nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Abstaining from Zondervan Resources

Paul Golder

I was reading through the arguments in another post about Roman Catholic resources, and it got me pondering.

Is anyone planning on not purchasing Zondervan resources, in Logos format, because their owner (HarperCollins) also publishes the "Satanic Bible" under their Avon imprint?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Randall McRoberts

No.

DominicM

Whilst I appreciate what your saying, please remember Harper Collins are not a soley "Christian Publisher", they have purchased many Christian Publishers, and though Zondervan also fit under the "umbrella" they have a whole different Ethos as do the various imprints., each have to make their own profit margins for the "umbrella".

Having worked in Christian Publishing and Retail for 15 years, I will be buying Zondervan stuff (if the price is acceptable)

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63612#Comment_63612

Paul,

It woudn't bother me in the least.

Harper Collins is a secular company and as such they ( those who make the decisions) are rebelling against the truth of what they know...as the word says that they do.

I've never been one to not buy something because a company shows bad moral practices...I'd starve, go cloth-less, and house less if I did that. [:D]

Sharon

I am glad to know that.

No, I won't buy it. Holiness is important to the Lord. It is important to me.

Thank you for posing the question.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63621#Comment_63621

Paul,

It woudn't bother me in the least.

Harper Collins is a secular company and as such they ( those who make the decisions) are rebelling against the truth of what they know...as the word says that they do.

I've never been one to not buy something because a company shows bad moral practices...I'd starve, go cloth-less, and house less if I did that.

Same here Bob. I've always taken the point of view that the more Christian publications I (and others) buy from a secular publisher/store, the more they will try and meet the demographic.

A kind of "Change the world around you, by the way you live your life..." theology. [Y]

Luuk Dondorp

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63627#Comment_63627

How about..when the well is poisoned the forthcoming river is poisoned also...??!

Jack Caviness

Is anyone planning on not purchasing Zondervan resources, in Logos format, because their owner (HarperCollins) also publishes the "Satanic Bible" under their Avon imprint?

We had this same type of discussion 30 years ago in Winston-Salem when RJ Reynolds Tobacco purchased Nabisco and then the holding company that owned several fast food chains. Can you shop at Walmart knowing that the clothing they sell probably came from Chinese sweat shops, owned by the Communist government? When you start examining the complex corporate relationships that comprise international business, second and third degree separation would have us all return to subsistence farming, if we could even purchase seed to get started.

Paul

I attached this reply to your post because you first raised the question, not to discredit your position which I believe from a subsequent post parallels my own view.

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63627#Comment_63627

I've never been one to not buy something because a company shows bad moral practices...I'd starve, go cloth-less, and house less if I did that.

I see you have a smiley face, so I'm sure you know that if you were to not to buy something because a company shows bad moral practices...you would not starve, go cloth-less, or house less...because you know that your Heavenly Fathers knows what you need and will provide all that you need. [:)]

Same here Bob. I've always taken the point of view that the more Christian publications I (and others) buy from a secular publisher/store, the more they will try and meet the demographic.

A kind of "Change the world around you, by the way you live your life..." theology.

And I am sure you know, Paul, that the world will not be changed toward the better no matter what man may do or try to do[:)]. The world will continue its downward race until the Savior comes. Since "my money" is God's money, I will always ask Him how He wants it spent. Truth is, I believe He has already told me in His Word...

About my Father's business...

Sharon

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63707#Comment_63707

I think I said this in that thread, But if we use this as a criteria.. we would not be able to purchase any books, because all publishers will publish a book we will nnot agre with.

I also take is to 1 Corinthians and Romans, Paul made it clear it was perfectly fine to eat meat even though this meat was sacrificed to pegan God's. why are we having the same argument?? even though it has to do with publishers, the argument is the same..

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63707#Comment_63707

I see you have a smiley face, so I'm sure you know that if you were to not to buy something because a company shows bad moral practices...you would not starve, go cloth-less, or house less...because you know that your Heavenly Fathers knows what you need and will provide all that you need.

Sharon,

I put the smiley because I didn't want my answer to seem harsh because a lot of people don't see things the way i do...that's all.

I know that my Father provides for me because He's promised to, and I'm clothed and full of food right now!

I have to say that IF a Christian wants to take the stand that they'd not buy a particular item because the company has some sort of unchristian practices...

***********AND we want to be consistent in our approach********

Then we:

Throw the TV away

don't drive a car

Don't eat anything we don't produce ourselves (and be careful what garden tools we use [:D] )

Don't wear clothes from almost all clothing companies...

and the list goes on. [:D]

As another poster said....we are free to eat at Pagan-burgers [:O]

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63734#Comment_63734

I also take is to 1 Corinthians and Romans, Paul made it clear it was perfectly fine to eat meat even though this meat was sacrificed to pegan God's. why are we having the same argument?? even though it has to do with publishers, the argument is the same..

Bryan,

good point; i believe that this is a direct application of that passage...

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63734#Comment_63734

I also take is to 1 Corinthians and Romans, Paul made it clear it was perfectly fine to eat meat even though this meat was sacrificed to pegan God's. why are we having the same argument?? even though it has to do with publishers, the argument is the same..

Great point. History shows that the meat that was sacrificed to pagan gods was sold in order to profit the pagan temples. And while the Apostle's point was to show that pagan rituals have no spiritual effect on anything that God has created, the implication is also obvious, and that is that there was nothing wrong with purchasing the meat in the first place.

Another would be the discourse in Matthew 22. Where they were basically asking Christ "Is it right to take hard earned Hebrew money, that Gos has entrusted us with, and give it for the support of a sinful government?"

David A. Peterson

Is anyone planning on not purchasing Zondervan resources, in Logos format, because their owner (HarperCollins) also publishes the "Satanic Bible" under their Avon imprint?

I am planning on purchasing the Bundle, as soon as it is ready (only haven't pre-ordered because I need to find out how much the academic student break is going to be...)

<><

Alex Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63750#Comment_63750

there was nothing wrong with purchasing the meat in the first place.

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? The passage is about partaking of something about of which you DON'T know the origin, and which has been SET BEFORE you. I don't believe it has anything to do with a Christian going out and BUYING meat a pagan temple.

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63737#Comment_63737

Oh, I so agree we should be consistent in our approach, but I don't agree the approach should not be based on whether "a company shows bad moral practices" or not, but rather, as the Spirit reveals truth and leads us in the way we should go--then we should go and do. This, then, leaves us being directed by the Holy Spirit, and not under the Law. I cannot make an all inclusive decision, except to follow His every leading in His Word through His Spirit. I am not free in the respect that I may do what I want, I am now free to obey, no longer a slave to unrighteousness!

I would say, though, regarding pagan-burgers; Paul had just a little more to say about his decisions (as I am sure you are aware)... And in order to meet his own criteria, he would have needed to ask the Lord when and where and whether to eat pagan-burgers, which is the approach I would take and endorse.

Sharon

PS As far as TV - there is a much more true, honorable, righteous, pure, lovely, reputable, excellent, and praise-worthy reason to THROW IT OUT![;)]

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63763#Comment_63763

Paul had more to say in II Corinthians 6.

Matthew 22 needs to be read with emphasis on rendering to God the things that are God's; only then can we truly know what belongs to Caesar. (belonging to Caesar meaning, God has permitted it.)

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63763#Comment_63763

there was nothing wrong with purchasing the meat in the first place.

Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? The passage is about partaking of something about of which you DON'T know the origin, and which has been SET BEFORE you. I don't believe it has anything to do with a Christian going out and BUYING meat a pagan temple.

I only infer this by studying how Paul handles subjects. When he is trying to explain a spiritual principle he tends be very exact and deep into the matter at hand. I can only assume in this circumstance that he was being asked something along the lines of: "Is it OK to eat the meat that could have been sacrificed to the pagan idols in the temples?" As with all subjects not specifically covered by the scriptures, I must come to an conclusion based on the evidence at hand, and that would seem to be, that if buying the meat that was used in the rituals was wrong, Paul would have made a point of addressing it in his explanation.

But I do agree that others may come to a different conclusion on what is not specifically mentioned, I therefore must defer to Augustine: "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love"

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63776#Comment_63776

except to follow His every leading in His Word through His Spirit.

Sharon,

I'm old fashioned...I believe that the leading that we should follow has been written down [;)]

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63707#Comment_63707

And I am sure you know, Paul, that the world will not be changed toward the better no matter what man may do or try to do. The world will continue its downward race until the Savior comes. Since "my money" is God's money, I will always ask Him how He wants it spent. Truth is, I believe He has already told me in His Word...

While I wholeheartedly agree that God is indeed sovereign over all that takes place in this world, James makes it clear though that we do have responsibility as to our actions in our sphere of influence (however limited it may be). Whether on not we make a difference, is secondary to following God's will. Our Lord himself tells us we are the salt and light in this world.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63782#Comment_63782

Matthew 22 needs to be read with emphasis on rendering to God the things that are God's; only then can we truly know what belongs to Caesar. (belonging to Caesar meaning, God has permitted it.)

But Jesus does not say God has just permitted it, He is clearly stating that the things of God are different than the things of Caesar. Which in this specific circumstance in money.

Otto S. Carroll

Is anyone planning on not purchasing Zondervan resources, in Logos format, because their owner (HarperCollins) also publishes the "Satanic Bible" under their Avon imprint?

That would not stop me from buying Zondervan. The criteria I would use for Zondervan resources would be the same as for any other resource for my Logos library - mainly, I'll buy it if I think it would aid in my study and understanding of God's word...

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63788#Comment_63788

except to follow His every leading in His Word through His Spirit.

Sharon,

I'm old fashioned...I believe that the leading that we should follow has been written down

Quite right, but it is only revealed through Him.

Old-fashioned or New-fashioned - To the Law and to the Testimony! [Y]

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63797#Comment_63797

But He does, read verse 17. That was their question. Jesus is answering their question.

But, He knew they were not really asking Him whether it was okay - they were trying to trap Him.

Therefore, Jesus divinely answered both the question put forth by their ill-motive, and the one which it raised.

That's why they went away amazed. (They were not amazed that He told them to pay their taxes.)

Jesus was clear to those who had ears to hear. The pharisees did not!

Sharon

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63706#Comment_63706

We had this same type of discussion 30 years ago in Winston-Salem when RJ Reynolds Tobacco purchased Nabisco and then the holding company that owned several fast food chains

Brother Jack, did anyone ask "How can we live in a city where most of the taxes are paid by tobacco manufactures?"

( [:)] Please forgive my insolence, just a little cigar smoking Calvinist humor)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63788#Comment_63788

I'm old fashioned...I believe that the leading that we should follow has been written down

I must quibble - Judaism and the first 1500 years of Christianity were not "written only" - that's one of them new fangled ideas.[:D]

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63793#Comment_63793

Quite right, but our actions may never to be apart from His leading (as James also teaches us in 4:13-17). His leading is found in His Word through His Spirit.

That's one of the greatest things in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant could only tell us what the rules were - but seldom the exceptions. The New Covenant provides for our righteous and holy direction based on the Holy Spirit sanctifying us in His Word - His Word is Truth! John 17 This is what Jesus prayed for us! And God has answered His Son!

In addition, Jesus Himself did always and only what He heard the Father say. He has given me the exact steps to walk in - not just a pattern, but the exact steps. They are pre-ordained and I am commanded and privileged to walk in them. Glory to God!

Sharon

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63804#Comment_63804

But He does, read verse 17

Sharon, can we not conclude that Christ's main point is that we are told to function in the society that God has placed us in (including paying taxes, and inferred with that, purchasing what is needed to live our lives) while at the same time holding to what is most important? And that most important thing being the things of God?

For is He not also saying what indeed belongs to God is our very lives?

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63776#Comment_63776

Oops! "I don't agree the approach should not be based on..." should be "I don't agree the approach should be based on..." But then you probably all knew that.[;)]

And BTW what am I doing wrong on the quotes. I keep messing it up when I try to quote from two different posts.

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63776#Comment_63776

I would say, though, regarding pagan-burgers; Paul had just a little more to say about his decisions (as I am sure you are aware)... And in order to meet his own criteria, he would have needed to ask the Lord when and where and whether to eat pagan-burgers, which is the approach I would take and endorse.

Sharon

I think he did answer this.. If him eating meat would cause someone to stumble, then he would chose to not eat meat.

Same goes here.. If someones faith is such that they would not wish to purchase this because of what was posted.. they should not be judged.. Nor should those who chose to still buy,

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63782#Comment_63782

Paul had more to say in II Corinthians 6.

Matthew 22 needs to be read with emphasis on rendering to God the things that are God's; only then can we truly know what belongs to Caesar. (belonging to Caesar meaning, God has permitted it.)

I disagree here, God said render to Caesar what is Caesars.. God put the government in place..which means God knew what they would tax. he allowed it by putting them in charge..

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63814#Comment_63814

But He does, read verse 17

Sharon, can we not conclude that Christ's main point is that we are told to function in the society that God has placed us in (including paying taxes, and inferred with that, purchasing what is needed to live our lives) while at the same time holding to what is most important? And that most important thing being the things of God?

For is He not also saying what indeed belongs to God is our very lives?

I agree here, His point was just because you belong spiritually to Gods family does not mean you are removed from your responsibility to your secular family.. If your secular government requires taxes.. Being in Gods family does not get you a free ride out of not paying taxes..

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63814#Comment_63814

Paul,

I am taking your question to be referring to the point in Matthew 22? Is that right? If not, delete most of below. [:)]

If you will read Matthew 21:23 all the way to 23:37, I think you may it as a segment defined by Jesus being in the temple. When Jesus entered the temple, (where the King should naturally go) He was met with resistance to His authority as King. From that point until the climax at the end of 23 Jesus is teaching His main point in parables-purposely hiding the meaning from some. It concerned His rule and authority as King of Israel - proving that He was Messiah. The Pharisees interrupted Him with questions meant to speak to His followers that He was NOT indeed, the KIng. The Sadducees followed suit, and then the Pharisees try once more. Jesus wins hands down! Once the useless match is over, Jesus proceeds to teach the crowds about the people who have tried to prove He was not Who He said He was. Again, His point is glorifying Himself as the anointed King of Israel. Blessed is He Who Comes in the Name of the Lord!

Although one of the questions from the rebels involved the name of Caesar, it was not ever the point (except that God sovereignly ordained their question to bolster showing that Jesus was the King. He had authority to say where God's "things" were to go). I believe that the question needs to be taken in its context. It is not a case of clear repeated doctrine. Doctrine, yes. Clear? By no means. The whole counsel of the Word of God is needed. The gospels are some of the most difficult passages of Scripture, possibly because we are too familiar with them to really listen. (I am not talking about you. I am talking in general.)

I do agree most whole-heartedly that

we are told to function in the society that God has placed us in (including paying taxes, and inferred with that, purchasing what is needed to live our lives

. The Bible, of course teaches this. I just wouldn't draw the foundation of that doctrine/teaching from this passage.

I kinda think we don't really disagree. I am just trying to let the context of Matthew tell me what the passage is saying. I believe you are too.

Thanks for taking the time to answer me seriously. I appreciate it.

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63834#Comment_63834

I think he did answer this.. If him eating meat would cause someone to stumble, then he would chose to not eat meat.

That's what I was referring to. [:)]

Same goes here.. If someones faith is such that they would not wish to purchase this because of what was posted.. they should not be judged.. Nor should those who chose to still buy,

I completely agree. I don't believe anyone on this post has judged anyone else, have they? I must have missed it if they did.

Ralph Mauch

Zondervan still serves the Christian Community well, despite who is at the helm, and solid Christian authors still use them as their publishing house!

If I don't buy Zondervan products, it's because of the price, not due to any lack of quality in what they might sell, or because a branch of that company might not agree with Christian doctrine. They have a good core of Godly folks who handle the Christian part of the business, as well as many good contributors who still use them to publish their material. Same is true with Logs, I will continue to use them even if I don't agree with some of their offering!

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63839#Comment_63839

But He does, read verse 17

Sharon, can we not conclude that Christ's main point is that we are told to function in the society that God has placed us in (including paying taxes, and inferred with that, purchasing what is needed to live our lives) while at the same time holding to what is most important? And that most important thing being the things of God?

For is He not also saying what indeed belongs to God is our very lives?

I agree here, His point was just because you belong spiritually to Gods family does not mean you are removed from your responsibility to your secular family.. If your secular government requires taxes.. Being in Gods family does not get you a free ride out of not paying taxes..

Jesus was doing two things. 1. Making the point He wanted to make about HIMSELF (King of Israel). And 2. answering their blasphemous question (which stated He was not the King of Israel). They never asked if they could be exempt from taxes. They were questioning His authority. He answered both wondrously (He was God/King. He alone had the authority to speak for God - and AS God He could speak for God, as well as the human king-Caesar) and He threw in, to boot, affirmation of something He had never undermined (the ridiculous tax test.)

As I told Paul, I really don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just trying to keep this verse in its context.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63842#Comment_63842

I kinda think we don't really disagree. I am just trying to let the context of Matthew tell me what the passage is saying. I believe you are too.

Yes, I've been schooled in the philosophy to never form a doctrine on one isolated reference, unless that reference is a clear doctrinal teaching for the church, and agrees with the entire witness of the Scripture. (I apologize for my assumption that everyone knows what I'm thinking :-)

You know what would be really neat? If there was a section in one of Paul's letters where he says: "I was going to cover the question of "XYZ", but everyone seems to agree on this, so I'll just skip it" [:D]

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63834#Comment_63834

I would say, though, regarding pagan-burgers; Paul had just a little more to say about his decisions (as I am sure you are aware)... And in order to meet his own criteria, he would have needed to ask the Lord when and where and whether to eat pagan-burgers, which is the approach I would take and endorse.

Sharon

I think he did answer this.. If him eating meat would cause someone to stumble, then he would chose to not eat meat.

Same goes here.. If someones faith is such that they would not wish to purchase this because of what was posted.. they should not be judged.. Nor should those who chose to still buy,

Just for clarity. Wouldn't the same goes here (I think he did answer this.. If him eating meat would cause someone to stumble, then he would chose to not eat meat.) parallel mean that if someone would be caused to stumble, Paul would be willing, yes, even obligated to not buy it himself?

Don't worry, I am not stumbling [:)] I simply answered the original question posted. I did not ask anyone to refrain from purchasing.

Sharon

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63862#Comment_63862

I kinda think we don't really disagree. I am just trying to let the context of Matthew tell me what the passage is saying. I believe you are too.

Yes, I've been schooled in the philosophy to never form a doctrine on one isolated reference, unless that reference is a clear doctrinal teaching for the church, and agrees with the entire witness of the Scripture. (I apologize for my assumption that everyone knows what I'm thinking :-)

You know what would be really neat? If there was a section in one of Paul's letters where he says: "I was going to cover the question of "XYZ", but everyone seems to agree on this, so I'll just skip it"

Lol so true!!

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63865#Comment_63865

I would say, though, regarding pagan-burgers; Paul had just a little more to say about his decisions (as I am sure you are aware)... And in order to meet his own criteria, he would have needed to ask the Lord when and where and whether to eat pagan-burgers, which is the approach I would take and endorse.

Sharon

I think he did answer this.. If him eating meat would cause someone to stumble, then he would chose to not eat meat.

Same goes here.. If someones faith is such that they would not wish to purchase this because of what was posted.. they should not be judged.. Nor should those who chose to still buy,

Just for clarity. Wouldn't the same goes here (I think he did answer this.. If him eating meat would cause someone to stumble, then he would chose to not eat meat.) parallel mean that if someone would be caused to stumble, Paul would be willing, yes, even obligated to not buy it himself?

Don't worry, I am not stumbling I simply answered the original question posted. I did not ask anyone to refrain from purchasing.

Sharon

I know you did not [:D]

Sharon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63862#Comment_63862

You know what would be really neat? If there was a section in one of Paul's letters where he says: "I was going to cover the question of "XYZ", but everyone seems to agree on this, so I'll just skip it"

Amen! Ah, someday soon, when the King returns, then we will all agree...

Until then, when the unity of the faith is revealed - we will preserve the unity of the Spirit! I do sincerely thank you for discussing His Word with me.

Gotta go - two blizzards in two weeks makes for much snow to be removed before church![;)]

Sharon

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63806#Comment_63806

We had this same type of discussion 30 years ago in Winston-Salem when RJ Reynolds Tobacco purchased Nabisco and then the holding company that owned several fast food chains

Brother Jack, did anyone ask "How can we live in a city where most of the taxes are paid by tobacco manufactures?"

( Please forgive my insolence, just a little cigar smoking Calvinist humor)

Paul

I should have taken notice of your picture [:D].

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. At the time, I thought the entire discussion was silly. I gave up tobacco more than thirty (almost forty) years ago for health reason. Seven years later, I served a Church in which 95% of the members were tobacco farmers. I told them before they called me that their vocation was between them and God. The Bible does not condemn tobacco use unless you stretch 1 Corinthians 6:19 practically to the breaking point. Maybe I should have used an illustration connected with Schlitz Brewery which was also in Winston-Salem at the time, or Miller which has a brewery in Eden, NC where I served for 20 years. One of my predecessors wanted the deacons to sign a pledge that they would not do business with anyone who did business with Miller Beer!

My point was that these kinds of extreme separation from worldly things becomes silly and renders it impossible to maintain a consistent position. Perhaps we all need to conduct a Logos Bible Study of Romans 14:14, 23. Indeed, the whole chapter deals with this very issue.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63906#Comment_63906

My point was that these kinds of extreme separation from worldly things becomes silly and renders it impossible to maintain a consistent position. Perhaps we all need to conduct a Logos Bible Study of Romans 14:14, 23. Indeed, the whole chapter deals with this very issue.

I know what you mean. I came from an area of the east coast, where smoking and social drinking had nothing to do with one's salvation. To now in the mid-west, where the majority of the churched believe that if they see someone walk into a bar, they are back-sliding...

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63929#Comment_63929

My point was that these kinds of extreme separation from worldly things becomes silly and renders it impossible to maintain a consistent position. Perhaps we all need to conduct a Logos Bible Study of Romans 14:14, 23. Indeed, the whole chapter deals with this very issue.
I know what you mean. I came from an area of the east coast, where smoking and social drinking had nothing to do with one's salvation. To now in the mid-west, where the majority of the churched believe that if they see someone walk into a bar, they are back-sliding...

Walk into a bar as back-sliding... Oh boy! What in the world would they think about a German Lutheran that wants his Beer, and Bratwurst with his Sunday Green Bay Packers. Not to mention the use of actual wine for the communion cup. [B][*-)]

I am this German Lutheran but not necessarily for the Packers (not really into football)..Thankfully, the Lord has given me a penitent heart. Hopefully, I don't lose focus of that cross and empty grave.

William

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63906#Comment_63906

Please forgive my insolence, just a little cigar smoking Calvinist humor

Paul,

I knew I liked you for some reason! [:D] What's not to like about a cigar chomping Calvinist?

My point was that these kinds of extreme separation from worldly things becomes silly and renders it impossible to maintain a consistent position. Perhaps we all need to conduct a Logos Bible Study of Romans 14:14, 23. Indeed, the whole chapter deals with this very issue.

Very true Jack.

At least this thread is good for one thing; causing me to put Logos into action to study these passages! [:D]

Bryan Brodess

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63929#Comment_63929

My point was that these kinds of extreme separation from worldly things becomes silly and renders it impossible to maintain a consistent position. Perhaps we all need to conduct a Logos Bible Study of Romans 14:14, 23. Indeed, the whole chapter deals with this very issue.

I know what you mean. I came from an area of the east coast, where smoking and social drinking had nothing to do with one's salvation. To now in the mid-west, where the majority of the churched believe that if they see someone walk into a bar, they are back-sliding...

so true!! To many legalists!!

Rom 14 I say to them!!

Jim VanSchoonhoven

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64108#Comment_64108

I am amazed that some would believe our righteousness is some how tied to if we abstain from or buy teachings based on the scriptures. It makes me ponder this passage of scripture.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64149#Comment_64149

I am amazed that some would believe our righteousness is some how tied to if we abstain from or buy teachings based on the scriptures. It makes me ponder this passage of scripture.

One could counter such a statement with:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James 2:14-24

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64154#Comment_64154

I am amazed that some would believe our righteousness is some how tied to if we abstain from or buy teachings based on the scriptures. It makes me ponder this passage of scripture.

One could counter such a statement with:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James 2:14-24

Paul,

wouldn't the subject matter of this passage and the one in the previous post be different?

That one was addressing the "basis" of our standing before God and the oft-cited-by-Mormons James passage speaking about the evidence of a heart change? James wasn't addressing our legal standing before God was he?

Apples and oranges...right?

Jim VanSchoonhoven

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64154#Comment_64154

Paul, that also would be a good passage since we are talking about buying materials that are based on the scriptures. that would be showing what our focus is on. Our faith would be showing good deeds. I am thankful you brought this passage up.

By the way have you ever checked out the word Justified as used in this passage? Does it have more than one meaning in the Greek?

In Christ,

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64163#Comment_64163

Jim, if you read my previous posts you would see that I am a Sola fide kind of guy. And also you would see that while I hold wholly to Faith, I also believe that we are called to do what we can, in our sphere of influence, to be the salt and light of the world. Which if I'm not mistaken, is what James was getting at.

And if you have a few years we could discuss the meanings of πίστις. [:)]