View Full Version : Who is more holy?
The subject of this thread came to me as I thought of how often NFCF and AFF have been maligned as being hotbeds of carnality, bad spirits and preacher bashing.
While not wishing to address previously banned topics let me state that in my opinion AFF has taken a stronger and more godly position than those who proclaim loudly to be ultra-holy. I was mildly shocked to read the "expose" material that had been posted on CAF. (And the part I read was insubstantive at best.)
I was dismayed at the spirit of sectarianism between "the holy" and the rest of the movement that was portrayed - all the while bashing preachers who are not on the right side of the fence.
So, my hats off to the admin of this forum - you've shown a more godly attitude and spirit than those who loudly portray their righteousness above others.
Please don't turn this into a thread on the forbidde topic. I just wanted to express my sentiments toward the admin of this forum.
Guy
Felicity
03-15-2007, 08:26 PM
This whole "holiness" thing the way we talk about it most of the time is somewhat of a joke .... well let's change that to a huge joke ...... viewed in light of God's holiness. Nothing we can do can even being to measure up to God's standard of holiness. It's untenable and unattainable. The only true holiness we have is a result of His grace and mercy. We don't merit it that's for sure.
When Isaiah saw the Lord what did he say? He cried out.......... "Woe is me!!!! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."
Can one single one of us say anything different? If you think you can then you haven't seen the Lord! Simple as that!
:)
Scott Hutchinson
03-15-2007, 08:29 PM
The only way any of us is truly Holy is by God's grace.of course being in grace manifests itself in outward behaviour and well as causing us to have a right spirit.
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 08:30 PM
Guy, to your point - thanks for the vote of confidence in the admin here! It's appreciated.
Guy, to your point - thanks for the vote of confidence in the admin here! It's appreciated.
Renda
The carnal side of my character would love to carry on the fight. I hate seeing these actions going unchallenged - but it is no doubt better for me.
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 08:50 PM
Renda
The carnal side of my character would love to carry on the fight. I hate seeing these actions going unchallenged - but it is no doubt better for me.
I understand because it is becoming clearer that one side is not being heard, but taking the high road is always best. Hopefully, at a later time when things are settled we will be able to understand just what really took place.
In the meantime, let's pray for all involved!
The Antagonist
03-15-2007, 08:54 PM
This whole "holiness" thing the way we talk about it most of the time is somewhat of a joke .... well let's change that to a huge joke ...... viewed in light of God's holiness. Nothing we can do can even being to measure up to God's standard of holiness. It's untenable and unattainable. The only true holiness we have is a result of His grace and mercy. We don't merit it that's for sure.
When Isaiah saw the Lord what did he say? He cried out.......... "Woe is me!!!! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."
Can one single one of us say anything different? If you think you can then you haven't seen the Lord! Simple as that!
:)
Girl,
I'm persuaded you've got more brains in the earlobe than most have from eye tooth to folic.
Are you sure that Isaiah did not say, "Holy is me for I'm a humdinger for I am a man of smooth lips and dwell in the midst of oratorical lips, for my eyes have seen the King because I AM the king."
I am fully persuaded that few anymore know anything of true holiness and true righteousness. Too many of us are far too impressed with ourselves to see the king.
Coonskinner
03-15-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't think this is an issue of holiness.
The situation with Brother ***** is a matter to be dealt with by the ministry.
Please remember that there is likely more to the story than most of us are aware of.
This is not a private environment like that one, so it is inappropriate for it to be discussed here.
Coonskinner
03-15-2007, 08:56 PM
Girl,
I'm persuaded you've got more brains in the earlobe than most have from eye tooth to folic.
Are you sure that Isaiah did not say, "Holy is me for I'm a humdinger for I am a man of smooth lips and dwell in the midst of oratorical lips, for my eyes have seen the King because I AM the king."
I am fully persuaded that few anymore know anything of true holiness and true righteousness. Too many of us are far too impressed with ourselves to see the king.
My Aunt Felicity is definitely one of the brighter minds and clearest thinkers around tese parts.
Auntie and Feladacious
Stop hijacking my thread!
Holiness is how long your hair and sleeves are and whether or not you wear jewelry or not.
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 08:58 PM
I must have misunderstood the first post.
I didn't really think it was about being holy. I thought Guy was just saying he appreciated that Admin took a stand and didn't allow this to be discussed.
He also stated please don't turn this thread into discussing it.
rrford
03-15-2007, 08:58 PM
I must have misunderstood the first post.
I didn't really think it was about being holy. I thought Guy was just saying he appreciated that Admin took a stand and didn't allow this to be discussed.
He also stated please don't turn this thread into discussing it.
Was he saying that the Admin here is holy? :aaa
I don't think this is an issue of holiness.
The situation with Brother **** is a matter to be dealt with by the ministry.
Please remember that there is likely more to the story than most of us are aware of.
This is not a private environment like that one, so it is inappropriate for it to be discussed here.
Bro. Coonskinner
We are not permitted to discuss it here.
However, what is coming out of CAF, which like it or not is not very private, certainly smacks of sectarianism and political opportunism.
Read my lips - at this point it's really not about the missionary. It's about galvanizing a segment (small thank the Lord) of the fellowship in opposition to the liberals at HQ.
Guy
Scott Hutchinson
03-15-2007, 08:59 PM
I'm holier than any of yall cause I only wear white dress socks.
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:00 PM
Was he saying that the Admin here is holy? :aaa
I don't think so. :happydance
I must have misunderstood the first post.
I didn't really think it was about being holy. I thought Guy was just saying he appreciated that Admin took a stand and didn't allow this to be discussed.
He also stated please don't turn this thread into discussing it.
Actually, it was about true holiness and kingdom principles - being a matter of the heart that is reflected through our lives in how we treat other people.
In that respect the administration of AFF has gone the extra mile on this one.
rrford
03-15-2007, 09:03 PM
Actually, it was about true holiness and kingdom principles - being a matter of the heart that is reflected through our lives in how we treat other people.
In that respect the administration of AFF has gone the extra mile on this one.
So you are saying the Admin here is "holy."
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:05 PM
So you are saying the Admin here is "holy."
Lol......maybe he's saying the decision was a holy one, not that we are.
Felicity
03-15-2007, 09:06 PM
Guess I didn't "get the point". Guess I didn't really quite understand what Guy was referring to I guess. Leave it to me. Darn, I missed it again! :tiphat
Oh well ....... just mark it down to being kind of behind in all the "action" around here, who's bashing who, who's on which side of which side of which fence, etc. and to not pick up on all the controversial nuances.
:nah
rrford
03-15-2007, 09:07 PM
Guess I didn't "get the point". Guess I didn't really quite understand what Guy was referring to I guess. Leave it to me. Darn, I missed it again! :tiphat
Oh well ....... just mark it down to being kind of behind in all the "action" around here, who's bashing who, who's on which side of which side of which fence, etc. and to not pick up on all the controversial nuances.
:nah
You are actually going to admit that? :toofunny
So you are saying the Admin here is "holy."
Dear Bro.
Not knowing the Admin here I would hesitate to state that. I am saying that the policy they have taken in this matter is more reflective of Christ's holiness than that of the other forum.
Scott Hutchinson
03-15-2007, 09:08 PM
Sure the admins here are wholely.
Felicity
03-15-2007, 09:09 PM
Actually, it was about true holiness and kingdom principles - being a matter of the heart that is reflected through our lives in how we treat other people.
In that respect the administration of AFF has gone the extra mile on this one.Aha! And now I read this! So I didn't miss it after all?!!
Well come on people --- make up your mind. Sheesh! :nah
Hehe. :p
If it were about a liberal the great champions of truth and justice would scuttle off like cockroaches when the light is turned on.
Nahum
03-15-2007, 09:11 PM
If it were about a liberal the great champions of truth and justice would scuttle off like cockroaches when the light is turned on.
I love the absolute truth of this statement.
rrford
03-15-2007, 09:12 PM
If it were about a liberal the great champions of truth and justice would scuttle off like cockroaches when the light is turned on.
Uhm, not a "real" champion of truth and justice.
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:13 PM
True, but be very careful or you are going to do what you asked others not to do - :toofunny
Dear Bro.'s PP and RR
I edited my post to stay out of trouble on a technicality. I was speaking in the abstract. :)
Nahum
03-15-2007, 09:14 PM
True, but be very careful or you are going to do what you asked others not to do - :toofunny
C'mon Renda, why not just turn us loose?
:slaphappy :slaphappy :slaphappy
True, but be very careful or you are going to do what you asked others not to do - :toofunny
I'm like Johnny Cash - I walk the line.
rrford
03-15-2007, 09:16 PM
Dear Bro.'s PP and RR
I edited my post to stay out of trouble on a technically. I was speaking in the abstract. :)
Personally, I saw no problem with the post. Maybe the "reference" to "this" should have been left out. Other than that it is an observation worthy of comment.
South of I 90
03-15-2007, 09:16 PM
The question is "Who is more holy"?
I don't think any of us can answer this!!
Why can't we all just get along!
;)
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:17 PM
C'mon Renda, why not just turn us loose?
:slaphappy :slaphappy :slaphappy
I'm going to bed. Behave!
On the other thread they have come up with a good idea and maybe that can be arranged.
Good night God's people!!
rrford
03-15-2007, 09:17 PM
The question is "Who is more holy"?
I don't think any of us can answer this!!
It is not about what "you'' think. Others seem to think they can. :tiphat
Speaking of mess - you guys get the free anti-television book that just got mailed out?
J Godair, Nat Wilson, Larry B and some other guy from California.
Must cost a small fortune to write a propaganda piece, publish it and mail it free.
The fight is on!
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:18 PM
Dear Bro.'s PP and RR
I edited my post to stay out of trouble on a technicality. I was speaking in the abstract. :)
And I fixed the ones that quoted you.
Scott Hutchinson
03-15-2007, 09:18 PM
The question is "Who is more holy"?
I don't think any of us can answer this!!
Jesus Christ is more Holy than any of us.
South of I 90 do you have Geico?
rrford
03-15-2007, 09:18 PM
And I fixed the ones that quoted you.
How dare you!
:slaphappy
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:19 PM
The question is "Who is more holy"?
I don't think any of us can answer this!!
We can - it just might not be right.
rgcraig
03-15-2007, 09:19 PM
How dare you!
:slaphappyI'm living on the edge tonight!
Well, I've got to leave this internet library.
Running up my post count far to quickly.
Felicity
03-15-2007, 09:20 PM
Girl,
I'm persuaded you've got more brains in the earlobe than most have from eye tooth to folic. LOL! This is a new one to me. Eye tooth to folic? :toofunny
MB - take over for me! ;)
Felicity
03-15-2007, 09:48 PM
I guess I just don't quite understand how this whole issue got to be about being either liberal or conservative. I certainly wouldn't brand FMD as liberal. :wacko
Felicity
03-15-2007, 10:17 PM
You are actually going to admit that? :toofunnySure ... it wouldn't be the first time ........ and won't be the last I don't expect.
Oh well ....... I think it was a pretty good post anyhow and it got the thread moving. Whatever. ;) :)
I guess I just don't quite understand how this whole issue got to be about being either liberal or conservative. I certainly wouldn't brand FMD as liberal. :wacko
It's all about denominational politics.
It's one thing to say that a person got a raw deal, it's another completely to say that a "conservative" person got a raw deal with the implication being that it happened because they were conservative.
I am saying that the policy they have taken in this matter is more reflective of Christ's holiness than that of the other forum.Amazing that the whining continues.
Guy, your very first post was intended to cause the very division you are accusing the "other forum" of causing. You just used a different platform than you accused "them" of using.
Ever think that maybe you should exit "this forum" so it could be more holy?
Guy, have you even visited that "other forum"?
Amazing that the whining continues.
Guy, your very first post was intended to cause the very division you are accusing the "other forum" of causing. You just used a different platform than you accused "them" of using.
Ever think that maybe you should exit "this forum" so it could be more holy?
Guy, have you even visited that "other forum"?
Dear Bro or Sis.
It struck me that the position taken by the moderators of this forum was more Christlike than that of the other - would you disagree?
Do you personally feel that it is okay to call your brethren liars? Or does scripture only apply when dealing with people on your team?
It probably would be more holy around here if it were a vacant forum and if you and I both left the holiness level would probably go up exponentially.
I believe I visited the "other forum" in its very beginning days but not since. I am not a "conservative" apostolic as they would define it.
It struck me that the position taken by the moderators of this forum was more Christlike than that of the other - would you disagree?Yes, I disagree. The moderators on the CAF are just as Christlike as those here.
Do you personally feel that it is okay to call your brethren liars? If I have a brother who is lying, what else would I call him? What would I expect him to call me? You act like "liar" is a 4-letter word or something? People lie. Apostolics lie. Why soft-soap the sin?
Or does scripture only apply when dealing with people on your team?Some apply to those on "my team" (born again saints of God) and some apply to those who are not. What's your point?
if you and I both left the holiness level would probably go up exponentially.I don't doubt this, but I'm not the one causing the division between two forums and certainly am not starting threads about who is more holy.
I believe I visited the "other forum" in its very beginning days but not since. So, you really don't know what has or has not been said or done regarding this issue, other than what's been reported, right?
I am not a "conservative" apostolic as they would define it. So, give "them" the freedom to do as they choose without starting some silly thread about who is more holy. You either accept their terms of membership or you don't. Quit whining about it already!
Yes, I disagree. The moderators on the CAF are just as Christlike as those here.
If I have a brother who is lying, what else would I call him? What would I expect him to call me? You act like "liar" is a 4-letter word or something? People lie. Apostolics lie. Why soft-soap the sin?
Some apply to those on "my team" (born again saints of God) and some apply to those who are not. What's your point?
I don't doubt this, but I'm not the one causing the division between two forums and certainly am not starting threads about who is more holy.
So, you really don't know what has or has not been said or done regarding this issue, other than what's been reported, right?
So, give "them" the freedom to do as they choose without starting some silly thread about who is more holy. You either accept their terms of membership or you don't. Quit whining about it already!
Dear Bro or Sis.
There are three "R"'s that are extremely important. If you would exercise the first one - reading - you would answer my question and not some kind of misrepresentation. If you do theology like this then heaven help the people who have to listen to you.
Hear again is the question.
It struck me that the position taken by the moderators of this forum was more Christlike than that of the other - would you disagree?
Now if you would care to answer the question as written instead of your version of it we can dialogue.
I'm not whining about not belonging - I don't belong by choice.
As for causing division between the two forums - I didn't know they were joined. I do know that most of the public/semipublic posturing has been coming from somewhere in etherspace. You tell us where?
I choose at this point to allow the process to work without mudslinging the names of my elders and those placed in office to lead the missions work or men who work in the mission field. I don't know who is right or wrong but let the process work itself out.
BTW - liar is a four letter word. That would be the third of the three R's
It struck me that the position taken by the moderators of this forum was more Christlike than that of the other - would you disagree?
Now if you would care to answer the question as written instead of your version of it we can dialogue.Yes, I disagree. The position taken by the moderators on the CAF are just as Christlike as those here.
I'm not whining about not belonging - I don't belong by choice.And, IMO, you have no basis of support for what you spout about the "other forum". You've gotten all your info 2nd hand, it seems. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.
As for causing division between the two forums - I didn't know they were joined. They're joined by a deeper bond than some silly notion of "who's holier".
I do know that most of the public/semipublic posturing has been coming from somewhere in etherspace. You tell us where?Here and there.
I choose at this point to allow the process to work without mudslinging the names of my elders and those placed in office to lead the missions work. Is questioning the "holiness" of your elders considered mudslinging?
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 08:39 AM
OGIA,
Are you here to enjoy the forum or just to set GUY straight?
OGIA,
Are you here to enjoy the forum or just to set GUY straight?
:hmmm
Both? :winkgrin
It wouldn't matter if it were Guy or anyone else. I simply addressed a thread with inconsistencies in it regarding that "other forum". Is that wrong?
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 08:47 AM
:hmmm
Both? :winkgrin
It wouldn't matter if it were Guy or anyone else. I simply addressed a thread with inconsistencies in it regarding that "other forum". Is that wrong?
Thanks for your honesty.
Nope, it's not wrong, but you might enjoy other subjects while you are here too! :happydance
Yes, I disagree. The position taken by the moderators on the CAF are just as Christlike as those here.
And, IMO, you have no basis of support for what you spout about the "other forum". You've gotten all your info 2nd hand, it seems. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.
They're joined by a deeper bond than some silly notion of "who's holier".
Here and there.
Is questioning the "holiness" of your elders considered mudslinging?
Shall I post the quotes calling for "conservative" men to arise to the challenge?
Perhaps you should ask CAF if they would consider AFF brothers.
I beg to differ with your "deeper bond" statement. If you are not holy by their lights you are not considered brother enough to fellowship.
I questioned the particular policy - that is not questioning them personally.
Coonskinner
03-16-2007, 09:04 AM
The spirit seems to be bringing a quote back to me from long ago...
"Don't punt the Pooch."
Only the old timers will apprciate and properly interpret that. :)
you might enjoy other subjects while you are here too! :happydanceBut, Guy, is so much FUNNNN! :woohoo
Shall I post the quotes calling for "conservative" men to arise to the challenge?
Perhaps you should ask CAF if they would consider AFF brothers.
I beg to differ with your "deeper bond" statement. If you are not holy by their lights you are not considered brother enough to fellowship.
I questioned the particular policy - that is not questioning them personally.If there wasn't a request to can the subject, I'd say "yes". But, rising to the challenge of wrongdoing is not wrong, IMO. So, yes, I disagree that the moderators here showed a more Christlike attitude than those on CAF concering this issue.
Perhaps, but I'd guess you'd find some here who don't consider "them" brothers, either, Guy. Some of "them" actually post here, so I really don't see you having much support. This thread has only caused an even deeper dividing line than there already may have been.
You can beg all you want. But, the most common bond is not "how holy" we are. It's most commonly drawn at the entrance point: Acts 2:38.
What policy?
If there wasn't a request to can the subject, I'd say "yes". But, rising to the challenge of wrongdoing is not wrong, IMO. So, yes, I disagree that the moderators here showed a more Christlike attitude than those on CAF concering this issue.
Perhaps, but I'd guess you'd find some here who don't consider "them" brothers, either, Guy. Some of "them" actually post here, so I really don't see you having much support. This thread has only caused an even deeper dividing line than there already may have been.
You can beg all you want. But, the most common bond is not "how holy" we are. It's most commonly drawn at the entrance point: Acts 2:38.
What policy?
Does that mean that you will fellowship anybody who believes and practices Acts 2:38 regardless of other issues?
Or, are they the black sheep brother who doesn't get included in the family reunions?
Does that mean that you will fellowship anybody who believes and practices Acts 2:38 regardless of other issues?
Or, are they the black sheep brother who doesn't get included in the family reunions?No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY. I've got plenty of scripture to support who to and not to fellowship with, in and out of the Church.
I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years. :nah
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 09:23 AM
No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY. I've got plenty of scripture to support who to and not to fellowship with, in and out of the Church.
I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years. :nah
You must be lonely.
No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY. I've got plenty of scripture to support who to and not to fellowship with, in and out of the Church.
I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years. :nah
So in other words Acts 2:38 really isn't what draws people together?
But you said:
"You can beg all you want. But, the most common bond is not "how holy" we are. It's most commonly drawn at the entrance point: Acts 2:38."
You must be lonely.All of my family is dead.
COOPER
03-16-2007, 09:36 AM
All of my family is dead.
You are the only one left?
No cousin's, aunts, uncles or in-laws, 2nd cousins etc?
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 09:37 AM
All of my family is dead.
But, you don't fellowship with other saints in your church or neighbors or friends?
So in other words Acts 2:38 really isn't what draws people together?
But you said:
"You can beg all you want. But, the most common bond is not "how holy" we are. It's most commonly drawn at the entrance point: Acts 2:38."Acts 2:38 may be the most common bond, but I don't have to fellowship just because someone has obeyed the Gospel. Once me and Bro. James are IN the Church, there are principles that I can live by that allow me NOT to fellowship with him.
COOPER
03-16-2007, 09:38 AM
No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY. I've got plenty of scripture to support who to and not to fellowship with, in and out of the Church.
I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years. :nah
Now I think you just pulling our legs.:neener
Acts 2:38 may be the most common bond, but I don't have to fellowship just because someone has obeyed the Gospel. Once me and Bro. James are IN the Church, there are principles that I can live by that allow me NOT to fellowship with him.
Then the question is where do you draw the line?
COOPER
03-16-2007, 09:40 AM
Acts 2:38 may be the most common bond, but I don't have to fellowship just because someone has obeyed the Gospel. Once me and Bro. James are IN the Church, there are principles that I can live by that allow me NOT to fellowship with him.
Who is this? :igotit
Good prank!!!!!:slaphappy
But, you don't fellowship with other saints in your church or neighbors or friends?What's that have to do with family reunions?
Yes, I do fellowship with my wife, other family members, saints in our church, friends not "in church", and acquaintances of various other sorts, both at work and otherwise.
BTW, my family is not all dead............. :o
Coonskinner
03-16-2007, 09:42 AM
Acts 2:38 may be the most common bond, but I don't have to fellowship just because someone has obeyed the Gospel. Once me and Bro. James are IN the Church, there are principles that I can live by that allow me NOT to fellowship with him.
This is consistent with Paul's teaching.
1Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Cr 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Cr 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Cr 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Cr 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Cr 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Cr 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Not everybody who is baptized in the cloud and in the sea is pleasing to God, or someone to be in close fellowship with.
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 09:43 AM
What's that have to do with family reunions?
Yes, I do fellowship with my wife, other family members, saints in our church, friends not "in church", and acquaintances of various other sorts, both at work and otherwise.
BTW, my family is not all dead............. :o
Because YOU said you don't fellowship with ANYBODY. Perhaps, you meant to say I don't fellowship with JUST anybody.
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 09:45 AM
No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY. I've got plenty of scripture to support who to and not to fellowship with, in and out of the Church.
I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years. :nah
This post.
Now I think you just pulling our legs.:neener
OHHHHH! I see the problem. When I said "No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY", I didn't mean I didn't fellowship with NOBODY! :toofunny
But, the fact that I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years is true!
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 09:46 AM
OHHHHH! I see the problem. When I said "No, I do not fellowship with ANYBODY", I didn't mean I didn't fellowship with NOBODY! :toofunny
But, the fact that I haven't been to a family reunion in over 20 years is true!
Little slow, but you got there - :toofunny
Perhaps, you meant to say I don't fellowship with JUST anybody.I did. :cool:
Then the question is where do you draw the line?Different places and they're personal. If you ever wanna find out, come stay with me for a month or so. :friend
AGAPE
03-16-2007, 09:53 AM
I think that I'll fellowship with AGAPE
originalsecretplace
03-16-2007, 09:57 AM
This is consistent with Paul's teaching.
1Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Cr 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Cr 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Cr 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Cr 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Cr 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Cr 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Not everybody who is baptized in the cloud and in the sea is pleasing to God, or someone to be in close fellowship with.
Here is another story Jesus told: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. 25 But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. 26 When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. 27 The farmer's servants came and told him, `Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!'
28 " `An enemy has done it!' the farmer exclaimed.
" `Shall we pull out the weeds?' they asked.
29 "He replied, `No, you'll hurt the wheat if you do. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.' "
Coonskinner
03-16-2007, 09:58 AM
Here is another story Jesus told: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. 25 But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. 26 When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. 27 The farmer's servants came and told him, `Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!'
28 " `An enemy has done it!' the farmer exclaimed.
" `Shall we pull out the weeds?' they asked.
29 "He replied, `No, you'll hurt the wheat if you do. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.' "
I didn't say I would try and destroy or root out anybody; I just said there are some i choose not to have fellowship with.
You are mixing your examples.
BoredOutOfMyMind
03-16-2007, 10:00 AM
I think that I'll fellowship with AGAPE
If he disagrees, Rhoni will be back next week.
I didn't say I would try and destroy or root out anybody; I just said there are some i choose not to have fellowship with.
You are mixing your examples.True. originalsecretplace, that parable is about lost (weeds) vs. saved (wheat), not saint in relation to saint.
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 10:13 AM
True. originalsecretplace, that parable is about lost (weeds) vs. saved (wheat), not saint in relation to saint.
It could apply if one of the saints isn't really saved.
It could apply if one of the saints isn't really saved.Are they really a saint then?
originalsecretplace
03-16-2007, 10:23 AM
Are they really a saint then?
Sorry, I didn't make my point very clearly. If we are not supposed to root out the sinners then how much less are we supposed to root out the saints.
God judges the world. We do judge the church as Paul points out but we seem to do it too easily at times.
In my mind, rejecting a brother or sister is the same as rooting them out.
Divisions amoung the church is a very serious problem. It's a tightrope walk.
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 10:24 AM
Are they really a saint then?
Not in God's eyes, but they are sitting on the pews of churches all around! There are pastor's preaching with sin in their lives too. This is no surprise.
If we are not supposed to root out the sinners then how much less are we supposed to root out the saints.
We do judge the church as Paul points out but we.It seems that as long as it's done under the unction of the Holy Ghost, there is scripture that permits it and maybe even demands it. "Rooting out" sin in a local body is essential to the functioning and growth of that local Body.
Not in God's eyes, but they are sitting on the pews of churches all around! There are pastor's preaching with sin in their lives too. This is no surprise.My understanding is that the process is not to go searching for sin in the Church. The process is for dealing with those who refuse to respond to the admonishment of the brethren. There will certainly be "sin" in a local Body, but when it's revealed there is a process to deal with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to happen too much these days.
And we wonder why so many of our local churches are dysfunctional........:depressed
rgcraig
03-16-2007, 10:36 AM
My understanding is that the process is not to go searching for sin in the Church. The process is for dealing with those who refuse to respond to the admonishment of the brethren. There will certainly be "sin" in a local Body, but when it's revealed there is a process to deal with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to happen too much these days.
And we wonder why so many of our local churches are dysfunctional........:depressed
:highfive Amen!
Felicity
03-16-2007, 11:52 AM
How do you define a dysfunctional church? They all were seems like it when you read Paul's letters to the NT churches
:)
Felicity
03-16-2007, 11:54 AM
OGIA.........
Are you the same person who sent me a bottle of hawberry jelly a few years back?
Felicity
03-16-2007, 11:56 AM
I didn't say I would try and destroy or root out anybody; I just said there are some i choose not to have fellowship with.
You are mixing your examples. We don't have to fellowship with everybody in the church. There are some I don't and wouldn't have anything to do with thank you very much, and that could be for more than one reason. Some people are just UGLY! :heeheehee
How do you define a dysfunctional church? They all were seems like it when you read Paul's letters to the NT churches
:)Keeping in the context of this discussion, one dysfunction is having those who continue in sin continue to sit on pews while their known sin goes unconfronted or even after being scripturally confronted.
Felicity
03-16-2007, 12:05 PM
Keeping in the context of this discussion, one dysfunction is having those who continue in sin continue to sit on pews while their known sin goes unconfronted or even after being scripturally confronted.What would you do with them, sir?
What would you do with them, sir?As a regular ol' joe, I'd do what scripture says to do: I'd bring my concern to them first. If that did no good, I'd get 2 or 3 witnesses. If that did no good, it would be the pastor's call from there. Ma'am. :tiphat
Felicity
03-16-2007, 12:13 PM
As a regular ol' joe, I'd do what scripture says to do: I'd bring my concern to them first. If that did no good, I'd get 2 or 3 witnesses. If that did no good, it would be the pastor's call from there. Ma'am. :tiphatRegular 'ol joe. Not a pastor, eh? :)
We've allowed people to sit on our pews who we knew weren't doing right hoping that perhaps that night or the next or the next month they might come to their senses. Some do. Some never do. They struggle their whole lives. This is the way it is and no way am I going to bar them from the church except for the rare exception.
Regular 'ol joe. Not a pastor, eh?Yep, regular ol' joe.
We've allowed people to sit on our pews who we knew weren't doing right hoping that perhaps that night or the next or the next month they might come to their senses. Some do. Some never do. They struggle their whole lives. This is the way it is and no way am I going to bar them from the church except for the rare exception.So what do you do with Paul's directions to deal with the ones who continue in known sin?
Felicity
03-16-2007, 12:22 PM
Yep, regular ol' joe.
So what do you do with Paul's directions to deal with the ones who continue in known sin? We had this discussion on this board not too long ago. The majority of the posters who are involved in ministry said that the numbers of times they've put someone out of the church is miniscule. They would be very reluctant to take that action. So there ya go bro. I have lots of company.
In this era of time and in our culture including church culture it doesn't work very well to bar the doors of the church to individuals who won't do what they're told and won't heed admonition.
And if you do do that it's possible you could be dealing with lawyers and courts over discrimination issues.
Having said that there are some I'd love to see put out and they're not necessarily people who are living in sin. Some of the "saints" are MUCH more problematic than a sinner or somebody who's rebellious or struggling.
than who? Wendy is more holy than Peter Pan.Peter Pan is more holy than tinkerbell. Tinkerbell is more holy than Captian Hook, Captian Hook is more holy than the aligator..tick tock...
I think we are all just a bunch of LOST BOYS.
that was the lotab speaking
So there ya go bro. I have lots of company.Do you believe that "numbers" confirm proper application of scripture?
How do you, me or any of them KNOW that using scriptural direction in these instances won't be the difference between a functional and dysfunctional church? How do you, me or any or them KNOW that this action won't help them "get it"? We don't, because it's not done. Well, it's not done in my neck of the woods and apparently not in your's or those of the number you mentioned.
In this era of time and in our culture including church culture it doesn't work very well to bar the doors of the church to individuals who won't do what they're told and won't heed admonition. Culture has put the Church in a pickle, hasn't it? Too bad, I say.
And if you do do that it's possible you could be dealing with lawyers and courts over discrimination issues.I'm not sure what this has to do with the Church? I don't see any of our biblical examples worrying about it.
I know it can't be easy, but I do think we have too many who continue in sin hanging around. I am also glad that I am not the one who has to decide what to do in the end. I have direction for my part, and that's about all I can do. Unless, of course, I want to find a congregation that DOES adhere to this directive.
Felicity
03-16-2007, 12:50 PM
Do you believe that "numbers" confirm proper application of scripture?Nope, not at all. I just made the point that in regard to this particular issue most of the posters including pastors would take this kind of action rarely.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't necessarily, but in regard to this particular teaching by Paul application is problematic. Apparently in that culture and time this was an acceptable way of handling things and the people of that culture were comfortable with it and understood it. Not so in our culture or most of our churches today.
I've seen where the pastor takes a saint to task over some issue where rebuke is necessary and other saints will rise to that person's defense and the whole church is affected. It's easier I think in churches where the pastor has been there over a long period of time and where the people recognize pastoral authority to that extent.
We would need a lot of re-education in a lot of churches for the pastor to take this kind of action and not meet with resistance .... in most cases anyhow.
:cool:
Sister Alvear
03-16-2007, 12:59 PM
Something I thought about is God KNOWS the heart we do not...If I err I hope it will always be on the side of mercy...
Felicity
03-16-2007, 01:03 PM
How do you, me or any of them KNOW that using scriptural direction in these instances won't be the difference between a functional and dysfunctional church? How do you, me or any or them KNOW that this action won't help them "get it"? We don't, because it's not done. Well, it's not done in my neck of the woods and apparently not in your's or those of the number you mentioned.I can't imagine that removing a member or members of the church who are sinning is going to make the church more functional.
Who defines sin? What kind of sin are you talking about? Hair cutting? Makeup? Not paying tithes? Prayerlessness?
To me one of the prime reasons to put someone out of the church would be if they're causing division. This creates more problem than anything else pretty much.
What about young people who are failing morally? We put them out too? Even if they're still living at home with parents who attend church?
Like I said it was a different day 2000 years ago. I'm not saying either ..... so don't put the words in my mouth ;) .... that culture is a reason to not obey Scripture. Not saying that at all.
Sister Alvear
03-16-2007, 01:18 PM
Such an insight! blessings to you mu friend.
Sister Alvear
03-16-2007, 01:20 PM
I know churches that have destroyed whole families because of the pastor's lack of wisdom.
God not only knows how many souls we have won He also knows how many we have cast out of the Kingdom...
Who defines sin? What kind of sin are you talking about? Scripture defines sin and Paul covers a large number of them.
To me one of the prime reasons to put someone out of the church would be if they're causing division. This creates more problem than anything else pretty much. But, it's the unseen divisions, in the Spirit, that most don't see and I think cause the dysfunction, making great churches mediocre or less.
What about young people who are failing morally? We put them out too? Even if they're still living at home with parents who attend church?I know of a church that's had to do this with one young person. Repeated sin without repentance. The parents finally put this one out of their house, too. This example lets me know that Paul was more proactive than reactive, and I think it's just the opposite today.
If I err I hope it will always be on the side of mercy...That is my hope, too, sister.
tbpew
03-16-2007, 02:37 PM
OGIA,
help me out here.
the scripture says
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple
I just do not see the foolishness of those who continue in the base works of the flesh as being all that threatening to the well-being of the assembly.
It's the folks who scheme to bring accussation between the brethren that are crafty and subtil using good words and fair speeches.
What is the lifestyle you are seeing (or imagining) is getting a "pass" in our modern assemblies?
OGIA,
help me out here.
the scripture says
I just do not see the foolishness of those who continue in the base works of the flesh as being all that threatening to the well-being of the assembly.
It's the folks who scheme to bring accussation between the brethren that are crafty and subtil using good words and fair speeches.
What is the lifestyle you are seeing (or imagining) is getting a "pass" in our modern assemblies?
You got to this one before me - kudos to you.
When is a sin really sin?
It is a sin when the scripture clearly defines it as sin.
Is it sin if it is implied or inferred that it is a sin without being clearly stated?
Is there any room for saying that this is "best practice"?
I try not to put people out of the assembly - but it is much easier than getting them in.
Funny thing about wheat and tares - they look the same, that's why he said to leave them to grow up together.
Case in point.
Years ago there were two women, both saved (at least as far as I know).
One was a pain, the other helpful and on fire. Years later, the pain is helpful and is serving God, the helpful on fire one would need GPS to find him. Assuming the situation remains the same until judgment day - which is wheat and which is tare?
Felicity
03-16-2007, 03:34 PM
Good posts Guy! I agree!
I just do not see the foolishness of those who continue in the base works of the flesh as being all that threatening to the well-being of the assembly. Not sure what "base works of the flesh" are? As I answered earlier, I'm talking about those in known sin, things such as rebellion to the pastor, adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, murmuring (beyond your typical gossip), etc. Paul lists a whole lot of them, as you know, in many letters. I believe that these are the sins that left unconfronted in a scriptural manner cause great damage to a local assembly. And, I truly don't think we know how much damage, because the action is never taken that is granted by the Lord that would rid the assembly of that person or persons.
It's the folks who scheme to bring accussation between the brethren that are crafty and subtil using good words and fair speeches.I guess I'd just put them right there in the group above. I really don't see how one is worse than the other, and I'd guess it depends on the circumstance as to how disruptive it is.
What is the lifestyle you are seeing (or imagining) is getting a "pass" in our modern assemblies? Mostly rebellion to the pastor, but other things that seem minor, like gossiping (leading to people leaving, but it's just the wrong ones who leave!) and lying. No, it's not everyday or prevalent, and it eventually "goes away". I just wonder how much more effective the scriptural process is than the man-made "bury your head" (tolerate?) method.
When is a sin really sin?
It is a sin when the scripture clearly defines it as sin.
Is it sin if it is implied or inferred that it is a sin without being clearly stated?
Is there any room for saying that this is "best practice"?
You answered your own question.
It's sin when scripture calls it sin.
I think scriptural practice is the best practice.
I try not to put people out of the assembly - but it is much easier than getting them in.
Funny thing about wheat and tares - they look the same, that's why he said to leave them to grow up together.
Case in point.
Years ago there were two women, both saved (at least as far as I know).
One was a pain, the other helpful and on fire. Years later, the pain is helpful and is serving God, the helpful on fire one would need GPS to find him. Assuming the situation remains the same until judgment day - which is wheat and which is tare?
I'm sure most try not to resort to dismissal.
I think He said to let them grow together because of the possibility of damaging the good crop while yanking up the bad. My understanding is that they only look alike until fruit-bearing stages.
I don't see how the comparison works? One chose to backslide, it seems. Was there any reason to remove either of them at any point? I don't get the relationship to what we've been discussing?
I try not to put people out of the assembly - but it is much easier than getting them in.
Funny thing about wheat and tares - they look the same, that's why he said to leave them to grow up together.
Case in point.
Years ago there were two women, both saved (at least as far as I know).
One was a pain, the other helpful and on fire. Years later, the pain is helpful and is serving God, the helpful on fire one would need GPS to find him. Assuming the situation remains the same until judgment day - which is wheat and which is tare?Interesting...added proof that looks/outward actions can be deceiving...
Felicity
03-17-2007, 01:16 PM
I'm sure most try not to resort to dismissal.
I think He said to let them grow together because of the possibility of damaging the good crop while yanking up the bad. My understanding is that they only look alike until fruit-bearing stages.
I don't see how the comparison works? One chose to backslide, it seems. Was there any reason to remove either of them at any point? I don't get the relationship to what we've been discussing?What Guy is saying is he might have thrown out the wheat that looked like a tare and in so doing the person might have been destroyed.
Instead he let him remain in the church even though he wasn't doing right in hopes that somewhere along the way he'd mature and grow and become obedient to the will of God.
What if he'd thrown him out of the church? :grampa
Felicity
03-17-2007, 01:17 PM
You answered your own question.
It's sin when scripture calls it sin.
I think scriptural practice is the best practice.Easy to say. Like I said most of the preachers would say ....... "save them at all costs" ..... including the most conservative among us.
Easy to say. Like I said most of the preachers would say ....... "save them at all costs" ..... including the most conservative among us.
Not a conservative preacher here, but I agree...who is to say when someone has reached a point of receiving the boot of judgment?!
Certainly, as someone...maybe it was you, pointed out the other day, there are exceptions to every rule. Division I believe was mentioned, and there is the case where my former pastor had to remove a minister of music and his 'friend'.
There are exceptions to every situation, but the foremost thought should be the recovery of a soul...JMHO...!!
What Guy is saying is he might have thrown out the wheat that looked like a tare and in so doing the person might have been destroyed.
Instead he let him remain in the church even though he wasn't doing right in hopes that somewhere along the way he'd mature and grow and become obedient to the will of God.
What if he'd thrown him out of the church? :grampa
What Guy really said was that the guy was "a pain". I see no directive for "pains" in Paul's writings. Again, I'm talking about persistent, known, scripturally-confronted sin. We can justify letting them sit on the pews all we want, but there is recourse for these types of "saints". I think most churches just choose to let them continue warming the pew (maybe even participating) so that the money can keep coming in, in hopes that they might "change". That's my opinion.
Easy to say. Like I said most of the preachers would say ....... "save them at all costs" ..... including the most conservative among us.Well, that's not the attitude Paul always took. I sense he placed the health of the Body over the health of one soul.
Felicity
03-17-2007, 04:09 PM
Well, that's not the attitude Paul always took. I sense he placed the health of the Body over the health of one soul.How is the whole body affected by the person who's sitting with sin in their life? How are you adversely affected by the person sitting on the back pew who has a cigarette habit?
RevDWW
03-17-2007, 05:14 PM
How is the whole body affected by the person who's sitting with sin in their life? How are you adversely affected by the person sitting on the back pew who has a cigarette habit?
He might if he is the lung part of the body........:toofunny
Felicity
03-17-2007, 05:20 PM
He might if he is the lung part of the body........:toofunnyLOL! :killinme
That's pretty funny. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.