|
[Compromise] Pseudo Fundilemma
|
John Henry
|
Mar 18, 2005 11:02 PST
|
--=====================_3074000==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
PSEUDO FUNDILEMMA
But when PETER was come withstood him to the face because HE
WAS TO BE BLAMED . . . WHEN I SAW that they walked not uprightly according
to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all . .
. --Galatians 2:11-14
An editorial, "Why Do Fundamentalists Fight?", busied itsef
in parroting the Pseudo fundamentalist line lamenting fundamentalists, who
shoot their own wounded fellow soldiers. The editor expressed regret that
these militant brethren were not like Billy Sunday, who scorched the real
enemy, Satan. Naturally, these more militant brethren were portrayed as
hiding behind "displaced Scriptures" and doing what they do because of
"jealous vengeance."
In a previous issue, the same writer fired a salvo across the
"Flaming Torch's" bow, and would you believenamed her in print for the
world to see? Of course, a "Torch" writer responded by letter but failed to
receive an answer from aforementioned "hit and run" editor. In the editor's
more recent volley, he exercises more care by stating that he read from "a
leading fundamentalist publication a vendetta scorching the ministry of
another fundamentalist." That is like a Baptist prayer meeting, where you
pray for another member’s sin and/or shortcomings that you heard about but
did not want to gossip about.
All this personifies the pseudo-fundamentalists’ dilemma
(fundillema) in dealing with their more militant adversaries. How do you
preach "don't fight the brethren" and "don't talk about the brethren" and
still be able to "get at" the brethren, who won't shut up their mouths? How
do you criticize the brethren who are rebuking you and your buddies without
it being apparent that you are not practicing what you are preaching?
The only fallen brethren that we have seen being shot at have
been on our side. One brother in particular was not left a moment to forget
the agony of his past divorce. It would long have been swept aside, if he
had been on the other side. The "fallen brethren" that our editor friend is
talking about are in reality only highly esteemed brethren with prestigious
positions and churches. He is trying to have it both ways, but we could
hardly be jealous of "'fallen brethren." Could we? Why? Wishing that it
could be we? (Note: there exists a distinction between "fallen"
brethren and "false" brethren).
As for shooting our fellow soldiers, imagine if, in World War
II, some American soldiers began to fraternize with the Nazis, going into
their camps and even putting on their uniforms. Then suppose these soldiers
began to make their way back to the American lines, in a wounded condition,
and the loyal G.I.’s began to shoot at them. Can you Imagine how someone
would be received, who objected that they were our own wounded, fellow
soldiers? We do not approve, but we think it safe to say that there would
be many deleted expletives.
Our answer to you, dear editor, is that if your troops have
been hanging around Mormons, Catholics, and traitors to the faith, then
they are not "our" fellow soldiers; they are your fellow soldiersNOT OURS.
We are not shooting at the guy next to us. We don't let that kind of guy
get that close. If they do get in our camp, they are spies, and you know
what we do with spies!
No doubt many pastors have fallen for such liberal rhetoric
and cliche’s. However, if someone were even to suggest that they implement
such nonsense into their own congregations, they would have been
soundly rejected. Imagine aborting rebuke and church discipline in one's
own congregation on the basis that it would be shooting at our own wounded,
fellow soldiers. And really your own members are more your fellow soldiers
than are radio preachers and evangelists. Rebuke is still better than
secret love! J. Frank Norris "carried the broad axe, warring on several
fronts, digging out 'religious rats' everywhere, castigating and breathing
fire where compromise was even suspectedtruly he was the Texas Tornado . .
." According to George Dollar in his book "A History of Fundamentalism in
America,” p. 182. Things haven't changed . . . J. Frank; however, we
can't convince them now that they are NOT in OUR camp!
As for Billy Sunday being our example . . . no thanks.
Although we appreciate his fiery attack against sin, hell, and the devil,
with all due respect to Billy, he should have turned his guns on his own
Presbyterian denomination and institutions. Baptists are in considerably
better shape than are the Presbyterians, owing much to the aforementioned
J. Frank Norris who fought sin, hell, the devil, and the apostate
denomination and supposed brethren!
As for militants using "displaced Scriptures,” our editor
friend should blush in his use of Ephesians 4:32 and James 4:1 (without
verses 2 to 4). In order to silence the militant fundamentalists’ rebuke of
sin, apostasy, and doctrinal error despite WHO does it (Romans 16: 17).
We would like to see the "pot" who calls the "kettle" black
apply his proof-texts to the apostle Paul's treatment of Peter's and
Barnabas hypocrisy (Gal. 1:11-13); Demas' worldliness (2 Tim.
4:10); Phygellus' and Hermogenes' cowardice (2 Tim. 1:15); Hymenaeus'
and Alexander's apostasy (1Tim. 1:20); Hymenaeus' and Philetus’ (Worthy of
Love) profane babblings (2 Timothy 2:16-17); Alexander's gainsaying (2 Tim.
4: 14); Diotrephes' arrogance and inflated ego (III John 9); and all the
Cretian fundamentalist LIARS (Titus 1:12).
If Paul were really against shooting his own fallen, wounded,
fellow soldiers, then he certainly did a lot of it. His motive, however,
was not jealousy; his motive can be found in Acts 20:28-31. We will be
charitable to our editor friend and not name his name or periodical. We
will also give him time to review his own fellowship's history and early
periodical issues to see how it relates to the issue at hand. We will also
forgive him for not practicing what he preaches and give him time to review
the scriptures to see how the apostle Paul handled such situations. Perhaps
he will learn to love us as much as he does the pseudo-fundamentalist
brethren after he realizes that he is in a FUNDILEMMA!
--by Herb Evans
Flaming Torch - Jan/Feb/March 1985, p. 5
--=====================_3074000==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<body>
<div align="center"><b><br>
PSEUDO FUNDILEMMA<br>
</div>
<br>
But
when <i>PETER</i> was come withstood him to the face because <i>HE WAS TO
BE BLAMED</i> . . . <i>WHEN I SAW</i> that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before
them all . . . --Galatians 2:11-14<br>
<br>
An
editorial, "Why Do Fundamentalists Fight?", busied
itsef in parroting the Pseudo fundamentalist line lamenting
fundamentalists, who shoot their own wounded fellow soldiers. The editor
expressed regret that these militant brethren were not like Billy Sunday,
who scorched the real enemy, Satan. Naturally, these more militant
brethren were portrayed as hiding behind "displaced Scriptures"
and doing what they do because of "jealous vengeance."<br>
In a
previous issue, the same writer fired a salvo across the "Flaming
Torch's" bow, and would you believenamed her in print for the world
to see? Of course, a "Torch" writer responded by letter but
failed to receive an answer from aforementioned "hit and run"
editor. In the editor's more recent volley, he exercises more care by
stating that he read from "a leading fundamentalist publication a
vendetta scorching the ministry of another fundamentalist." That is
like a Baptist prayer meeting, where you pray for another member’s sin
and/or shortcomings that you heard about but did not want to gossip
about.<br>
All
this personifies the pseudo-fundamentalists’ dilemma (fundillema) in
dealing with their more militant adversaries. How do you preach
"don't fight the brethren" and "don't talk about the
brethren" and still be able to "get at" the brethren, who
won't shut up their mouths? How do you criticize the brethren who are
rebuking you and your buddies without it being apparent that you are not
practicing what you are preaching?<br>
The
only fallen brethren that we have seen being shot at have been on our
side. One brother in particular was not left a moment to forget the agony
of his past divorce. It would long have been swept aside, if he had been
on the other side. The "fallen brethren" that our editor friend
is talking about are in reality only highly esteemed brethren with
prestigious positions and churches. He is trying to have it both ways,
but we could hardly be jealous of "'fallen brethren." Could
we? Why? Wishing that it could be we? (Note: there exists a
distinction between "fallen" brethren and
"false" brethren).<br>
As for
shooting our fellow soldiers, imagine if, in World War II, some
American soldiers began to fraternize with the Nazis, going into their
camps and even putting on their uniforms. Then suppose these soldiers
began to make their way back to the American lines, in a wounded
condition, and the loyal G.I.’s began to shoot at them. Can you Imagine
how someone would be received, who objected that they were our own
wounded, fellow soldiers? We do not approve, but we think it safe to say
that there would be many deleted expletives.<br>
Our
answer to you, dear editor, is that if your troops have been hanging
around Mormons, Catholics, and traitors to the faith, then they are
not "our" fellow soldiers; they are your fellow soldiersNOT
OURS. We are not shooting at the guy next to us. We don't let that kind
of guy get that close. If they do get in our camp, they are spies, and
you know what we do with spies!<br>
No
doubt many pastors have fallen for such liberal rhetoric and cliche’s.
However, if someone were even to suggest that they implement such
nonsense into their own congregations, they would have been
soundly rejected. Imagine aborting rebuke and church discipline in
one's own congregation on the basis that it would be shooting at our own
wounded, fellow soldiers. And really your own members are more your
fellow soldiers than are radio preachers and evangelists. Rebuke is still
better than secret love! J. Frank Norris "carried the
broad axe, warring on several fronts, digging out 'religious rats'
everywhere, castigating and breathing fire where compromise was even
suspectedtruly he was the Texas Tornado . . ." According to
George Dollar in his book "A History of Fundamentalism in
America,” p. 182. Things haven't changed . . . J.
Frank; however, we can't convince them now that they are
<i>NOT in OUR camp</i>!<br>
As for
Billy Sunday being our example . . . no thanks. Although we
appreciate his fiery attack against sin, hell, and the devil, with all
due respect to Billy, he should have turned his guns on his own
Presbyterian denomination and institutions. Baptists are in considerably
better shape than are the Presbyterians, owing much to the aforementioned
J. Frank Norris who fought sin, hell, the devil, and the apostate
denomination and supposed brethren!<br>
As for
militants using "displaced Scriptures,” our editor friend should
blush in his use of Ephesians 4:32 and James 4:1 (without verses 2 to 4).
In order to silence the militant fundamentalists’ rebuke of sin,
apostasy, and doctrinal error despite <i>WHO</i> does it (Romans 16:
17).<br>
We
would like to see the "pot" who calls the "kettle"
black apply his proof-texts to the apostle Paul's treatment of Peter's
and Barnabas hypocrisy (Gal. 1:11-13); Demas' worldliness (2 Tim.
4:10); Phygellus' and Hermogenes' cowardice (2 Tim.
1:15); Hymenaeus' and Alexander's apostasy (1Tim. 1:20); Hymenaeus' and
Philetus’ (Worthy of Love) profane babblings (2 Timothy 2:16-17);
Alexander's gainsaying (2 Tim. 4: 14); Diotrephes' arrogance and inflated
ego (III John 9); and all the Cretian fundamentalist <i>LIARS</i> (Titus
1:12).<br>
If
Paul were really against shooting his own fallen, wounded, fellow
soldiers, then he certainly did a lot of it. His motive, however, was not
jealousy; his motive can be found in Acts 20:28-31. We will be charitable
to our editor friend and not name his name or periodical. We will also
give him time to review his own fellowship's history and early
periodical issues to see how it relates to the issue at hand. We
will also forgive him for not practicing what he preaches and give him
time to review the scriptures to see how the apostle Paul handled such
situations. Perhaps he will learn to love us as much as he does the
pseudo-fundamentalist brethren after he realizes that he is in a
<i>FUNDILEMMA!<br>
</i> <br>
--by Herb Evans<br>
<br>
Flaming Torch - Jan/Feb/March 1985, p. 5<br>
<br>
</b></body>
</html>
--=====================_3074000==.ALT--
|
|
 |
|
