tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post4854663847499821015..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The End of Evangelical InnocencePhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger197125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84138034116801790082009-06-09T13:52:18.878-07:002009-06-09T13:52:18.878-07:00Disciple: "Let us be humble, dear Phil."...<b>Disciple:</b> <i>"Let us be humble, dear Phil."</i><br /><br />Ironic words from a guy who has spammed this thread with more words than the original post and all my comments combined.<br /><br />Please give it a rest.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71884627155231955792009-06-09T13:36:18.143-07:002009-06-09T13:36:18.143-07:00Obviously, I find this philological discussion muc...Obviously, I find this philological discussion much more interesting than the file I should be working on.<br /><br />Will S. - That is a good point about our righteousness being like dung or a dunghill, etc. Although Luther could have probably used an example that meant the same thing without a scatological reference. Isaiah was able to make that point by referring to filthy rags.<br /><br />You are right, though. I wouldn't want to have to preach through Lev. 18 to a bunch of children. I also don't want to have to answer the questions "Daddy, what is ED?" and "Daddy, what is Preparation H?" while we are watching television either.<br /><br />However, the arguably true observation that the average six year old would not be somewhat familiar with the topics addressed in Lev. 18 brings to mind the question of whether that has always been true. Years ago, I doubt that a child, living in a one or two room house, with a mother, father and several older and younger siblings, and surrounded by breeding farm animals would have been as ignorant of sexual reproduction as a suburban kid is now (presumably).<br /><br />As a consequence, I doubt such a child would have been scandalized (or his parents) by a series of sermons on Leviticus. This is all speculation of course.<br /><br />We know that there weren't cry rooms and Sunday school classes and youth worship in the fellowship hall amongst the puritans. Isn't it reasonable to assume that their children heard sermons on those topics?<br /><br />If you are arguing that we ought not not be prudish about things the Bible gives no reason to be prudish about, I wholeheartedly agree. The Victorians should not be our standard for biblical behavior, language and ideas anymore than Richard Pryor, Redd Foxx, or George Carlin.redipMatthew Lawrence Woodworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08811367192021200467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39923476666723320902009-06-09T13:35:18.472-07:002009-06-09T13:35:18.472-07:00All indecent and dirty words are not to be even th...All indecent and dirty words are not to be even thought about among the saints. No need for human philosophy that aims to justify sin.<br /><br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60562116909294011002009-06-09T13:33:55.613-07:002009-06-09T13:33:55.613-07:00This thread is getting tedious.
For the first time...This thread is getting tedious.<br />For the first time ever, I'm unsubscribing from a TeamPyro thread...!<br /><br />I mean it, man!Mike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61998584004912277412009-06-09T13:30:41.330-07:002009-06-09T13:30:41.330-07:00Mike Riccardi: “Disciple,
You're ripping that...<b>Mike Riccardi</b>: “Disciple,<br /><br />You're ripping that verse from its context to say something absolutely silly.”<br /><br />Is it silly that the only Teacher is Jesus Christ, and that disciple teachers are the ones who communicate Christ’s teaching to people? <br /><br />You said: “So Jesus says there are no teachers, but then Paul says Jesus gives teachers as gifts to the Church? No sale, friend.”<br /><br />Yes, and there is no contradiction, just as I explained above.<br /><br />You said: “So then, with no way to deny it because we see the office all throughout the New Testament, we can admit, there are teachers. But now you want to say that the very thing that marks them as teachers is that they don't teach.”<br /><br />Yes, they don’t teach their own teachings, but they teach the teaching of Jesus. That’s what Jesus also did when He was on earth: He didn’t teach from Himself as human, but from the Father, as I explained above (see John 8:38 for example). Indeed, if He preached from Himself, the Jews would accept Him:<br /><br /><i>"I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.”</i> (John 5:43)<br /><br />You said: “This overly-pious pontificating you're doing is leading you into the absurd and contradictory. Whose benefit are you seeking in your comments, dude? Seriously. You need to consider that.”<br /><br />To glorify God, as I don’t compromise the truth for the sake of being accepted by people who can’t hear it.<br /><br />Grace to you!<br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19805728758736576482009-06-09T13:17:14.957-07:002009-06-09T13:17:14.957-07:00Mike Riccardi:
You said: “Disciple: Well, the ma...<b>Mike Riccardi</b>: <br /><br />You said: “Disciple: Well, the main problem is that many Christians are still under the Law.<br /><br />This is impossible. See the following.<br /><br />For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. - Rom 6:14<br /><br />Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ. - Rom 7:4<br /><br />But now we have been released from the Law. - Rom 7:6<br /><br />Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. - Gal 3:24-25<br /><br />But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. - Gal 5:18 (cf. Rom 8:14 - For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.)”<br /><br />Exactly! So those Christians who are still under the Law are not true Christians, because, just as you said, that is impossible.<br /><br />You said: “Disciple: The only way to fulfill the Law is by the Spirit.<br /><br />We can't fulfill the Law. Christ fulfills the Law in us. Even the verse you quoted, Rom 8:2, says the requirement will be fulfilled in us, not by.”<br /><br />Exactly! I didn’t say that the Law will be fulfilled BY us, but I said that the Law will be fulfilled by the Spirit. Please, explain how you distinguish between the work of the Spirit in us and the work of Christ in us.<br /><br />You said: “Disciple: There are no teachers in the Church, for our Teacher is one, and He is Christ.<br /><br />This thought is based on a great misunderstanding of Matthew 23. Scripture is clear that teachers not only exist, but are God-given gifts to the church.<br /><br />Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. - James 3:1. Doesn't that presuppose that some will become teachers?<br /><br />And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers... - Eph 4:11<br /><br />Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers. - Acts 13:1.<br /><br />And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers... - 1Cor 12:28”<br /><br />I have explained this in my reply to Douglas. Please, read it above.<br /><br />You said: “Disciple: [In the Great Commission], “teaching them” does NOT mean that the Apostles will be the teachers,<br /><br />That's merely an assertion, not an argument.”<br /><br />An assertion based on what the Bible teaches.<br /><br />You said: “...but that the Lord will teach people through them by His Word. ... It is the truth that teaches them, not us.<br /><br />That's very pious-sounding of you, but, as demonstrated above, goes against the language of the Bible. The Bible doesn't certify that we teach anything but the Word of God, but it still calls those to whom God has given the gift of teaching teachers.”<br /><br />And yet the Bible talks also about false teachers.<br /><br />You said: “Disciple: We’re in a time when we need to explain these things to Christians...<br /><br />We’re in a time when we need to explain these things to Christians...”<br /><br />That’s right.<br /><br />You said: “Disciple: Did not the Lord teach us not to judge?<br /><br />Paul says: For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? - 1Cor 5:12. Apparently we're to judge those inside the visible, professing Church.”<br /><br />That’s a wholly different subject. You quoted a passage about discernment, while I was talking about judging each other. You annulled the commandment of Jesus regarding judgmental spirit with another commandment that is related to another topic.<br /><br />You said: “I humbly submit, dear Disciple, that you consider how James' admonition in 3:1 and then his warnings about the tongue apply to you and your comments on this blog.”<br /><br />Let each of us examine himself. And thank you for your humble advice.<br /><br />Grace to you!<br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79396957778776989912009-06-09T13:04:48.978-07:002009-06-09T13:04:48.978-07:00CR: “"Disciple of Jesus Christ",
I was...<b>CR</b>: “"Disciple of Jesus Christ", <br /><br />I wasn't talking about the law of Moses. What I was saying was that the command in Ephesians 4:29 is at a minimum saying no unwholesome words should come out of our mouths. Whatever point Tripp was trying to make about "missing the beauty" or "higher calling of the passage" and not violating the spirit of the law, he violated the letter of the law (again, I don't mean Moses, substitute with command or Eph 4:29 if you'd like) by cussing.”<br /><br />OK. But in the Bible the letter of the Law means the legalistic understanding and application of the Law, so I thought you were using the biblical expression.<br /><br />Thank you for the clarification.<br /><br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28061559960926453442009-06-09T13:01:40.700-07:002009-06-09T13:01:40.700-07:00Red and Black,
One scatalogical reference might ...Red and Black, <br /><br />One scatalogical reference might be Luther's snow covered dung. If I were preaching I would say 'dung' but the in the context of preaching the forensic nature of justification to a biker gang I could see it being appropriate to say the s-word. <br /><br />With that being said, I generally agree that subject matter can be obscene without using one of the words. I have heard many a joke in my secular office that I have been offended by that did not actually include a cuss word. I would agree pastors should not do this either. <br /><br />But in this area we need to be careful too because it is possible (and indeed necessary) to talk about some things that may not be suitable for the little kiddos. Who would want to preach through Lev 18 to a group of 6 yr old boys? But the chapter is in scripture for a reason and it needs to be preached (even if it is to a men's only group or some other context without kiddos).CSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14590529257898046077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19730049386609442962009-06-09T12:59:01.987-07:002009-06-09T12:59:01.987-07:00Chris: “...combined, of course, with your expositi...<b>Chris</b>: “...combined, of course, with your exposition of it.<br /><br />e.g. "How will they hear without a teacher?"<br /><br />The real question is simply whether a teacher is true or false.”<br /><br />Well, not teacher, but preacher: <i>“And how will they hear without a preacher?”</i> (Romans 10:14)<br /><br />Anyways… Let’s see how you judge whether a teacher is true or false.<br /><br />Grace to you!<br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30772844854599117192009-06-09T12:56:32.780-07:002009-06-09T12:56:32.780-07:00Disciple,
You're ripping that verse from its ...Disciple,<br /><br />You're ripping that verse from its context to say something absolutely silly. <br /><br />So Jesus says there are no teachers, but then Paul says Jesus gives teachers as gifts to the Church? No sale, friend.<br /><br />So then, with no way to deny it because we see the office all throughout the New Testament, we can admit, there are teachers. But now you want to say that the very thing that marks them as teachers is that they don't teach.<br /><br />This overly-pious pontificating you're doing is leading you into the absurd and contradictory. Whose benefit are you seeking in your comments, dude? Seriously. You need to consider that.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76332011227719227592009-06-09T12:50:20.551-07:002009-06-09T12:50:20.551-07:00“Where did I say I was referring to you in my desc...“Where did I say I was referring to you in my description of the quiet, arrogant, and pseudo-tolerant folks who like to use "loving" rhetoric of unification so often? I made it clear that many of this ilk to whom I was referring are academic elitist types within my field--people I know. Does the shoe fit?”<br /><br />As you were replying to my comments, so it is natural to assume that you were addressing me. <br /><br />Well, thank you for the clarification. So you didn’t mean I am doing that with my biblical clarifications above.<br /><br />Grace to you!<br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61081092832584547022009-06-09T12:48:05.191-07:002009-06-09T12:48:05.191-07:00“Disciple said:
"There are no teachers in th...“Disciple said:<br /><br />"There are no teachers in the Church"<br />Paul would disagree with you on that (Ephesians 4:11-12)”<br /><br />1. Dear Douglas, this makes you wonder why they were offended when I said that I am using questions that are helpful to teach people.<br /><br />2. Paul is not contradicting Jesus who said that we have only one Teacher, Jesus Christ. Paul is explaining the gift of teachers through whom CHRIST teaches. Those teachers will be false teachers if they teach from their own. This kind of false teachers do not have the mind of Christ and of the Spirit. All along His earthly ministry, our Lord never said that He teaches from His own (as a human) but He said that He teaches whatever He hears from His Father. And He also told us that the Spirit of truth will do this: He will take from Him (from Christ) and will reveal it to us. Those who consider they are teachers in themselves and not disciples, do a big error, as not even the Lord of Glory did that when He was on earth.<br /><br />Be blessed!<br />Disciple of Jesus ChristDisciple of Jesus Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836641535538044704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5261781172982536262009-06-09T12:43:57.167-07:002009-06-09T12:43:57.167-07:00Two more observations and then I need to get some ...Two more observations and then I need to get some work accomplished:<br /><br />First, Will S, it seems to me that you are missing the key issue here: Of primary importance is the topic being discussed. Of secondary importance is the vocabulary used to discuss that topic. In other words, if what one is talking about is non-edifying, then it ought not be discussed no matter how flowery the language used nor how vulgar the language used. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot think of a subject that is scatological in nature where a pastor would be in the position of having to decide whether to use the term "feces" or be hip and say "s***."<br /><br />Look at it this way: Gossip is non-edifying whether one employs vulgar language or uses non-vulgar language. As Christians, we ought not gossip.<br /><br />Second, the postmodern downgrade began with the fall. We have been anti-authoritarian ever since. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that our post-modern problems began with the Enlightenment. Diana West, in The Death of The Grownup, argues they began in the 1920s. That's a good read, by they way. She correctly diagnoses western societies perpetual immaturity.Matthew Lawrence Woodworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08811367192021200467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62443538669063665182009-06-09T12:33:18.035-07:002009-06-09T12:33:18.035-07:00To those that are proponents of using swear words,...To those that are proponents of using swear words,what do you get from using those words? What does that bring to your sermon/lesson that you cannot get with another word?<br /><br />Are you trying to awaken your audience? Shock them? Why can you not use more vivid non-vulgar language? Have you read Edwards or Spurgeon lately? Were they not vivid? Were they not "edgy" enough? The truth in eloquent and vivid terms is far more shocking and awakening than a swear word thrown in for effect.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789615082333952443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7318278905770132962009-06-09T12:27:34.643-07:002009-06-09T12:27:34.643-07:00Sir Aaron, I think we are on the same page. I thin...Sir Aaron, I think we are on the same page. I think it is a shame that some pastors (not very many but a visible few) seem to relish in pushing the boundaries of acceptable language. This is clearly not good and they should be called on the floor for it.<br /><br />Let's just make sure we as a church don't go the other way and become protectors of American English circa 1950. Doing so is not biblically mandated and will rightfully make us look silly.CSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14590529257898046077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62194842446804083342009-06-09T12:16:30.699-07:002009-06-09T12:16:30.699-07:00Sir Aaron,
Call it being to eager to argue, or ju...Sir Aaron,<br /><br />Call it being to eager to argue, or just plan slow...sad thing is, I tried it off line too...same results.<br /><br />You know how it goes, I'll just make one more comment and then let it go.<br /><br />If only I would.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19446791341730861552009-06-09T12:11:14.648-07:002009-06-09T12:11:14.648-07:00Will S:
I get your point. Language changes. Wha...Will S:<br /><br />I get your point. Language changes. What once was considered foul language can become nothing more than a clinical description. But I think we could agree that the use of the S word and other words may not be exactly taboo, but most people understand that such language would not be acceptable at most of society's formal affairs. So as Christians it behooves us to exemplify the very best behavior. Instead you have Pastors that actually brag and relish the opportunity to use such words in public as if it were a badge of honor. If it were the case that such words were no longer "foul" then using such language wouldn't deserve such special attention.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33110102654236723182009-06-09T12:09:02.424-07:002009-06-09T12:09:02.424-07:00as Neil Postman has eloquently argued, the medium ...as Neil Postman has eloquently argued, the medium is as much the message as the message itself.<br /><br />herein, as they say, lies the rub.<br /><br />in the current environment, the messanger may actually be more imortant than the message, for an example see our past election. <br />yes, absolutely, that is true, for the world.<br />a serious casualty of the Phinney and on movement from soveriegnty of God/ election, is that since the "church" believes that the lost can decide, and that since the messanger makes or breaks closing the deal, and the next thing you know, you are playing AC DC songs on Easter Sunday and asking people to "meet Jesus", while talking all the while about releaving ones self in the mall. and what do you know? 300 people loved that message and messanger enough to be claimed on the interweb.<br />BUT, if the Bible is true, and it is, and salvation is of God, and it is, then what John the Baptist said "I must decrease so that HE might increase" actually becomes a good idea. <br />we do not need to lay in the mud to bring the gospel to someone laying with pigs, we proclaim it and let God reach those that e would. <br />no clever sales pitch, no 30 day trials, no tailgate baptisms dressed in hawaiian shirts, just the gospel. He is God, HIS rules, His way for His glory. why do we fight this so hard?mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10436809417566796558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63633533949550614362009-06-09T12:06:38.758-07:002009-06-09T12:06:38.758-07:00Daryl and Chris:
How come you didn't get it w...Daryl and Chris:<br /><br />How come you didn't get it when I mentioned something along the same lines about 100 posts ago?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69890842593324954382009-06-09T12:06:16.125-07:002009-06-09T12:06:16.125-07:00I'm not buyin it Will....but a good sell thoug...I'm not buyin it Will....but a good sell though, I must say, by painting that detailed historical context. <br /><br />How about looking at the larger postmodern downgrade which surrounds the downgrade in language, as Red & Black mentioned? It should make it so obvious that true lovers of Christ (not legalists) would never want to see a larger movement of opposition to God given credence by adopting its rhetoric.<br /><br />The postmodern downgrade, which began in the sixties, is highly distinct, and uniquely devastating to witness in this, the 21st century. The language of the larger downgrade is, admittedly, subject to societal degrees of acceptance or rejection; it is a reflection of a society that is increasingly more hateful of truth and absolutes. However, this obvious reality concerning the entrance of new base words into the rhetorical marketplace should have no impact upon discerning Christians who are called OUT of the world and its ways. I have trouble even trying to conceive of how you regard the intentional rejection of this new vocabulary among believers as being nit-pickey. It is even more astonishing to think professing Christians use such language in their churches...more astonishing (and damnable) still is the defilement of God's Word by using the crass rhetoric of postmodern society in a pulpit!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79126517531521962512009-06-09T12:06:03.576-07:002009-06-09T12:06:03.576-07:00Ok, I saw the video. I thought his message was ok...Ok, I saw the video. I thought his message was ok, but didn't understand why he needed to actually say the word. He could have spelled it out or done a couple other things to let us know what he was talking about. I also don't get how you make a point about bad words then let your kids use it flippantly.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8660118218070089112009-06-09T11:46:00.346-07:002009-06-09T11:46:00.346-07:00Disciple: Well, the main problem is that many Chri...<b>Disciple</b>: <i>Well, the main problem is that many Christians are still under the Law</i>.<br /><br />This is impossible. See the following.<br /><br />For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. - Rom 6:14<br /><br />Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ. - Rom 7:4<br /><br />But now we have been released from the Law. - Rom 7:6<br /><br />Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. - Gal 3:24-25<br /><br />But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. - Gal 5:18 (cf. Rom 8:14 - For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.)<br /><br /><b>Disciple</b>: <i>The only way to fulfill the Law is by the Spirit</i>.<br /><br />We can't fulfill the Law. Christ fulfills the Law in us. Even the verse you quoted, Rom 8:2, says the requirement will be fulfilled <i>in</i> us, not <i>by</i>.<br /><br /><b>Disciple</b>: <i>There are no teachers in the Church, for our Teacher is one, and He is Christ</i>.<br /><br />This thought is based on a great misunderstanding of Matthew 23. Scripture is clear that teachers not only exist, but are God-given gifts to the church.<br /><br />Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. - James 3:1. Doesn't that presuppose that <i>some</i> will become teachers?<br /><br />And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and <b>teachers</b>... - Eph 4:11<br /><br />Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers. - Acts 13:1.<br /><br />And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers... - 1Cor 12:28<br /><br /><b>Disciple</b>: <i>[In the Great Commission], “teaching them” does NOT mean that the Apostles will be the teachers</i>,<br /><br />That's merely an assertion, not an argument.<br /><br /><i>...but that the Lord will teach people through them by His Word. ... It is the truth that teaches them, not us</i>.<br /><br />That's very pious-sounding of you, but, as demonstrated above, goes against the language of the Bible. The Bible doesn't certify that we teach anything but the Word of God, but it still calls those to whom God has given the gift of teaching teachers.<br /><br /><b>Disciple</b>: <i>We’re in a time when we need to explain these things to Christians</i>...<br /><br />We’re in a time when we need to explain these things to Christians...<br /><br /><b>Disciple</b>: <i>Did not the Lord teach us not to judge</i>?<br /><br />Paul says: For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? - 1Cor 5:12. Apparently we're to judge those inside the visible, professing Church.<br /><br />I humbly submit, dear Disciple, that you consider how James' admonition in 3:1 and then his warnings about the tongue apply to you and your comments on this blog.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26717417018166868462009-06-09T11:45:46.133-07:002009-06-09T11:45:46.133-07:00"Disciple of Jesus Christ",
I wasn'..."Disciple of Jesus Christ", <br /><br />I wasn't talking about the law of Moses. What I was saying was that the command in Ephesians 4:29 is at a minimum saying no unwholesome words should come out of our mouths. Whatever point Tripp was trying to make about "missing the beauty" or "higher calling of the passage" and not violating the spirit of the law, he violated the letter of the law (again, I don't mean Moses, substitute with command or Eph 4:29 if you'd like) by cussing.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82178159295474090792009-06-09T11:44:20.912-07:002009-06-09T11:44:20.912-07:00Red and Black:
You Wrote:
"Therefore, the do...Red and Black:<br /><br />You Wrote:<br />"Therefore, the downturn in language standards is a reflection of the anti-authoritarian nature of modern Western society and the inherent relativism that is contained therein."<br /><br />Well said! So true indeed! Yes, as a West-Coaster (somewhere between San Diego and Seattle) who teaches college students in both secular academia and at an increasingly more liberal "Christian" institution, the downgrade in language and anti-authoritarian sentiment becomes more and more obvious every semester.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83996734995293638242009-06-09T11:40:21.790-07:002009-06-09T11:40:21.790-07:00Phil, I think we agree with your last statement: &...Phil, I think we agree with your last statement: "Instead, Scripture simply tells us not to use such words. This was never considered a complex issue until the past 20 years or so. Anyone care to speculate why?"<br /><br />Here is why I think I think the issue has become more complex of late. I think that 40 years ago the US went through a huge cultural shift. Cultural shifts (whether for the better or worse) change what is acceptable in language. As you noted, the reason acceptable language changed in 1066 is because the ruling class changed and the new rulers from the north of France didn't particularly like the language of their Saxon subjects. The s-word may have been acceptable in Saxon England for 300 years prior to 1066 but since then it has been considered low and crass. <br /><br />And so in 1960 there was a confluence of changes to our culture that have changed many aspects of our culture. The cause of the change was mostly due to ungodly factors (sexual revolution, darwinian understandings becoming mainstream, marxist influence etc) but we have to remember that William the Conquerer and the cultural change he brought through violent overthrow was not all well and good either. It may have been that the church in 1067 were lamenting the fact that everyone was using the e-word (excrement). <br /><br />The role of the church in all this is not to attempt to stem the tide of changing language. Our role (in fulfilling Eph 5:4) is to stay within the boundaries of societal acceptance of the day. The s-word may still be taboo in some crowds but it is certainly not not considered taboo other crowds. <br /><br />I do not think it is the church's role to be persnickety on language. I think it is our role to be non-offensive on language. If the culture as a whole talks one way all the time but when they are around Christians they have to 'watch their tongues' I think we are missing the point of what Paul is saying. This is creating a rule that scripture does not mandate.CSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14590529257898046077noreply@blogger.com