Jeff:  Thanks for the e-mail.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Scanlan" <jscanlan@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:21 AM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Bruce and insurance


>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: John Reisinger [mailto:jreisinger24@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 29 October 2006 1:54 PM
> To: soundofgrace@...
> Subject: [soundofgrace] Bruce and insurance
>
> In over fifty years of discussing, debating and dialoguing with
> Christians of all stripes, I have never known anyone as sharp as Bruce.
> Bruce is beyond question the best wordsmith I have ever encountered. He
> could sell a milking machine to a framer with one cow and take the cow for 
> a
> down payment. I am sure he won every one of the arguments with the
> government officials that he challenged. His last post describes some of
> those encounters and his ability to make the people look stupid.
> I do not question Bruce's right to live without insurance. I am not
> even arguing over his wisdom in doing so.
>
> [Jeff comments]
> That is consistent to what I was trying to tell him. A guy like that 
> hardly
> needs insurance. He would be able to talk himself out of any problem and
> have the resources to get others to meet his needs. I have seen lots of
> people 'living by faith' doing just that.
>
> In just plain ordinary living I have noted that those who can do certain
> things and do them instinctively and intuitively do not realise how
> difficult it is for others to do likewise.
>
> Leaders like Hybels and Warren can do all sorts of great organizational 
> and
> think that others should be able to do them too but it is not always that
> easy. As someone pointed out to me that when we ordinary mortals try to 
> copy
> these guys we often don't realise just what it is they are doing. And we
> don't realise that these guys have the resources to cover their mistakes
> when they make them.
>
>
> [JGR again]
> I simply do not believe his reasons for not having insurance are Biblical.
> The Scriptures that he used in his ten-point defense do not at all prove 
> his
> position. To make Proverbs, chapter 1, mean that insurance companies "run 
> to
> do evil" and "make haste to shed innocent blood" is nonsense. To liken
> Israel going down to Egypt for help to taking out an insurance policy 
> isn't
> exegesis. To insist I am becoming surety to pay the debts of all kinds of
> people because I have insurance is simply ridiculous.
> The charge that Bruce binds people's conscience does not hinge on
> whether or not he specifically insists that all Christians follow his
> example and get rid of all insurance. He insists that God led him to this
> understanding through the Scriptures. Either God led him to do what he did
> or God is not leading me, and others, to keep our insurance. God is not 
> the
> author of confusion.  In I Cor. when Paul discusses Christian liberty, he
> speaks of our actions "embolding" weak brothers to eat against their
> conscience. Any person who gets close to Bruce, especially in a local
> assembly situation, will have three choices.  One, he can keep his 
> insurance
> and defend his position. With Bruce, he will lose every discussion. Two, 
> he
> can, in order to remain in "good standing" in the fellowship, get rid of 
> all
> his insurance. He may do this out of true conviction or he may do it to
> receive acceptance with the people he loves and respects. Three, he can 
> keep
> his insurance and have a guilty conscience. I am sure there is no formal
> written rule in their group that you may not have insurance, but I am just
> as sure there is an unwritten rule that says, "Godly Christians do not
> refuse to trust God by buying insurance." I am also sure Bruce will have 
> an
> answer to all three of these but they are still true regardless of how he
> spins them.
> My real concern is the reputation of the Gospel. Bruce's encounters
> with the various government officials is not done as "Bruce, Canadian
> Citizen," they are done as "Bruce, Bible Believing Christian Canadian
> Citizen." Bruce is claiming to represent the teaching of the Word of God.
> Whether the saints in Woodstock, Ontario (and I personally know some of
> them) like it or not, their life and testimony in the city is impacted by
> Bruce's actions. Bruce, in his actions and claims, is saying, "God led me 
> to
> do this. This is part of what it means to believe the Bible and trust 
> God."
> He does not hesitate to say that the message of the Bible left him no
> alternative but to get rid of all insurance. God gets all the credit for
> what Bruce did! How do Christians say, "Yes, he is a true and sincere
> Christian, he just has a few wacky ideas." How do they respond when the
> world ask, "Is that guy for real? Does the Bible really condemn having
> insurance?"  Would you be willing to try to explain how insurance 
> companies
> "run to do evil" and "make haste to shed innocent blood?"
> I may be wrong, but I do not believe our Lord, or the Apostle Paul,
> would have gone to one government office after another in order to argue
> about what the word "income" means, and then say, "I cannot sign an income
> tax form until you tell me what the word 'income' means." Bruce sincerely
> feels his actions and confrontation with the government leaves behind a 
> good
> testimony for the truth. I think it gives government one more excuse to
> treat Christians as people with no brains.
> Lastly, I hear people say, "But Bruce is really sincere." I do not
> question that in the least. However, we all know that sincerity is not a
> test of truth. Bruce would be the first to agree with that. Scripture 
> alone
> is the only test of truth. Unfortunately, the more sincere a person is 
> when
> he is wrong, the more dangerous he is. It has been well stated that a 
> zealot
> with a machine is gun is an extremely dangerous person. A professing
> Christian with a distorted doctrine of a Christian's duty is also a very
> dangerous person.
> I said my piece. I have no idea how most people on the chat room
> feel.
>
> [Jeff comments]
> Dear brother John I can assure you that I deeply appreciate your wisdom on
> this forum.
>
> [Carlo wrote]
> I had a discussion with someone who knew a person who said she spoke in
> tongues.  This person asked the tongue speaking person if she was really
> faking it.  It took her a little while but she finally admitted that she 
> was
> faking it.  He asked her why all this time she was faking it, and she 
> said,
> she didn't want people in her congregation to think she didn't "have the
> Holy Spirit."  This is your choice two, and believe me it happens in
> evangelical churches around the world in different type situations.
>
> People get burdened in their consciences either by living a lie and being
> hypocritical (which is sin) or they on doing what they are doing anyway,
> with a terrible guilty conscience.  Satan of course loves that and I'm 
> sure
> at times assist consciences of believers to think, "You're guilty, you're
> guilty, you're guilty."
>
> [Jeff comments]
> I think that you are on to something here too, brother Carlo.
>
> God bless,
> Jeff
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>