I love being Apostolic!

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

I want to make myself clear on this point, here, because I'm tired of certain things being said in the church. I have no problem with the preaching of outward holiness. I believe outward Holiness is as important as inward, that the two go hand in hand and that if one claims to be saved one must be separate from the world. I understand THIS POINT. However, I want to make something clear, what I do have a problem with is when we turn our own traditions into holiness matters.

I DO have a problem with one church not fellow-shipping with another church simply because the pastor has facial hair and the women wear/don't wear veils. I DO have a problem with television, men wearing shorts, playing football, and women dying their hair becoming a "holiness" issue. I also respect every pastor's right to establish standards in their churches, and will respect those standards, however unless it IS a Heaven or Hell issue, it shouldn't even be a source of argument and Pentecostals have to realize that television is not going to send people to Hell, THE TELEVISION SHOWS people watch aren't going to send people to Hell.

Sin sends people to Hell.

If you are sinning, you are going to Hell. You are not going to Hell for watching the news on television, wearing shorts in 90 degree weather at an amusement park, or playing college basketball. I think we've gotten so wrapped up in our traditions we've forgotten that the Bible doesn't say anything about half of what we spend time barking about, while people are dying in their sins. It gets to the point where our churches are trying to prove which church has the members which are the "most separate" from the world. By abstaining from SIN we are already separate from the world. Yes there are some things that are Biblically sound and universal to the church. However, there's so much added to the church now that we've forgotten that there's actually a Bible we can read, that will tell us what the Apostles preached. The Apostles preached Jesus. The Apostles did set the church straight on many doctrinal issues, but many things were left up to the Pastors and to the individual in deciding what to do regarding certain societal issues.

If Paul came back today we'd have to sit him down and catch him up on the vast technological, social, and economic changes that have occurred since the first century. And yeah... I hear you "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Here's the thing I want to know on what grounds and authority the UPC has to speak on Christ's behalf against television? There was none in Paul's day, but there is now. There were no cars. There were no laptops, and iphones, and ipads. I believe that if Paul saw this generation he'd think the church as a whole was a joke. He'd hit every street he could, get on every television station that'd let him on, learn everything he possibly could about every single culture he could experience and preach what he preached in his day: HE PREACHED JESUS. And he'd preach it from the WORD OF GOD not from printed tracts.

How do I come to this conclusion? When Paul got saved he went into the desert in Arabia for years learning about nothing but Christ. Read 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 when he talks about becoming like a Jew to reach the Jews and like the gentiles to reach the gentiles. He studied society, he studied cultures, he observed and then he reached those cultures one by one. His mission was to reach out to the lost and establish churches. In this society I think Paul would put 90% of modern Apostolic churches to shame when it comes to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. Because he wouldn't be so focused on stuff that does nothing for the gospel like TV, he'd be interested in saving souls.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by scotty

I can't help myself.


Ok, maybe not condemning them, but their actions?


Which was sinful.


Right?

Wow...No that wasn't the point to the Epistles...the condemned are not saved. The Condemned are not the church. The Epistles were written to the church not to sinners to teach them HOW to be the church

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by scotty

Acts 5; 1-10

Accused
Condemned
Sentenced
Executed


On a side note; isn't that the point of the Epistles? Condemn the saints for going astray?

Why don't we actually do what He says, if you will study the gospels, the life of Jesus, you will find that He never condemned sinners, like we are so high developed in doing. BUT, NOW GET THIS, HE REBUKED THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS FOR ABUSING THE FOLKS. IF WE WANT TO BE LIKE JESUS......???

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by scotty

Didn't Jesus condemn the rich man?

After all, He told him what was needed for salvation, knowing he wouldn't do it.

NOPE, besides he was a religious fellow.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by scotty

Ah yes, the lifetime sinner vs the backslidder.

Not dodging at all, careful with the assumptions

So putting the Acts aside, again, what about the rich man?

I mean it was not direct condemnation

But it was point blank. "My way or the highway"

Jesus did not rebuke him nor condemn him, he asked pointed questions. However, again the man was a religious Jew and covered by the old covenant, not a "sinner".

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Agreed, it wasn't condemnation, it was just fact......either do this, or don't, your choice.

When I think of condemnation and judgment, I think of Jesus turning over the tables and chasing the money changers out of the temple, or calling the Pharisees out for their hypocrisy, etc.

I never see Jesus speaking to sinners that way, and by that I mean Mary Magdalene, the woman at the well, the man possessed of demons, the blind men who came to him, or called out for help from the wayside, etc.....good, honest people who had a need and had no knowledge of how to have that need met always curried favor from Jesus, not condemnation.........people who took the truth and twisted it for their own purposes always drew His wrath.

Finally, someone addresses my point, and gets it.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Ferd

We talk about condemnation what exactly are we talking about? Because Jesus didn’t condemn people but her certainly did condemn sinful actions.

His driving the money changers from the Temple is a good example. So are all the instances where he said "go and sin no more".

We also have biblical example of how to deal with someone in the church who is a continual source of evil. In the end the individual is driven from the congregation.

Sin is condemned. Sinners are at the very least treated in a way that would bring them to fellowship.

But the rich young ruler provides some insight. While Jesus was clear with him, he was also unbending. There was no negotiation. Was it condemnation? The man went away sorrowful. Jesus did not chase after him and offer him some watered down request. The mean walked into eternity separated from Christ because he would not give up everything he had. That was a pretty hard request.

The man condemned himself. Jesus didn’t pat him on the back and tell him they were still buds.

None the less, he was a Jew, and he was "saved" under the Old Covenant, he was not a "sinner".

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I guess I am back to being a hairy tick.

I do not believe that "His righteousness" is in us.

The way I read scripture, he has stamped us with HIS righteousness. In other words, he looks at us thru the lens of his Righteousness when we become his children.

His Righteousness does not make us holy any more than our own carnal "righteousness" gives us "Right Standing" before him.

Second. Holiness while inseparable from Righteousness is not extended to us nor is it applied to us as Righteousness is. Scripture repeats in both Old and New Testament, that we are to "be Holy". It is a command. At the same time, scripture tells us not to even try to "be righteous.”

I liken it to me telling my son, You are my son and there is nothing you can do to earn that status. NOW ACT LIKE IT.

Righteousness is extended because we have been adopted. We have taken on “right standing” in the Family by coming to God. Holiness is us acting like it.

Now go back to thinking you were made holy.

Exactly!!! Yet, religion instructs us to never stop trying to earn it.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I John 2
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2..He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

John writes this to Christians. It appears he is conceding that Christians sin. So how disobedient can you be?

"There is now, NO condemnation...." We are flaw and will sin, but if we are trusting in Jesus, then we should not be condemned. Of course, we should always be on a path of "repentance", which simply means that as we see where we are wrong we change directions, period. No need for condemnation, just continue to walk in faith and confidence of His grace and love. Condemnation does not come from God.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by crakjak

"There is now, NO condemnation...." We are flaw and will sin, but if we are trusting in Jesus, then we should not be condemned. Of course, we should always be on a path of "repentance", which simply means that as we see where we are wrong we change directions, period. No need for condemnation, just continue to walk in faith and confidence of His grace and love. Condemnation does not come from God.

Way to take a scripture out of context! There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Sorry but your entire interpretation and view of scripture and the plan of God is flawed. One of the most dangerous heresies circling today.