Quote:
Originally Posted by tbpew
For my second posting risk of the morning....
in the face-hair-on-men thread now somewhere back around page 7-9, I was stirred by a posting response made by poster "Coonskinner"; I am copying into this post because I think it is asking the same thing as this thread is asking, albeit, with a male at the center rather than a female.
I am greatly interested in the part of your statement that I bolded above.
You words express an understanding that, operating within your calling and election in God, that YOU CAN DETERMINE what is and what is NOT rebellion.
This would make the issue of rebellion a purposed decision made by the recipient [protagonist] of the preceived rebellion NOT a condition of the person's heart [antagonist].
This is a dramatic departure from the way I was taught rebellion existed. I was always taught it was a "spirit of rebellion". With you comment, a spirit of rebellion could be made an issue or NOT made an issue. The only environment were something could be made or not made, is within the realm of men's dominion.
This post invites consideration of whether what is often called rebellion is actually a decision made by a man, with respect to the actions of another person, and NOT a reality established in the realm of the Spirit.
|
The Scripture says, "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath."
I think that is good advice for pastors too.
The Scripture gives the ministry the responsibility of taking oversight of the flock. Included in that responsibility is the setting of certain guidelines for the local assembly, through the prayerful application of Scriptural principles.
I do not personally feel that, regarding the issue you brought up, I could make it a test of fellowship, and thereby provoke to wrath.
The provoker is not blameless, and neither is the one who is provoked.
Threaded Mode
