Foot washing

[Steve Epley]

The attitude toward the Word of God and Jesus words in particular is alarming I think we have some closet agnostics posting here. Professing themselves wise they became fools. I hope this isn't being fulfilled here.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Esther

How are you going to twist "this OUGHT YOU to do also"?

Not gonna twist it at all Esther. I am going to understand it, as the example it was meant to be.

They understood Jesus meant for them to serve one another.

There are those that wash feet at every oportunity but they have no clue as to how to serve their brothers or sisiters TODAY and miss countless opportunity's to humbly serve others.

They go wash some feet and all their guilt is gone.

This supposed command Jesus gave. It was recorded conversation between Jesus and 12 people he was teaching an object lesson on humble service.

He told them they should follow his EXAMPLE. We have absolutley no record if there was ever another foot washing service in the early church.

Communion Paul delt with in 1 Corinthians with no mention to them of footwashing.

Foot wash all you want. but to condemn those who prefer not to in this day and age is not right.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Not gonna twist it at all Esther. I am going to understand it, as the example it was meant to be.

They understood Jesus meant for them to serve one another.

There are those that wash feet at every oportunity but they have no clue as to how to serve their brothers or sisiters TODAY and miss countless opportunity's to humbly serve others.

They go wash some feet and all their guilt is gone.

This supposed command Jesus gave. It was recorded conversation between Jesus and 12 people he was teaching an object lesson on humble service.

He told them they should follow his EXAMPLE. We have absolutley no record if there was ever another foot washing service in the early church.

Communion Paul delt with in 1 Corinthians with no mention to them of footwashing.

Foot wash all you want. but to condemn those who prefer not to in this day and age is not right.

Wrong again. 1Tim 5:9-10 it was a qualification for a widow indeed. Note also in Acts where it mentions the breaking of bread nothing is said about the drinking the cup because it was understood it was included. Since the feetwashing was the same service the same could be said about it.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Not gonna twist it at all Esther. I am going to understand it, as the example it was meant to be.

They understood Jesus meant for them to serve one another.

There are those that wash feet at every oportunity but they have no clue as to how to serve their brothers or sisiters TODAY and miss countless opportunity's to humbly serve others.

They go wash some feet and all their guilt is gone.

This supposed command Jesus gave. It was recorded conversation between Jesus and 12 people he was teaching an object lesson on humble service.

He told them they should follow his EXAMPLE. We have absolutley no record if there was ever another foot washing service in the early church.

Communion Paul delt with in 1 Corinthians with no mention to them of footwashing.

Foot wash all you want. but to condemn those who prefer not to in this day and age is not right.

Day and age has NOTHING to do with following an EXAMPLE. Jesus gave the EXAMPLE and then commanded them to DO the same. The wording in Lu.22 concerning communion is 'this DO" the wording is the same.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Wrong again. 1Tim 5:9-10 it was a qualification for a widow indeed. Note also in Acts where it mentions the breaking of bread nothing is said about the drinking the cup because it was understood it was included. Since the feetwashing was the same service the same could be said about it.

I figured you'd pull that scripture out of your hat Elder. The things mentioned were in regard to taking on the care of a "widow" not things to do to be saved.

Listed among them were the requirement to have brought up children. She must have lodged strangers,she needed to have relieved the afflicted.

to use this text to try to prove foot washing as salvational is to do great vilonce to the scripture.

You are out of context here Elder.

I have no doubt that widows washed the feet of saints back in that day.
Weary travelers had dirty feet when they arrived as guest at someones house.

All the things mentioned as requirement for a widow, along with humbly washing a guests feet were as Jesus taught in the example of Foot washing in John 13.

Acts of humble service.

Foot washing was a part of the culture of that day..it's plain and simple.

Only one time do we see it as a "religeuos event"


I goot run along now. heading to a leadership retreat in Wisconsin....we will be taking communion tgether...who knows, maybe we'll wash feet too.


Have a happy Day Elder E.

[nahkoe]

While the verdict is still out on foot washing, I find myself agreeing with the reason behind Elder Epley's words. It's hard for me to explain and why I usually don't say anything much about things like this. lol

Your post is why I think it should be approached cautiously from the pulpit and when addressing new converts.

And, even when taught, I think the emphasis should be on relationship vs rules. But the rules become part of that relationship, and that may be a controversial statement I guess. It's just how it worked in my life in the past. I'm not to that point now, but I was years ago.

I think the only thing a person needs to do to be saved is to seek after God with their whole heart. But, while seeking after God with their whole heart, a person is going to find commands and rules and requirements and do those things, or chose not to. Chosing not to obey is where things start getting a little shaky.

Oh, I also believe that no man can say whether another person is saved, still saved, or never was saved. Only God knows that. I also believe only God can hold a person accountable for obeying a command, because only God knows if the revelation of that command was something a person ever had. Man just can't create a list of rules and expect the revelation to fall on all who hear those rules. Following rules doesn't save anyone, following God does. And, that's my very off topic post in this thread for the day.

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Please don't think I'm ridiculing anyones convictions over any of the above. What I find disturbing is that its seems NO ONE is ever "quite" saved. The list seems to be growing day by day. Salvation is dangled in front of peoples eyes, just out of reach, like a carrot. At the beginning of Hs earthly ministry, Jesus simply said Repent. Peter comes along and says Repent and be baptized and get the Holy Ghost. The requirements for salvation has grown now (depending on who you listen to) to incude everything from the name on your church building to whats in your medicine cabinet. No wonder people are confused and are turning away from the Apostolic church.

Salvation has become an unreachable goal. Its out there... just in front of us...but we can never quite reach it. The brand of Apostolic Doctrine being preached in many quarters today offers no salvation. Only a promise of salvation that can never quite be attained. What is being preached today offers no joy. It offers no liberty in Christ. It does not set the captive free. It offers only bondage, restriction and regulation. Those enslaved in these "Prisons with Stained Glass Windows" as one evangelist described them, are burdened with guilt and bound with a yoke of fear. Thank God there is true salvation, available and free to all who obey the call of Christ to come unto Him, for His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

And thats my opinion.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The attitude toward the Word of God and Jesus words in particular is alarming I think we have some closet agnostics posting here. Professing themselves wise they became fools. I hope this isn't being fulfilled here.

Brother Epley-

With all respect to you as a minister, and not wishing to appear argumentative, but I haven't see the evidence of "closet agnostics" posting here. As I understand the definition of an agostic, I see no one
.... who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
....who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
....who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

I stand corrected. Perhaps the last difinition of an agnostic does apply here. But if I, or anyone else, have doubts and are noncommittal on an issue, it is because of the inconsistencies expressed in regards to those issues. In previous posts you stated quite emphatically that a person who did not partake of foot washing would be lost because it was a direct command of the Lord to do so. But then you said they would NOT be lost if they did not have the opportunity to obey this "command" they would not be lost. Then, in answer to my last post you said :

Acts 2:38 and obeying the gospel saves. Tithing cannot be ignored but i could die before I get paid. Church attendance is an obligation but sickness could prevent me. So are many commandments. But commandments refused-rejected-neglected will keep one out of the Rapture.

If tithing , church attendance, and foot washing are direct commands, then they would carry the same weight as baptism. What you are suggesting is that while foot washing IS a direct command, it is of lesser importance than water baptism. However it was Jesus who said these words: Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. It was James who added this: Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. According to your interpretation, it is permissible to break the lesser commandments. But, as we can clearly see, there are no lesser commandments. You say a person may die before having the opportunity to pay their tithes, and they would make it to heaven. Following that logic, and allowing that concession, wouldn’t it also be true for one who dies after repentance and BEFORE he is baptized? Or a Trinitarian, who dies before understanding the revelation of the Oneness of the Godhead?

No, Bro. Epley, there are no agnostics here. No one doubts the existence of God here. I haven’t seen where any one professes themselves to be wise, so there are no fools here. There are some, though, who question. Not the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. There are some question faulty logic, and incorrect interpretations. I don’t know who you were referring to as a closet agnostic. And that doesn’t really matter. But just know this: I respect you as a minister of the Gospel.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Brother Epley-

With all respect to you as a minister, and not wishing to appear argumentative, but I haven't see the evidence of "closet agnostics" posting here. As I understand the definition of an agostic, I see no one
.... who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
....who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
....who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

I stand corrected. Perhaps the last difinition of an agnostic does apply here. But if I, or anyone else, have doubts and are noncommittal on an issue, it is because of the inconsistencies expressed in regards to those issues. In previous posts you stated quite emphatically that a person who did not partake of foot washing would be lost because it was a direct command of the Lord to do so. But then you said they would NOT be lost if they did not have the opportunity to obey this "command" they would not be lost. Then, in answer to my last post you said :



If tithing , church attendance, and foot washing are direct commands, then they would carry the same weight as baptism. What you are suggesting is that while foot washing IS a direct command, it is of lesser importance than water baptism. However it was Jesus who said these words: Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. It was James who added this: Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. According to your interpretation, it is permissible to break the lesser commandments. But, as we can clearly see, there are no lesser commandments. You say a person may die before having the opportunity to pay their tithes, and they would make it to heaven. Following that logic, and allowing that concession, wouldn’t it also be true for one who dies after repentance and BEFORE he is baptized? Or a Trinitarian, who dies before understanding the revelation of the Oneness of the Godhead?

No, Bro. Epley, there are no agnostics here. No one doubts the existence of God here. I haven’t seen where any one professes themselves to be wise, so there are no fools here. There are some, though, who question. Not the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. There are some question faulty logic, and incorrect interpretations. I don’t know who you were referring to as a closet agnostic. And that doesn’t really matter. But just know this: I respect you as a minister of the Gospel.

Absolutely brilliant and true. Thank you for some excellent posts and wise words. My hat is off to you, OneAccord.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Brother Epley-

With all respect to you as a minister, and not wishing to appear argumentative, but I haven't see the evidence of "closet agnostics" posting here. As I understand the definition of an agostic, I see no one
.... who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
....who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
....who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

I stand corrected. Perhaps the last difinition of an agnostic does apply here. But if I, or anyone else, have doubts and are noncommittal on an issue, it is because of the inconsistencies expressed in regards to those issues. In previous posts you stated quite emphatically that a person who did not partake of foot washing would be lost because it was a direct command of the Lord to do so. But then you said they would NOT be lost if they did not have the opportunity to obey this "command" they would not be lost. Then, in answer to my last post you said :



If tithing , church attendance, and foot washing are direct commands, then they would carry the same weight as baptism. What you are suggesting is that while foot washing IS a direct command, it is of lesser importance than water baptism. However it was Jesus who said these words: Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. It was James who added this: Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. According to your interpretation, it is permissible to break the lesser commandments. But, as we can clearly see, there are no lesser commandments. You say a person may die before having the opportunity to pay their tithes, and they would make it to heaven. Following that logic, and allowing that concession, wouldn’t it also be true for one who dies after repentance and BEFORE he is baptized? Or a Trinitarian, who dies before understanding the revelation of the Oneness of the Godhead?

No, Bro. Epley, there are no agnostics here. No one doubts the existence of God here. I haven’t seen where any one professes themselves to be wise, so there are no fools here. There are some, though, who question. Not the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. There are some question faulty logic, and incorrect interpretations. I don’t know who you were referring to as a closet agnostic. And that doesn’t really matter. But just know this: I respect you as a minister of the Gospel.

Firstly I was NOT referring to you. However I am happy to answer your objections:
Acts 2:38 is the new birth that is ground zero without obeying Acts 2:38 the person is lost. Yes there are direct commands to the saved that the REFUSAL to do so would disqualify one from being saved. Jesus said "IF ye CONTINUE in My words then are ye my disciples indeed." If one fails to continue they will not be saved. But NOT having the opportunity is NOT refusing or rejecting to continue. Except a man be born again that is the starting point NO ONE counts until then. So every commandment takes prescedent after that and NONE are on the level with being saved. Which sets baptism separate and apart from any instructions given to saints. Baptism is part of the new birth that makes one a saint.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I can see Jesus at McDonald's... saying, "Paul, could you get me some more ketchup?"... and 2000 years later, we have this mysterious, spiritual ketchup ritual...

The example of feetwashing reduced to this and you doubt my observation?