FB Forum for leaving legalism

[ILG]

I have a new Facebook forum for leaving legalism. If you've left or are leaving legalism and are interested in this forum, PM me for details!

[shazeep]

it's cool, and you have a good mix there--i would like to see it trans from FB, as that is a difficult media to forum in tho.

[ILG]

it's cool, and you have a good mix there--i would like to see it trans from FB, as that is a difficult media to forum in tho.

Thanks for the thoughts, shazeep. I kind of liked the idea of it being in FB because then it is just a scroll down the timeline. I'll keep that in mind though. Are you talking about the difficulty of in depth discussion? It is definitely more touch and go! Glad you have joined!

[thephnxman]

I have a new Facebook forum for leaving legalism. If you've left or are leaving legalism and are interested in this forum, PM me for details!

You mean leave one form of legalism to another form of legalism.
Do not be deceived: the only one that offers liberty is the Lord. Sometimes a
person will transfer from a maximum security prison only to find themselves prisoners in a prison "farm".

[ILG]

You mean leave one form of legalism to another form of legalism.
Do not be deceived: the only one that offers liberty is the Lord. Sometimes a
person will transfer from a maximum security prison only to find themselves prisoners in a prison "farm".

Hmmm. Thanks for your opinion. I disagree that everyone who leaves any form of legalism always finds another.

[J.A. Perez]

You mean leave one form of legalism to another form of legalism.
Do not be deceived: the only one that offers liberty is the Lord. Sometimes a
person will transfer from a maximum security prison only to find themselves prisoners in a prison "farm".

Very true statement indeed!
You know it's funny most of the time you hear people saying men like us are legalists or too strict. And they say we have a bad spirit and they say men like us are Pharisee and they say we are the legalist.
When the Pharisees and the Sadducees were the Liberals of Jesus day. Jesus interpreted the word by the Spirit of the word, the Sadducees threw the word away and the Pharisee crucified with the word. That's exactly what these Cariz maniacs, and compromisers, and 'house people' are doing when they speak of us. They're using the same bad spirit that they speak against, to their people against anybody that wants to stand up and love God enough to be separated from this world! I heard one that just recently left the conservative movement tell his people,

"we're not going to make you change like we are changing but don't make us feel guilty because we're changing. The truth is you are weak and you're going to be like us one day when you mature."

That's Real bullying people from the pulpit with the same filthy spirit they accuse us of having. And all were doing is trying to help people make it to heaven and separate from this world. Because of the bondage that the worlds influence had on us.

Blown away,
J.A. Perez

[ILG]

I created the forum so hopefully people can post what they feel a need to without getting attacked. The forum is in the spirit of building people up and being able to question comfortably and a place where people can heal.

[J.A. Perez]

Very true statement indeed!
You know it's funny most of the time you hear people saying men like us are legalists or too strict. And they say we have a bad spirit and they say men like us are Pharisee and they say we are the legalist.
When the Pharisees and the Sadducees were the Liberals of Jesus day. Jesus interpreted the word by the Spirit of the word, the Sadducees threw the word away and the Pharisee crucified with the word. That's exactly what these Cariz maniacs, and compromisers, and 'house people' are doing when they speak of us. They're using the same bad spirit that they speak against, to their people against anybody that wants to stand up and love God enough to be separated from this world! I heard one that just recently left the conservative movement tell his people,

"we're not going to make you change like we are changing but don't make us feel guilty because we're changing. The truth is you are weak and you're going to be like us one day when you mature."

That's Real bullying people from the pulpit with the same filthy spirit they accuse us of having. And all were doing is trying to help people make it to heaven and separate from this world. Because of the bondage that the worlds influence had on us.

Blown away,
J.A. Perez

Obviously,
I am not speaking as a pastor I'm just speaking of ministering to the men at the prisons. We're offering the freedom we offer them hope we offer them peace we offer them joy we offer them the truth. But they harden their heads and refuse the beautiful message that we offer that will set them free and help their feet to land on paths of righteousness.
This is the same Scenerio.
:banghead

[Esaias]

Wow JA you really have a beef with house churches. Sad.

[Barb]

I created the forum so hopefully people can post what they feel a need to without getting attacked. The forum is in the spirit of building people up and being able to question comfortably and a place where people can heal.

ILG, we have 'known' each other along time, and hopefully you know I am not be argumentative when I ask...

ARE people being "healed" and from what do they need healing? Is it a hard nosed leader that they need to be rid of or do they need "healing" from any form of a 'standard'?

And to whom are they questioning? People who already have a problem with separation in dress and such?

I fully understand the need for relief from the dictatorship of a stand on your throat pastor. My brother and sister in law were in a strong handed everyone is lost but us four and no more church, and they certainly needed healing.

But they didn't throw all of the teaching away...they found a UPCI assembly with a loving and caring pastor. He has guided my brother's family, as well as the others who left, into a place of rest and spiritual health.

So I'm just wondering if folks are healed by your forum or is it a place to vent?

[Praxeas]

I have a new Facebook forum for leaving legalism. If you've left or are leaving legalism and are interested in this forum, PM me for details!
What is Legalism?

[J.A. Perez]

Sirs,
I am not against house churches, I'm sure there may be good ones. I've met some very conservative folks from them. Some In fact, are very conservative, in standards only. They hate those that belong to anything related to a Church, they dwell on how they escaped from the machine of religion, so much that, when you ask them what they are, they wont even claim Pentecost of apostolic. I've asked what do you guys believe? and they say "oh just the bible" I guess in some ways that might be good but they all come together just to pick on everyone else's scabs. They're collected on how separated they can be, and the home churches being shown on this site seem to be nothing more than a reverse on that very thing with the similar motto "Were free from the machine poor you."
I'm sure you are a fine gentleman.

This thread seem like the Spiritual Abuse website ladies are lacking fresh dirt so they want wounded people to let here voices be heard, and hang out the laundry of some good man and church.

No offence,
J.A. Perez

[ILG]

Okay, Barb, you asked so I am going to honestly answer. I am not interested in debating, just answering.

ARE people being "healed" and from what do they need healing? Is it a hard nosed leader that they need to be rid of or do they need "healing" from any form of a 'standard'?

Yes, people are being healed every day, in their hearts, all over the place. They need healing from being oppressed by the shackles of legalism. Their leader may have been hard nosed, or loving, depending on who their leader was/is. I don't think people need to separate from or leave standards but neither do I believe it is necessary to keep them as we have known them. I think what people need healing from is legalism, which is a mindset and doesn't necessarily pertain to what they wear, but it can. If they choose to keep standards because that is what they believe, that is fine with me. Legalism is a shackled mindset and not a practice of belief, necessarily, in my opinion.


And to whom are they questioning? People who already have a problem with separation in dress and such?

They are questioning what they have been taught because it doesn't "sit right" in their hearts and minds in practice.


So I'm just wondering if folks are healed by your forum or is it a place to vent?

I would never suggest people are "healed by my forum", neither is it a place to "vent", really. It is a place of open dialogue and discussion. It is neither better nor worse than AFF. It is simply a different medium (and flavor) which people may find more convenient since it is Facebook based and therefore more easily accessed by those who choose to use FB. It is in it's infancy right now, so we'll see if it is of interest to people or not.

I do hope, however, that people will not be attacked there, but the nature of forums means that things do happen. However, I intend to limit it to people who are breaking free of legalism. Therefore, a requirement for joining is that you are an admitted recovering legalist or breaking free from legalism.

[ILG]

What is Legalism?

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a usually pejorative[citation needed] term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. On the Biblical viewpoint that redemption is not earned by works, but that obedient faith is required to enter and remain in the redeemed state, see Covenantal nomism.

[shazeep]

:lol i think Prax was tic there...

i have to say that i haven't witnessed any venting, and have already discovered several interesting povs and links there. Being FB, in-depth discussion is a bit harder, but this is really a minor point. It struck me as quite creation centered, and even the comments seemed forward looking. I'm just trying to dump FB! :lol

[KeptByTheWord]

Our family has chosen not to be on FB, but I wish you well with the forum! I hope that people can realize that while the legalistic mindset can have difficult trauma to sort through, still - not every UPC, apostolic or independent pastor is bad either. Generally when one leaves that mindset, the pendulum swings way out, and then hopefully comes back to center, and I do hope this will be a good place for that pendulum swing to even itself out. :)

[Barb]

Okay, Barb, you asked so I am going to honestly answer. I am not interested in debating, just answering.



Yes, people are being healed every day, in their hearts, all over the place. They need healing from being oppressed by the shackles of legalism. Their leader may have been hard nosed, or loving, depending on who their leader was/is. I don't think people need to separate from or leave standards but neither do I believe it is necessary to keep them as we have known them. I think what people need healing from is legalism, which is a mindset and doesn't necessarily pertain to what they wear, but it can. If they choose to keep standards because that is what they believe, that is fine with me. Legalism is a shackled mindset and not a practice of belief, necessarily, in my opinion.



They are questioning what they have been taught because it doesn't "sit right" in their hearts and minds in practice.



I would never suggest people are "healed by my forum", neither is it a place to "vent", really. It is a place of open dialogue and discussion. It is neither better nor worse than AFF. It is simply a different medium (and flavor) which people may find more convenient since it is Facebook based and therefore more easily accessed by those who choose to use FB. It is in it's infancy right now, so we'll see if it is of interest to people or not.

I do hope, however, that people will not be attacked there, but the nature of forums means that things do happen. However, I intend to limit it to people who are breaking free of legalism. Therefore, a requirement for joining is that you are an admitted recovering legalist or breaking free from legalism.

Thank you for answering, ILG, and I am not interested in debating this either. Debate often serves no purpose than causing strife and that is NOT my reason for the questions. I haven't posted here in ages, so if I broke out in a post, you know I was curious.

Not saying this applies to you, but often when the word legalism is used it is meant to mean all who adhere to a standard of dress and hair. So I asked to see what your thinking was...again thanks for answering.

Trust you are well... :thumbsup

[ILG]

:lol i think Prax was tic there...

i have to say that i haven't witnessed any venting, and have already discovered several interesting povs and links there. Being FB, in-depth discussion is a bit harder, but this is really a minor point. It struck me as quite creation centered, and even the comments seemed forward looking. I'm just trying to dump FB! :lol

Well, I guess i'm making it harder for you. ;)

[ILG]

Our family has chosen not to be on FB, but I wish you well with the forum! I hope that people can realize that while the legalistic mindset can have difficult trauma to sort through, still - not every UPC, apostolic or independent pastor is bad either. Generally when one leaves that mindset, the pendulum swings way out, and then hopefully comes back to center, and I do hope this will be a good place for that pendulum swing to even itself out. :)

:thumbsup Thanks, KBTW.

[ILG]

Thank you for answering, ILG, and I am not interested in debating this either. Debate often serves no purpose than causing strife and that is NOT my reason for the questions. I haven't posted here in ages, so if I broke out in a post, you know I was curious.

Not saying this applies to you, but often when the word legalism is used it is meant to mean all who adhere to a standard of dress and hair. So I asked to see what your thinking was...again thanks for answering.

Trust you are well... :thumbsup

Very well, thanks. ;) hope you are well, too.

[shazeep]

Well, I guess i'm making it harder for you. ;):D ya, no kidding. It's the only reason i go there now lol

[ILG]

:D ya, no kidding. It's the only reason i go there now lol

I'll take that as a compliment! Ironically, I just joined FB last year after being a holdout. ;)

[shazeep]

ha--i'm not too worried, as long as i limit it to the group, but have you seen the new terms? yikes.

[ILG]

ha--i'm not too worried, as long as i limit it to the group, but have you seen the new terms? yikes.

Not sure I have seen the new terms. I didn't join over privacy reasons for many years but then I felt I wasn't making any difference with my one man protest. I understand the concern, but I am glad I joined.

[Esaias]

Huxley pretty much had it correct.

[houston]

Send the link

[n david]

Wow JA you really have a beef with house churches. Sad.

JA Perez would've hated the book of Acts early church...because, you know, house churches. Bunch of beard-wearing hippies, sitting around, eating, singing and praying. :lol

[KeptByTheWord]

JA Perez would've hated the book of Acts early church...because, you know, house churches. Bunch of beard-wearing hippies, sitting around, eating, singing and praying. :lol

An ethical problem for him, indeed!

[J.A. Perez]

An ethical problem for him, indeed!

I am aware of our history, I have read much and spoken to Elders about it from all angles over the years. It is a joy of mine to read and learn about what God did through the early church on through the centuries. One very interesting concept that I had to understand when considering church history is that he church is alive. What I found is that for lack of a better word the church had to evolve in one way or the other. It is growing, like us our understanding of who God is grows as we grow in grace and Mature. Our relationship becomes deeper our convictions more acute. We develop and expand our new convert concepts into a mature man. So has the Church.
Our forefathers met is houses and catacombs because they had to, not by choice, persecution was heavy in the early days of the apostolic movement. The apostles were often found in the synagogues. That was God's design, there had always been a place to come hear the word of the Lord. Of course the early church met from house to house at times because that was common culture of Jewish tradition not Doctrine. In fact Jesus spent more time in the temple than most during his earthly ministry. Synagogues were widely attended by the early Apostolic church, but I'm not supposing we start to do that again because they did. The church through the centuries has had flairs of revival and persecution. Oftentimes God allowed it to be so, either to bring change or birth of a new wave of hunger. It has always been, he even did that to Israel through the years. The early men and women that were given this truth in the early years of our country did what they did because they didn't know better, they did their best until they learned that there was more. They walked in the light that they had, though dim because of formal tradition the Truth shone and guided the way out. Just because a false teacher used a pulpit doesn't mean that pulpits are wrong. The church has grown and used whatever tools it has at its disposal. Church Buildings where a group of people meet are the will of God, structure, government and order are in Gods character. A place designed and set apart for the hearing of Gods word and His worship ONLY is a good thing. I don't want to go back to brush arbors or tent revivals, because that's what we used to do, but I've learned the thing that made those things successful was Godly Zeal and Hunger. God may be no respecter of persons but he is a respecter of Consecration. Because of it, the church has become what it is today. Missions has always lacked funding that's not because of a church note, that is because of stingy people that wont trust God with their money. They want their boats and fishing trips instead. Im not preach against boats or fishing) Then some want to use Acts 2:46 to prove its more apostolic to met in a home, but the first part of that verse was that they went to the Temple daily. What our churches in some areas need is old fashioned hunger, dictation, consecration, then soul winning, that's the only way to redeem what they've lost.(My opinion) Every time I go through a season of a dry spell I end up having to grab myself by the back of my neck and pray until something changes. The early men and women who evangelized the states after the turn of the century with the Oneness truth and ACTS 2:38 had great success, they'd go into a city have massive miracles and outpouring tons of people repenting coming to God, closing the whole town down while the revival went on. BUT, they'd believe God, pack up there duds and move on to the next place God bid them go. That town was left with out a pastor with out a leader left to the wolves. I don't want to go back to that. The same is for standards. We have learned what grieves the Holy Ghost and have seen many weights and stumbling blocks throughout the years that have Led to sin. The home church scenario may end up what we all might have to belong to if Jesus don't come back soon, I don't know? But as for now, the way that seemeth right to the Spirit and the Churches of God agree... You need a Pastor and you need a church.

Like Elder Morton said, "Don't pick at the knot."

Very Sincerely,
J.A. Perez

[Sabby]

What is Legalism?

:thumbsup:thumbsup

[Esaias]

Sirs,
I am not against house churches, I'm sure there may be good ones. I've met some very conservative folks from them. Some In fact, are very conservative, in standards only. They hate those that belong to anything related to a Church, they dwell on how they escaped from the machine of religion, so much that, when you ask them what they are, they wont even claim Pentecost of apostolic. I've asked what do you guys believe? and they say "oh just the bible" I guess in some ways that might be good but they all come together just to pick on everyone else's scabs. They're collected on how separated they can be, and the home churches being shown on this site seem to be nothing more than a reverse on that very thing with the similar motto "Were free from the machine poor you."
I'm sure you are a fine gentleman.

This thread seem like the Spiritual Abuse website ladies are lacking fresh dirt so they want wounded people to let here voices be heard, and hang out the laundry of some good man and church.

No offence,
J.A. Perez

Actually you hit (a) nail on the head. A lot of house churches are really just "ex churches". That is, former members of some denomination (UPCI, Baptist, whatever) who form a house church or join one as a support group, like AA or something. Their religion turns into an "anti-" whatever, they don't evangelise, they are composed almost entirely of fellow ex-whatever church members, and they are obsessed with being anti-whatever denomination they used to be apart if.

Thankfully the first house church I was with was not so. They had been doing house church since the oldest member (in her 70s) was born, and it was how they had always done it. And no they weren't isolated, there is an entire stream of Jesus name Pentecostal house churches going back to the 20s and earlier across the South and Appallachia and the midwest that most people have never even known about.

We have a small house church. God has recently (like last couple weeks) been showing us our path lies in evangelistic chuch planting, and not by attracting "ex" members, but by bringing the gospel to those who aren't Christians and who don't even claim to be.

Too many people have denominational baggage - including hurts - that they won't let go of. I pray they find healing, and peace, but my attention is being turned more and more to focus on the heathens out there... like I was... they need Jesus and they'll appreciate Him when they find him.

[Steve Epley]

Lois will be jealous another I hate Pentecost.com

[Sabby]

Actually you hit (a) nail on the head. A lot of house churches are really just "ex churches". That is, former members of some denomination (UPCI, Baptist, whatever) who form a house church or join one as a support group, like AA or something. Their religion turns into an "anti-" whatever, they don't evangelise, they are composed almost entirely of fellow ex-whatever church members, and they are obsessed with being anti-whatever denomination they used to be apart if.

Thankfully the first house church I was with was not so. They had been doing house church since the oldest member (in her 70s) was born, and it was how they had always done it. And no they weren't isolated, there is an entire stream of Jesus name Pentecostal house churches going back to the 20s and earlier across the South and Appallachia and the midwest that most people have never even known about.

We have a small house church. God has recently (like last couple weeks) been showing us our path lies in evangelistic chuch planting, and not by attracting "ex" members, but by bringing the gospel to those who aren't Christians and who don't even claim to be.

Too many people have denominational baggage - including hurts - that they won't let go of. I pray they find healing, and peace, but my attention is being turned more and more to focus on the heathens out there... like I was... they need Jesus and they'll appreciate Him when they find him.

Informative comments. Thanks for posting them...

[commonsense]

I was UPC from day 1 (birth) and am not anti UPC. I love the doctrine!

But I was not raised with what is often termed legalism and do not embrace what is usually considered legalism!!!

Therefore I have a different perspective on legalism. And I have seen churches that left the UPC and no longer preach the hair/dress standards but still in their own way are very legalistic!

I do not dislike the UPC. I still love my early teaching. But in our local assembly ( which was 30 yrs old when I was born) the teaching did not emphasize outward appearance. Yes, there were saints who followed the current hair/clothing teaching but it was NOT the focus!!! :foottap

[shazeep]

ya, i don't have any upc "horror stories," thank God. ILG has characterized her forum as "for leaving legalism," but i don't recall that subject even coming up in the forum. All the posts i've read have been positive.

[KeptByTheWord]

Actually you hit (a) nail on the head. A lot of house churches are really just "ex churches". That is, former members of some denomination (UPCI, Baptist, whatever) who form a house church or join one as a support group, like AA or something. Their religion turns into an "anti-" whatever, they don't evangelise, they are composed almost entirely of fellow ex-whatever church members, and they are obsessed with being anti-whatever denomination they used to be apart if.

Thankfully the first house church I was with was not so. They had been doing house church since the oldest member (in her 70s) was born, and it was how they had always done it. And no they weren't isolated, there is an entire stream of Jesus name Pentecostal house churches going back to the 20s and earlier across the South and Appallachia and the midwest that most people have never even known about.

We have a small house church. God has recently (like last couple weeks) been showing us our path lies in evangelistic chuch planting, and not by attracting "ex" members, but by bringing the gospel to those who aren't Christians and who don't even claim to be.

Too many people have denominational baggage - including hurts - that they won't let go of. I pray they find healing, and peace, but my attention is being turned more and more to focus on the heathens out there... like I was... they need Jesus and they'll appreciate Him when they find him.

I agree that many seek out house churches because of baggage that they encountered in the church. Yet, just because there are those who do that, doesn't mean that ALL are like that. We don't have a large group, but we have a precious group of people who genuinely love the Lord, and are seeking Him every moment of their lives, and who don't hate authority or pastors or anything of the sort. We just realize that "pastors" don't constitute the 5-fold ministry, but that true leadership comes in the form of elders and bishops, and that true ministry comes in the form of the 5-fold ministry. There is a difference.

[KeptByTheWord]

ya, i don't have any upc "horror stories," thank God. ILG has characterized her forum as "for leaving legalism," but i don't recall that subject even coming up in the forum. All the posts i've read have been positive.

That is awesome! I'm tempted to check it out, but at the same time, since I'm not on FB, it is not possible. I'm glad to hear that it overall is a positive thing.

I came out of legalism, but that doesn't mean I've let go of convictions, and boundaries in my lifestyle. The difference is that I've exchanged a pastor, or an organization's defining how I should live, for understanding that the spirit of the Lord Jesus convicts me, and teaches me, based upon the principles of the Word of God. And you know what - I've found that being led of the spirit causes me to stay away from things that very strict preachers and legalism taught against.

For example, my husband doesn't wear a suit and tie anymore, and I don't wear high heels... LOL! :heeheehee

[shazeep]

:lol i hear you, me neither on the suit. Prolly for the same reason, i bet!

[n david]

For example, my husband doesn't wear a suit and tie anymore
I usually don't wear a suit between the end of May and end of September. Way too hot here in PHX to be wearing that many layers!

[navygoat1998]

Lois will be jealous another I hate Pentecost.com

:heeheehee

[Aquila]

I am aware of our history, I have read much and spoken to Elders about it from all angles over the years. It is a joy of mine to read and learn about what God did through the early church on through the centuries. One very interesting concept that I had to understand when considering church history is that he church is alive. What I found is that for lack of a better word the church had to evolve in one way or the other. It is growing, like us our understanding of who God is grows as we grow in grace and Mature. Our relationship becomes deeper our convictions more acute. We develop and expand our new convert concepts into a mature man. So has the Church.
Our forefathers met is houses and catacombs because they had to, not by choice, persecution was heavy in the early days of the apostolic movement. The apostles were often found in the synagogues. That was God's design, there had always been a place to come hear the word of the Lord. Of course the early church met from house to house at times because that was common culture of Jewish tradition not Doctrine. In fact Jesus spent more time in the temple than most during his earthly ministry. Synagogues were widely attended by the early Apostolic church, but I'm not supposing we start to do that again because they did. The church through the centuries has had flairs of revival and persecution. Oftentimes God allowed it to be so, either to bring change or birth of a new wave of hunger. It has always been, he even did that to Israel through the years. The early men and women that were given this truth in the early years of our country did what they did because they didn't know better, they did their best until they learned that there was more. They walked in the light that they had, though dim because of formal tradition the Truth shone and guided the way out. Just because a false teacher used a pulpit doesn't mean that pulpits are wrong. The church has grown and used whatever tools it has at its disposal. Church Buildings where a group of people meet are the will of God, structure, government and order are in Gods character. A place designed and set apart for the hearing of Gods word and His worship ONLY is a good thing. I don't want to go back to brush arbors or tent revivals, because that's what we used to do, but I've learned the thing that made those things successful was Godly Zeal and Hunger. God may be no respecter of persons but he is a respecter of Consecration. Because of it, the church has become what it is today. Missions has always lacked funding that's not because of a church note, that is because of stingy people that wont trust God with their money. They want their boats and fishing trips instead. Im not preach against boats or fishing) Then some want to use Acts 2:46 to prove its more apostolic to met in a home, but the first part of that verse was that they went to the Temple daily. What our churches in some areas need is old fashioned hunger, dictation, consecration, then soul winning, that's the only way to redeem what they've lost.(My opinion) Every time I go through a season of a dry spell I end up having to grab myself by the back of my neck and pray until something changes. The early men and women who evangelized the states after the turn of the century with the Oneness truth and ACTS 2:38 had great success, they'd go into a city have massive miracles and outpouring tons of people repenting coming to God, closing the whole town down while the revival went on. BUT, they'd believe God, pack up there duds and move on to the next place God bid them go. That town was left with out a pastor with out a leader left to the wolves. I don't want to go back to that. The same is for standards. We have learned what grieves the Holy Ghost and have seen many weights and stumbling blocks throughout the years that have Led to sin. The home church scenario may end up what we all might have to belong to if Jesus don't come back soon, I don't know? But as for now, the way that seemeth right to the Spirit and the Churches of God agree... You need a Pastor and you need a church.

Like Elder Morton said, "Don't pick at the knot."

Very Sincerely,
J.A. Perez

It's my understanding that as Constantine erected cathedrals (typically renovating old pagan temples) he also appointed the clergy of the early Roman church to be public officials. Many Christians were still gathering in homes and breaking bread together, conducting the Lord's Supper as a spiritual family. Then... the church began to require attendance at the Cathedrals. They declared the necessity of an ordained priest to bless the bread and the wine and to officiate the "sacrament". Soon, Christians were being rounded up for heresy and dissention if they conducted services in their homes.

So, while the church did indeed evolve into an institution... weren't the majority of Christians forced or coerced into this institution?

[Aquila]

Interesting article:

================================================== ==


THE HOUSE CHURCH
AND PARACHURCH
ORGANIZATIONS

Since the first use of the word church (Gk. ekklesia) in Acts is found here (2:47), we pause to consider the centrality of the church in the thinking of the early Christians.

The church in the Book of Acts and in the rest of the NT was what is often called a house church. The early Christians met in houses rather than in special ecclesiastical buildings. It has been said that religion was loosed from specially sacred places and centered in that universal place of living, the home. Unger says that homes continued to serve as places of Christian assembly for two centuries.

It might be easy for us to think that the use of private homes was forced by economic necessity rather than being the result of spiritual considerations. We have become so accustomed to church buildings and chapels that we think they are God’s ideal.

However, there is strong reason to believe that the first century believers might have been wiser than we are.

First, it is inconsistent with the Christian faith and its emphasis on love to spend thousands of dollars on luxurious buildings when there is such appalling needed throughout the world. In that connection, E. Stanley Jones wrote:

I looked on the Bambino, the child Christ in the Cathedral at Rome, laden with expensive jewels, and then walked out and looked upon the countenances of hungry children and wondered whether Christ, in view of this hunger, was enjoying His jewels, and the thought persisted that if He was, then I could no longer enjoy the thought of Christ. That bejeweled Bambino and the hungry children are a symbol of what we have done in putting around Christ the expensive livery of stately cathedrals and churches while leaving untouched the fundamental wrongs in human society whereby Christ is left hungry in the unemployed and the disposed.

Not only is it inhumane; it is also uneconomical to spend money on expensive buildings that are used for no more than three, four, or five hours during the week. How have we ever allowed ourselves to drift into this unthinking dream world where we are willing to spend so much in order to get so little usage in return?

Our modern building programs have been one of the biggest hindrances to the expansion of the church. Heavy payments on principle and interest cause church leaders to resist any efforts to hive off and form new churches. Any loss of members would jeopardize the income needed to pay for the building and its upkeep. An unborn generation is saddled with debt, and any hope of church reproduction is stifled.

It is often argued that we must have impressive buildings in order to attract the unchurched to our services. Aside from being a carnal way of thinking, this completely overlooks the NT pattern. The meetings of the early church were largely for believers. The Christians assembled for the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42). They did not do their evangelizing by inviting people to meetings on Sunday but by witnessing to those with whom they came in contact throughout the week. When people did get converted, they were then brought into the fellowship and warmth of the house church to be fed and encouraged.

It is sometimes difficult to get people to attend services in dignified church buildings. There is a strong reaction against formalism. Also there is a fear of being solicited for funds. “All the church wants is your money,” is a common complaint. Yet many of these same people are willing to attend a conversational Bible class in a home. There they do not have to be style-conscious, and they enjoy the informal, unprofessional atmosphere.

Actually the house church is ideal for every culture and every country. And probably if we could look over the entire world, we would see more churches meeting in homes than in any other way.

In contrast to today’s imposing cathedrals, churches, and chapels – as well as a whole host of highly organized denominations, the apostles in the Book of Acts made no attempt to form an organization of any kind for carrying on the work of the Lord. The local church was God’s unit on earth for propagating the faith and the disciples were content to work within that context.

In recent years there has been an organizational explosion in Christendom of such proportions as to make one dizzy. Every time a believer gets a new idea for advancing the cause of Christ, he forms a new mission board, corporation, or institution!

One result is that capable teachers and preachers have been called away from their primary ministries in order to become administrators. If all mission board administrators were serving on the mission field, it would greatly reduce the need for personnel there.

Another result of the proliferation of organizations is that vast sums of money are needed for overhead, and thus diverted from direct gospel outreach. The greater part of every dollar given to many Christian organizations is devoted to the expense of maintaining the organization rather than the primary purpose for which it was founded.

Organizations often hinder the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Jesus told His disciples to teach all the things He had commanded. Many who work for Christian organizations find they are not permitted to teach all the truth of God. They must not teach certain controversial matters for fear they will alienate the constituency to whom they look for financial support.

The multiplication of Christian institutions has too often resulted in factions, jealousy, and rivalry that have done great harm to the testimony of Christ.

Consider the overlapping multiplicity of Christian organizations at work, at home, and abroad. Each competes for limited personnel and for shrinking financial resources. And consider how many of these organizations really owe their origin to purely human rivalry, though public statements usually refer to God’s will (Daily Notes of the Scripture Union).

And it is often true that organizations have a way of perpetuating themselves long after they have outlived their usefulness. The wheels grind on heavily even though the vision of the founders has been lost, and the glory of the once dynamic movement has departed. It was spiritual wisdom, not primitive naiveté, that saved the early Christians from setting up human organizations to carry on the work of the Lord. G. H. Lang writes.

An acute writer, contrasting the apostolic work with the more usual modern missionary methods, has said that “we found missions, the apostles founded churches.” The distinction is sound and pregnant. The apostles founded churches, and the founded nothing else, because for the ends in view nothing else was required or could have been so suitable. In each place where they labored they formed the converts into a local assembly, with elders – always elders, never an elder (Acts 14:23; 15:6, 23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1) – to guide, to rule, to shepherd, men qualified by the Lord and recognized by the saints (I Cor. 16:15; I Thess. 5:12, 13; I Tim. 5:17-19); and with deacons, appointed by the assembly (Acts 6:1-6; Phil 1:1) – in this contrasted with the elders – to attend to the few but very important temporal affairs, and in particular to the distribution of the funds of the assembly….All they (the apostles) did in the way of organizing was to form the disciples gathered into other such assemblies. No other organization than the local assembly appears in the New Testament, nor do we find even the germ of anything further.

To the early Christians and their apostolic leadership, the congregation was the divinely ordained unit on earth through which God chose to work, and the only such unit to which He promised perpetuity was the church.


Believer’s Bible Commentary, Pgs. 1590-1591

[Aquila]

Let's say that you felt a burden to reach the heart of the inner city or someplace like... Manhattan. Zoning laws prevent the establishment of a church in many of these urban localities. Some pastors build on the outskirts of town and try to bring the populace to their church building. For many, the commute to church isn't something they relish. Cost of fuel, time on the road, facing bad weather, etc. poses to be an obstacle to or limitation to their attendance. The poor of the inner city who don't have transportation are dependent upon bus ministry, if one exists. Some pastors are fine with this... it keeps the "riff-raff" out. After all, families who can't afford decent transportation most likely can't contribute much financially... and a lot of finances are needed to keep the machine running.

But a house church network can infiltrate nearly any community be it suburban or urban. They gather in homes, apartments, parks, coffee houses, and town squares in the heart of places like downtown San Francisco, Chicago, Cincinnati, and even street corners in New York City. If you have a region to evangelize... you can either try to get enough faithful members to save the money... find proper zoning... buy property... build on the property... and then try to get people to come... often forcing you out of the region you're trying to reach... or... you can establish a network of house churches.

And what reproduces faster? Elephants... or bunny rabbits?

[Aquila]

And the house churches that I'm familiar with are rather focused in street preaching when it comes to evangelism. The elders pray about where the Spirit desires the Gospel to be preached... and they set out to put together a street meeting. Bringing church to the people... instead of trying to drag people to the church.

Please note... house church street preachers I'm familiar with typically don't preach the heated hate-filled shrills that street preachers are traditionally known for. They typically preach about the need for Jesus, the destruction of the family, need for love, injustice in society, and the dangers & greed so common in institutional religion. You'd be surprised how this resonates with the people and challenges the Christians present.

[n david]

Not only is it inhumane; it is also uneconomical to spend money on expensive buildings that are used for no more than three, four, or five hours during the week. How have we ever allowed ourselves to drift into this unthinking dream world where we are willing to spend so much in order to get so little usage in return?

Our modern building programs have been one of the biggest hindrances to the expansion of the church. Heavy payments on principle and interest cause church leaders to resist any efforts to hive off and form new churches. Any loss of members would jeopardize the income needed to pay for the building and its upkeep. An unborn generation is saddled with debt, and any hope of church reproduction is stifled.
This is the best argument against church buildings.

My current church, which runs anywhere between 75 to 100 people, rents a building. The monthly rent, while much lower than the surrounding buildings, is enormous, IIRC somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000 a month. On top of that, the cost to cool the building during the summer here tops $1,000 a month - and that's just for one Sunday AM service and one Wednesday PM service.

The bad part is the summer is when attendance is the lowest, because everyone is on vacation and trying to get away from the 115 degree heat.

This past summer it was so bad, we fell behind 2 months on the rent payments because there wasn't enough offering which came in. Fortunately, the Pastor has a great relationship with the landlord and the landlord likes having the church there, or we'd likely have lost the building.

It's tough, because the Pastor doesn't like to have to ask for money all the time, but the church barely gets by because of the huge expenses for the building. And it's not a large building by any means.

[n david]

And the house churches that I'm familiar with are rather focused in street preaching when it comes to evangelism. The elders pray about where the Spirit desires the Gospel to be preached... and they set out to put together a street meeting. Bringing church to the people... instead of trying to drag people to the church.

Please note... house church street preachers I'm familiar with typically don't preach the heated hate-filled shrills that street preachers are traditionally known for. They typically preach about the need for Jesus, the destruction of the family, need for love, injustice in society, and the dangers & greed so common in institutional religion. You'd be surprised how this resonates with the people and challenges the Christians present.
I visited a church this past weekend, and enjoyed hearing about the ministry team which goes out every weekend to talk with people and pray for them. No bullhorns and signs condemning people to hell. Just going on the street and asking people if they have a need and would like prayer. They've had a positive impact around the area.

[KeptByTheWord]

And the house churches that I'm familiar with are rather focused in street preaching when it comes to evangelism. The elders pray about where the Spirit desires the Gospel to be preached... and they set out to put together a street meeting. Bringing church to the people... instead of trying to drag people to the church.

Please note... house church street preachers I'm familiar with typically don't preach the heated hate-filled shrills that street preachers are traditionally known for. They typically preach about the need for Jesus, the destruction of the family, need for love, injustice in society, and the dangers & greed so common in institutional religion. You'd be surprised how this resonates with the people and challenges the Christians present.

Sounds like a great way to truly evangelize and share the gospel with those who need it so much!

[KeptByTheWord]

And what reproduces faster? Elephants... or bunny rabbits?

:heeheehee Talk about hitting the nail on the head! :yourock

I really do believe, as you have already said, that house churches are going to be the way for true revival to take place in our generation.

[KeptByTheWord]

I visited a church this past weekend, and enjoyed hearing about the ministry team which goes out every weekend to talk with people and pray for them. No bullhorns and signs condemning people to hell. Just going on the street and asking people if they have a need and would like prayer. They've had a positive impact around the area.

That is wonderful to hear!

[J.A. Perez]

An ethical problem for him, indeed!

Greetings,
I will do my best to explain what I mean buy ethics.
Some people (for lack of a better word lay-saint) are not mature enough in the Lord to know that there are differences in beliefs even among Good men and women of the apostolic faith. And they will take a little thing that someone else believes or says and divide, abstain, or not fellowship, instead of accepting our minor differences for the sake of Unity. For instance I take my shoes off in my in-laws house because of their cultural tradition, in my house I wear shoes, but I better not bring muddy boots in and leave tracks all over the tiles. The reasoning is I respect my in-laws convictions, and I expect them to do the same at my house. However neither of us will allow the extreme of muddy boots in the house. The same is for the traditions of the various elders we all clan around.

A newer saint might benefit by the influence of an elder like Haywood or Bean but they might not understand the whys and why not's of their own local assembly they belong or the convictions their pastor shares, and not be able to Draw the lines in Perfect (Pleasant) Places. I've even seen this in some seasoned saints as well. Not that I'm mature but God has dealt with me on these things. The example above can be used in the place of Pre, Mid, or Post Trib rapture like my great uncle M. Baughman taught, and many Good men loved to have him in their pulpits. But they both would never accept Preterism. These are the things why I think ethics would not allow a traveling preacher in the house of laity, not because it might not be good its because of the lack of stability and understanding in us.
Thus ethics is a protection we use to prevent confusion and provide safety. We as parents do the same with our kids. This is the reason this forum is so dangerous. Though many in here are honest and are just trying to help. Our varied opinions can cause confusion in an assembly. By a person who hears a teaching differentl, may cause that unstable or unlearned person, or a self righteous person to attend a service and start to look at their pastor wrong or start to question the structure of the arrangement in government, or the particular stand that man is making about " a bean Patch." To us it may be a pointless ‘bean patch’ but for you it may have big problems with people in your church that you don't know about. That your pastor has had to deal with you about or about others. Landmarks aren't always boarders for us as limits they are so set to mark the line the coyotes can't cross.

With questions about ethics preachers on this forum know there limits if they are ethical. But that's how the devil works to sew discord amongst brethren. Because we don't know who each other really are, just a picture with a word or name.

And let me tell you, I can tell if my kids had been hanging around the wrong kids, it shows up sometimes in their attitude or speech. "Evil communication corrupts good manners."

Hope that was acceptable,
J.A. Perez

[KeptByTheWord]

JA - I understand exactly what you are saying. I heard it all my life growing up. However, you need to consider this as it needs to balance this understanding that you have.

We are called to be fruit inspectors. Pastors/shepherds/bishops of an assembly should be actively teaching the believers in their assembly about inspecting the fruit of those who say they are called to minister among them. You follow those who follow Christ.

What you are proposing is that one man be in charge of determining all things for an assembly. This is never upheld by NT teaching. Instead, Paul upheld a plural authority within the body of Christ, which is servant led. Those who lead, lead with a servant heart and love for the Lord first and for the well being of those they are leading. They are not trying to dominate them, and demand obedience to their every whim and wish (which is what happens most of the time with a singular leadership in the church).

Instead a true shepherd as called by Christ to lead the body in servant leadership would teach people to inspect fruit, even their own (Paul said to follow me as I follow Christ), and follow accordingly. Heb. 13:7 "whose faith follow, considering the END of their conversation".

In this way, with plural leadership, along with believers being taught to inspect the fruit being produced by those in leadership or ministerial positions, they can follow the end of their conversation to see whether their leaders are truly following Christ, producing fruits of the spirit. In this way, the spirit can do the best job of leading and guiding all believers, including those in ministry and leadership positions.

[Aquila]

This is the best argument against church buildings.

My current church, which runs anywhere between 75 to 100 people, rents a building. The monthly rent, while much lower than the surrounding buildings, is enormous, IIRC somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000 a month. On top of that, the cost to cool the building during the summer here tops $1,000 a month - and that's just for one Sunday AM service and one Wednesday PM service.

The bad part is the summer is when attendance is the lowest, because everyone is on vacation and trying to get away from the 115 degree heat.

This past summer it was so bad, we fell behind 2 months on the rent payments because there wasn't enough offering which came in. Fortunately, the Pastor has a great relationship with the landlord and the landlord likes having the church there, or we'd likely have lost the building.

It's tough, because the Pastor doesn't like to have to ask for money all the time, but the church barely gets by because of the huge expenses for the building. And it's not a large building by any means.

Dear brother, it's not that uncommon of a problem with the traditional church model.

[Aquila]

I visited a church this past weekend, and enjoyed hearing about the ministry team which goes out every weekend to talk with people and pray for them. No bullhorns and signs condemning people to hell. Just going on the street and asking people if they have a need and would like prayer. They've had a positive impact around the area.

Now that is what I'm talking about! Sounds like a good group of brothers and sisters.

[Aquila]

:heeheehee Talk about hitting the nail on the head! :yourock

I really do believe, as you have already said, that house churches are going to be the way for true revival to take place in our generation.

The age of going to church and trying to bring people to the church has failed our society. We have to be the church... and GO to the people.

[Aquila]

Greetings,
I will do my best to explain what I mean buy ethics.
Some people (for lack of a better word lay-saint) are not mature enough in the Lord to know that there are differences in beliefs even among Good men and women of the apostolic faith. And they will take a little thing that someone else believes or says and divide, abstain, or not fellowship, instead of accepting our minor differences for the sake of Unity. For instance I take my shoes off in my in-laws house because of their cultural tradition, in my house I wear shoes, but I better not bring muddy boots in and leave tracks all over the tiles. The reasoning is I respect my in-laws convictions, and I expect them to do the same at my house. However neither of us will allow the extreme of muddy boots in the house. The same is for the traditions of the various elders we all clan around.

A newer saint might benefit by the influence of an elder like Haywood or Bean but they might not understand the whys and why not's of their own local assembly they belong or the convictions their pastor shares, and not be able to Draw the lines in Perfect (Pleasant) Places. I've even seen this in some seasoned saints as well. Not that I'm mature but God has dealt with me on these things. The example above can be used in the place of Pre, Mid, or Post Trib rapture like my great uncle M. Baughman taught, and many Good men loved to have him in their pulpits. But they both would never accept Preterism. These are the things why I think ethics would not allow a traveling preacher in the house of laity, not because it might not be good its because of the lack of stability and understanding in us.
Thus ethics is a protection we use to prevent confusion and provide safety. We as parents do the same with our kids. This is the reason this forum is so dangerous. Though many in here are honest and are just trying to help. Our varied opinions can cause confusion in an assembly. By a person who hears a teaching differentl, may cause that unstable or unlearned person, or a self righteous person to attend a service and start to look at their pastor wrong or start to question the structure of the arrangement in government, or the particular stand that man is making about " a bean Patch." To us it may be a pointless ‘bean patch’ but for you it may have big problems with people in your church that you don't know about. That your pastor has had to deal with you about or about others. Landmarks aren't always boarders for us as limits they are so set to mark the line the coyotes can't cross.

With questions about ethics preachers on this forum know there limits if they are ethical. But that's how the devil works to sew discord amongst brethren. Because we don't know who each other really are, just a picture with a word or name.

And let me tell you, I can tell if my kids had been hanging around the wrong kids, it shows up sometimes in their attitude or speech. "Evil communication corrupts good manners."

Hope that was acceptable,
J.A. Perez

Good post. Trust the Spirit. He promised to lead and guide into all truth. And I've discovered that truth will always transcend temporary human organizations and structures.

[Aquila]

In the early church they used terms like "brother", "sister", and "elder". I don't believe this was a formality, like it is in so many churches today. In the house church movement we believe that they used these terms because they genuinely believed they were a part of a family and even acted as a family. How would people truly treat one another if we saw one another as truly being spiritual "brothers & sisters"? What if the "elders" functioned like fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers with advice, mercy, grace, guidance, and compassion? We're not a corporation. We're not an organization. We're not an institution with pastoral CEOs. We're a family.

The elders lead and guide as the "elders" of a family would lead and guide a family. That is why an elder must rule their own house well...

1 Timothy 3:4-5 (ESV)
4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

The church is so much more than a denomination, organization, or non-profit corporation. It's a... family. I've discovered that in house churches this can be better realized.

[Michael The Disciple]

Now that is what I'm talking about! Sounds like a good group of brothers and sisters.

Whats wrong with taking signs and preaching judgment?

[Esaias]

Whats wrong with taking signs and preaching judgment?

That makes the lost feel bad, makes them disdain Christians or even makes them angry. How will we save anyone if we make them feel bad?

[ILG]

ya, i don't have any upc "horror stories," thank God. ILG has characterized her forum as "for leaving legalism," but i don't recall that subject even coming up in the forum. All the posts i've read have been positive.

Thanks, shazeep! Some people just have no idea.

[Esaias]

So, ILG... what is "legalism"?

[Aquila]

Whats wrong with taking signs and preaching judgment?

Follow Christ's own pattern. Christ's strongest rebukes and warnings of judgment were to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the legalistic and traditional religious establishment of His day. However, when dealing with sinners, Christ was tender, patient, merciful, gracious, healing, and yet strong... warning of falling into worse calamity should they continue on in their sin... after they were forgiven.

So, the signs and rants of judgments and warning should be set up outside of today's denominational and institutional churches. Not the towns square where sinners congregate. We should go forth speaking love, grace, forgiveness, and healing among the sinners. Jesus Himself stated that it isn't the healthy (by their own accounts) who are in need of a physician... it is the sick.

A sincere, honest, and broken prostitute or homosexual is being far more righteous in God's sight than some spit and polished religionist who truly has no clue as it might relate to his or her own spiritual condition because of their legalisms. Those who align themselves under the banners of human associations and organizations, who think and walk the "party line" and lack a PERSONAL relationship with God via the Spirit.

[ILG]

So, ILG... what is "legalism"?

I posted on this previously, earlier in this thread. Please see previous responses. ;)

[ILG]

Lois will be jealous another I hate Pentecost.com

You are such a cheery person to be around. :foottap

[KeptByTheWord]

Follow Christ's own pattern. Christ's strongest rebukes and warnings of judgment were to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the legalistic and traditional religious establishment of His day. However, when dealing with sinners, Christ was tender, patient, merciful, gracious, healing, and yet strong... warning of falling into worse calamity should they continue on in their sin... after they were forgiven.

So, the signs and rants of judgments and warning should be set up outside of today's denominational and institutional churches. Not the towns square where sinners congregate. We should go forth speaking love, grace, forgiveness, and healing among the sinners. Jesus Himself stated that it isn't the healthy (by their own accounts) who are in need of a physician... it is the sick.

A sincere, honest, and broken prostitute or homosexual is being far more righteous in God's sight than some spit and polished religionist who truly has no clue as it might relate to his or her own spiritual condition because of their legalisms. Those who align themselves under the banners of human associations and organizations, who think and walk the "party line" and lack a PERSONAL relationship with God via the Spirit.

Aquila, I agree that the sinner needs to hear the voice of the Lord calling them, and reaching out to them. Sinners know the message of judgment, and condemnation, because that is what they hear from Satan. It is a message of fear and despair. That is what they know.

But when the Lord reaches out to the sinner's heart, it with a message of conviction - a message of hope and faith that there is a better place. It is the message of hope that brings a sinner to the Lord, and causes him to fall down on his knees and receive the transforming power of the Spirit of the Lord. It is not a message of doom and despair that draws one to Christ, but a message of HOPE!

The message of judgment that Jesus brought to those of his day was always directed to the Pharisees, and never to sinners.

[ILG]

This is the best argument against church buildings.

My current church, which runs anywhere between 75 to 100 people, rents a building. The monthly rent, while much lower than the surrounding buildings, is enormous, IIRC somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000 a month. On top of that, the cost to cool the building during the summer here tops $1,000 a month - and that's just for one Sunday AM service and one Wednesday PM service.

The bad part is the summer is when attendance is the lowest, because everyone is on vacation and trying to get away from the 115 degree heat.

This past summer it was so bad, we fell behind 2 months on the rent payments because there wasn't enough offering which came in. Fortunately, the Pastor has a great relationship with the landlord and the landlord likes having the church there, or we'd likely have lost the building.

It's tough, because the Pastor doesn't like to have to ask for money all the time, but the church barely gets by because of the huge expenses for the building. And it's not a large building by any means.

I've thought the same thing about some buildings. IS this an elaborate building? Or just one that is functional?

[shag]

CHRIST showed love to the sinner, agreed, however he also at times told them to "go and sin no more.."
Hence repentance from sin was preached in Acts.



Titus 2:11

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age


Acts 3:19

19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Part of loving a sinner, is telling it like it is IN LOVE.
Living for God will cost us something...turning from sin.

[Esaias]

Lev 19:17

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

[Michael The Disciple]

The Apostles preached judgment upon every soul who would not obey Yeshua.

22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Acts 3:22-23

The judgment for refusing to hear Christ is the destruction of the soul. No one can be saved without knowing:

They have sinned against God.
Sinners are cast into Gehenna Fire at judgment day.

Otherwise they will have no idea what "SAVED" means.

[Abiding Now]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44wqVj0u0I

[ILG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44wqVj0u0I

I only watched a little at the beginning. That is truly disgusting.

[Abiding Now]

I only watched a little at the beginning. That is truly disgusting.

ILG, and sadly no matter a person's good intentions, that's exactly what "the world" sees/thinks when talking about street preaching.

[ILG]

ILG, and sadly no matter a person's good intentions, that's exactly what "the world" sees/thinks when talking about street preaching.

Yes, often true.

[Michael The Disciple]

Well thats not my approach or 90% of street preachers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Lois will be jealous another I hate Pentecost.com

Lois (Sarge) is still around? :tinfoil

[Evang.Benincasa]

I only watched a little at the beginning. That is truly disgusting.

But they aren't legalists.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well thats not my approach or 90% of street preachers.

Mike you're a street preacher?

[Evang.Benincasa]

ILG, and sadly no matter a person's good intentions, that's exactly what "the world" sees/thinks when talking about street preaching.

You are correct.

[Esaias]

Since when did the world ever "appreciate" or approve of street preaching?

[ApostolicKitty]

Since when did the world ever "appreciate" or approve of street preaching?

Didn't they kill a few guys over it?

[Michael The Disciple]

Mike you're a street preacher?

I have been witnessing and preaching on the street since 1975.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I have been witnessing and preaching on the street since 1975.

Steady since 1975?

[Michael The Disciple]

Steady since 1975?

Pretty steady.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Pretty steady.

That is powerfully awesome! How many people are helping you now?

[Michael The Disciple]

That is powerfully awesome! How many people are helping you now?

Early on I started out with a group in the Jesus Movement. Afterwards when I Pastored in a home Church we all went on the streets. For many years now I have done it with one helper. YESHUA MESSIAH.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Early on I started out with a group in the Jesus Movement. Afterwards when I Pastored in a home Church we all went on the streets. For many years now I have done it with one helper. YESHUA MESSIAH.

The Lord bless you in Jesus name.

[Steve Epley]

Lois (Sarge) is still around? :tinfoil

Yes very much so.

[thephnxman]

Early on I started out with a group in the Jesus Movement. Afterwards when I Pastored in a home Church we all went on the streets. For many years now I have done it with one helper. YESHUA MESSIAH.

You do not labor in vain.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes very much so.

I thought she wouldn't moved on already.

What is she complaining about now?

[Steve Epley]

I thought she wouldn't moved on already.

What is she complaining about now?

Same thing. She has a site. Spiritual Abuse.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Same thing. She has a site. Spiritual Abuse.

Found the site, it looks the same.

I enjoy being an Apostolic Pentecostal.

My friends who are Apostolic Pentecostals are happy, and don't spiritually abuse anyone or anything.

Elder you started a nice thread on how you have been doing well living for God for 53 years.

So what does one do in a forum just filled with a bunch of people sniveling about what they called legalism?

[Michael The Disciple]

You do not labor in vain.

Thanks!

[Michael The Disciple]

The Lord bless you in Jesus name.

Blessings needed!

[allstate1]

If you use a relative term, adverb or adjective and make it a salvational issue its legalism! Long ,short, modest ,immodest ,often, early ,late etc.etc.

[Abiding Now]

Jehovah was a "the FIRST legalist". Remember those Ten Commandments? Those weren't THE TEN SUGGESTIONS or IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT...do them. And oh yeah, they would execute you if you broke them. Sounds pretty legalistic to me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Jehovah was a "the FIRST legalist". Remember those Ten Commandments? Those weren't THE TEN SUGGESTIONS or IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT...do them. And oh yeah, they would execute you if you broke them. Sounds pretty legalistic to me.

Yeah! All those rules, and regulations, people getting stoned to death, you having to lose an eye if you knocked your neighbor's out, women not allowed to wear the tools, or weapons, or anything else a man would wear, no pork eating...no pork eating? Wait...you couldn't eat pig! Wow.

:nuke

[ILG]

But they aren't legalists.

Yes they are.

[ILG]

Yes very much so.

Apparently, you make it a point to keep up! ;)

[Steve Epley]

Apparently, you make it a point to keep up! ;)

Actually I had forgot about her until she made a quote about me again for preaching somewhere and I was alerted by someone. But she is the same old bitter apostate she was years ago. Must be a miserable life?

[ILG]

Actually I had forgot about her until she made a quote about me again for preaching somewhere and I was alerted by someone. But she is the same old bitter apostate she was years ago. Must be a miserable life?

Must be a lot more fun to call people bitter old apostates, I suppose. ;)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Must be a lot more fun to call people bitter old apostates, I suppose. ;)

Well, the opposite of bitter old apostate could be the gotten over it, and moved on apostate? :)

[ILG]

Well, the opposite of bitter old apostate could be the gotten over it, and moved on apostate? :)

It would be fun to call people that, too, I suppose, for those who are so inclined. ;)

[Evang.Benincasa]

It would be fun to call people that, too, I suppose, for those who are so inclined. ;)

:)

[Pheobe2]

Well, I know one thing. It sure is fun being on that forum and being set free by the blood of Jesus Christ. And BTW, we aren't apostates, we are soul loving disciples of Christ. Reading the Bible without the UPC glasses on. Try it, You'd be surprised at what you find in the Bible. Good Bless You guys ~ BTW, "sarge" is a wonderful, caring, giving God loving person. Seems it's you guys that have the problem. He who the son sets free...Is free indeed !

[thephnxman]

Well, I know one thing. It sure is fun being on that forum and being set free by the blood of Jesus Christ. And BTW, we aren't apostates, we are soul loving disciples of Christ. Reading the Bible without the UPC glasses on. Try it, You'd be surprised at what you find in the Bible. Good Bless You guys ~ BTW, "sarge" is a wonderful, caring, giving God loving person. Seems it's you guys that have the problem. He who the son sets free...Is free indeed !

God doesn't "set" men free; He "makes" men free.

God empowers us with His Spirit to obey, and we are able to obey His
commands and they "...are not grievous".

Man, on the other hand, "sets" himself free from God's will by setting aside His
commandments and focusing on his own opinion of what he thinks God wants.

"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which
was right in his own eyes."

But there WAS a King in Israel, which Israel did not recognize. Everyone went
about to fulfill the desire of their own heart.

And there is a King in the church today, and He still empowers His Church to do that
which is right. But many in the Church have been persuaded that they have been
following after the wrong King!

I have a young sister who wanted to serve God: but an older sister told her not
to listen (obey) anyone: to do what she thought was right. That SOUNDS like
good advise: but here's the glitch. By not listening to anyone (obeying), the younger
sister was actually listening to (obeying) the older sister!

[Evang.Benincasa]

God doesn't "set" men free; He "makes" men free.

God empowers us with His Spirit to obey, and we are able to obey His
commands and they "...are not grievous".

Man, on the other hand, "sets" himself free from God's will by setting aside His
commandments and focusing on his own opinion of what he thinks God wants.

"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which
was right in his own eyes."

But there WAS a King in Israel, which Israel did not recognize. Everyone went
about to fulfill the desire of their own heart.

And there is a King in the church today, and He still empowers His Church to do that
which is right. But many in the Church have been persuaded that they have been
following after the wrong King!

I have a young sister who wanted to serve God: but an older sister told her not
to listen (obey) anyone: to do what she thought was right. That SOUNDS like
good advise: but here's the glitch. By not listening to anyone (obeying), the younger
sister was actually listening to (obeying) the older sister!




Your Kung Fu is Very Good!

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o304/Undyingsoul1/KungFuApostle.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Phillip has God tell him to join himself to the Ethiopian eunuch's chariot, and ask him if he knew what he was reading. The Ethiopian eunuch replies "how can I know except a man guide me?" Phillip then replies, "no, you don't need any leadership, no teachers, just stay in the chariot and get some prayer, you will get a burning bosom then God will give you revelation."

Instruction is done by ministers, not through some sort of spiritual osmosis.

[KeptByTheWord]

Phillip has God tell him to join himself to the Ethiopian eunuch's chariot, and ask him if he knew what he was reading. The Ethiopian eunuch replies "how can I know except a man guide me?" Phillip then replies, "no, you don't need any leadership, no teachers, just stay in the chariot and get some prayer, you will get a burning bosom then God will give you revelation."

Instruction is done by ministers, not through some sort of spiritual osmosis.

I do agree with this :) :thumbsup

Problem is when ministers who are supposed to be leaders and walking as an example to the the body of believers... take it upon themselves to be "lords over God's heritage"... and that is where problems begin.

But absolutely, it is through the power of preaching that the lost can understand, hear the gospel and be saved... and the saved can hear teaching, and watch the fruits of the spirit being evidenced in the life of those in ministry, and pattern their lives accordingly. "Follow me as I follow Christ."

There is balance to be found in all things :)

[thephnxman]

Phillip has God tell him to join himself to the Ethiopian eunuch's chariot, and ask him if he knew what he was reading. The Ethiopian eunuch replies "how can I know except a man guide me?" Phillip then replies, "no, you don't need any leadership, no teachers, just stay in the chariot and get some prayer, you will get a burning bosom then God will give you revelation."
Instruction is done by ministers, not through some sort of spiritual osmosis.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

[Esaias]

Oh, bother! Why can't we just love Jesus and have a good time without all those rules and legalism and stuff? I'm so tired of being judged by intolerant legalistic hell-bound phari- uh, scuse me! er, anyway, well, can't we all just get along?

(/sarc)

[thephnxman]

Oh, bother! Why can't we just love Jesus and have a good time without all those rules and legalism and stuff? I'm so tired of being judged by intolerant legalistic hell-bound phari- uh, scuse me! er, anyway, well, can't we all just get along?
(/sarc)

It's the humidity, Brother!

[Pheobe2]

I know that the UPC only acknowledges the King James Version of the Bible, however my UPC pastor usually read from different versions when preaching also. Versions such as The Message, The New King James Version, & The NASB and others. In such said versions the word "makes free" is also used as "set free". Heard it in the UPC. I have since left that denomination after 34 years. And as always, I feel no love coming from many people on here. When you say things, it is most always with contempt. The definition of contempt is : the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, worthless, disdain and scorn. There is no understanding or love or concern here. How sad to call yourselves Christians.

[KeptByTheWord]

I know that the UPC only acknowledges the King James Version of the Bible, however my UPC pastor usually read from different versions when preaching also. Versions such as The Message, The New King James Version, & The NASB and others. In such said versions the word "makes free" is also used as "set free". Heard it in the UPC. I have since left that denomination after 34 years. And as always, I feel no love coming from many people on here. When you say things, it is most always with contempt. The definition of contempt is : the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, worthless, disdain and scorn. There is no understanding or love or concern here. How sad to call yourselves Christians.

I hope you don't lump me in that category :) I haven't met you before here on the forum, but just wanted to say hello, and thanks so much for your valuable input!

[navygoat1998]

I hope you don't lump me in that category :) I haven't met you before here on the forum, but just wanted to say hello, and thanks so much for your valuable input!

:thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

I hope you don't lump me in that category :) I haven't met you before here on the forum, but just wanted to say hello, and thanks so much for your valuable input!

You would be surprised how cranky people can get when they don't have enough fat in their diets. High carbs makes for a grumpy Gus. Can't eat cold cereal in the morning and expect to be cheery. Bacon, lots of bacon, with a good portion of eggs, and a juicy steak! Makes people happy! They will even love those who they say have no love, just so they can show them what love is truly like. :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

I do agree with this :) :thumbsup

Problem is when ministers who are supposed to be leaders and walking as an example to the the body of believers... take it upon themselves to be "lords over God's heritage"... and that is where problems begin.

I agree, but it is way too much carbs. It would blow your mind if you were to see how much bread, and grains they consume, and not enough fat and animal proteins. It causes extremes in behavior.


But absolutely, it is through the power of preaching that the lost can understand, hear the gospel and be saved... and the saved can hear teaching, and watch the fruits of the spirit being evidenced in the life of those in ministry, and pattern their lives accordingly. "Follow me as I follow Christ."

There is balance to be found in all things :)

Amen. :thumbsup

[navygoat1998]

You would be surprised how cranky people can get when they don't have enough fat in their diets. High carbs makes for a grumpy Gus. Can't eat cold cereal in the morning and expect to be cheery. Bacon, lots of bacon, with a good portion of eggs, and a juicy steak! Makes people happy! They will even love those who they say have no love, just so they can show them what love is truly like. :)

:thumbsup

[KeptByTheWord]

You would be surprised how cranky people can get when they don't have enough fat in their diets. High carbs makes for a grumpy Gus. Can't eat cold cereal in the morning and expect to be cheery. Bacon, lots of bacon, with a good portion of eggs, and a juicy steak! Makes people happy! They will even love those who they say have no love, just so they can show them what love is truly like. :)

Oh I do love me a good juicy steak... and I'm not opposed to bacon on my hot buttered loaded with cheese baked potato :D

[Evang.Benincasa]

Oh I do love me a good juicy steak... and I'm not opposed to bacon on my hot buttered loaded with cheese baked potato :D

How about changing the potato (probably a Yukon Gold) with a nice sweet potato? Or yam? Preferably a Chinese Yam, the one with purple skin and white flesh. Particularly good for women, because it balances hormones. :)

[KeptByTheWord]

How about changing the potato (probably a Yukon Gold) with a nice sweet potato? Or yam? Preferably a Chinese Yam, the one with purple skin and white flesh. Particularly good for women, because it balances hormones. :)

Haven't tried Chinese yam. I do love sweet potato though. Not sure if they even know what a Chinese yam is up here where I live in the boonies, lol, but I'll check around and see.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Haven't tried Chinese yam. I do love sweet potato though. Not sure if they even know what a Chinese yam is up here where I live in the boonies, lol, but I'll check around and see.

Purple with white flesh yam (http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/651/cache/q-a-stephanie-sinclair-child-brides_65199_990x742.jpg) here they call them Cuban yams, but I never heard them call that.

[KeptByTheWord]

Purple with white flesh yam (http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/651/cache/q-a-stephanie-sinclair-child-brides_65199_990x742.jpg) here they call them Cuban yams, but I never heard them call that.

:smack

[ILG]

I know that the UPC only acknowledges the King James Version of the Bible, however my UPC pastor usually read from different versions when preaching also. Versions such as The Message, The New King James Version, & The NASB and others. In such said versions the word "makes free" is also used as "set free". Heard it in the UPC. I have since left that denomination after 34 years. And as always, I feel no love coming from many people on here. When you say things, it is most always with contempt. The definition of contempt is : the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, worthless, disdain and scorn. There is no understanding or love or concern here. How sad to call yourselves Christians.

It reminds a person why they left and makes them feel good about it! :thumbsup

[ILG]

Legalism=food. :D

[Evang.Benincasa]

Legalism=food. :D

Get a vegan and a follower of Weston A Price diet in a room together.

Get a old time Harley biker and Japanese motorcycle rider in a room together.

Get a mechanic who loves Snap On, with a mechanic who loves Craftsman in a room together.

So, on and so on.

Human nature, everyone breaks off in groups to love what they love and to lick each others wounds.

[KeptByTheWord]

Get a vegan and a follower of Weston A Price diet in a room together.

Get a old time Harley biker and Japanese motorcycle rider in a room together.

Get a mechanic who loves Snap On, with a mechanic who loves Craftsman in a room together.

So, on and so on.

Human nature, everyone breaks off in groups to love what they love and to lick each others wounds.

Well, I say its time we get a bacon lover and a hard line Jew in the same room as well... :happydance

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, I say its time we get a bacon lover and a hard line Jew in the same room as well... :happydance

Bacon lover and the vegan have gone through it many times over. The Jew, and Muslim just speak about a prohibition. So, I just tell them they don't know what they're missing.

[Abiding Now]

When I first read Lois' blogs I would cry and pray for her..................

[Esaias]

How about changing the potato (probably a Yukon Gold) with a nice sweet potato? Or yam? Preferably a Chinese Yam, the one with purple skin and white flesh. Particularly good for women, because it balances hormones. :)



http://hkmovies.timchuma.com/images/scenes/godofcookery/animated/laugh_wok.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://hkmovies.timchuma.com/images/scenes/godofcookery/animated/laugh_wok.gif

That's a little over cooked. :nod

[Esaias]

That's a little over cooked. :nod

Nothing like an out of control wok to spice things up!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Nothing like an out of control wok to spice things up!

Wow the bacon on that grill must be pretty crisp. :)

[ILG]

When I first read Lois's site, I felt so sad that she was so backslid. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

When I first read Lois's site, I felt so sad that she was so backslid. :heeheehee

That wasn't you, that was Emma. :)

[ILG]

That wasn't you, that was Emma. :)

No, that was me. Then, I joined her. :) Emma is not backslid!

[Evang.Benincasa]

No, that was me. Then, I joined her. :) Emma is not backslid!

Well, I guess it was the.... Emma inside. :heeheehee

[Abiding Now]

When I first read Lois's site, I felt so sad that she was so backslid. :heeheehee

That too.

[ILG]

Well, I guess it was the.... Emma inside. :heeheehee

Once upon a time, EB, I was fully 100% bonafide OP. I fought right along side the best for "the truth". Until I found out it wasn't. ;)

[thephnxman]

Once upon a time, EB, I was fully 100% bonafide OP. I fought right along side the best for "the truth". Until I found out it wasn't. ;)

My guess is that you "discovered" something deeper than apostolic truth.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest
that they were not all of us."

[Steve Epley]

My guess is that you "discovered" something deeper than apostolic truth.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest
that they were not all of us."

:thumbsup

[FlamingZword]

My guess is that you "discovered" something deeper than apostolic truth.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest
that they were not all of us."

Truth is truth, there is no such thing as Apostolic Truth.

Either it is truth or it is not truth, putting the label "Apostolic" does not make it more truth.

[thephnxman]

Truth is truth, there is no such thing as Apostolic Truth.
Either it is truth or it is not truth, putting the label "Apostolic" does not make it more truth.

Of course you are correct. It may be redundant, but that would not make it untrue.
If it is apostolic doctrine, it is truth; and if it is truth, it is apostolic doctrine. Otherwise, one
would be declaring that the Lord made a mistake in choosing his apostles!

I would rather be redundant than wrong!

[ILG]

Of course you are correct. It may be redundant, but that would not make it untrue.
If it is apostolic doctrine, it is truth; and if it is truth, it is apostolic doctrine. Otherwise, one
would be declaring that the Lord made a mistake in choosing his apostles!

I would rather be redundant than wrong!

Circular logic.

[ILG]

The more the merrier!

[shazeep]

If it is apostolic doctrine, it is truth; and if it is truth, it is apostolic doctrine. Otherwise, one would be declaring that the Lord made a mistake in choosing his apostles!hmm. one might be declaring that an interpretation of Apostolic doctrine is in error, no? How many times have "Apostolics" split, again? So, wadr, this is inadequate on more levels than just the circular logic, imo.

"All i care about is love for Christ; therefore, if you don't accept my interpretation, you must hate Christ?" :lol ok

[shazeep]

My guess is that you "discovered" something deeper than apostolic truth.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest
that they were not all of us." So, ILG is antichrist, then? She has denied Christ in the Godhead to you? I was not aware of this. Apparently Mr. Epley was a witness to this? Can you or Steve provide a post or link as evidence? Ty

[ILG]

So, ILG is antichrist, then? She has denied Christ in the Godhead to you? I was not aware of this. Apparently Mr. Epley was a witness to this? Can you or Steve provide a post or link as evidence? Ty

LOL! @ shazeep!

[shazeep]

Well, that is the inference, is it not? I'm not a bit surprised that these shining men of God run for the shadows now :lol why is it that Pent preachers seem to need people to feel superior to so desperately, i wonder? Do they all have inferiority complexes? I'm thinking a little

"You refuse to enter the door, and block it so that others cannot enter"

is a much more fitting Scripture in here, if we are going to be using Scripture Pentecostal style, rather than applying it to ourselves.

[Steve Epley]

Well, that is the inference, is it not? I'm not a bit surprised that these shining men of God run for the shadows now :lol why is it that Pent preachers seem to need people to feel superior to so desperately, i wonder? Do they all have inferiority complexes? I'm thinking a little

"You refuse to enter the door, and block it so that others cannot enter"

is a much more fitting Scripture in here, if we are going to be using Scripture Pentecostal style, rather than applying it to ourselves.

We have been posting together for years she knows exactly how I feel. I am not running just everything that could be said have been said in every manner. She has left truth and is deceived. Feel bad about it but that is how it is. She didn't love truth and now has a delusion. Am I rejoicing? No. But the choice was hers. God does not force anyone we all have a choice she made her choice.

[KeptByTheWord]

We have been posting together for years she knows exactly how I feel. I am not running just everything that could be said have been said in every manner. She has left truth and is deceived. Feel bad about it but that is how it is. She didn't love truth and now has a delusion. Am I rejoicing? No. But the choice was hers. God does not force anyone we all have a choice she made her choice.

ILG has not denied Christ. Perhaps she has issues with some of the doctrines/standards of the Apostolic/UPC organization... but I certainly have never heard her deny Christ. Truth - in your opinion - is a large word. Perhaps she doesn't believe "truth" as you see it - but does everyone have to agree with you to be saved? I hope not. I certainly don't think everyone has to agree with me either to be saved.

Truth is Jesus - and I have never heard ILG deny Jesus.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me."

[ILG]

I don't believe "truth" the way that Steve Epley and some others preach it. Happy for it too. That's why I started an FB Forum for leaving legalism. :) It still stings a little when I get called deceived and all that stuff, but if you believe that stuff you have to believe I am deceived. It's part of the doctrine. If they didn't believe I was deceived, they would be deceived according to their own definitions. That would be pretty tough. :)

[ILG]

Well, that is the inference, is it not? I'm not a bit surprised that these shining men of God run for the shadows now :lol why is it that Pent preachers seem to need people to feel superior to so desperately, i wonder? Do they all have inferiority complexes? I'm thinking a little

"You refuse to enter the door, and block it so that others cannot enter"

is a much more fitting Scripture in here, if we are going to be using Scripture Pentecostal style, rather than applying it to ourselves.

Yes, shazeep, that is definitely the inference. And Steve Epley just said it out loud. I was just laughing because of what you said out loud. :) And I agree.

[shazeep]

i am impressed that you are able to find humor, in what is obviously a joke. i guess i will try to as well; but it is sad to me that these guys church is in full retreat, yet so many of their supposed leaders seem unwilling to change their minds? Now, Steve may know something i don't--which is why i asked for verification--but it strikes me that such an accusation speaks for itself, imo. Hey, at least he had the stones to attempt some justification.We have been posting together for years she knows exactly how I feel. I am not running just everything that could be said have been said in every manner. She has left truth and is deceived. Feel bad about it but that is how it is. She didn't love truth and now has a delusion. Am I rejoicing? No. But the choice was hers. God does not force anyone we all have a choice she made her choice.ya ok, go with that, if you have no evidence to back your accusation. i for one applaud her for it. Don't you have anything better to do than bash people over the head with misapplied Scripture? Some dogs to kick, perhaps? Children to thump on the head? :lol

[shazeep]

ok what i mean is, pardon me an observation, but you and i have been cross-posting for a couple of years now, too, and i am struck by how i, who you would surely term a layman, seem to be arguing your side here, while you, a Pent preacher, seem to be arguing the side of the accuser. Wadr, as i do believe you seek Christ as best you are able, in three+ years i cannot recall you ever posting for anything substantial; your posts are invariably against. Is that how you wanna go out? Pointing fingers at those you have judged to be somehow inferior to yourself? Where is the love? And just so you know, i wouldn't let anyone get very far here pointing fingers at you, either. You owe ILG an apology, imo; but it seems she has already forgiven you, hmm...

[shazeep]

We have been posting together for years she knows exactly how I feel. I am not running just everything that could be said have been said in every manner. She has left truth and is deceived. Feel bad about it but that is how it is. She didn't love truth and now has a delusion. Am I rejoicing? No. But the choice was hers. God does not force anyone we all have a choice she made her choice.the Supreme Commander has spoken, huh? Who is deluded here? You cannot accept Christ with only your mouth, Steve.

[ILG]

i am impressed that you are able to find humor, in what is obviously a joke. i guess i will try to as well; but it is sad to me that these guys church is in full retreat, yet so many of their supposed leaders seem unwilling to change their minds? Now, Steve may know something i don't--which is why i asked for verification--but it strikes me that such an accusation speaks for itself, imo. Hey, at least he had the stones to attempt some justification.ya ok, go with that, if you have no evidence to back your accusation. i for one applaud her for it. Don't you have anything better to do than bash people over the head with misapplied Scripture? Some dogs to kick, perhaps? Children to thump on the head? :lol

:thumbsup

They believe that the only reason people are leaving is because it is the "last days" and people are being deceived. I appreciate your support shazeep. Some of these old preachers need to wake up and realize that some people aren't going to stand for sin being swept under the rug like they have been doing for years.

[shazeep]

well, it is the last days, and people are being deceived, that is true. Mostly by themselves. i do grasp the nature of the principle Bro Epley feels he is standing on, and see that my accusation is his telling it like it is, But that we are all sinners is a central tenet among us, which calls for a higher response--one that a pastor is supposed to be trained for?

Could it be said that anyone spending their internet time here, trying to dig deeper, is not following after Christ as best they are able? So to label one antichrist in this light seems harsh to me, Steve. It is a condemnation. You have made a judgement. However justified in your eyes is not even the point. Isn't this like, theology 101? :lol

you nullify neither do i condemn you with this, and lose grace, in the moment you find fault, Steve.
We are meant to reflect upon whether or not Scripture applies to ourselves in these verses, and plainly instructed that we are not qualified to judge others, and that that is not how Christ is reflected anyway. This defines Christianity.

[shazeep]

Applying Scriptures to others is what lands you in hell.

[good samaritan]

What dos it mean to be a legalistic?

[Esaias]

Applying Scriptures to others is what lands you in hell.

Isn't that exactly what you did in regard to brother Epley?

[shazeep]

yes, i returned evil for evil. i am a hypocrite, you are correct.

[KeptByTheWord]

yes, i returned evil for evil. i am a hypocrite, you are correct.

... and you are honest as well. lol

[shazeep]

:lol
well thanks--but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. I just haven't figured out yet how to say what i meant to say, Christ-like. My apologies to Steve.

[good samaritan]

What dos it mean to be a legalistic?

I haven't found the term in scripture?

bump.

[Esaias]

yes, i returned evil for evil. i am a hypocrite, you are correct.

Everyone makes judgments. Every Christian takes what people say and do and judges those things by scripture (by their understanding).

We just need to make sure our judgment is righteeous.

[Steve Epley]

When folks leave the faith I am only saying the same they were saying when they were in the faith. I do not mean to be ugly I believe the Bible teaches ONE saving message they left that then that means they are lost. It is not a PERSONAL thing it is a doctrinal issue. I watched this departure by it's stages until they no longer consider themselves what they one time was. I am NOT being judgmental I am just calling a spade a spade. I am short so I am not offended when someone says Epley is short. They are telling the truth.:thumbsup

[good samaritan]

When A church teaches doctrine derived from the word God and that people should adhere to it isn't legalism. I see that doctrines can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is bad to have doctrine. Everyone should search the scriptures to know which doctrines are of men and which are of God. The title of this thread is why I left legalism and that could be insulting to those who it is referenced to. The fact that people live by what they believe is not being legalistic, but it is being genuine.

The fact that ladies at our church believe it is a sin for them to wear pants doesn't make them legalistic. No differently than someone believing it is sin to murder. Sure the scripture my define one more than the other, but that doesn't change the concept. It isn't legalistic to live by what you believe. If we want to get on here and argue points such as ladies attire or drinking alcohol that is good, but to throw someone into a category of legalism because they believe something is wrong is foolish.

I hope we all follow after what we believe is right and I hope we all end up believing the right things.

[ILG]

:lol
well thanks--but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. I just haven't figured out yet how to say what i meant to say, Christ-like. My apologies to Steve.

Hypocrites don't apologize. You have now failed. :)

[ILG]

When folks leave the faith I am only saying the same they were saying when they were in the faith. I do not mean to be ugly I believe the Bible teaches ONE saving message they left that then that means they are lost. It is not a PERSONAL thing it is a doctrinal issue. I watched this departure by it's stages until they no longer consider themselves what they one time was. I am NOT being judgmental I am just calling a spade a spade. I am short so I am not offended when someone says Epley is short. They are telling the truth.:thumbsup

Okay, I am going to tell the truth. When you say what you believe, you are often mean when you don't have to be. There ya go. :thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Okay, I am going to tell the truth. When you say what you believe, you are often mean when you don't have to be. There ya go. :thumbsup

I understand saying everyone who does not obey Acts 2:38 is lost is considered mean. But that is how it is. Saved or lost only two categories no way to tell folks they are lost without being considered mean. But that is how it is. :thumbsup

[good samaritan]

We have been posting together for years she knows exactly how I feel. I am not running just everything that could be said have been said in every manner. She has left truth and is deceived. Feel bad about it but that is how it is. She didn't love truth and now has a delusion. Am I rejoicing? No. But the choice was hers. God does not force anyone we all have a choice she made her choice.

I am missing a little in all this. What specific things did the people who they left legalism saying they had to leave? We are talking about legalism, but that is just a perspective on how some view the word of God. We should obey God because He has become Lord of our life and not to earn our way to heaven. what specific things are making others legalists?

[shazeep]

Everyone makes judgments. Every Christian takes what people say and do and judges those things by scripture (by their understanding).

We just need to make sure our judgment is righteeous.
well, this sure seems to violate Judge not to me; i think it reveals where one's focus lies. Steve might be short, but he is also knowledgeable of Scripture, prolly likes puppies, surely has some secret gift that none of us are aware of--my dad makes friends with wild squirrels, they come sit in his lap--etc. I thought this was what Christ came to obliterate; the Law. None of us is innocent. We are all guilty, under the Law. It is Grace that is supposed to save us.

Who among us is righteous? I find the only one qualified for righteous judgement is God; thru Christ, for us. I imagine that this is why the people that used to say what Steve said stopped saying it; this is at least true for me. I didn't leave the Pentecostal church and stop believing in Christ; I just too often could not find Christ reflected in the leaders' focus.

While it will of course be characterized as leaving the faith to those still on the inside, another perfectly valid characterization is leaving your religion. Which brings up another reflection here, of why we should not judge; not ever--humans are manipulable, and will naturally take on the mores of their peers, rather than risk standing alone, out of their herd. So one eventually becomes a parrot whether they want to or not.

I was raised Pentecostal, and decided to see if Catholics and Muslims were really as evil/lost as i was raised to believe; and it's a bunch of hooey. They are just different; and exactly the same. We search Scriptures for meaning, and arrive at what we believe is the best interpretation, and then defend them to our (spiritual) death, imo--when they were usually left ambiguous on purpose, i am convinced; to provide stumbling blocks in the path of Love your neighbor as yourself.

That verse doesn't say "As long as you agree with their dogma," or even "as long as they love you back;" nope.

Now i grasp that Steve is in a tough spot here; there seems to be no ambiguity involved. There most likely isn't. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Oh and good luck with all that; it's still mostly just theory for me, too! :D

[shazeep]

When A church teaches doctrine derived from the word God and that people should adhere to it isn't legalism. I see that doctrines can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is bad to have doctrine. Everyone should search the scriptures to know which doctrines are of men and which are of God. The title of this thread is why I left legalism and that could be insulting to those who it is referenced to. The fact that people live by what they believe is not being legalistic, but it is being genuine.

The fact that ladies at our church believe it is a sin for them to wear pants doesn't make them legalistic. No differently than someone believing it is sin to murder. Sure the scripture my define one more than the other, but that doesn't change the concept. It isn't legalistic to live by what you believe. If we want to get on here and argue points such as ladies attire or drinking alcohol that is good, but to throw someone into a category of legalism because they believe something is wrong is foolish.

I hope we all follow after what we believe is right and I hope we all end up believing the right things.I'm sure most of us totally agree there--it is when the little old ladies start pointing at women wearing pants that they become lost. ETolle says it best, i think; they have found a reason to feel superior, and created a subject/object relationship.

[shazeep]

I understand saying everyone who does not obey Acts 2:38 is lost is considered mean. But that is how it is. Saved or lost only two categories no way to tell folks they are lost without being considered mean. But that is how it is. :thumbsupand yet the Parable of the Separation of Sheep and Goats clearly describes people who are accepted without following the script. Now, i understand that saying everyone who appends Acts 2:38 is lost is considered mean...lol. This is all a test to see if you will fall into judgement, imo.

See, here's the thing; you cannot even rightly say that you are saved, according to Scripture--because you have not yet held out to the end. Same with me, or anyone.

[shazeep]

Understand the parable of the vineyard owner with two sons. This speaks directly to this conversation. I am allowed by God to seek my own salvation, and it prolly is not going to agree with yours. It takes all kinds. God does not seem to judge religions--well, except to condemn them in general :lol God judges your heart. Period.

Now, you might very likely receive some crown or something for obeying Acts 2:38 perfectly; if you do it in love. But I'm pretty sure there's a Scripture that says that if you don't have love, you have nothing.

[shazeep]

I am missing a little in all this. What specific things did the people who they left legalism saying they had to leave? We are talking about legalism, but that is just a perspective on how some view the word of God. We should obey God because He has become Lord of our life and not to earn our way to heaven. what specific things are making others legalists?Not allowing others to do the same as they see fit without judging them?

[Esaias]

I thought this was what Christ came to obliterate; the Law.

Christ said not to think that.

[shazeep]

ok, pardon my shorthand. Christ came to fulfill the Law, and obliterate the judgement that Law inevitably brings. Grace is the opposite of judgement. One cannot make any type of judgement and remain in Grace, imo.

[Esaias]

ok, pardon my shorthand. Christ came to fulfill the Law, and obliterate the judgement that Law inevitably brings. Grace is the opposite of judgement. One cannot make any type of judgement and remain in Grace, imo.

Did Paul not command judgment against the unrepentant fornicator in 1 Corinthians?

[shazeep]

hey, and did Christ not judge the Pharisees? So, who am i to say that anyone is wrong? Far be it from me. I am neither Christ, nor an Apostle.

[shazeep]

my fave quote of the day, for consideration:

"The allusion that you and those who think like you, are right with God and He is up in heaven smiling down on you, well pleased, is mind candy. You get a sugar buzz and it leads you to some very arrogantly self-righteous mindsets.
The disquiet in your head is the voice of reason trying to tell you that Jesus' main criticism was to leaders in the church."

[good samaritan]

Not allowing others to do the same as they see fit without judging them?

Some of the time I don't think that church people are judging out of a bad spirit, but more about abhorrence of sin. I don't think that these people are legalistic at all, but they just happen to hold different beliefs then you. If you feel something is a command of God than wouldn't you feel it necessary to keep it and wouldn't you notice those around you who do not. The problem is some of the issues one person may think you should leave up to the individual while others interpret the scriptures to be direct and without any interpretation necessary. To call someone a legalist is to judge and that is the same as you would accuse them.

It is interesting to me that although, Paul taught that it was unnecessary for men to be circumcised, he later took Timothy to be circumcised for the sake of unity and ministry. When it comes to ministry sometimes there is more than being right by God we also must be right with our brothers and sisters. offenses go two ways.

[shazeep]

well said, imo. at least as far as it goes. i read abhorrence of other peoples' sin, tho...we are told that it is to one's credit to "overlook a matter." if you lead by example, and totally disregard others' lack of following a command of God, and appear to have a higher path, that may be the strongest witness.
i wonder if we are only able to see others' sins because we still have sin personally.
Witness those who lack guile being sinned against, and it goes completely past them, so to speak. etc.

[good samaritan]

You are correct. Most people find it easier to judge others than look inwardly. I believe that we should walk softly before correcting someone, and if we do we should do it in love. I would rather error on the side of mercy than on judgement. Again the sword cuts both ways. Sometimes those vocal judgmental people may not be right in their hearts, but we must study the message and see if it has any truth in it.

[Esaias]

my fave quote of the day, for consideration:

"The allusion that you and those who think like you, are right with God and He is up in heaven smiling down on you, well pleased, is mind candy. You get a sugar buzz and it leads you to some very arrogantly self-righteous mindsets.
The disquiet in your head is the voice of reason trying to tell you that Jesus' main criticism was to leaders in the church."

How judgmental and intolerant!

[shazeep]

:lol good point, yes.
You are correct. Most people find it easier to judge others than look inwardly. I believe that we should walk softly before correcting someone, and if we do we should do it in love. I would rather error on the side of mercy than on judgement. Again the sword cuts both ways. Sometimes those vocal judgmental people may not be right in their hearts, but we must study the message and see if it has any truth in it.
amen. one must draw their own lines. Scripture is truly a Book of stumbling-stones, huh.

[Esaias]

:lol good point, yes.

amen. one must draw their own lines. Scripture is truly a Book of stumbling-stones, huh.

Does it not say those who stumble at the word do so because of disobedience?

[ILG]

I understand saying everyone who does not obey Acts 2:38 is lost is considered mean. But that is how it is. Saved or lost only two categories no way to tell folks they are lost without being considered mean. But that is how it is. :thumbsup

No, you can say what you believe without being mean. Serious. Lots of OP's think they can be mean and then they blame it on rejection of what they believe when in fact, they are just plain mean.

[ILG]

my fave quote of the day, for consideration:

"The allusion that you and those who think like you, are right with God and He is up in heaven smiling down on you, well pleased, is mind candy. You get a sugar buzz and it leads you to some very arrogantly self-righteous mindsets.
The disquiet in your head is the voice of reason trying to tell you that Jesus' main criticism was to leaders in the church."

:thumbsup

[shazeep]

um, ok, "saved or lost, only two categories."...black or white. Again. We have a lot of evidence that this, also, is a naive point of view.
Does it not say those who stumble at the word do so because of disobedience?yup. now, this is also a two-edged sword, can be taken different ways; but might be expounded upon. Is it because the letter makes weary? Plus, apparently anyone can accuse anyone else of stumbling! So, i see only another labyrinth there :lol

[Steve Epley]

No, you can say what you believe without being mean. Serious. Lots of OP's think they can be mean and then they blame it on rejection of what they believe when in fact, they are just plain mean.

In my humble opinion you have been pretty vicious through the years. You and Lois. So it is not one sided perspective has a lot to do with it.:thumbsup

[shazeep]

As Esaiah has pointed out, offense is often, or also, in the perception of the hearer, yes. The most innocuous truth can be perceived as offense.

[good samaritan]

The main thing is to be in truth. We will all disagree on things, but when it comes to God we should all ways be in search for deeper relationship to Him. Follow the leading of the Holy Ghost and tell the truth in love and you will probably be alright. Be a legalist about the things you know are wrong, in other words "don't do them" and repent when you fail Jesus is still faithful.

[ILG]

In my humble opinion you have been pretty vicious through the years. You and Lois. So it is not one sided perspective has a lot to do with it.:thumbsup

I also have apologized to you because I was very angry for a long time and took it out on you to some extent because you represented everything I was angry at. I apologize again right now if that is what it takes to gain your forgiveness.

[Steve Epley]

I also have apologized to you because I was very angry for a long time and took it out on you to some extent because you represented everything I was angry at. I apologize again right now if that is what it takes to gain your forgiveness.

I accept but at the same time you start a forum where Pentecost is attacked? You send mixed signals. You may not like me nor what I believe nor my style but you have to admit all these years I have remained consistent.

[shazeep]

ok to be fair, only passing and occasional references are even made to Pentecostalism on her forum; i find it mostly uplifting. As to consistency, which i admit you have been, i have a question for you--and welcome other povs--

Why did Christ not condemn the woman at the well--for instance--and yet condemn the Pharisees?--let's say. Both sinned.

ok, and i don't mean this to be a "loaded" question--i have no idea what the right answer is.

[ILG]

I accept but at the same time you start a forum where Pentecost is attacked? You send mixed signals. You may not like me nor what I believe nor my style but you have to admit all these years I have remained consistent.

You accept and yet you do not apologize to me.

Did you see that the forum is for leaving legalism? This means legalism practiced by Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals and yes, that means Pentecostals too. Yes, we talk about that out there some.

[shazeep]

ok to be fair, only passing and occasional references are even made to Pentecostalism on her forum; i find it mostly uplifting. As to consistency, which i admit you have been, i have a question for you--and welcome other povs--

Why did Christ not condemn the woman at the well--for instance--and yet condemn the Pharisees?--let's say. Both sinned.

ok, and i don't mean this to be a "loaded" question--i have no idea what the right answer is.Steve? Anyone?

[ILG]

Steve? Anyone?

Because the woman at the well was just living her life. The Pharisees were claiming to lead people in the ways of God, and when you do that, you have to represent God in a way He wants to be represented. And apparently the Pharisees were not pulling that off.

[shazeep]

ah ok ty!

[Steve Epley]

You accept and yet you do not apologize to me.

Did you see that the forum is for leaving legalism? This means legalism practiced by Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals and yes, that means Pentecostals too. Yes, we talk about that out there some.

If my style has offended you I certainly apologize. But never for the truth you decided to forsake.

[shazeep]

hmm...but why take on that mantle, again? I'm curious now why you seem to be avoiding the judgement question up there. I guess there are other examples--pick some--the point being why were some condemned, and others not, when they all sinned?

[ILG]

If my style has offended you I certainly apologize. But never for the truth you decided to forsake.

Okay, your style has offended me. I accept your apology. And I am never sorry for leaving what you claim to be truth. ;) :highfive Does this mean we are pals? LOL!

[KeptByTheWord]

Agreeing to disagree can be a good thing :)

[shazeep]

Because the woman at the well was just living her life. The Pharisees were claiming to lead people in the ways of God, and when you do that, you have to represent God in a way He wants to be represented. And apparently the Pharisees were not pulling that off.i was thinking "judge not, lest you be judged" and Christ was just exercising His prerogative...but this answer did not cover the money-changers in the Temple; which i see your answer does. So, very nice!

[shazeep]

If my style has offended you I certainly apologize. But never for the truth you decided to forsake.i don't think that truth needs to be apologized for, nor defended. But wadr, how might you differentiate this pov from the Pharisees'? Ty

[good samaritan]

The lady caught in the act of adultry was about to be sentenced. Judging here is Very different, Bro. Epley is expressing his views against another person's on matters of doctrine. He is not sentencing anyone. Admonishing someone and telling them they are wrong is not the judgement I think Jesus was forbidding. If I think you are in damnable heresy and I don't call you out on it then I am not loving you. Of course I realize anyone can be wrong, but we should make up our minds personally to find the truth. I think people throw out that judging card way too much. When a person says something to me or against me then first I should ponder and see if there is any truth in it. If there is I should use it to my benefit. If the person is completely wrong then they will answer to God and I will probably tell them how they are in error. After a little discussion and searching we should shake the dust off and go on.

Psalms 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

[Abiding Now]

What some call "legalism" others call NT doctrine.

ILG, could you please define "legalism" for me?

[Sister Alvear]

Rules are not always bad....depending on the situation....I thinks we all have rules....

[KeptByTheWord]

If I may share my thought of how to define legalism:

Legalism (as demonstrated by the Pharisees) is taking a principle, interpreting that principle with an application and then using your application of that principle to judge others by.

A better way would be to be to allow the Spirit to interpret the principle, and apply it to your life, but understand that others may be led of the spirit to have a different application of the principle in their lives.

The best way to do this.... is to walk in the spirit! Gal. 5:16, 18 "This I say then, walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" .... but if ye be led of the spirit ye are not under the law."

[shazeep]

nice :D

[good samaritan]

If there is never application to principles then things can become muddled. If everyone goes their own way then finally the principles can become lost altogether. I think that every local church body should be united on the applications for the most part, but I believe there should be some room for personal interpretations as long as they don't Jeopardize the unity of the body.

I have noticed a strong shift in culture. As a child everyone one just wanted to fit. Most people followed church teachings without asking questions, but today people seek individuality and they want to find their own way. There are pro's and con's to both. It is a good thing for people to seek the truth for their self and even necessary. But, at the same time, landmarks had a purpose and we should be very careful to move them.

Before I move a landmark I should first find out what it was placed there for. Sometimes they are firmly seated on a forever principle of God. I see all kinds of holiness standards going down the drain and I hear people's valid arguments of why. But, I worry that people are making more decisions based on intellect and convenience than on the Holy Ghost.

Doctrine should be arrived at through prayer and study and never because of convenience. Straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life. The journey is full of sacrifices and Jesus is the foundation of them all. We must be sure that we are on the right road.

[thephnxman]

If there is never application to principles then things can become muddled. If everyone goes their own way then finally the principles can become lost altogether. I think that every local church body should be united on the applications for the most part, but I believe there should be some room for personal interpretations as long as they don't Jeopardize the unity of the body.

I have noticed a strong shift in culture. As a child everyone one just wanted to fit. Most people followed church teachings without asking questions, but today people seek individuality and they want to find their own way. There are pro's and con's to both. It is a good thing for people to seek the truth for their self and even necessary. But, at the same time, landmarks had a purpose and we should be very careful to move them.

Before I move a landmark I should first find out what it was placed there for. Sometimes they are firmly seated on a forever principle of God. I see all kinds of holiness standards going down the drain and I hear people's valid arguments of why. But, I worry that people are making more decisions based on intellect and convenience than on the Holy Ghost.

Doctrine should be arrived at through prayer and study and never because of convenience. Straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life. The journey is full of sacrifices and Jesus is the foundation of them all. We must be sure that we are on the right road.

Very well said, Beloved.

[shazeep]

that was well said. Who does not admire personally applied standards?
It is the Standard Police most dislike; and this phenom is completely unnecessary imo, as those uncomfortable with a group's standards are not going to keep coming around to make others uncomfortable in violating them. (which, i'm assuming, is why some feel the need to be SP's?)

And doctrine should be arrived at through prayer and study; but unfortunately it is often Sent Down From Above, via the Corporate Office of your denomination; or insisted upon with a figurative pointed gun, via the RCC (for instance).

Christ left us many clues that will indicate whether we are on the right road or not; that i find repeated in exactly 0 churches. So...i fully agree with you! :D

[good samaritan]

And doctrine should be arrived at through prayer and study; but unfortunately it is often Sent Down From Above, via the Corporate Office of your denomination; or insisted upon with a figurative pointed gun, via the RCC (for instance).

I don't view my elders as some big corporate office that is disconnected from me. I respect elders and their definitions of principles. I would be very prayerful and thorough before ever disagreeing with an elder in the Lord. If through much deliberation I found them to be in error, I would then decide if it is significant enough to break ties. If not I would compromise my beliefs in order to keep unity in the body. Some feel they are being a hypocrite if they don't let it all hang out. I think be yourself, but at the same time we should create unity in the body.

Most of our ladies example a dress code that is gender distinctive. I never preach it and very seldom teach it, but we have lots of examples of it. One young lady who started coming to our church over a year ago disagrees that it is necessary, but yet she will not walk through our church doors without a dress or skirt. I love this young lady very much and would do nothing to offend her. I honor her for the respect that she shows to our church. I wouldn't say anything to her if she came in wearing a pair of pants and would be disappointed to hear if anyone else did. It is her choice to be respectful.

If this person came to me and wanted to take a leadership role in our church we would have to discuss the example that our leaders must present. A person may disagree with my doctrinal stances on particular standards, but surely they can understand why we could not allow people to become leaders in the church who are not unified with the doctrines we teach. Everyone is entitled to believe for them self what is right and wrong, but in the church elders or pastors are given the oversight to see that unity is maintained. Leaders of a local body must over all speak the same thing.

[shazeep]

i'd like a while to consider your answer here, gs. i'll be back. I'd prefer to reply to what you meant, rather than react to some of what you have saidDoes it not say those who stumble at the word do so because of disobedience?my intent there was more "Scripture is def a sword, that divides, is it not?"

[shazeep]

If not I would compromise my beliefs in order to keep unity in the body.this one is really bugging me; can you expound or restate it? ty

[Abiding Now]

Ephesians 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

[shazeep]

hey, amen there; but at the cost of "compromising my beliefs?"
which does not necessarily mean "compromising my faith,"
tho most Christians seem to make the two synonymous...

[good samaritan]

The second paragraph is an example of what I meant. I didn't intend on compromising anything significant as water baptism, spirit infilling, etc. My post stated that things that aren't very significant. Paul refused to eat meat while in certain company. Do you think that he was a hypocrite for that? I don't. I believe he sought not to offend. I have not found a church ever that I agreed with everything, but I never found anything so important that I should have to stand up and object. On the other side of the coin, I believe that others in the church should not be intolerant. They should give people a chance to grow without cramming things down their throat. To me exampling something is far more effective then simply talking about it. Their is balance in all this. No one is a dictator, but yet we are to willfully submit to one another. Everything should be done in the bonds of love. Hope this helped.

[Pressing-On]

I don't view my elders as some big corporate office that is disconnected from me. I respect elders and their definitions of principles. I would be very prayerful and thorough before ever disagreeing with an elder in the Lord. If through much deliberation I found them to be in error, I would then decide if it is significant enough to break ties. If not I would compromise my beliefs in order to keep unity in the body. Some feel they are being a hypocrite if they don't let it all hang out. I think be yourself, but at the same time we should create unity in the body.

Most of our ladies example a dress code that is gender distinctive. I never preach it and very seldom teach it, but we have lots of examples of it. One young lady who started coming to our church over a year ago disagrees that it is necessary, but yet she will not walk through our church doors without a dress or skirt. I love this young lady very much and would do nothing to offend her. I honor her for the respect that she shows to our church. I wouldn't say anything to her if she came in wearing a pair of pants and would be disappointed to hear if anyone else did. It is her choice to be respectful.

If this person came to me and wanted to take a leadership role in our church we would have to discuss the example that our leaders must present. A person may disagree with my doctrinal stances on particular standards, but surely they can understand why we could not allow people to become leaders in the church who are not unified with the doctrines we teach. Everyone is entitled to believe for them self what is right and wrong, but in the church elders or pastors are given the oversight to see that unity is maintained. Leaders of a local body must over all speak the same thing.

I feel that it is confusion to say that "standards" are "not" a heaven or hell issue, yet, if you don't follow them, you are viewed as backslid. It projects to me, that leadership is not certain and are afraid to define one way or the other. A minister in one of the prominent UPCI churches says, "It is better to be safe than sorry." That isn't good enough, IMO, to pronounce judgment and to make a doctrine.

[good samaritan]

1 Thess. 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

If something seems to be bad then stay away from it is a good thing. Anyone saying something must be proven thoroughly wrong before it can be followed seems to have the legalistic mindset. I believe we should have validity to teaching. If their are specific things that you would like to refute I enjoy the dialogue.

[shazeep]

The second paragraph is an example of what I meant. I didn't intend on compromising anything significant as water baptism, spirit infilling, etc. My post stated that things that aren't very significant. Paul refused to eat meat while in certain company. Do you think that he was a hypocrite for that? I don't. I believe he sought not to offend. I have not found a church ever that I agreed with everything, but I never found anything so important that I should have to stand up and object. On the other side of the coin, I believe that others in the church should not be intolerant. They should give people a chance to grow without cramming things down their throat. To me exampling something is far more effective then simply talking about it. Their is balance in all this. No one is a dictator, but yet we are to willfully submit to one another. Everything should be done in the bonds of love. Hope this helped.yes, ty!

[shazeep]

I feel that it is confusion to say that "standards" are "not" a heaven or hell issue, yet, if you don't follow them, you are viewed as backslid. It projects to me, that leadership is not certain and are afraid to define one way or the other. A minister in one of the prominent UPCI churches says, "It is better to be safe than sorry." That isn't good enough, IMO, to pronounce judgment and to make a doctrine.
amen! this, for me, is an example of one not being willing to "compromise their beliefs for the sake of unity." i guess i should also testify that i only read about this, and have never been a party to it, in any Pent church that i have attended. I wonder if this is because i present pretty moderately, or have largely attended those churches in more urban settings, or what? I've never even witnessed it that i can recall! It is really just a recurring story to me.

[KeptByTheWord]

I feel that it is confusion to say that "standards" are "not" a heaven or hell issue, yet, if you don't follow them, you are viewed as backslid. It projects to me, that leadership is not certain and are afraid to define one way or the other. A minister in one of the prominent UPCI churches says, "It is better to be safe than sorry." That isn't good enough, IMO, to pronounce judgment and to make a doctrine.

Exactly, and well said PO! This was what I encountered in all OP churches we attended. Unless there is a clear statement made that all who "________" (fill in the blank) will not be part of the kingdom of heaven... then we should not fill that blank in with anything other than what we see written down in scripture.

[KeptByTheWord]

If something seems to be bad then stay away from it is a good thing. Anyone saying something must be proven thoroughly wrong before it can be followed seems to have the legalistic mindset. I believe we should have validity to teaching. If their are specific things that you would like to refute I enjoy the dialogue.

This is where teaching saints to be led of the spirit must come in to play. What is bad for you, may not be bad for me. For example - maybe I have a weakness for ______ (Fill in blank)... but it is not a problem for you. So for me, I stay away from that thing, and know it is a danger for me.... but for you, it is not even a temptation. This is where walking and being led by the spirit is the only way to walk triumphantly in Christ!

[good samaritan]

I believe people are made to sometimes look worse than they really are. I have never seen anyone mistreated or made to feel like a sinner over a pair of pants or having a television. I think people just want to hear someone else confess that they are o.k. for not doing it. When they don't get that confirmation they become upset and paint an unrealistic picture of other people. I am not saying that is always the case, but the majority.

[good samaritan]

This is where teaching saints to be led of the spirit must come in to play. What is bad for you, may not be bad for me. For example - maybe I have a weakness for ______ (Fill in blank)... but it is not a problem for you. So for me, I stay away from that thing, and know it is a danger for me.... but for you, it is not even a temptation. This is where walking and being led by the spirit is the only way to walk triumphantly in Christ!

Agreed, but what if you think it is o.k. to consume alcohol and your church teaches against it. Scripture says no where that it is a sin to drink alcohol, but it only forbids its excess. My church teaches against it. True that some can handle it and others cannot, but I would be flabbergasted to find out that a Holy Ghost filled saint at my church was having a beer.

How do you think the community would respond if I were to slip up and pull a drunk, because I kind of lost track of how many I had. I think that would destroy our witness and I could never effectively teach against the vices of drugs and alcohol again. I don't just want to wait on the Holy Ghost to convict me off everything, but I want to maintain a distance from sin. If things can lead to sin I want to point those things out.

Depending on a child's age we forbid them to do certain things altogether. I would never allow a 5 year old to cross the road alone. Is it wrong to cross the road? No, but it is dangerous for them because they lack the maturity to wait and look for traffic. Again teaching needs application, even if the Bible isn't specific on a subject.

In the end people will give an account for what they have taught and why they taught it. Also people will give an account for why they have rejected certain teachings. I don't at all believe that my knowledge of things is supreme above others. But as a pastor, I believe God has placed me to teach at my local assembly. I would be wrong if I didn't teach my insights to those who have been placed at our local assembly.

They have a right to disagree, but in the end all of our actions and our motivations will have to give an answer.

[thephnxman]

Agreed, but what if you think it is o.k. to consume alcohol and your church teaches against it. Scripture says no where that it is a sin to drink alcohol, but it only forbids its excess. My church teaches against it. True that some can handle it and others cannot, but I would be flabbergasted to find out that a Holy Ghost filled saint at my church was having a beer.
How do you think the community would respond if I were to slip up and pull a drunk, because I kind of lost track of how many I had. I think that would destroy our witness and I could never effectively teach against the vices of drugs and alcohol again. I don't just want to wait on the Holy Ghost to convict me off everything, but I want to maintain a distance from sin. If things can lead to sin I want to point those things out.
Depending on a child's age we forbid them to do certain things altogether. I would never allow a 5 year old to cross the road alone. Is it wrong to cross the road? No, but it is dangerous for them because they lack the maturity to wait and look for traffic. Again teaching needs application, even if the Bible isn't specific on a subject.
In the end people will give an account for what they have taught and why they taught it. Also people will give an account for why they have rejected certain teachings. I don't at all believe that my knowledge of things is supreme above others. But as a pastor, I believe God has placed me to teach at my local assembly. I would be wrong if I didn't teach my insights to those who have been placed at our local assembly.
They have a right to disagree, but in the end all of our actions and our motivations will have to give an answer.

Spoken as one who cares for the sheep.

[good samaritan]

Spoken as one who cares for the sheep.

Very Kind.

[Jason B]

Exactly, and well said PO! This was what I encountered in all OP churches we attended. Unless there is a clear statement made that all who "________" (fill in the blank) will not be part of the kingdom of heaven... then we should not fill that blank in with anything other than what we see written down in scripture.

Amen

[FlamingZword]

Agreed, but what if you think it is o.k. to consume alcohol and your church teaches against it. Scripture says no where that it is a sin to drink alcohol, but it only forbids its excess. My church teaches against it. True that some can handle it and others cannot, but I would be flabbergasted to find out that a Holy Ghost filled saint at my church was having a beer.

How do you think the community would respond if I were to slip up and pull a drunk, because I kind of lost track of how many I had. I think that would destroy our witness and I could never effectively teach against the vices of drugs and alcohol again. I don't just want to wait on the Holy Ghost to convict me off everything, but I want to maintain a distance from sin. If things can lead to sin I want to point those things out.

Depending on a child's age we forbid them to do certain things altogether. I would never allow a 5 year old to cross the road alone. Is it wrong to cross the road? No, but it is dangerous for them because they lack the maturity to wait and look for traffic. Again teaching needs application, even if the Bible isn't specific on a subject.

In the end people will give an account for what they have taught and why they taught it. Also people will give an account for why they have rejected certain teachings. I don't at all believe that my knowledge of things is supreme above others. But as a pastor, I believe God has placed me to teach at my local assembly. I would be wrong if I didn't teach my insights to those who have been placed at our local assembly.

They have a right to disagree, but in the end all of our actions and our motivations will have to give an answer.

Well spoken, I will drink to that. :D

[shazeep]

:lol just couldn't resist, huh

[KeptByTheWord]

Agreed, but what if you think it is o.k. to consume alcohol and your church teaches against it. Scripture says no where that it is a sin to drink alcohol, but it only forbids its excess. My church teaches against it. True that some can handle it and others cannot, but I would be flabbergasted to find out that a Holy Ghost filled saint at my church was having a beer.

How do you think the community would respond if I were to slip up and pull a drunk, because I kind of lost track of how many I had. I think that would destroy our witness and I could never effectively teach against the vices of drugs and alcohol again. I don't just want to wait on the Holy Ghost to convict me off everything, but I want to maintain a distance from sin. If things can lead to sin I want to point those things out.

Depending on a child's age we forbid them to do certain things altogether. I would never allow a 5 year old to cross the road alone. Is it wrong to cross the road? No, but it is dangerous for them because they lack the maturity to wait and look for traffic. Again teaching needs application, even if the Bible isn't specific on a subject.

In the end people will give an account for what they have taught and why they taught it. Also people will give an account for why they have rejected certain teachings. I don't at all believe that my knowledge of things is supreme above others. But as a pastor, I believe God has placed me to teach at my local assembly. I would be wrong if I didn't teach my insights to those who have been placed at our local assembly.

They have a right to disagree, but in the end all of our actions and our motivations will have to give an answer.

I don't have a problem with you teaching your insights to those in your general assembly. I would have a problem with it, if you began to insist that following your personal insights exactly would be the only way to be saved. There is a fine line, and a balance there.

From what you've shown in your posts, with your kind and loving spirit, I doubt there is a problem with how you present your thoughts on how best to live out your salvation. But at the same time - realizing that you treat your 25-yo child different than your 1-yo child - it is not a one-size fit all message, now is it?

Definitely consideration must be taken to the maturity of the believer... but don't continue to treat all the saints as if they are still babies, when they should be mature enough in Christ to make decisions about "crossing the road" themselves, instead of having to come to you at (say) 50-years-old to ask if they can "cross the road"...

Do you understand that it is very easy to begin to tell folks they must do such and such... or else? That is a slippery slope, that begins with the best of intentions.

[good samaritan]

I teach principles with applications, but you are correct to say one size does not fit all. People will be accountable for their personal decisions, so by all means they should decide for their self what they feel is truth. In most cases if you have people that are hungry for God you will never have problems with a holiness lifestyle. Righteousness comes through God it all belongs to Him. The closer we get to Him the more it is revealed in us.

[KeptByTheWord]

I teach principles with applications, but you are correct to say one size does not fit all. People will be accountable for their personal decisions, so by all means they should decide for their self what they feel is truth. In most cases if you have people that are hungry for God you will never have problems with a holiness lifestyle. Righteousness comes through God it all belongs to Him. The closer we get to Him the more it is revealed in us.

:thumbsup And realize too - you cannot "save" people. Pastors sometimes feel it is their responsibility to make sure their saints get saved. It's not. Each is responsible for their own salvation.

Remember the parable of the sower - it was not the sower's fault that the seed fell on difficult places that would not allow the word to root. There are just some people regardless of how well you teach and love, who are not going to accept the word and let it root in their hearts. It doesn't mean you treat those folks bad, or in a hateful way, but it helps to know that you are not responsible for the salvation of each individual believer - they are responsible for their own receiving of the word, and application of it too.

[thephnxman]

:thumbsup And realize too - you cannot "save" people. Pastors sometimes feel it is their responsibility to make sure their saints get saved. It's not. Each is responsible for their own salvation.

Remember the parable of the sower - it was not the sower's fault that the seed fell on difficult places that would not allow the word to root. There are just some people regardless of how well you teach and love, who are not going to accept the word and let it root in their hearts. It doesn't mean you treat those folks bad, or in a hateful way, but it helps to know that you are not responsible for the salvation of each individual believer - they are responsible for their own receiving of the word, and application of it too.

AMEN! The job of the Ministry is to teach the sheep to be responsible.

[Abiding Now]

Talk about CONFUSION!

Judge 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

or...

Ezekiel 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

[good samaritan]

:thumbsup And realize too - you cannot "save" people. Pastors sometimes feel it is their responsibility to make sure their saints get saved. It's not. Each is responsible for their own salvation.

Remember the parable of the sower - it was not the sower's fault that the seed fell on difficult places that would not allow the word to root. There are just some people regardless of how well you teach and love, who are not going to accept the word and let it root in their hearts. It doesn't mean you treat those folks bad, or in a hateful way, but it helps to know that you are not responsible for the salvation of each individual believer - they are responsible for their own receiving of the word, and application of it too.


I have been teaching recently on soil cultivation. Although, I know that this parable is true, I refuse to give up. I want to get people concentrating on the condition of their heart. the three poor ground conditions are this:

shallowness- they didn't have a open mind to the word of God and allow it to penetrate.

lack of endurance- they couldn't hold out through the trials of their faith

lust- they were so caught up in life and their own happiness that they forgot about what was most important.

I believe each of these conditions if recognized can be overcame. We must help people to recognize the condition of their own heart. If recognized, I believe the soil can be cultivated.

[ILG]

For those of you that missed it the first time around:

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a usually pejorative[citation needed] term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. On the Biblical viewpoint that redemption is not earned by works, but that obedient faith is required to enter and remain in the redeemed state, see Covenantal nomism.
__________________

[ILG]

Agreeing to disagree can be a good thing :)

:thumbsup

[ILG]

If I may share my thought of how to define legalism:

Legalism (as demonstrated by the Pharisees) is taking a principle, interpreting that principle with an application and then using your application of that principle to judge others by.

A better way would be to be to allow the Spirit to interpret the principle, and apply it to your life, but understand that others may be led of the spirit to have a different application of the principle in their lives.

The best way to do this.... is to walk in the spirit! Gal. 5:16, 18 "This I say then, walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" .... but if ye be led of the spirit ye are not under the law."

Very good, KBTW!

[ILG]

I feel that it is confusion to say that "standards" are "not" a heaven or hell issue, yet, if you don't follow them, you are viewed as backslid. It projects to me, that leadership is not certain and are afraid to define one way or the other. A minister in one of the prominent UPCI churches says, "It is better to be safe than sorry." That isn't good enough, IMO, to pronounce judgment and to make a doctrine.

:yourock

[KeptByTheWord]

I have been teaching recently on soil cultivation. Although, I know that this parable is true, I refuse to give up. I want to get people concentrating on the condition of their heart. the three poor ground conditions are this:

shallowness- they didn't have a open mind to the word of God and allow it to penetrate.

lack of endurance- they couldn't hold out through the trials of their faith

lust- they were so caught up in life and their own happiness that they forgot about what was most important.

I believe each of these conditions if recognized can be overcame. We must help people to recognize the condition of their own heart. If recognized, I believe the soil can be cultivated.

:thumbsup

It is very good to teach these things, helping believers to understand that they themselves are responsible for cultivating and preparing their heart for the Lord to work in them.

I have known pastors to get frustrated because folks they are teaching just don't "get it", and then begin to come up with more laws and rules to try to force or coerce them into complying with their perception of how to be saved. This again is a slippery slope to beware of. More laws, rules, etc., won't save people. If they don't allow the spirit to do the work, more laws simply won't get the job done either.

[good samaritan]

I don't disagree. I am not a legalist, but a follower of Jesus.

[Esaias]

Seems that, considering how dreadful and awful "legalism" is said to be, we could just get a Biblical definition of it?

Looks to me like "legalism" is simply "any belief that I ought to do something other than what I believe I ought to do." Or "the belief thay one is obligated by God to do something other than what one thinks is, or accepts as, obligatory".

In other words, it's all relative to who is is using the term.

Since the bible does not identify any so called "legalism", we create definitions to suit our purposes - usually to justify ourselves and help us feel morally and spiritually superior to people we disagree with.

That's what it looks like from here, anyway.

Isn't it kind of funny? The "legalists" create all sorts of unbiblical doctrines... but so do the "anti-legalists". Kind of like... pentecost is riddled with the traditions of men that make void the word of God...?

[ILG]

The word legalism isn't in the bible but the concept is, like in Colossians 2:20-23King James Version (KJV)

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Here is a good article:http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html

[KeptByTheWord]

Seems that, considering how dreadful and awful "legalism" is said to be, we could just get a Biblical definition of it?

Looks to me like "legalism" is simply "any belief that I ought to do something other than what I believe I ought to do." Or "the belief thay one is obligated by God to do something other than what one thinks is, or accepts as, obligatory".

In other words, it's all relative to who is is using the term.

Since the bible does not identify any so called "legalism", we create definitions to suit our purposes - usually to justify ourselves and help us feel morally and spiritually superior to people we disagree with.

That's what it looks like from here, anyway.

Isn't it kind of funny? The "legalists" create all sorts of unbiblical doctrines... but so do the "anti-legalists". Kind of like... pentecost is riddled with the traditions of men that make void the word of God...?

Since the word "oneness" isn't in the bible, then why is so much time spent discussing it? Since the word "bible" isn't in the bible, why do we even waste our time discussing the bible?

See how silly your premise is? Let's not discuss legalism because the word just isn't in the bible. lol...

[KeptByTheWord]

The word legalism isn't in the bible but the concept is, like in Colossians 2:20-23King James Version (KJV)

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Here is a good article:http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html

Very good!

[thephnxman]

"You have faith? Have it unto yourself...for everything that is not of faith is sin."

We all have a "common faith", and we tend to get it mixed up with our personal
faith...or a personal calling. The Lord will not ask anything of us that we cannot
do. That's right. He will ask us to "Be holy, as I am holy...": but in asking us,
He will also give us the POWER to obey! Whether we believe and use that POWER,
or not...that's between God and myself...between God and yourself. It becomes
whether or not we believe God has spoken to us (individually or as a body), or
whether we will obey God. It's as simple as that. To paraphrase Joshua:

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom
ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served before they or you
were "born again", or the gods of them that love and control this world system,
in whose land ye are currently living: but as for me and my house, we will serve
the LORD."

[Esaias]

Since the word "oneness" isn't in the bible, then why is so much time spent discussing it? Since the word "bible" isn't in the bible, why do we even waste our time discussing the bible?

See how silly your premise is? Let's not discuss legalism because the word just isn't in the bible. lol...

I did not say "because THE WORD LEGALISM isn't in the bible."

Now, see how silly your response is?

;)