What Would You Say? - Page 22

Monkeyman · #**211** 08-01-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

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.

Well all the binding and loosing in the last 2,000 years still hasn't landed us a RULE against facial hair in the UPC manual, are you bringing it to the floor at GC???

theoldpaths · #**212** 08-01-2008, 10:34 PM

I wonder what the Apostles would have said to CRITICISMS of them making binding decisions in Acts and communicating them to ALL of the gentile churches to obey. Some probably would have told them or gossiped/slandered behind their backs - who do they think they are - men creating binding decisions and expecting others to obey them - they are not God - they are taking responsibility that does not belong to them - it only belongs to God - or the responsibility belongs to everyone to do what they think is write because all the congregation is holy - but definitely the responsibility does not belong to them to rule over us like that.

Instead of having humility of mind and humbleness of heart and submitting themselves, they want to buck.

But perhaps those who have departed want to try and do something to justify themselves and soothe their consciences.

theoldpaths · #**213** 08-01-2008, 10:35 PM

I wonder what the Apostles would have said to CRITICISMS of them making binding decisions in Acts and communicating them to ALL of the gentile churches to obey. Some probably would have told them or gossiped/slandered behind their backs - who do they think they are - men creating binding decisions and expecting others to obey them - they are not God - they are taking responsibility that does not belong to them - it only belongs to God - or the responsibility belongs to everyone to do what they think is write - but definitely the responsibility does not belong to them to rule over us like that.

Instead of having humility of mind and humbleness of heart and submitting themselves, they want to buck.

But perhaps those who have departed want to try and do something to justify themselves and soothe their consciences.

Monkeyman · #**214** 08-01-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You see? This is what happens when you add T.O.P. They throw out the baby with the bath water. You and I can agree somewhat on certain outward appearances, although mine are nowhere as extreme as yours. But when you make illogical statements like facial hair was rebellion, out goes EVERYTHING!!!
I can at least get into a debate about shorn, cut, long, 1 step vs 3 step, dress code and we can argue until the cows come home on interpretations and the like, but facial hair??? Dude, there is NOTHING in there.

Monkeyman · #**215** 08-01-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I wonder what the Apostles would have said to CRITICISMS of them making binding decisions in Acts and communicating them to ALL of the gentile churches to obey. Some probably would have told them or gossiped/slandered behind their backs - who do they think they are - men creating binding decisions and expecting others to obey them - they are not God - they are taking responsibility that does not belong to them - it only belongs to God - or the responsibility belongs to everyone to do what they think is write because all the congregation is holy - but definitely the responsibility does not belong to them to rule over us like that.

Instead of having humility of mind and humbleness of heart and submitting themselves, they want to buck.

But perhaps those who have departed want to try and do something to justify themselves and soothe their consciences.

When did the Apostles "bind" facial hair....or better yet, who did?? And when? Why did I miss that meeting??? Was it your church? Your Pastor? What if he wasn't MY pastor? Mine held UPC license, in fact, he is your GS right now!!! Where is this rule?? Where is this standard on facial hair?

jaxfam6 · #**216** 08-01-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

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.

So by this statement you are saying that because of something that happened in the 50's and 60's the rules could be changed but because of something that happened in the 40's things couldn't change.

In the 40's women started working and the wearing of pants became more evident but that is not okay to continue in.
On the other hand because of a rebellion against established authority in the 50's and 60's it is now no longer feasible for men to have facial hair.
So we can change things as some men see fit but not others.

Okay well thanks for the clarification on that.

jaxfam6 · #**217** 08-01-2008, 10:40 PM

Iregards to the binding of things by the apostles I say that they had their chance and decided against it when they only said that they would only advise to refrain from the eating of meats offered to idols and blood and things strangled. That was ALL they seemed to find it fitting to bind STANDARD wise. But as seems to be the case we can bind and loose anything we want if we are the pastor. So lets all get our license and bind and loose at will.

Monkeyman · #**218** 08-01-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

Iregards to the binding of things by the apostles I say that they had their chance and decided against it when they only said that they would only advise to refrain from the eating of meats offered to idols and blood and things strangled. That was ALL they seemed to find it fitting to bind STANDARD wise. But as seems to be the case we can bind and loose anything we want if we are the pastor. So lets all get our license and bind and loose at will.

I'm all bound reading this thread and I haven't had any cheese!!!!

theoldpaths · #**219** 08-01-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkeley

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

Are you saying that movement has not created any long lasting effects and has not given birth to a lot of ungodliness and unholiness that is still alive today?

Are you aware of how many muscicians/bands in the 50's, 60's, etc had many followers and inspired many young people to become musicians and start bands and wrote about WHO their inspirations were?

Each generation since then has gotten worse and worse and worse. Kids are growing up faster than they ever have been. Tv and music has gotten worse and worse and worse.

Even tho Jezebel died in the OT, in Revelations we see Jesus speaking about a Jezebel in one church. The Spirit of Jezebel is alive and well today.

Monkeyman · #**220** 08-01-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Are you saying that movement has not created any long lasting effects and has not given birth to a lot of ungodliness and unholiness that is still alive today?

Are you aware of how many muscicians/bands in the 50's, 60's, etc had many followers and inspired many young people to become musicians and start bands and wrote about WHO their inspirations were?

Each generation since then has gotten worse and worse and worse. Kids are growing up faster than they ever have been. Tv and music has gotten worse and worse and worse.

Even tho Jezebel died in the OT, in Revelations we see Jesus speaking about a Jezebel in one church. The Spirit of Jezebel is alive and well today.

Kids today are NOT rebelling with mustaches, sheesh, man! That is rich!