Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Would you examine a discrepancy of church practice with me?
|
Why certainly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
All my Christian life I have been encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered.
|
The writer of Jude, initially wanted to speak about their shared salvation but felt compelled to urge believers to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," meaning they must actively defend the core Christian beliefs against false teachings and corruption that were emerging, a call to stand firm in the foundational gospel passed down through generations. The attacks where coming from outside of the congregation, from doctrines of Antinomianism. Which individuals were coming into the congregation who were claiming authority from their dreams. Teaching that it was fine and dandy to live immoral lives, defy ministerial authority, and mock the supernatural. Jude wasn't making a case for a church member to run their nonsense up the flag pole and have the ministry salute it. taking the verse "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Then use it as license to disrupt every testimony service, cell group, or dinner on the grounds is not remotely what the writer of Jude had in mind. You want to discuss your thoughts with the pastor, and elders fine. That my boy isn't "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
What you are doing in this forum isn't "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." As you point out regularly I have no power over you, and you have none over me. We are just spit and whittling, throwing thoughts out there, peppered with ecclesiastical sarcasms. If you are discussing your "teachings" with the pastor, you are contending for your personal belief which popped in your head over the time you have been occupying a pew. Like I said before, you can't convince the few people left posting on this forum. I can't even fathom how you are going to convince a pastor. If he is some ecclesiastical despot? Then honey child, I suggest you put on your toque, and head out to the cold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
The UPC Org licences preachers who are not in agreement with the majority-held head-covering doctrine; for, they license those who hold the veil-cover. (Presumably, the Org has not seen it possible to determine just one Biblical head-covering doctrine. Or, is the Org showing an accommodation for some by the acceptance of false doctrine? Can there be two correct Biblical head covering doctrines? No. Yet two are accepted. If two are accepted, then could not three or more also be?)
This acceptance happens on an Organizational level.
|
Like I've said in a few posts. This is totally up to the districts elders and the district supe. Maybe you should contact the district superintendent in your district and have a crack at him. Bring him some nice warm Poutine, abd float your ideas past him. This way you have a bit of food in your stomach before he kicks you out the door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
What may/does happen, on the saint's-level in churches, is a rejection from Word-serving positions of those not having the same head-covering doctrine as their Pastor, because of failure to agree.
|
All I can say is OH WELL. Time to move on my boy. Word-serving positions? It's like this, that guy behind the pulpit, with, or without a church board, has the final word. An individual wanting a word-serving position within another preacher's church family? Best get in line with that preacher. Hey, you might give him a pile of your posts and he could eat it up like it was the bread of life. Lift you up on his shoulders and make you the pastor. Who knows, (I don't believe it) but who knows? Crazier things have happened in Pentecost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Example: Bro. John Doe believes in the veil covering. He becomes licensed as a preacher. Into his church comes J. Smith, who believes neither in a veil or uncut hair cover; yet has another scriptural stance on 1Co11. J. Smith is refused any Word-serving positions because of lack of agreement with Pastor Doe. Thus, Pastor Doe has been accepted by the Org while not holding what the majority holds, yet Pastor Doe rejects J. Smith, who, like he, also does not hold the majority view.
Do you not see the use of a double standard?
|
Don, you are shoveling sand against an ecclesiastical tide. You want a word-serving position? Go forth and find your very own congregation. Stop fishing in another man's fish bowl. Be a fisher of men (that's in the Bible) and go get a group. They will all sit around you like little birds with open gaping mouths ready and waiting for your hidden manna. Problem solved. You can thank me in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
No doubt you've heard it said that Pastors must preach their convictions. But should personal convictions be applied in practice as if they are the Word of God? No? One end result might be dogmatic unscriptural rules applied, as with Hutterites.
|
Don, that guy, in that pulpit, is going to preach whatever pops in his head. That's his church family, they have all voted with their feet. they are there because they like what they hear. They will like you to be there as well, if you don't rock the boat. You see you honestly believe in the stuff your slinging. You believe it's directly from the throne room of God. But, not everyone is going to see it the same way you do. Again, the pastor is going to teach and preach whatever he pleases. There is a big door on the front of the church. You don't like what the guy is teaching, and he won't share the pulpit with you? You can't get him to see that you are chosen vessel of the Apostolic message? Then either sit down and enjoy the good fellowship of the nice people, or pack your bags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Why is what is practised at Org levels, acceptance of two head covering doctrines, not also uniformly practised at local church levels by Pastors? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied. What is good by the mother goose is not seen good by the gosling.
If J. Smith is rejected, then what happened to 'use the right judgment', or, 'don't have respect of persons'?
|
Respect of persons? If you were a member in any one of the 40,000 denominations in this country, would you expect them to open the pulpit to you? One more thing, we have no idea what exactly went down with J. Smith and John Doe. Hypotheticals rarely give us a bird's eye view. Because real life there are multiple sides to figure out. Respect of persons? Right judgement? We as the readers are only getting your side. We don't have your pastor here to tell us what a treat it is to have you in his church family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
The end-result is, a Pastor is seemingly seen having the ability to determine one clear doctrine, which the Org has not seen the Word providing. The Pastor in a sense usurps the role/authority of the Org. Or: what can not be determined as only-one-head-covering-doctrine on an Organizational level, is seen as able to be determined in a local church, contradictorily.
Does anyone else see something askew? Is the reasoning used faulty?
While it may be that some Pastors would not ever reject J. Smith from Word-serving positions, this acceptance-method is not universally practiced or taught.
|
I have already covered this in this post. You need to get over this, and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
|
Well, you got your work cut out for you. I believe I beat this horse.