them. And furthermore, after failing at both of these examples, at least have the dignity to come to us and say, "could you please tell me more about Max Lucado and this teen drug thing, so I can understand it better?" But no, it was a childish rebuttal.

In another words, why are we to adhere to a person's perception of what goodness and love towards mankind ought to be, but they do not have to adhere to those same principles themselves? It is hypocrisy, and it is an easy excuse for the ungodly to accuse christians of being "unloving" and "unkind".

Love in Christ,

Jim

Jim, I am deeply troubled about this. I must spend some time considering and praying before I respond fully. I would say this at this point. The word "scorner" is an extremely strong word. I believe it to be very similar to the word "fool", which we are warned to be very careful how we use it. I would encourage you to examine its use particularly in the Proverbs, and see if you think that it is a word that should be applied to a believer. There are other words that may be more appropriate to the believer who is careless or ignorant of the truth. One must make a conscious, thoughtful effort to reject truth to be a scorner or a fool.

No brother, it is not even closely associated with the term "fool". If you look at Psalm 1:1, you will see it referring to complaining person. It is a person with a complaining spirit.

I am not sure where you are even getting any association with a fool. The bible is not saying that.

"1) to scorn, make mouths at, talk arrogantly"

The correlation of of scorn, and how it applies to nate, is not direct. The scripture is an example of how, when you rebuke someone who is NOT a wise man, and their reaction. that is what the proverb is saying.

It is showing you the difference of how you tell someones true colors when you try to reprove them.

I am not sure where you are going with all of this brother. Are you telling me we should no longer point out false doctrine, or point out to someone when they are wrong? Or call someone on what they are doing wrong?

Just wondering....

Love in Christ,

Jim

I also did some research on the words scorner and fool using Young's Analytical concordance, Strong's and the Noah Webster 1828 dictionary. These two words are not even remotely related according to those sources. I have no idea where you got that idea Brother Tim but it just isn't so according to my sources.

You see, if Brother Nate would have come here in the spirit of learning things would have been different by far. I realize he is a young man. However the young are supposed to learn from their elders according to the Bible. It is not for the younger to try to impress their doctrine and beliefs on the elders.

As I said before, I believe his biggest shortcoming was to not investigate Max Lucado prior to posting something Lucado wrote. As Brother Jim has said, Nate could have come to us and asked us what our beliefs and opinions of Lucado are. It is also stated in the Statement of Faith here on the forums that we reject the current Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. That alone should have told him not to post what he did.

Brother Tim, please do not get upset about what has taken place here. You are a valuable member of these forums. We definitely do not need any type of hard feelings or divisions among the like-minded brethren. I believe the situation was handled quite gently. I also believe the Bible verses posted in relation to the problem are very fitting.

In Christ,
George

I will demonstrate what I meant concerning "scorner" and "fool" later.

Response to several points:

In this thread, George said of Nate:

In "Sing or Thud", Jim's first lines were:

Jim, did you check to see if Nate in fact was quoting from the NIV first, before warning him and using his post as a indicator of the NIV's error?

How did you approach the subject of Lucado himself? The truth is there, but was it handled in recognition of a weaker brother's lack of knowledge. Contrast this with the approach taken under a similar circumstance in the thread about Ravi Zacharius.

Finally, Jim, you said:

In all candor, I would say this is a response much like George's response to the use of "smilies" and abbreviations. Jim, do you really not understand what a "thump" is in the context of the first post? "Smilies" have been used by most of us in this forum, but George spoke (scornfully?) toward a poster with whom there was disagreement, rather than criticize any of the rest of us who have been using them all along. If I had used the word "thump" to describe God's method of getting my attention, would you have responded similarly?

"Scorner" and "Fool":

From Websters 1828:

As seen above, both scorners and fools behave in a deliberate fashion. Both reject the teachings of Scripture. And by reading the verses using these identifications, it is understood that neither the scorner nor the fool can be convinced of the truth, because the truth has already been rejected.

Nate is by no means anything close to a scorner, yet the verses used imply that he is.

Brothers, I have more than enough failures in my own life to keep me busy without pointing out others' faults. I know that both of you, Jim and George, are godly, loving men. George, I know that you are dealing with very challenging problems that might have you a good bit on edge. Jim, I know that you are a worthy advocate for truth, and you do not tolerate error. I have tried to let this go without comment, but could not. I have said more than I had wished to already. I will not continue my complaint any further.

Well Brother, I am sorry if I offended you. Why did you not contact me personally with this? I expressed in my post that was just my personal feeling and objection to the use of such things.

You appear to me to have some kind of underlying something that is bothering you. Why not let us know what it is? I do not set out to offend people but I do reserve the right to express my opinion on things. I do not use those "smiley face" things in my posts nor do I use a bunch of abbreviations or acronyms. As I have stated I believe the purity of the English language needs to be resurrected.

As to why I posted this concerning one of Brother Nate's posts, I had a difficult time understanding some of it because of the abbreviations and the "smiley faces" were throughout the post. I do not understand why a man cannot express his feelings without resorting to the use of those. To me, and again this is my personal opinion, a person who uses these things prolifically in messages does so out of laziness or the lack of ability to express themselves accurately.

I meant no personal offense to anyone and again I did express the fact this was my personal feeling and opinion. The members of the board need not adjust the way they type posts to merely please me. I am insignificant and do not matter a whole lot.

Let us put these differences behind us and continue with our dialog. And once more to anyone who was offended by my posts I apologize. It was not meant as a person attack of any one person.

In Christ,
George

Brother Tim,

I am quite at a complete loss as how you have interpreted things this way. I simply have to disagree with your correlation of a fool and a scorner. The only association would be metaphorical in this context to which we are *hopefully discussing.

Why have you brought an accusation against me calling someone a fool? Nowhere at all, at any given time have I called anyone a fool except toward a Jesuit in the Catholic thread to which I will quote:

(speaking to DefensorFidei):

Please show me at anytime where I called Nate a fool, literally or metaphorically. You have accused me of something brother, and you need to be very clear. I am not offended, but the accusation of a brother in Christ calling someone a fool, is fairly serious.

This is a correlation you have personally made between two objects. They are similar in ways, and they are different on ways, but neither makes one the other.

Wrong, I have pointed out how he is a scorner from Strong's concordance, you used Websters, they do not differ, yet they present more than just one picture of a scorner. The definition you have provided does not make it more correct than the source that I have.

Nate said:

He pities a Christian! Number 1, why should a "christian" ever pity another christian" for telling the truth? Two, "The Teen Challenge", if not biblically based, does nothing more than cater to a loving, humanistic attempt to rid onesself of a physical addiction under the guise of "Jesus Loves you", and is just as worldly as Alcoholics Anonymous. Go read through the website and you will see what I mean!

If a christian can no longer call a duck a duck then God help us, and we all might as well be comfortable hypocrites.

At last, you have made an accusation, you are required biblically to let this continue. Scripture says:

Matthew 18:15
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

George has pointed out to you the "alone" part first, and I am pointing out to you the fact that it is your responsibility to discuss this with me. If you feel I have trespased against you, then it is your duty to point it out.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Wed May 07, 2008 10:03 PM by Jim.

By the way brother,

Max Lucado almost exclusively uses the NIV for his publications. As the excerpt of the "thumping" was Max Lucado's work, it is safe to assume, and claim as fact, that the NIV was the source used.

Love in Christ,

Jim

I am going to respond as you have asked, although I am only digging the hole where I am deeper still.

I chose to speak publicly in the previous posts because the initial communications between Nate, George, and Jim were also public. I will conclude my public comments with this post, so that it will be understood that I have answered as requested.

Jim, I never accused you of calling Nate a fool. I did say that you inferred that he was a scorner. Whether you agree or not, my observation, reading through the Proverbs monthly for a number of years, is that the Scriptures do reserve the name "scorner" for one who openly and defiantly rejects and mocks the truth. I again say that Nate's statements have come nowhere close to that. If your definition of "scorner" is simply one who complains, then I fear many of us are guilty of such.

Again, look at one of the verses that you used. Proverbs 9:7 - He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Following the pattern of parallelism used throughout the Proverbs, "X X X: and YYY", the wording before the colon is connected by "and" to the parallel meaning following the colon. In this verse the scorner is further described as a wicked man. Is that not a very strong term then to use?

I am not saying that we should not point out error or false doctrine or bad examples, etc. It would be better if it could be done in such a way that the simple would respond to the correction, rather than to be offended and leave because of the manner in which it was done.

George, it is true that you qualified your statements about the symbols and abbreviations by saying that it was your personal opinion. I would ask that you re-read the posts #32-#38 on the thread "the church in eternity". Step back and examine how you responded and the words that you used with GreekTim's innocent, light-hearted comments. You inferred that he was childish and frivolous by using the symbols. You were chastising him for mentioning that the topic in the thread was getting lost in the multitude of comments being made and for suggesting that a new thread should start. Note that he was the one who initiated the thread. Also, this circumstance has happened in other threads, even at least one by me, without me being told that it was not my business. GreekTim even used the symbol to indicate that he was just being humorous with the suggestion.
In the New Member thread from Cody, you likened them to cuss words. George, almost all of us, including Jim, have used these symbols and abbreviations without so much as a peep from you. Are we cursing? Is Jim childish to use IMHO in his posts? Just adding the phrase "my personal opinion" to these belittling statements does not take out the sting.
I asked you in the thread mentioned above (in post #38 of that thread) just how we are to express non-verbal communication or facial expression in such a setting as this if we cannot use some symbol or abbreviation that is generally understood. Though you may not choose to use them, at least you should be willing to note others' posts when the symbol is used so that the emotion can be better understood.
A perfect example of the limitation of this format is that you cannot see the sadness in my face at this moment that I cannot suitably describe in words. The words only sound angry, which is not at all the truth. You cannot hear the tone in my voice as I plead for the sake of a weaker brother who will now go on his way wounded by those who may have made a difference in how he sees the Christian walk.

Finally, I am not offended. I am troubled. No one has trespassed against me. I did believe that Nate was unjustly treated, and I took it upon myself to speak in his behalf. I have not done him justice. I do apologize to Jim and to George for carrying this issue out too far in the public. Any further discussion about this will be made privately on my part.