Of course only those who believe as Johnny Mac are biblical...right.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

I'm looking for a detailed, theologically-informed critique of
Bob George.

Has anyone see any on-line or in magazines/journals?

Thanks,

Paul

1) When discussing most dispensationalists of the early years, I doubt you
would find any of them really taking genre very seriously. True, I read
references to figures of speech, but allowing the genre determine the rules
of interpretation...NO WAY!

2) I mention this error because it is a distinguishing characteristic of
normative dispensationalists. For example, Roy B. Zuck General Editior of Bib
Sac ("THE" Journal of dispensationalists) refused to publish a groundbreaking
article from a distinguished scholar out of Duke because it proved this very
point. Also Charles Ryrie and Dr. Charlie Dyer seek to prove this very
"principle" in their book on Dipenasationalism.

3) I do not know one older dispensationalist that would affirm Christ's reign
as the Davidic King presently. That is without a doubt a distinguishing
characteristic.

4) I would not deny the restoration of national Israel, but both Paul and
Peter spiritualizes or applies Old Testament imagery and texts in reference
to the Church. When I asked Dr. Robert Lightner what he does with those
texts, he conveniently left out of his lecture on the Church and Israel he
said, "Those are tough texts. Let's move on." As far as the New Covenant
"having some application for the Church," let me just say, dispensationalists
need to study the words of Christ at the Last Supper and Paul's understanding
of it in 1 Corinthians.

5) And finally, it wasn't His coming, but the
Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension that inagurated His reign. Will that reign
look differently during the Millennium? Yes! But will it also look
differently after the Millennium. Yes! In all three cases, Jesus Reigns as
the King promised under the Davidic Covenant.

Thank you for the encouragement. If we love our Lord and Savior, then we must
love His Word and appreciate the complexity and nuance of doctrine.

Bam Bam

I'm knew as well -- I'm 19, so I got 1 up on Chris =) I came across,
Piper's Sermon notes: "For whom did Christ die?" and fell in love
with his system of theology. I read Desiring God and God's Passion
for His Glory -- Piper really got me into Edwards. I'm at a secular
university for a BA in Philosophy -- I plan on going to seminary, but
I'm just a freshmen now.

Anyway, in regards to spiritual gifts : "Are Miraculous Gifts for
Today?" is a great book -- It's one of those "4 view books" so you
get all the viewpoints. (And Pinnock's not in this one!)

The Amazon URL is:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310201551/ref=cm_mp_wl/107-
3791935-0988562?colid=1VO4RNC0UFUAA

I'd also recommend "Charismatic Chaos" by MacArthur, but as you can
see, that book takes a strong stance (as do I).

-- Wayne Uffleman

Steve,

I do have to "lay my cards" on the table upfront.
This is such a controversial issue.  It appears as
if you are open enough to discuss this with
mutual respect.

You do realize, that there are brethren all over
the eschatological scale who perceive their position is the *Biblical* position?
I am not
merely referring to the disagreements *within*
the dispensational spectrum.

I happen to be
one of them who believes dispensationalism
is not Biblical!!! :-)  I respect John MacArthur,
he has blessed me dearly, but in the realm of
eschatology, I look elsewhere for "Biblical"
support!  :-)

I respect *all* dispensationalists.  The key issue
in eschatology is not *when* Jesus is coming back
but the fact that He *is* coming back!  So, I
consider all my dispensational brethren, brethren
in the truest sense of the term.  But we have a
family squabble amongst ourselves! :-)

There are days (not too many) that I find
Progressive Dispensationalism attractive.  But,
the overwhelming number of days, I bleed
a post millennial outlook.

So, if you are willing, I am ready to engage
in a mutual respect dialogue with you about
about the "mistakes" dispensationalists make
from my humble opinion.  :-)

Peace & Joy,
Dan Brennan

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: stuggle56@...
   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:31 AM
   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro


   Hello Dan:

   I can't say that I am yet any kind of dispensationalist. I try to be
   as MacArthur says a "biblical Christian." I am not so repelled by
   either position's "flaws" as much as I am drawn to their positive
   aspects. It seems difficult to sustain any system in its entirety. I
   have certainly benefited greatly from the great covenant and reformed
   theologians such as Hodge, Berkof, etc. Their emphasis on the
   sovereignty of God, man's depravity,etc. are solid biblical
   positions. However, their historical/grammatical/literary system of
   hermeneutics seems to break down in eschatology and the place of
   Israel in God's plan. It reminds me of a Ligonier Conference several
   years ago. The pre-conference seminar was on baptism. Allister Begg
   presented his case first. He used a great deal of scripture to
   support his position. Sproul then took the podium looking puzzled as
   he scratched his head in his inimitable style. He then had everyone
   laughing as he said, "I'm in alot of trouble... I didn't know we were
   supposed to use the Bible." Although humorous it was interesting that
   his argument was not built on the Bible's text as Begg's but was
   built primarily on logic and a theological system's presuppositions.
   This seems, to me, to be the err of the Covenant positions on
   eschatology and Israel.

   So, I am not yet willing to claim Scofield, Walvoord, Chafer, or
   Bock. Neither am I yet willing to camp out completely with Warfield,
   Hodge, or Berkof. But I am interested in knowing the "mistakes" that
   dispensationalists make.

   In His Camp,
   Steve






   ---In pipertalk@y..., "Dan Brennan" <dan.brennan@m...> wrote:
   > Hi Steve
   >
   > You obviously "tip your hand" when you
   > state your belief that the Covenant position
   > is built on a figurative hermeneutic.  So, before
   > I dive into this any further, I have to ask you
   > what kind of dispensationalist are you?
   >
   > A Schofield?  An early Walvoord?  A more
   > recent kind?  My answer will differ greatly if
   > I know which one you embrace! :-)
   >
   > In Christ,
   > Dan
   >
   >
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: stuggle56@m...
   >   To: pipertalk@y...
   >   Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:30 PM
   >   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro
   >
   >
   >   Bam Bam & Dan:
   >   I take it that you are both in the Covenant Theology camp. I must
   >   admit there is much to like about this position. However, I do
   >   believe it is built on a figurative hermeneutic. I would still
   like
   >   to know more about the "mistakes" that are found in
   >   dispensationalism. Can you give me some (or even one) of these
   and
   >   support your argument with Scripture.
   >
   >   Steve
   >
   >
   >
   >   --- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a... wrote:
   >   > Dan
   >   >
   >   > Technically speaking, it is the progressive nature of the
   >   dispensations as
   >   > defined by the Covenants that makes me "progressive" instead of
   a
   >   normative
   >   > or classical dispensationalist.
   >   >
   >   > However, if the way you explain it allows me to be part of the
   >   other "club,"
   >   > well then by all means...
   >   >
   >   > Bam Bam
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
   >
   >
   >
   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
   >
   >
   >
   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
   Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey Steve,

You are in great company! Johnathan Edwards was Post-Mill. I guess it goes to
show that brilliant men confuse things brilliantly (just kidding).

I really appreciate your tone. I read  three proponents and found one brother
to be particularly hateful. Of course there is more to this view of Scripture
than just your eschatology. This view of redemptive history is a rather
complete system.

I dislike dismissing anything out-of-hand, but when a "popular" proponent
uses Martin Luther as his paradigm for debate and tactics of rhetoric
forgetting the constraints of Scripture...taking his exegesis seriously is
almost impossible.
Not that I don't recognize Luther's courage and genius, but his rhetoric at
times...well might make Howard Stern blush.

I was just wondering Steve, are you Postmill in just your eschatology? And if
you are (or aren't), what is the one characteristic of your position that is
most convincing for you?

Bam Bam


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bam Bam,

Was this post intended for me?  I said I
was post-mil *to* Steve.  I haven't read any
post where Steve admitted post-mil leanings.

Sincerely,
Dan Brennan
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: davefranktaylor@...
   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:20 AM
   Subject: Re: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro


   Hey Steve,

   You are in great company! Johnathan Edwards was Post-Mill. I guess it goes to
   show that brilliant men confuse things brilliantly (just kidding).

   I really appreciate your tone. I read  three proponents and found one brother
   to be particularly hateful. Of course there is more to this view of Scripture
   than just your eschatology. This view of redemptive history is a rather
   complete system.

   I dislike dismissing anything out-of-hand, but when a "popular" proponent
   uses Martin Luther as his paradigm for debate and tactics of rhetoric
   forgetting the constraints of Scripture...taking his exegesis seriously is
   almost impossible.
   Not that I don't recognize Luther's courage and genius, but his rhetoric at
   times...well might make Howard Stern blush.

   I was just wondering Steve, are you Postmill in just your eschatology? And if
   you are (or aren't), what is the one characteristic of your position that is
   most convincing for you?

   Bam Bam


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes it was.

Dave

Yes, thank you Dan for clearing this up. I was confused about being
labeled a post-mil. With all due respect to C. Hodge, I can't say
that I am yet convinced of this position. However, I am very
reluctant to call this an "unbiblical" position. I see that all of
the major positons claim some scriptural support. In my mind the pre-
trib/ pre-mil position has the most solid and consistent biblical
support. Whenever I see godly men lining up behind differing views,
e.g. Hodge (post-mil); Berkof (amil); MacArthur (pre-mil), I am slow
to discount any one completely. It seems that when someone attacks a
certain person/position that the truth in their allegations becomes
somewhat elusive, e.g. Gerstner's attack on dispensationalists.
Disagree, yes. Attack as unbiblical, no. I believe each position
truly believes it is most honoring to the Word.

Steve





--- In pipertalk@y..., "Dan Brennan" <dan.brennan@m...> wrote:
> Bam Bam,
>
> Was this post intended for me?  I said I
> was post-mil *to* Steve.  I haven't read any
> post where Steve admitted post-mil leanings.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dan Brennan
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: davefranktaylor@a...
>   To: pipertalk@y...
>   Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:20 AM
>   Subject: Re: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro
>
>
>   Hey Steve,
>
>   You are in great company! Johnathan Edwards was Post-Mill. I
guess it goes to
>   show that brilliant men confuse things brilliantly (just
kidding).
>
>   I really appreciate your tone. I read  three proponents and found
one brother
>   to be particularly hateful. Of course there is more to this view
of Scripture
>   than just your eschatology. This view of redemptive history is a
rather
>   complete system.
>
>   I dislike dismissing anything out-of-hand, but when a "popular"
proponent
>   uses Martin Luther as his paradigm for debate and tactics of
rhetoric
>   forgetting the constraints of Scripture...taking his exegesis
seriously is
>   almost impossible.
>   Not that I don't recognize Luther's courage and genius, but his
rhetoric at
>   times...well might make Howard Stern blush.
>
>   I was just wondering Steve, are you Postmill in just your
eschatology? And if
>   you are (or aren't), what is the one characteristic of your
position that is
>   most convincing for you?
>
>   Bam Bam
>
>
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
   From: davefranktaylor@...
   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:20 AM
   Subject: Re: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro


   >I really appreciate your tone. I >read  three proponents and found >one
brother
   >to be particularly hateful.

   Dan: Yeah, I think I know who you mean! :)

   >Of course there is more to this >view of Scripture
   >than just your eschatology. This >view of redemptive history is a >rather
   >complete system.

   Dan: That is so true.


   I dislike dismissing anything out-of-hand, but when a "popular" proponent
   uses Martin Luther as his paradigm for debate and tactics of rhetoric
   forgetting the constraints of Scripture...taking his exegesis seriously is
   almost impossible.
   Not that I don't recognize Luther's courage and genius, but his rhetoric at
   times...well might make Howard Stern blush.

   >I was just wondering Steve, are you >Postmill in just your eschatology? >And
if
   >you are (or aren't), what is the >one characteristic of your position >that
is
   >most convincing for you?

   Bam Bam

   Dan:  What I find most compelling
   about the post-mil position is that
   it just "rings true" for me as I plainly
   read redemptive history from
   Genesis to Revelation.

   From God's promise to Abram in
   Gen. 12, to the Psalms, to the Prophets,
   to the Gospels, I think a "fair" reading
   of the text, one would expect a post-mil
   outlook of the future.

   And I find the theology of the Epistles
   supporting the post-mil position.

   Of course, each "system" of interpretation
   has their difficulties.  I was not "born"
   a post-mil.  I came into the faith in a
   Dallas-like view of esachatology.  But
   I have done a lot of study in this regard,
   weighing all the options.  I have about
   40 of the major books representing the
   various approaches, etc.


   You know each position has attractive points ( which is why they have there
followers ;), but I have now been a post-mil for about 6 years now, and I
haven't seen anything come along to move me in a different direction.  I like
the way the
   post-mil position stands up to its competitors when one considers the whole
   thrust of redemptive history.  One would
   naturally anticipate the post-mil position
   at the Great Commissioning by Jesus; and
   the Epistles just support that view, IMHO,
   :-)  :-)  :-)!!


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
   From: stuggle56@...
   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:31 AM
   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro


   >Hello Dan:

   >I can't say that I am yet any kind >of dispensationalist. I try to be
   >as MacArthur says a "biblical >Christian." I am not so repelled by >either
position's "flaws" as much >as I am drawn to their positive
   >aspects. It seems difficult to >sustain any system in its entirety.

   Dan: Sustaining any system in its
   entirety is a herculean task.  I think if we are really honest with
   the major competing positions, *all*
   of them have *negatives* which seem to weigh the positives down.  But,
   then we don't come to any of these
   systems with an "impartial" heart as
   much as we try.

   All of us come with cultural, historical, and personal assumptions
   which *color* the way we view how
   each system *sustains* itself! :-)


   A few years ago, back when I was
   a-mil, Clouse edited a book on the
   four views of the millennium.  This
   was an interesting book from my
   perspective.  I thought the proponent's presentation for post-mil was very
weak, exegetically
   speaking.  I thought Ladd's pre-mil
   was the best of the entire book.  It
   pulled me to seriously consider
   historical pre-mil position.  If
   that was the only option out there
   for eschatology, IMHO, Ladd won, and
   historical pre-mil wins!

   But then, once I came across some
   articulate post-mil positions, I
   started to like what I read.  Eventually, I "settled" into the
   post-mil position.

   >I have certainly benefited greatly >from the great covenant and >reformed
theologians such as Hodge, >Berkof, etc. Their emphasis on the
   >sovereignty of God, man's >depravity,etc. are solid biblical
   >positions. However, their >historical/grammatical/literary >system of
   >hermeneutics seems to break down in >eschatology and the place of
   >Israel in God's plan.

   Well, IMHO, as Dave alluded to earlier, especially with the *popular*
dispensational presentations, (MacArthur, LaHaye, Lindsey, Smith etc.) they
   *overexaggerate* their *consistent*
   literal approach to the whole scheme
   of eschatology.

   Interpretation os eschatology is not
   at all, a "cut and dried" view of
   a "literal" approach to Scripture
   versus a "figurative" approach.  The
   kindest observation I can make about
   the consistent literal position claimed by dispensationalists in the
   *popular* culture of evangelicalism, is that it is *overexaggerated.*
   I would say this is a major, major
   mistake for dispensationalists.
   Would you like support for that
   opinion? :-)

   I'll wait and hear from you. :-)
   God bless,

   Sincerely,
   Dan Brennan








   ---In pipertalk@y..., "Dan Brennan" <dan.brennan@m...> wrote:
   > Hi Steve
   >
   > You obviously "tip your hand" when you
   > state your belief that the Covenant position
   > is built on a figurative hermeneutic.  So, before
   > I dive into this any further, I have to ask you
   > what kind of dispensationalist are you?
   >
   > A Schofield?  An early Walvoord?  A more
   > recent kind?  My answer will differ greatly if
   > I know which one you embrace! :-)
   >
   > In Christ,
   > Dan
   >
   >
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: stuggle56@m...
   >   To: pipertalk@y...
   >   Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:30 PM
   >   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: Regeneration and Faith and an Intro
   >
   >
   >   Bam Bam & Dan:
   >   I take it that you are both in the Covenant Theology camp. I must
   >   admit there is much to like about this position. However, I do
   >   believe it is built on a figurative hermeneutic. I would still
   like
   >   to know more about the "mistakes" that are found in
   >   dispensationalism. Can you give me some (or even one) of these
   and
   >   support your argument with Scripture.
   >
   >   Steve
   >
   >
   >
   >   --- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a... wrote:
   >   > Dan
   >   >
   >   > Technically speaking, it is the progressive nature of the
   >   dispensations as
   >   > defined by the Covenants that makes me "progressive" instead of
   a
   >   normative
   >   > or classical dispensationalist.
   >   >
   >   > However, if the way you explain it allows me to be part of the
   >   other "club,"
   >   > well then by all means...
   >   >
   >   > Bam Bam
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
   >
   >
   >
   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
   >
   >
   >
   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
   Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am curious about the entertainment habits of Christians. There
seems to be no difference at all. Should there be? What are the
criteria for accepting/rejecting a particular form of entertainment?
Is is being "legalistic" to even discuss such matters since most
people think this is left to individual discretion? Is it possible to
love God on one hand and be "entertained" by the profaning of His
name on the other?

Just thinking........

Steve

This is a good question.  I heard RC Sproul on a tape a couple of years back say
that he watched many of the new movies and looked for theological meaning in
them.  Not that many of the movies had any salvific value to them, but
situations and characters often provide insights into the human mind and,
unfortunately, his sinful nature.  I'll watch almost any movie, but I've tried
to stay away from movies that contain graphic sexual material.  As I move toward
my wedding day, I don't want any of those images in my head.  I love a good
shoot 'em up, though.  I wonder what the rest think about violence in the
movies.  It doesn't bother me to see it, and I have never considered imitating
it. In fact, it grieves me when I hear of real violence going on in the world. 
Also, I don't watch television execpt for a few basktball and football games
mixed in with some Sportscenter.

mj

I enjoy a well made movie with the best of them... but
the "entertainment" value seems to lessen with the
thought of what marvels me is but a shadow - and not
nearly as spectacular as it might seem.

RAM
--- Jwes01@... wrote:
> This is a good question.  I heard RC Sproul on a
> tape a couple of years back say that he watched many
> of the new movies and looked for theological meaning
> in them.  Not that many of the movies had any
> salvific value to them, but situations and
> characters often provide insights into the human
> mind and, unfortunately, his sinful nature.  I'll
> watch almost any movie, but I've tried to stay away
> from movies that contain graphic sexual material.
> As I move toward my wedding day, I don't want any of
> those images in my head.  I love a good shoot 'em
> up, though.  I wonder what the rest think about
> violence in the movies.  It doesn't bother me to see
> it, and I have never considered imitating it. In
> fact, it grieves me when I hear of real violence
> going on in the world.  Also, I don't watch
> television execpt for a few basktball and football
> games mixed in with some Sportscenter.
>
> mj
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

True, Andy.  I should interject a thought that I left out of my last post.
Although I do like fast-action movies, I'll take a well-made movie that stirs
my emotions and draws me into the story any day of the week.  The movies I am
thinking of are Remember the Titans, Life is Beautiful, Chariots of Fire,
Michael Collins, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan (although the
beginning was VERY disturbing), and Elizabeth.  I just don't understand the
appeal of movies like American Pie and Scary Movie.  It's mindless, crude
humor that only appeals to boys that think farts and burps are still funny
(whether they are 12 or 40 years old).  Maybe Michael Spencer will ring in
here with me 'cause I'm pretty sure he and I are on the same page.

Blessings,
mj


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We are blinded as a society by what we deem as entertainment.  I am 25 years
old and have grown with cable t.v.  I have found the two times i grew the
most in my realationship to God is when I was without t.v.  It was not by
choice i gave this up.  the first time was when i was working at a
wilderness camp and the second was when i was doing mission work in africa.
i was appalled by what i saw on on t.v. and the movies when the ppurtunity
to watch came again.  this lent i am staying away from television,as much as
possible,in hopes to improve my realationship with God.  this is not a
sacrifice but a time to get away from filthy trash.
i am not anyone would ever probably call legalistic but i do believe we need
to get away from watching such horrible stuff.  the networks put on very
ungodly shows in the family hours.  even the news is socially matipulating
our beliefs.  well i could rant for hours.  i have said enough for now.
God bless,
aaron
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Aaron,
Much wisdom for 25 y.o. I, too, believe we have been blinded/deceived
into thinking we can grow in godliness on one hand and be entertained
by ungodliness on the other. Keep pressing on.

Steve

--- In pipertalk@y..., "aaron arledge" <aaronarledge@h...> wrote:
> We are blinded as a society by what we deem as entertainment.  I am
25 years
> old and have grown with cable t.v.  I have found the two times i
grew the
> most in my realationship to God is when I was without t.v.  It was
not by
> choice i gave this up.  the first time was when i was working at a
> wilderness camp and the second was when i was doing mission work in
africa.
> i was appalled by what i saw on on t.v. and the movies when the
ppurtunity
> to watch came again.  this lent i am staying away from
television,as much as
> possible,in hopes to improve my realationship with God.  this is
not a
> sacrifice but a time to get away from filthy trash.
> i am not anyone would ever probably call legalistic but i do
believe we need
> to get away from watching such horrible stuff.  the networks put on
very
> ungodly shows in the family hours.  even the news is socially
matipulating
> our beliefs.  well i could rant for hours.  i have said enough for
now.
> God bless,
> aaron
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Steve

I know that recently the Holy Spirit has been pressing in on me to make better
viewing choices. I was disturbed to find a large portion of our singles ministry
a few years back getting together to watch Friends and Sienfeld before kicking
off their small groups. Something seemed "off," but it was near impossible in a
10,000 person church to do anything about it.

By the way, I don't think it is legalistic to talk about it.

Bam Bam

I have been accused of legalism several times for expressing my
opinion on the TV issue (so it must be my delivery).  I can honestly
say that the only other person whose TV watching I have tried to
legislate is my husbands : o )
I was 36 years old when I received God's gift of faith and new life;
so I had all those years of being conformed to the world.
Every time I have attempted to exercise my "freedom" by going back to
watching TV it has become a snare to me.  It isn't just the content;
as critical as that is; but the way I waste the treasure of time that
GOD has given me.  When I watch a movie/drama and realize that there
is part of me wanting to see two characters romantically involved;
yet their relationship is immoral ... I guess it demonstrates my still
being a "weak sister" but I wish we could throw our TV in the trash.
I read something once about Frances Frangipane claiming that people
could be demon oppressed through watching TV; and as ridiculous as
that probably is, the results in my own life have been grave.
I recently spent a month recuperating from surgery and became
anaesthatized by TV again.  I am still trying to fight the effects.

DP

Bam Bam,
Thank you for your response. I actually believe this to be a much
more significant issue than we realize. This hit home with me several
years ago. I was at Wal-Mart with a minister and we were in the TV
department. The movie, Forest Gump (sp.?), was playing. He told me
how much he liked the movie. I stood there for less than 5 minutes
and heard God's name unquestionably profaned. I can't not tell you
about the "good message" of the movie or anything else about it. I
only know that God's name was profaned. This is nothing to wink at.
It seems to me that we should join God in having a high regard for
His name. I find a disregard for His name incompatible with assurance
of salvation. I believe the Bible substantiates this position
repeatedly. Can anything be done about this in a church of 10,000 (or
100 for that matter)? Well from the human perspective, probably not.
I find no difference in pastors' entertainment habits and those of
the world. It has to start somewhere. One final thought: I honestly
do not believe revival/renewal will/can take place until there is a
turning from this affront to God.
Steve

--- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a... wrote:
> Steve
>
> I know that recently the Holy Spirit has been pressing in on me to
make better viewing choices. I was disturbed to find a large portion
of our singles ministry a few years back getting together to watch
Friends and Sienfeld before kicking off their small groups. Something
seemed "off," but it was near impossible in a 10,000 person church to
do anything about it.
>
> By the way, I don't think it is legalistic to talk about it.
>
> Bam Bam

I was wondering; if there are any Bethlehem members in this group,
could you tell me if they actively pursue healing and other "spiritual
gifts" at Bethlehem.   I have read Piper's position in the past that the
gifts are still operational today; I am just wondering how that
translates into his practice.
Thanks
DP

--
Deborah Peel <><
To know Christ, to love Him, to trust Him and to treasure Him

DP,
Yes, redeeming the time is certainly another valid aspect of this
issue. I believe that we have "freedom" to do what is right and
not "freedom" to do what we want. I greatly appreciate your comments
about the "treasure of time" that has been entrusted to us.
Many blessings,
Steve

--- In pipertalk@y..., debandstevepeel@s... wrote:
> I have been accused of legalism several times for expressing my
> opinion on the TV issue (so it must be my delivery).  I can
honestly
> say that the only other person whose TV watching I have tried to
> legislate is my husbands : o )
> I was 36 years old when I received God's gift of faith and new
life;
> so I had all those years of being conformed to the world.
> Every time I have attempted to exercise my "freedom" by going back
to
> watching TV it has become a snare to me.  It isn't just the
content;
> as critical as that is; but the way I waste the treasure of time
that
> GOD has given me.  When I watch a movie/drama and realize that
there
> is part of me wanting to see two characters romantically involved;
> yet their relationship is immoral ... I guess it demonstrates my
still
> being a "weak sister" but I wish we could throw our TV in the trash.
> I read something once about Frances Frangipane claiming that people
> could be demon oppressed through watching TV; and as ridiculous as
> that probably is, the results in my own life have been grave.
> I recently spent a month recuperating from surgery and became
> anaesthatized by TV again.  I am still trying to fight the effects.
>
> DP

Hi everybody,

I'm a worship pastor.  My wife and I are considered those "artsy types".  We
love to go to movies and then analyze them and see the use of the art in
expressing the struggles of humanity.  It helps us to think more creatively.
I just wish I could do this without it affecting my mind in a negative way.
Unfortunately most movies today grieve my spirit.  We look for reviews at
Crosswalk.com and pretty much just go to PG rated movies.

It's not the art form that is evil but evil people are using the art form
for evil.  I guess I'm saying we've tried not to throw the baby out with the
bathwater but the baby's getting smaller and the bathwater is the size of
Lake Erie.

Frustrated in Nebraska

Brother Mitch

-----Original Message-----
From: stuggle56@... [mailto:stuggle56@...]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:36 AM
To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV


DP,
Yes, redeeming the time is certainly another valid aspect of this
issue. I believe that we have "freedom" to do what is right and
not "freedom" to do what we want. I greatly appreciate your comments
about the "treasure of time" that has been entrusted to us.
Many blessings,
Steve

--- In pipertalk@y..., debandstevepeel@s... wrote:
> I have been accused of legalism several times for expressing my
> opinion on the TV issue (so it must be my delivery).  I can
honestly
> say that the only other person whose TV watching I have tried to
> legislate is my husbands : o )
> I was 36 years old when I received God's gift of faith and new
life;
> so I had all those years of being conformed to the world.
> Every time I have attempted to exercise my "freedom" by going back
to
> watching TV it has become a snare to me.  It isn't just the
content;
> as critical as that is; but the way I waste the treasure of time
that
> GOD has given me.  When I watch a movie/drama and realize that
there
> is part of me wanting to see two characters romantically involved;
> yet their relationship is immoral ... I guess it demonstrates my
still
> being a "weak sister" but I wish we could throw our TV in the trash.
> I read something once about Frances Frangipane claiming that people
> could be demon oppressed through watching TV; and as ridiculous as
> that probably is, the results in my own life have been grave.
> I recently spent a month recuperating from surgery and became
> anaesthatized by TV again.  I am still trying to fight the effects.
>
> DP



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

This has been a real issue in my life, as I think it has been (is) in many
of yours. The conviction really got intense under (guess who's?) Piper's
preaching. I heard his series "Preaching as Worship" where he said: "tv
kills preachers" (among other things). That scared me.

All I knew to do was ask God to wean me off of it. I did. Then I went on a
fast (1 month, I think) and it was a great help. My wife and I started
tightening up our standards - less PG-13s, and especially careful with
sexual content and really strong language (and we were not watching a lot of
R rated movies with full-blown nudity either! I don't know HOW Christians
can do that and think they are sincere).

Eventually we put the TV in the closet and brought it out only for a movie
on a special occassion. That was also helpful - a good, clean movie became a
treat for us - rather than just any movie a habit.

Finally, we got rid of it altogether. I think the Lord kind of trapped us
into it, so to speak. We had been debating it for awhile, and then had some
financial difficulties where we really needed some money - and selling our
tv/vcr and videos was a fast/easy way to get it. So we did.

The withdrawals lasted a week or two, and were probably harder on me than my
wife. She started reading more and I quit wasting as much time. We do not
regret getting rid of the tv, and it has been around a year now.

We still on rare occassions watch a DVD on the computer, or go to a movie,
when there is a clean option. For example, we went to see the $1.75 show
last week and saw "The Emperor's New Groove." It was a kid's movie of
course, but we laughed and had a nice date. We went to see "13 Days" several
months ago and left after five minutes because the blasphemy was awful.

So, I guess you could say that we are not totally weaned off, but it is not
a dominant factor in our lives anymore. We are both glad that it's not - and
we were both big movie buffs! I'd recommend it to others, if you think
that's what God wants you to do.  But as Dr. Piper would say, the power that
breaks the power of television is a superior delight in God. Anything else
is legalism. Motivation is key.

Revival can't take place until we give up
watching movies which profane the name of
God?

Curious,
Dan Brennan
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: stuggle56@...
   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:18 AM
   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV


   Bam Bam,
   Thank you for your response. I actually believe this to be a much
   more significant issue than we realize. This hit home with me several
   years ago. I was at Wal-Mart with a minister and we were in the TV
   department. The movie, Forest Gump (sp.?), was playing. He told me
   how much he liked the movie. I stood there for less than 5 minutes
   and heard God's name unquestionably profaned. I can't not tell you
   about the "good message" of the movie or anything else about it. I
   only know that God's name was profaned. This is nothing to wink at.
   It seems to me that we should join God in having a high regard for
   His name. I find a disregard for His name incompatible with assurance
   of salvation. I believe the Bible substantiates this position
   repeatedly. Can anything be done about this in a church of 10,000 (or
   100 for that matter)? Well from the human perspective, probably not.
   I find no difference in pastors' entertainment habits and those of
   the world. It has to start somewhere. One final thought: I honestly
   do not believe revival/renewal will/can take place until there is a
   turning from this affront to God.
   Steve

   --- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a... wrote:
   > Steve
   >
   > I know that recently the Holy Spirit has been pressing in on me to
   make better viewing choices. I was disturbed to find a large portion
   of our singles ministry a few years back getting together to watch
   Friends and Sienfeld before kicking off their small groups. Something
   seemed "off," but it was near impossible in a 10,000 person church to
   do anything about it.
   >
   > By the way, I don't think it is legalistic to talk about it.
   >
   > Bam Bam


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Brian,
Thanks for a very encouraging testimony. Do you find many who share
your convictions. Thanks for the reminder of what the underlying
motivation must be.

Steve

--- In pipertalk@y..., "Hedges Brian" <bghedges@t...> wrote:
> This has been a real issue in my life, as I think it has been (is)
in many
> of yours. The conviction really got intense under (guess who's?)
Piper's
> preaching. I heard his series "Preaching as Worship" where he
said: "tv
> kills preachers" (among other things). That scared me.
>
> All I knew to do was ask God to wean me off of it. I did. Then I
went on a
> fast (1 month, I think) and it was a great help. My wife and I
started
> tightening up our standards - less PG-13s, and especially careful
with
> sexual content and really strong language (and we were not watching
a lot of
> R rated movies with full-blown nudity either! I don't know HOW
Christians
> can do that and think they are sincere).
>
> Eventually we put the TV in the closet and brought it out only for
a movie
> on a special occassion. That was also helpful - a good, clean movie
became a
> treat for us - rather than just any movie a habit.
>
> Finally, we got rid of it altogether. I think the Lord kind of
trapped us
> into it, so to speak. We had been debating it for awhile, and then
had some
> financial difficulties where we really needed some money - and
selling our
> tv/vcr and videos was a fast/easy way to get it. So we did.
>
> The withdrawals lasted a week or two, and were probably harder on
me than my
> wife. She started reading more and I quit wasting as much time. We
do not
> regret getting rid of the tv, and it has been around a year now.
>
> We still on rare occassions watch a DVD on the computer, or go to a
movie,
> when there is a clean option. For example, we went to see the $1.75
show
> last week and saw "The Emperor's New Groove." It was a kid's movie
of
> course, but we laughed and had a nice date. We went to see "13
Days" several
> months ago and left after five minutes because the blasphemy was
awful.
>
> So, I guess you could say that we are not totally weaned off, but
it is not
> a dominant factor in our lives anymore. We are both glad that it's
not - and
> we were both big movie buffs! I'd recommend it to others, if you
think
> that's what God wants you to do.  But as Dr. Piper would say, the
power that
> breaks the power of television is a superior delight in God.
Anything else
> is legalism. Motivation is key.

Thanks Dan for a good question. First it is opinion. I certainly do
not have a specific text to support the proposition. It "seems"
consistent with the tenor of Scripture, the holiness of God, how He
has generally worked throughout history. There "seems" to be a strong
warning against profaning the name of the Lord in Lev. 18:21. Lev.
20:3: "I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off
from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to
Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name."
Jer. 34:16 "You turned and profaned My name." Is. 48:11 "For My own
sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned?
And My glory I will not give to another." And of course: "Our Father,
Hallowed be Your name." Mt. 6: 9. NASB.

Dan, all that I am saying is that in my mind I can't reconcile a cry
for revival/renewal with a disregard for God's name. Is it possible
to sit and be entertained by something which must be so offensive to
God? I would appreciate your comments/insights/corrections.

Steve

--- In pipertalk@y..., "Dan Brennan" <dan.brennan@m...> wrote:
> Revival can't take place until we give up
> watching movies which profane the name of
> God?
>
> Curious,
> Dan Brennan
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: stuggle56@m...
>   To: pipertalk@y...
>   Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:18 AM
>   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV
>
>
>   Bam Bam,
>   Thank you for your response. I actually believe this to be a much
>   more significant issue than we realize. This hit home with me
several
>   years ago. I was at Wal-Mart with a minister and we were in the
TV
>   department. The movie, Forest Gump (sp.?), was playing. He told
me
>   how much he liked the movie. I stood there for less than 5
minutes
>   and heard God's name unquestionably profaned. I can't not tell
you
>   about the "good message" of the movie or anything else about it.
I
>   only know that God's name was profaned. This is nothing to wink
at.
>   It seems to me that we should join God in having a high regard
for
>   His name. I find a disregard for His name incompatible with
assurance
>   of salvation. I believe the Bible substantiates this position
>   repeatedly. Can anything be done about this in a church of 10,000
(or
>   100 for that matter)? Well from the human perspective, probably
not.
>   I find no difference in pastors' entertainment habits and those
of
>   the world. It has to start somewhere. One final thought: I
honestly
>   do not believe revival/renewal will/can take place until there is
a
>   turning from this affront to God.
>   Steve
>
>   --- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a... wrote:
>   > Steve
>   >
>   > I know that recently the Holy Spirit has been pressing in on me
to
>   make better viewing choices. I was disturbed to find a large
portion
>   of our singles ministry a few years back getting together to
watch
>   Friends and Sienfeld before kicking off their small groups.
Something
>   seemed "off," but it was near impossible in a 10,000 person
church to
>   do anything about it.
>   >
>   > By the way, I don't think it is legalistic to talk about it.
>   >
>   > Bam Bam
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve,

You left out any serious analysis about the sovereignty
of God, here.  Which was the focus of my question
because you expressed this opinion that revival (which
I assume to be a work of God) isn't possible until
we stop watching movies which profane the name of
God.  Where is the Scripture to support that opinion?
Your cited texts below do not address the issue. :-)
That's one issue.

As to your original issue, you ask, "Is it possible
to sit and be entertained by something which
must be offensive to God?"

This is an important question.  It raises up many
issues.  It stirs up layers of interconnected issues.
I am not ready to concede a black and white
answer to this.  If we broaden the scope a bit,
the question, is certainly connected to other forms
of communication, like books for example.
What we would consider "great" fiction books
would have to be considered here.
We couldn't draw the line and simply say, sleazy
romance books or something like that.

Your question, is  not, "Is it possible to sin while
watching a movie which must be offensive to God?
I think that answer is an affirmative one.

It's one thing Steve, for someone like John Piper
to offer his personal opinion, and assert that
televsion kills the spirit.  Or, you in which you find
it personally detestable to sit in a film which profanes
the name of God.  It's quite another thing, to legislate
it is a universal sin across the board like when we
commit murder.  I am not quite there in my own
thinking.  Personally, I rarely go to movies and
I don't watch a lot of television.  But, I am not
ready to legislate this thing as sin and assert that
if we "repent" from this, we will be on the road to
experience revival.  You see, there are many issues
involved.

Let me frame your question in a different way.
Does it necessarily involve sin to watch the
reality of evil portrayed in a realistic way?

Sincerely,
Dan Brennan

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: stuggle56@...
   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:47 PM
   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV


   Thanks Dan for a good question. First it is opinion. I certainly do
   not have a specific text to support the proposition. It "seems"
   consistent with the tenor of Scripture, the holiness of God, how He
   has generally worked throughout history. There "seems" to be a strong
   warning against profaning the name of the Lord in Lev. 18:21. Lev.
   20:3: "I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off
   from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to
   Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name."
   Jer. 34:16 "You turned and profaned My name." Is. 48:11 "For My own
   sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned?
   And My glory I will not give to another." And of course: "Our Father,
   Hallowed be Your name." Mt. 6: 9. NASB.

   Dan, all that I am saying is that in my mind I can't reconcile a cry
   for revival/renewal with a disregard for God's name. Is it possible
   to sit and be entertained by something which must be so offensive to
   God? I would appreciate your comments/insights/corrections.

   Steve

   --- In pipertalk@y..., "Dan Brennan" <dan.brennan@m...> wrote:
   > Revival can't take place until we give up
   > watching movies which profane the name of
   > God?
   >
   > Curious,
   > Dan Brennan
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: stuggle56@m...
   >   To: pipertalk@y...
   >   Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:18 AM
   >   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV
   >
   >
   >   Bam Bam,
   >   Thank you for your response. I actually believe this to be a much
   >   more significant issue than we realize. This hit home with me
   several
   >   years ago. I was at Wal-Mart with a minister and we were in the
   TV
   >   department. The movie, Forest Gump (sp.?), was playing. He told
   me
   >   how much he liked the movie. I stood there for less than 5
   minutes
   >   and heard God's name unquestionably profaned. I can't not tell
   you
   >   about the "good message" of the movie or anything else about it.
   I
   >   only know that God's name was profaned. This is nothing to wink
   at.
   >   It seems to me that we should join God in having a high regard
   for
   >   His name. I find a disregard for His name incompatible with
   assurance
   >   of salvation. I believe the Bible substantiates this position
   >   repeatedly. Can anything be done about this in a church of 10,000
   (or
   >   100 for that matter)? Well from the human perspective, probably
   not.
   >   I find no difference in pastors' entertainment habits and those
   of
   >   the world. It has to start somewhere. One final thought: I
   honestly
   >   do not believe revival/renewal will/can take place until there is
   a
   >   turning from this affront to God.
   >   Steve
   >
   >   --- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a... wrote:
   >   > Steve
   >   >
   >   > I know that recently the Holy Spirit has been pressing in on me
   to
   >   make better viewing choices. I was disturbed to find a large
   portion
   >   of our singles ministry a few years back getting together to
   watch
   >   Friends and Sienfeld before kicking off their small groups.
   Something
   >   seemed "off," but it was near impossible in a 10,000 person
   church to
   >   do anything about it.
   >   >
   >   > By the way, I don't think it is legalistic to talk about it.
   >   >
   >   > Bam Bam
   >
   >
   >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
   >
   >
   >
   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
   >
   >
   >
   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
   Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Brian,

Thank you for your comments, we as a family stand very
much in the same position.  I think that if we commit
our hearts to the truth which Paul preaches, "all
things are permissible, but not all things are
beneficial...I will be mastered by nothing".  I do
believe it is all has to do with the motive of our
heart.

Another thought,  our kids were watching Lion King II,
and once again we had to re-evaluate content as our 5
yod was singing along with the new age movie montra
"He lives in you, he lives in me" and I don't think
the song was talking about Jesus *lol*...but the great
Mufasa and the circle of life.  Me oh my.

Jenny




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

Hummmmm--- I wonder what Francis Schaeffer would have
added to this movie/revival/renewal thread.  He
definately placed revival as the work of the Sovereign
God.  He also always placed reformation before revival
(Piper would say it more along the lines of "Thinking
truely, acting duely :).  At the same time did
Schaeffer ever write a book with out talking about
Michelangelo Antonioni's movie 'Blow Up'???  I think
he was well aquainted with the theatrical happenings
of his day - even when they were advertised with
sayings like "Murder without guilt, love without
meaning".

enjoying "yall's" comments,

Andrew


--- Dan Brennan <dan.brennan@...> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> You left out any serious analysis about the
> sovereignty
> of God, here.  Which was the focus of my question
> because you expressed this opinion that revival
> (which
> I assume to be a work of God) isn't possible until
> we stop watching movies which profane the name of
> God.  Where is the Scripture to support that
> opinion?
> Your cited texts below do not address the issue. :-)
> That's one issue.
>
> As to your original issue, you ask, "Is it possible
> to sit and be entertained by something which
> must be offensive to God?"
>
> This is an important question.  It raises up many
> issues.  It stirs up layers of interconnected
> issues.
> I am not ready to concede a black and white
> answer to this.  If we broaden the scope a bit,
> the question, is certainly connected to other forms
> of communication, like books for example.
> What we would consider "great" fiction books
> would have to be considered here.
> We couldn't draw the line and simply say, sleazy
> romance books or something like that.
>
> Your question, is  not, "Is it possible to sin while
> watching a movie which must be offensive to God?
> I think that answer is an affirmative one.
>
> It's one thing Steve, for someone like John Piper
> to offer his personal opinion, and assert that
> televsion kills the spirit.  Or, you in which you
> find
> it personally detestable to sit in a film which
> profanes
> the name of God.  It's quite another thing, to
> legislate
> it is a universal sin across the board like when we
> commit murder.  I am not quite there in my own
> thinking.  Personally, I rarely go to movies and
> I don't watch a lot of television.  But, I am not
> ready to legislate this thing as sin and assert that
> if we "repent" from this, we will be on the road to
> experience revival.  You see, there are many issues
> involved.
>
> Let me frame your question in a different way.
> Does it necessarily involve sin to watch the
> reality of evil portrayed in a realistic way?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dan Brennan
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: stuggle56@...
>   To: pipertalk@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:47 PM
>   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV
>
>
>   Thanks Dan for a good question. First it is
> opinion. I certainly do
>   not have a specific text to support the
> proposition. It "seems"
>   consistent with the tenor of Scripture, the
> holiness of God, how He
>   has generally worked throughout history. There
> "seems" to be a strong
>   warning against profaning the name of the Lord in
> Lev. 18:21. Lev.
>   20:3: "I will also set My face against that man
> and will cut him off
>   from among his people, because he has given some
> of his offspring to
>   Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to
> profane My holy name."
>   Jer. 34:16 "You turned and profaned My name." Is.
> 48:11 "For My own
>   sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My
> name be profaned?
>   And My glory I will not give to another." And of
> course: "Our Father,
>   Hallowed be Your name." Mt. 6: 9. NASB.
>
>   Dan, all that I am saying is that in my mind I
> can't reconcile a cry
>   for revival/renewal with a disregard for God's
> name. Is it possible
>   to sit and be entertained by something which must
> be so offensive to
>   God? I would appreciate your
> comments/insights/corrections.
>
>   Steve
>
>   --- In pipertalk@y..., "Dan Brennan"
> <dan.brennan@m...> wrote:
>   > Revival can't take place until we give up
>   > watching movies which profane the name of
>   > God?
>   >
>   > Curious,
>   > Dan Brennan
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: stuggle56@m...
>   >   To: pipertalk@y...
>   >   Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:18 AM
>   >   Subject: [pipertalk] Re: movies/TV
>   >
>   >
>   >   Bam Bam,
>   >   Thank you for your response. I actually
> believe this to be a much
>   >   more significant issue than we realize. This
> hit home with me
>   several
>   >   years ago. I was at Wal-Mart with a minister
> and we were in the
>   TV
>   >   department. The movie, Forest Gump (sp.?), was
> playing. He told
>   me
>   >   how much he liked the movie. I stood there for
> less than 5
>   minutes
>   >   and heard God's name unquestionably profaned.
> I can't not tell
>   you
>   >   about the "good message" of the movie or
> anything else about it.
>   I
>   >   only know that God's name was profaned. This
> is nothing to wink
>   at.
>   >   It seems to me that we should join God in
> having a high regard
>   for
>   >   His name. I find a disregard for His name
> incompatible with
>   assurance
>   >   of salvation. I believe the Bible
> substantiates this position
>   >   repeatedly. Can anything be done about this in
> a church of 10,000
>   (or
>   >   100 for that matter)? Well from the human
> perspective, probably
>   not.
>   >   I find no difference in pastors' entertainment
> habits and those
>   of
>   >   the world. It has to start somewhere. One
> final thought: I
>   honestly
>   >   do not believe revival/renewal will/can take
> place until there is
>   a
>   >   turning from this affront to God.
>   >   Steve
>   >
>   >   --- In pipertalk@y..., davefranktaylor@a...
> wrote:
>   >   > Steve
>   >   >
>   >   > I know that recently the Holy Spirit has
> been pressing in on me
>   to
>   >   make better viewing choices. I was disturbed
> to find a large
>   portion
>   >   of our singles ministry a few years back
> getting together to
>   watch
>   >   Friends and Sienfeld before kicking off their
> small groups.
>   Something
>   >   seemed "off," but it was near impossible in a
> 10,000 person
>   church to
>   >   do anything about it.
>   >   >
>   >   > By the way, I don't think it is legalistic
> to talk about it.
>   >   >
>   >   > Bam Bam
>   >
>   >
>   >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
>   >   pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>   >
>   >
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text