Steve (and anyone else),
I could use some wise counsel with regard to correcting other Christians in casual conversation. On many occasions I've had a Christian brother or sister try to exhort me by quoting something I immediately recognize as "word of faith" doctrine. I've chosen, so far, to just thank them for their encouragement and move on... even though it kind of bugs me.
Another sitation came up last week when speaking casually to another brother (from a different church) and in passing he mentioned something about the end of the world must be coming soon because Israel gave up their land in gaza. Just pretent for a moment that you hold to a preterist view of eschatology. Since this conversation is not taking place at a bible study, would it be wise to offer my opinion or just kind of nod and say, "mm hmm."
I certainly don't want to sound like I'm a know-it-all. Far from it! I could be wrong in many of my views, but that's not really my question here. When is it appropriate to offer your own views and when should you keep them to yourself? During a bible study it's entirely appropriate to hash these differences out, but what about doing so in casual conversation? I have no conviction about this really so I kind of just keep my views private when possible. Can anyone relate something from their personal experience? I ask this especially of Steve because I know he must encounter this often.
Correcting other Christians?
Correcting other Christians?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JC,
I go through those same situations all the time it seems like! And I react pretty much the same way as you do, just kinda grin and throw in a "thats interesting" or something. I also stuggle with saying something and getting into a long drawn out conversation or just "smile and wave". On one hand, we want to challenge false views but on the other hand we dont want to be repulsive about it.
I would also like to hear Steve's answer to this one...and others.
I go through those same situations all the time it seems like! And I react pretty much the same way as you do, just kinda grin and throw in a "thats interesting" or something. I also stuggle with saying something and getting into a long drawn out conversation or just "smile and wave". On one hand, we want to challenge false views but on the other hand we dont want to be repulsive about it.
I would also like to hear Steve's answer to this one...and others.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Lotta Luv,
john b
john b
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
I personally think it's wise to keep it situational and let the Spirit lead. Not all doctrinal disagreements need to be hashed out.
I would confront Word of Faith or anti-nomian heresies before confronting differences in something like eschatology because I think WOF is much more damaging to the believer and dishonoring to God. But I would address the latter also in appropriate forums where the discussion is welcomed...like this one.
AW Tozer said about disputes in eschatology something like:
It's like children waiting for their father to come home from the war and arguing about how he's going to get here (whether by plane, train, or automobile) rather than pressing their noses up to the window and watching in eager anticipation.
That's a paraphrase, but you get the picture.
Paul said:
2 Tim 2:23
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
NKJV
That is not to say to avoid discussion altogether, but if you think someone is going to be contentious about their non-essential viewpoint, it may be wise to just smile and nod and then change the subject. I've done so more times than I can count.
Just my opinion.
I would confront Word of Faith or anti-nomian heresies before confronting differences in something like eschatology because I think WOF is much more damaging to the believer and dishonoring to God. But I would address the latter also in appropriate forums where the discussion is welcomed...like this one.
AW Tozer said about disputes in eschatology something like:
It's like children waiting for their father to come home from the war and arguing about how he's going to get here (whether by plane, train, or automobile) rather than pressing their noses up to the window and watching in eager anticipation.
That's a paraphrase, but you get the picture.
Paul said:
2 Tim 2:23
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
NKJV
That is not to say to avoid discussion altogether, but if you think someone is going to be contentious about their non-essential viewpoint, it may be wise to just smile and nod and then change the subject. I've done so more times than I can count.
Just my opinion.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
My opinion is identical to those expressed already.
It depends on the situation. I do become weary of making the same controversial points a thousand times with new people who are not even aware of the existence of viewpoints other than their own—especially in a day like ours, when few Christians seem to really care about theology, and most would find correction to be merely annoying.
A pastor who is unacquainted with preterism recently asked me a question about the stone of Daniel 2 and the darkening of the sun and moon in Acts 2 (the quotations from Joel). He has never even heard of or considered anything other than the futurist viewpoint. Should I even broach the subject of my views on this subject, knowing that it will necessarily lead either to a very lengthy, time-consuming dialogue, or to him viewing me as if I was from another planet—or both?
IN a case like this, where my views are being asked, I find it impossible to say nothing. The difficulty is in deciding whether to sheepishly mention that there are a variety of views and that I hold a lesser-known position, but that the whole matter hardly seems worth arguing about, or to settle in for a long debate in hopes of changing his mind.
Most of the time I take the former tact. However, if the person is teachable and hungry for truth, or if it is someone with whom I will be having a long-term relationship rendering it inevitable that my views must eventually become known to him, I obviously must take the uncomfortable and tedious course of explaining everything from square-one. Or, of course, I can give him my tapes. If he is not interested enough to listen to them, then his interest (I may conclude) was not sufficient to justify the great amount of time it would have takien me to make all the points in personal conversation.
Really, the leading of the Spirit, as Christopher said, is the key to deciding case-by-case what to do.
It depends on the situation. I do become weary of making the same controversial points a thousand times with new people who are not even aware of the existence of viewpoints other than their own—especially in a day like ours, when few Christians seem to really care about theology, and most would find correction to be merely annoying.
A pastor who is unacquainted with preterism recently asked me a question about the stone of Daniel 2 and the darkening of the sun and moon in Acts 2 (the quotations from Joel). He has never even heard of or considered anything other than the futurist viewpoint. Should I even broach the subject of my views on this subject, knowing that it will necessarily lead either to a very lengthy, time-consuming dialogue, or to him viewing me as if I was from another planet—or both?
IN a case like this, where my views are being asked, I find it impossible to say nothing. The difficulty is in deciding whether to sheepishly mention that there are a variety of views and that I hold a lesser-known position, but that the whole matter hardly seems worth arguing about, or to settle in for a long debate in hopes of changing his mind.
Most of the time I take the former tact. However, if the person is teachable and hungry for truth, or if it is someone with whom I will be having a long-term relationship rendering it inevitable that my views must eventually become known to him, I obviously must take the uncomfortable and tedious course of explaining everything from square-one. Or, of course, I can give him my tapes. If he is not interested enough to listen to them, then his interest (I may conclude) was not sufficient to justify the great amount of time it would have takien me to make all the points in personal conversation.
Really, the leading of the Spirit, as Christopher said, is the key to deciding case-by-case what to do.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
The point Chris made re Tozer's comment is very good one. I am astonished that people can get so worked up over an argument that would seem to have so little bearing on our life as disciples, and then I consider what some dispensationalists teach. At least some of them (prominent among them "two first names from Texas") teach that Jesus' teachings are Law and do not apply to us! To me, this is borderline blasphemy and should always be refuted.
I heard with my own ears this false teacher advise a lady, struggling with forgiving someone, that Jesus' teachings about how we must forgive others, or we will not be forgiven, do not apply to us. He told her she was just fine the way she was!
As JW Mcgarvey put it there is nothing more plainly taught in the Bible than that we must forgive others.
I heard with my own ears this false teacher advise a lady, struggling with forgiving someone, that Jesus' teachings about how we must forgive others, or we will not be forgiven, do not apply to us. He told her she was just fine the way she was!
As JW Mcgarvey put it there is nothing more plainly taught in the Bible than that we must forgive others.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
This same thing happened to me on Thursday
I am in a small group fellowship at the Calvary Chapel that I attend. It was quite interesting because we were having a rather edifying Bible study in Nehemiah, and for some unknown reason, a brother compared something to the "last days." He proceeded to say that we would not have peace until the Antichrist came, and it would only be for 3 1/2 years. The group leader must have noticed my inadvertent smile, because he asked what was my opinion. Instantly, I felt the compelled by the Lord not to further stray from the edifying discussion by explaining that I hold a viewpoint far different than most of the brothers have ever heard. In response, I stated a point of agreement with a brother on the verse we were actually discussing and brought the discussion back to Nehemiah and away from eschatology. I felt that the Lord was looking for me to enjoy the fellowship with my brothers, not to necessarily "fight every battle." That being said, there is a time and place to discuss theology and confront differences, but this must be based on the leading of the Holy Spirit. I have no regrets about not trying to debunk dispensationalism everytime I am smothered with it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JJR,
Are you suggesting that if someone teaches that we are under no obligation to obey what Jesus commanded that we should say nothing? I would, in a kind way, remind them of what Jesus said in regard to making disciples: "...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".
Are you suggesting that if someone teaches that we are under no obligation to obey what Jesus commanded that we should say nothing? I would, in a kind way, remind them of what Jesus said in regard to making disciples: "...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
clarification
Homer,
Not sure why my words would be interpreted to say that. I was just giving a specific example (eschatology) of a situation where I felt it was better not to get into a theological debate, as I felt led not to by the Lord. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting that we should have a default position which contradicts the teaching of Christ to "teach them to obey the things I have commanded." For example, I don't recall Christ commanding us to be preterists. If someone said they were thinking of committing adultery, I don't think I would have reacted the same way, but would've brought correction. Hope this makes my point better. God Bless.
JJR
Not sure why my words would be interpreted to say that. I was just giving a specific example (eschatology) of a situation where I felt it was better not to get into a theological debate, as I felt led not to by the Lord. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting that we should have a default position which contradicts the teaching of Christ to "teach them to obey the things I have commanded." For example, I don't recall Christ commanding us to be preterists. If someone said they were thinking of committing adultery, I don't think I would have reacted the same way, but would've brought correction. Hope this makes my point better. God Bless.
JJR
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JJR,
Thanks - my concern with the dispensationalist's teaching is mainly related to the teaching of some of them as related in my 2/17 post. It is also used to divide. Other than that much of it is pitiful exegesis of scripture.
Thanks - my concern with the dispensationalist's teaching is mainly related to the teaching of some of them as related in my 2/17 post. It is also used to divide. Other than that much of it is pitiful exegesis of scripture.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies but I don't want to turn this into a discussion over eschatology. I guess one needs to be lead by the Spirit when considering correcting a brother but perhaps I'm not sensitive enough to always percieve when that is. I've held my tongue on many occasions because often times I feel that even a friendly "debate" will fall on deaf ears.
I had this experience with a Buddhist friend. She and I were discussing Jesus and she made a comment that Jesus would've never condemned anyone or judged someone else. I politely told her, "Jesus condemned so many people that they killed him." She took that as harsh and replied, "Why do Christians feel the need to push their views on everyone else?" The irony of the situation struck me at that point, being that my friend was trying to bash the traditional view of Jesus while condemning me for condeming sin. It wasn't the time to jump into an apologetic argument since she didn't have the patience for that. How would you handle an unbeliever in the same situation? They tell you their view of Jesus and it's so off the mark that you feel compelled to say something. When do you hold your tongue and when do you offer rebuttal? I know Peter said to always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that you have, but when does that apply?
I had this experience with a Buddhist friend. She and I were discussing Jesus and she made a comment that Jesus would've never condemned anyone or judged someone else. I politely told her, "Jesus condemned so many people that they killed him." She took that as harsh and replied, "Why do Christians feel the need to push their views on everyone else?" The irony of the situation struck me at that point, being that my friend was trying to bash the traditional view of Jesus while condemning me for condeming sin. It wasn't the time to jump into an apologetic argument since she didn't have the patience for that. How would you handle an unbeliever in the same situation? They tell you their view of Jesus and it's so off the mark that you feel compelled to say something. When do you hold your tongue and when do you offer rebuttal? I know Peter said to always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that you have, but when does that apply?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: