Christian Liberty

Christian Fellowship on the “N” Train

by Dr. Steve Davis and Dr. John Davis
Metro 2The “N” Train runs from Coney Island in Brooklyn to Astoria in Queens, taking the long route as an express train through Manhattan. Half the time it runs above ground and includes views of Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan as it travels across the Manhattan Bridge and views of Astoria and Long Island City as it runs through Queens. The route of the “N” Train captures the ethnic diversity of the city as the train winds through Russian, Hasidic, Chinese, Italian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and other ethnic neighborhoods. The economic diversity of the city is also reflected in its path as it stops in a lower-income area like Sunset Park, which is situated among a flurry of small businesses in Chinatown, or at the upscale stores of both Fifth Avenue and Lexington Avenue. If you love to eat, then you can enjoy the cuisines of the world starting with borsch in Coney Island, ending with fried kefalotiri cheese in Astoria, and enjoying the rest of the world in between.

1250 reads

Why Do They Leave Fundamentalism? Part 2

See Part 1.

Retrain Your Conscience?

In his lecture, Joe Zichterman made many references to Christian liberty and Romans 14. We should discuss this topic because the misunderstanding of Christian liberty is an important stone in paving the way for a young fundamentalist (YF) to leave Fundamentalism.

rudder.jpgThe Willow Creek membership manual states, “We do not take stands on controversial issues about which the Bible is silent. Individuals are left to their own consciences before the Lord, rather than depending on the church to tell them what to think or do.” … Unjustifiable dogmatism on disputable matters is a clear violation of the spirit of Romans 14 … . [I]n Acts 15 when the Judaizers were insisting that gentiles be [circumcised] before they could be accepted as full members of the Jerusalem church? Paul told the Galatians later he wouldn’t put up with that for a single minute. You can’t give the impression of dogmatism where Scripture does not allow you to do so (17:48).

Joe used an example from an Amish acquaintance:

1409 reads

All Things To All Men

In The Nick of TimeFew passages of Scripture are more popular among contemporary Christians than 1 Corinthians 9:19‐23. Especially fashionable is Paul’s line in verse 22 about becoming “all things to all men.” This passage is commonly taken to mean that effective evangelism requires Christians to imitate the people around them. Many evangelicals cannot even imagine this interpretation being mistaken. It is even repeated by some fairly reputable commentators (Gordon Fee, for example) who, however, offer few reasons for accepting it.
Few such reasons exist. The popular interpretation is far more influenced by wishful thinking than it is by any factor in the context of 1 Corinthians 9. In fact, a careful study of the passage in its context yields quite a different interpretation.

1 Corinthians 9 is the center of an extended section dealing with meat offered to idols. This kind of meat was sold at a discount in the shambles and was often served in the homes of non‐Christians. Apparently, the Corinthian believers had asked Paul whether Christians could be permitted to eat meat which had been consecrated in idolatrous worship.

977 reads

The Neglected Posture of Conscience

Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. (Acts 15:37-39, NKJV)

There is much we don’t know about this conversation between Paul and Barnabas. But we know it didn’t end in shrugs and placid smiles. The word for “contention” (paroxusmos.) suggests feverish intensity,1 and the two men found it impossible to work together.

We also know something else. Neither Paul nor Barnabas had any direct revelation from God on the question. If the Spirit had said to either of them “take Mark” or “don’t take Mark,” there would have been no dispute. They were both deeply committed to obedience.

840 reads

Pages