Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judging others

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IMPORTANT Judging others

    Brethren.

    The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

    In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

    What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

    For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

    But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

    2 Thes 3:6

  • #2
    Originally posted by poochie View Post
    Brethren.

    The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

    In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

    What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

    For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

    But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

    2 Thes 3:6
    Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.
    "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rufus_1611 View Post
      Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.
      See poochie, you can't win!

      Truth is you must learn to do this for yourself.

      (1 Cor 2:15 KJV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

      Discernment takes practice because there are no hard and fast rules:

      (Heb 5:14 KJV) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

      A false prophet or teacher can only beguile those whose souls are not yet established in the faith. The one who has thru trial and error proved the word of the Lord is trustworthy, will not find themselves easily led astray by those who do not take this same view of scripture. It is not that CCM or the NIV is good or bad per se, since all the works of men will have both these elements in them; rather it is whether or not you can discern which is which.

      When a bad song comes on the radio can you discern what is wrong? The same goes with the NIV or the KJV when you come across an error in the translation. It would be great if we could make blanket statements and find our safety there, but that is not what is required of us. Rather we are called to test the spirits. Which means we must grow in our knowledge of Christ until we have His mind on every issue. And that takes practice and diligence - and a lifetime to achieve!
      Robin

      Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that, unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it. - Blaise Pascal
      And Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
      Discernment is not needed in things that differ, but in things that appear to be the same. - Miles Sanford
      Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them. - C.H. Spurgeon

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by poochie View Post
        Brethren.

        The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

        In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

        What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

        For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

        But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

        2 Thes 3:6
        You're forgetting that many make things like CCM (Christian lyrics to a modern beat) and Bible translations part of their doctrine, and they will judge us for it. And then they wonder why many of us want nothing to do with organized religion.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mograce2U View Post
          Discernment takes practice because there are no hard and fast rules:
          That is AWESOME!!! I totally already understood the principle, but the way you said it really blessed my spirit! Thanks, Mo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rufus_1611 View Post
            Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.
            Yeah, well...that's basically what the Pharisees said when Jesus started bucking tradition, too.

            Dontcha think that it would be better to allow others in here to have and express doctrinal and dogmatic views that differ from yours rather than trying to rain judgement down on them? Besides, from what I've read of the rules, your "worthy of judgement" statement is kind of a no-no in here, ya know?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OrdainedLady View Post
              Yeah, well...that's basically what the Pharisees said when Jesus started bucking tradition, too.

              Dontcha think that it would be better to allow others in here to have and express doctrinal and dogmatic views that differ from yours rather than trying to rain judgement down on them? Besides, from what I've read of the rules, your "worthy of judgement" statement is kind of a no-no in here, ya know?
              Even though I do not agree with Rufus's assertion of "Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment." I believe he is simply stating his understanding of biblical teaching and is warning others based on that understanding.
              Again it's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' type of situation. If the post modern types take offense at someone's dogmatic stance then they need to measure their own dogmatic-ness in their being offended and their ensuing counterattack.
              ♪ Each day may Christ become clearer, His Cross dearer, Our Hope nearer. ♫

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by crossnote View Post
                Even though I do not agree with Rufus's assertion of "Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment." I believe he is simply stating his understanding of biblical teaching and is warning others based on that understanding.
                Again it's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' type of situation. If the post modern types take offense at someone's dogmatic stance then they need to measure their own dogmatic-ness in their being offended and their ensuing counterattack.
                Very well said...thank you for your discernment.
                "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by crossnote View Post
                  Even though I do not agree with Rufus's assertion of "Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment." I believe he is simply stating his understanding of biblical teaching and is warning others based on that understanding.
                  Again it's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' type of situation. If the post modern types take offense at someone's dogmatic stance then they need to measure their own dogmatic-ness in their being offended and their ensuing counterattack.
                  Not trying to be argumentative, however...

                  -- Your statement above indicates to me that you are labeling me a "post-modernist" - which I most definitely am not.

                  -- Your statement above indicates to me that if you *are* labeling me a post modernist, you are also accusing me of being dogmatic - which I most definitely am not.

                  -- Your statement above indicates to me that I am attempting to attack Rufus by "ensuing counterattack" - which I most definitely was not.

                  My intent here is just to understand what you meant by your above statement. I'm just trying to figure out where the discernment in that statement *is* if it doesn't appear to apply. Now, if you weren't directing your comments to me, I apologize beforehand for taking them personally - but re-reading what the others wrote, your comments don't seem to be applicable to them, either.

                  I sure would appreciate you being a little more clear in which direction your are aiming the statements I addressed above. I agree that it's within fair parameters for Rufus to state his beliefs from his understanding of biblical teaching. I'm not so sure that you should have included what you wrote next, as it just kind of seemed to me to be an unneccesary dig.

                  But, I'd love for you to change my mind about my impressions...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OrdainedLady View Post
                    Not trying to be argumentative, however...

                    -- Your statement above indicates to me that you are labeling me a "post-modernist" - which I most definitely am not.

                    -- Your statement above indicates to me that if you *are* labeling me a post modernist, you are also accusing me of being dogmatic - which I most definitely am not.

                    -- Your statement above indicates to me that I am attempting to attack Rufus by "ensuing counterattack" - which I most definitely was not.

                    My intent here is just to understand what you meant by your above statement. I'm just trying to figure out where the discernment in that statement *is* if it doesn't appear to apply. Now, if you weren't directing your comments to me, I apologize beforehand for taking them personally - but re-reading what the others wrote, your comments don't seem to be applicable to them, either.

                    I sure would appreciate you being a little more clear in which direction your are aiming the statements I addressed above. I agree that it's within fair parameters for Rufus to state his beliefs from his understanding of biblical teaching. I'm not so sure that you should have included what you wrote next, as it just kind of seemed to me to be an unneccesary dig.

                    But, I'd love for you to change my mind about my impressions...
                    I just clicked on the 'quote' button on the last post and your quote was recorded in the message box. My post was a comment simply disagreeing with Rufus' assertion but defending his right to say it. I was not directly responding to your comment for I found it a little ambiguous. So instead I made my comment to a general audience. Obviously you found my post ambiguous as well, not being sure if it was a direct salvo. Nope, unless you take it as such.
                    ♪ Each day may Christ become clearer, His Cross dearer, Our Hope nearer. ♫

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      response to Judging other´s

                      “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother´s way.”
                      (Romans.14:13)
                      And they went out and preached that men should repent. (Mark 6:12)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by poochie View Post
                        Brethren.

                        The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

                        In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

                        What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

                        For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

                        But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

                        2 Thes 3:6
                        I don't get it. What's wrong with Christain music and NIV?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cynthia View Post
                          I don't get it. What's wrong with Christain music and NIV?
                          There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

                          A similar issue applies to the Bible version matter. There is nothing wrong with the Word of God, it is a matter of defining what the Word of God is. If one lives by every Word of God, then one can not abide with a book that removes words from verses like Romans 8:1, 1 John 5:7, and that overall has 64,000 fewer words than the Holy Bible.
                          "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rufus_1611 View Post
                            There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

                            A similar issue applies to the Bible version matter. There is nothing wrong with the Word of God, it is a matter of defining what the Word of God is. If one lives by every Word of God, then one can not abide with a book that removes words from verses like Romans 8:1, 1 John 5:7, and that overall has 64,000 fewer words than the Holy Bible.

                            What about a bible version that changes the name of the brother of Jesus to fit the name of a king? What about a translation that changes Passover to Easter? What about a translation that originally included the Apocrypha? What about a translation that changes Instruction/teaching to law? What about a translation that deletes the name of Yahweh and inserts Lord?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Emanate View Post
                              What about a bible version that changes the name of the brother of Jesus to fit the name of a king?
                              To what are you referring?

                              What about a translation that changes Passover to Easter?
                              The word is Easter in Acts 12:4 and the AV did not change the word.

                              Acts 12:4
                              "And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people." - (Tyndale's New Testament - 1526)

                              "Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people." - (Miles Coverdale - 1535)

                              "And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people." - (Bishop's Bible - 1568)

                              "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." - (Authorized Version - 1611)

                              What about a translation that originally included the Apocrypha?
                              It was not considered canon, had no frontispiece, there is nothing evil contained within the works and was included for historical purposes and it was removed from later editions so it wouldn't be a stumbling block to folks.

                              What about a translation that changes Instruction/teaching to law?
                              I am uncertain what you mean by this.

                              What about a translation that deletes the name of Yahweh and inserts Lord?
                              Yahweh was not deleted for it was never included. There isn't a single English Bible prior to the AV that used Yahweh for the name of the Lord. His name is Jehovah, or Lord, or Jesus, or Almighty God, or many, many other names. What He is not called is "Yahweh".
                              "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." - Revelation 20:6

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X