Tom,

I am quite sure that Dr. Masters' criticisms reach beyond the Regulative Principle which focuses mainly upon corporate (formal) worship. His concern extends to the very lives of those whom he names due to their open exhibition of worldliness and even more so that they are encouraging, either directly or by way of example, their hearers to follow likewise.

Now, being "uncharitable" can mean many things including refraining from exposing sin in another brother's life. wink

Lastly, on this matter of the Jesus t-shirts... I have to be bluntly honest Tom. Even if there wasn't a Second Commandment or even a Third Commandment, which I strongly hold forbid such blasphemous things, I could not in good conscience allow them, never mind actually wear one in public nor in private. My respect and reverence for my Redeemer, my God, my Lord Jesus Christ rails against even the thought of putting a false image of His person on a casual article of clothing (anything). I firmly hold that those who do such things reveal their true doctrine of Christ despite what they profess to believe. The fact that there are those, perhaps the majority in our dark day, who would take issue with me, calling me narrow, uncharitable, old fashion, intolerant and a whole list of other pejoratives doesn't change the truth, nor does it mean that since the issue is disputed that it should be relegated to something "less important". If you only take but a few seconds to think about that you would realize that there isn't one single biblical doctrine or teaching of Scripture which someone hasn't objected to. So, are you going to propose that there is nothing important which a Christian should defend with all fervor? scratchchin

Personally, I believe Dr. Masters' might be guilty of understating the case and the seriousness of it.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]