Posted on 06/09/2013 7:50:35 AM PDT by District13
Ya beat me to it; again! ;^)
Bingo
nasty-hum?
I think John the Baptist was pretty nasty when he stood at the palace gates and called the queen a whore.
I think Paul got pretty nasty when after he preached many times having to flee for his life because the people were so offended.
Everyone has talents when presenting the Word, some are mild some not so much.....it appears you have chosen the more mild approach, there are many with experience with mormonism reaching back decades who may feel there isn’t enough time to be mild.
Will PeevedPatriot "chew out" John the Baptist for his "insulting" "rude" words in Luke 3?
7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”...17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. 19 But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, 20 Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. (Luke 3)
Did you catch all the above, Peeved?
John the Baptist...
1. Labeled them a "brood of vipers"
2. Warned them about their potential lack of fruit
3. Chaff would be burned
And yet, before it mentions how he rebuked Herod due to his inappro marriage & "evil things," it says: ...with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. (v. 18)
"Exhortation" is a form of encouragement; and the context here was him proclaiming the "good news"...
Somehow, it seems, you think that exhortation and proclamation of the good news might exclude all of the above...
But Luther made it clear that we as Christians are to proclaim BOTH the law & the gospel...and in fact, it's often the realization of the law which helps people realize how they fall short of God's favor & grace -- and therefore need forgiveness & grace & mercy.
Alright. I'm sure we are both familiar with Lot, right? Lot was a "mixed bag" -- "holiness" wise...He chose to live close to the Sodom & Gomorrah crowd -- minus moving when things got immorally out of control there.
With no perspective husbands in sight, his two daughters decided to get him drunk, "lay with him" -- and give birth to kids who were both children -- and grandchildren -- all at the same time!
Not exactly a "righteous" family, you might think, right?
Well, wrong. Well...at least partly wrong. Look at how Peter describes Lot's reaction to that immoral culture around him:
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2)
You see, even Lot had the righteousness within him to exercise indignant provocation -- even with what others might deem a "discounted" righteousness where you compare Lot to Jesus.
Please don't make your standard for "holiness" and "righteousness" so out of this world that only Jesus qualifies for it. Because if Lot could be this way, how much more so can today's Christians in light that the Holy Spirit lives in and thru us?
What? You're advocating that we are to play the role of the Holy Spirit here?
You've had several posts lauding the omniscience of Jesus that allowed Him to speak into situations -- omniscience you keep reminding us that we don't have...And yet you ask this question? (As if this is to be part of our role -- to determine 100% where people are at spiritually before we dare say anything?)
Once again, you are inconsistent & incoherent with your stances here.
Too many people present the above as if people are somewhere in "neutral land" and that if we say something negative, we'll scare them off...we'll alienate them...and "Well, there goes any chance of 'winning' them."
Yes, we are to customize our approach; yes, one size does not fit all. But guess what? The Bible doesn't present people as spiritually "neutral" -- they are either in darkness or light.
They are either lost or found. They are either in Christ or not. They are either in bondage or set free. They are either spiritually dead or alive in Christ.
Please don't give us this alleged "mushy middle"; it doesn't exist.
Please stop pinging me. As I said to you earlier, if you have the mind of Christ you will understand why our conversation is over. Peace be with you.
Let me quickly say something about Titus. Paul left him in charge (1:5) to organize the community and appoint elders. Those to be silenced are referred to in 1:10 as, depending on your translation, insubordinate, rebellious, disobedient. I understand it to mean that Titus is to replace those "teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach" with others who have a right to teach (i.e. subordinate, obedient, faithful men) sound doctrine. In other words, silence the insubordinate by removing them from teaching positions and install others who teach faithfully.
I see Paul telling Titus to exercise the authority he was given to guide a particular group of believers and appoint proper teachers and elders. I don't see this verse giving a lay person of one denomination the authority to silence a lay person of another.
Stay safe if you're in an area under the gun with severe weather tonight!
It went about 40 miles north of me, thanks!
I try not to be unkind; but sometimes that is how my effort is perceived.
Time is short and niceties and bullcrap just ain't in my DNA structure.
No doubt we've all been judged--and judged others--more harshly than the situation called for. Thank God it's the judgment of Jesus and not men that counts :)
You may very well be right. My standard is Jesus' clarification of the two great commands (Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:29-31) during the last days of his ministry. I wouldn't hold John accountable for a command issued after his death.
I think Paul got pretty nasty ...
You may be right about that too, nevertheless he made numerous statements not to conduct oneself that way. I don't think that makes him a hypocrite. I think it's a reflection of the very thing James (ch 3) wrote about. Only a perfect man makes no mistakes in his speech.
there isn’t enough time to be mild.
I can understand feeling that way. I just don't see the Lord making an exception based on our feelings. If you look at the context in which Jesus clarified which of the commands are greatest, it was immediately after he corrected the mistaken beliefs of the sadducees. This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to instruct us to be harsh if others hold false beliefs. But he didn't do that.
Nor was he harsh in his correction of the sadducees in either account. He explains what's false in their beliefs and he asks a question. I love it when Jesus makes a point with a question :) I see him being succinct and objective. Perhaps the sadducees took issue with his answer and felt insulted, but that would be a matter of pride not a matter of Jesus having spoken rudely to them IMHO.
BTW you demonstrated the very principle I'm talking about in your comment. Thank you :)
Yup; and I DO try to get information out to folks so they can make their own decisions.
After all; if He could us a talking ass, He can SURELY use me in some small way!
Thanks for making me LOLOL. There’s hope for us all :-D
As Dirty Harry said...
“It’s a wise man that knows his limitations.”
I have had mixed ones, but honestly, the notion that there’s some grand Mormon conspiracy to take over the world is an apples to oranges comparison. It’s beyond the absurdity of Alex Jones saying that the government programs us to be homosexual, or his repeated rants that the dollar will collapse, when it doesn’t. People need to get their head screwed on, and out of their own smelly @#$ and get a life. I won’t ever join the Mormon Church, but I think the whole idea of stereotyping and placing all of society’s ills on the Mormons is plenty rediculous, and it’s even more rediculous to treat it like these Mormons will take over the world. I am not a member, nor will I ever be, but people need to forgive and move on, if someone who was Mormon was being just like anyone else could be to you, or me. Let’s get over the rediculous primeval, 19th century mindset that America has that only an elite few people out of America deserve respect, and get over the whole exclusive attitude for a change.
It’s interesting that you mention Ronald Reagan, wasn’t this same Ronald Reagan the same president who was a friend of Mr. T and Roc Hudson, and also the same president who signed Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a National Holiday?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.