Life Church Houston

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by DAII

Paul had no issues calling a spade a spade ... went as far as calling out "false brethren" ...

I agree with Pelathais ... he has a charge and it's to tend and take care of the sheep God has bestowed ...

When a wolf comes to destroy ... it's time to take out the rod ...

If one believes JK is off in false doctrine, then I guess they'd see it differently, and actually apply the call to "care of the sheep of God" to even those who are delusionally attended his church.

And does the situational specifics matter? Some pastors use the "calling out" card for saints who leave their church regardless of the situation, them being bated or not.

I tend to agree with your depiction of the rod here while also fearing Christendom being nothing more than people clubbing each other to death.

[Sam]

Is this the same JK whose lie at GC in 1992 resulted in the passing of the AS?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Sam

Is this the same JK whose lie at GC in 1992 resulted in the passing of the AS?

What lie?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Sam

Is this the same JK whose lie at GC in 1992 resulted in the passing of the AS?

His son.

[berkeley]

Sam, wot was the lie? Interesting as years later JK regreted the "infernal document."

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Sam, wot was the lie? Interesting as years later JK regreted the "infernal document."

Maybe we ought to let that rest and not speak any more of that indiscretion.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Is this the same JK whose lie at GC in 1992 resulted in the passing of the AS?

His son.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Sam, wot was the lie? Interesting as years later JK regreted the "infernal document."

He said that he regretted that he had ever said anything about the resolution in 1992 when he apologized for his "indiscretion" in 1993.

What he said, and I was in the room... A brother had asked how the vote in the General Board Meeting had gone. JK (Sr.) responded "99% of the General Board approved this resolution."

The truth was that it was that after a highly contentious "discussion," the GB was only able to rally about two thirds of its members around the resolution - and many of them were wavering.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I would definitely Tweet about it.

This does represent something of a trial that most of the UPC is currently facing or will soon face. I've seen pastors actually drive their churches into the ground rather than pass the work along to anyone.

It's a sad fact; there is really very, very little vision for the future within the UPC. This was made especially clear recently when General Sup. DKB and the current Home Missions guy said that they were willing to dump the "second and third generation" of saints and focus on "winning souls" that were compatible with their agenda.

In my eyes, this facet of the UPC represents nothing but death. People like JK (Jr.) in Houston who actually cares about pastoring the souls that they've been charged with should be given more prominence.

The current path leads to an Isaiah 5:14, type of judgement.

We need more Isaiah 40, type of pastors.

Look at the contrast. No wonder folks say that Isaiah was written by "two different" men. We need our pastors to become "different men" as well.

I've never heard that expressed before.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Esther

I've never heard that expressed before.

It is a common facet of Biblical scholarship on the Old Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon06.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=QME...page&q&f=false

The Anchor Bible Commentary Series (among many others) devotes two separate volumes, one for each writer of Isaiah: http://www.amazon.com/Isaiah-1-39-An...ef=pd_sim_b_13

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the idea of there being "Two Isaiahs" goes at least as far back among Jewish writers as the early Middle Ages. (See the ISBE article "Isaiah").