What Would You Say?

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

What the word DOES say in Matt 18 is that Jesus gave his future leaders power to bind/loose things on the earth and that HE would back them up and bind/loose them on earth.

I was born again in the UPC organization and the leaders of that organization has created some rules/standards that all licensed pastors of that organization are expected to obey and even sign their name in agreement to obey (do they still do this?).

If some don't want to obey those that have the rule over them in submission, they they are free to depart from the faith of that organization and find some other teachers that will teach the things that they want to hear and submit to.

But if they go, then let them go in peace and let both pray for each other that the will of God be done in their lives and let's not have those who DEPARTED spend the rest of their time whining and complaining and trying to drum up as much support as they can in CRITICISM of the faith that they departed from.

If you depart, then why can't you just try to win as many lost as you can and let the faith that you departed from do the same.

But I guess some for some strange reason just want to talk about and criticize, scorn, and debate about the faith that they have departed from.

How many times in a week can you start another thread about liberals vs. conservatives and holiness standards.

I wonder why those who depart from the faith can't just say - well god bless those holiness people if that's what they want to do - i wish them the best. But for some reason, the tone becomes like scorning, etc. Its almost like some have bitterness that they are holding onto and don't want to do the things they need to do to get rid of it.

Just some observations.

There is NO rule against facial hair in the UPC manual...also, their/your/my founders had facial hair...soooo, what about that???

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

Well I have been this way for 42 years and IIIIII ain't changed yet??? Someone has to hold on bro!

I'm in between... on a lot of issues...

[Monkeyman]

1 issue OP, and only 1...you say facial hair = rebellion. But the founders of the org that you and I were both born into had facial hair, so????

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

No, YOU said facial hair is rebellion, do I need to repost it?

I said that a social revolution occurred around the 50's and 60's where men grew long hair on their heads and on their faces as a deliberate sign and act of rebellion against established authority.

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I'm in between... on a lot of issues...

Well it don't help us cons when some others ADD to the Word and cause confusion!

Berk, seriously....I am/have/will be praying for you!!!!

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I said that a social revolution occurred around the 50's and 60's where men grew long hair on their heads and on their faces as a deliberate sign and act of rebellion against established authority.

And that movement has died... but you people give it life!

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I said that a social revolution occurred around the 50's and 60's where men grew long hair on their heads and on their faces as a deliberate sign and act of rebellion against established authority.

But....before the 50's the UPC/AOG/PAW founders had facial hair!!!!!!!! So no rebellion there. Get it??? You're adding man.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

That was given to the Apostles.. and to Paul...

This raises the question - why did Jesus give his future church leaders the ability to bind/loose some new things that he would also bind/loose in heaven?

Could it be that issues would arise that is not covered by the established word directly? If issues could arise in the early church and the leadership then could make binding decisions, is it so hard to believe that other new issues could arise up after the early church that would require church leadership to make binding decisions?

Remember that Jesus told THEM - men - that THEY would bind/loose some things and that in response to THEM binding/loosing some things on earth, that he would also bind/loose them in heaven.

He didn't say to them, I will first bind/loose them in heaven and then tell you about them so that you can bind/loose them on earth.

And in fact we have a very practical example in the book of Acts where an issue came up and the leadership met, discussed, and made more decisions than the original issue, and communicated them to all the gentile churches to be obeyed. The word even says that these rules were ORDAINED by the apostles and elders. And they wrote that what they decided seemed good to the Holy Ghost. Leadership made some binding decisions that God by His Spirit in men indicated that He was behind the decisions. Direct practical example of Matt 18.

The OT is full of examples where leaders made decisions about taking actions that were not written in the word of God, but the others were expected to follow and obey.

[berkeley]

He gave this authority to the Apostles!!

[CC1]

the old paths,

You have some really scary doctrinal ideas. Your beliefs are the kind that lead to following preachers into error as you believe the kind of things that they can bind on earth and they are then bound in heaven is dress codes, etc.