Tony Spell has church in spite of the ban

[Scott Pitta]

If churches obey public health and safety regulations, why disobey the restrictions made during the pandemic ?

I do not recall seeing any reports of churches defying the feds during the 1918 pandemic. Why be different now ?

Having a church during a pandemic is like serving potato salad to members at a potluck dinner that was left out and spoiled. Expose members to contaminated food and leave risk management to God. It is our right and tradition.

Is the risk worth it ? Who is responsible for needless deaths ? Will the credibility of the local church suffer in the eyes of the community ? What are the legal liabilities ?

Turn the other cheek and wear the mask. Put others first and practice social distancing.

[TJJJ]

Pacifism in the New Testament church has proved to work well for 2000 years .

[james34]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

If churches obey public health and safety regulations, why disobey the restrictions made during the pandemic ?

I do not recall seeing any reports of churches defying the feds during the 1918 pandemic. Why be different now ?

Having a church during a pandemic is like serving potato salad to members at a potluck dinner that was left out and spoiled. Expose members to contaminated food and leave risk management to God. It is our right and tradition.

Is the risk worth it ? Who is responsible for needless deaths ? Will the credibility of the local church suffer in the eyes of the community ? What are the legal liabilities ?

Turn the other cheek and wear the mask. Put others first and practice social distancing.

So much error in the post above.

1) The credibility of the church in the eyes of carnal man was always in question.
There is always a point where the church has to decide it is doing the will of God even if it doesn’t please man. “ Whether we ought to obey man rather than God”
...and the church( not carnal man) has to decide where that point is.

The 1918 pandemic did not get its momentum from internet social media and MSN media hype. People witnesses with their own eyes mass death. They were not reacting on here say or a news report .

There is a place where it’s better to die in faith than to live in fear at the expense of faith being cast aside.

Heb 11:35 - Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

If churches obey public health and safety regulations, why disobey the restrictions made during the pandemic ?

Ah, yes. The "pandemic" with a 99.9% plus survival rate for the vast majority of people, especially those under 65.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I do not recall seeing any reports of churches defying the feds during the 1918 pandemic. Why be different now ?

As James already pointed out, people could see the effects for themselves in real time, they weren't being told something that contradicted what they saw with their own eyes. Also, that tended to affect younger people more, as opposed to the WuFlu that primarily affected older people. If we had just protected them, rather than shutting down our entire economy, the world would have been better off.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Having a church during a pandemic is like serving potato salad to members at a potluck dinner that was left out and spoiled. Expose members to contaminated food and leave risk management to God. It is our right and tradition.

That is a completely ridiculous argument.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Is the risk worth it ?

Why aren't people allowed to decide for themselves if the risk is worth it? Why do we have to wait for daddy goobermint to tell us? Especially since daddy likes to change policy all the time. Don't wear the mask, then wear the mask. Then lock down, then don't lock down, then lock down again. Wear two masks, don't wear two masks. The list goes on and on and on.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Who is responsible for needless deaths?

Can you tell me truthfully that there was an outbreak of "needless deaths" from churches holding services?

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Will the credibility of the local church suffer in the eyes of the community?

What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

What are the legal liabilities?

Ah yes, because all our decisions should be based on whether or not we'll face legal repurcussions.

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Turn the other cheek and wear the mask. Put others first and practice social distancing.

I guess you didn't get the memo, "social distancing" is a crock. First it was 6 feet, then 3 feet, then they found out that distancing doesn't make a lick of difference indoors, it's how much time you spend around people. Go bow down at the altar of your god goobermint, the rest of us will be worshipping the one true God.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Jito463

The "new covenant" is built on the foundations of the "old covenant". Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it. When the Bible says that one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", there's a grave misunderstanding of the word 'kill'. It means not to commit murder, it doesn't mean that killing itself is verboten. Killing in self defense is permitted, killing to protect others is permitted, killing in defense of your country is permitted and killing in the name of justice is permitted. Killing is not prohibited, committing murder is.

Now, before you go accusing me of being bloodthirsty, I don't want to kill anyone. No one sane wants to take another life - and I pray every day that I don't have to - but those of us who carry, acknowledge that it's sometimes necessary.

Originally Posted by Jito463

The "new covenant" is built on the foundations of the "old covenant". Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it.

I agree with you. I’m in no wise saying we take the Old Covenant and throw it out the window, nor am I saying rip it out of your Bible or Tablet. Yet, as you stated which was first spoken by our Lord, Jesus Christ. He came to fulfill the law. That word that you have quoted, means complete, furnish, etc... Now, are YOU going to follow the Law (Old Covenant) in the light of the New Covenant fully? If so, How can you? How can you follow the Old Covenant completely to the letter and at the same time follow the New Covenant to the letter? The Old Covenant was not complete, what completed it, was the spirit and life of Jesus Christ.

For example,

Exodus 21:24-27
[24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
[25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
[26] And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
[27] And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

This was allowed in the times of the Former Covenant.
If someone hit you, you had every right in earth and heaven to hit them back.

How was this fulfilled?

Luke 6:28-31
[28] Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. [29] And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
[30] Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
[31] And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

In our previous text, it spoke of vengeance, someone hurt your eye, you need to hurt them back. Yet, in the Light of the New Covenant, by the way the same covenant that you correctly said fulfilled the old. We are to turn the other cheek for the same person that just hit us, in order for him to hit us again. That’s what Jesus is teaching, something totally opposite of the Old Covenant. I could give you more examples, yet I know you already know them. So, once again, which Covenant are you going to follow the Old or the New?

Originally Posted by Jito463

Killing in self defense is permitted, killing to protect others is permitted, killing in defense of your country is permitted and killing in the name of justice is permitted. Killing is not prohibited, committing murder is.

You do as you feel.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Pacifism in the New Testament church has proved to work well for 2000 years .

The Loudest ones are always the first to go.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

This is gonna be blunt, but have you killed anyone in the name of God recently? If not, then based on what you wrote, you too are choosing what part of the Bible to obey

Show me the Scripture(s) that command me to go out and kill people.

But let's just pretend for a moment that you are right (you aren't, but let's say you are for the sake of discussion). Then what exactly did you just prove? That we are both wrong and in error and following our own self created heresies? That we are both headed to the lake of fire? Is that some kind of consolation for you? "Well, I may be lost but you are too, so that makes me content to be lost"?

Think about it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Jesus Christ came and said Love your enemies! Jesus also said take a sword, now what you do with that sword is all up to you. If you believe when the time comes you can take another persons life in the name of your religion then you and Muslims have at it.

After the life of Jesus, where is the sword of Paul being used, were is the sword of Peter killing in self defense? Even as the Roman armies came, God sent his people to another city to avoid the fighting.

Jesus said he could call on angels from heaven, he even said if my kingdom where of this world my servants would fight like some on this forum is talking about. Yet, we at least I haven’t been commanded to fight against man for this country. Sorry! The kingdom I’m part of is not of this world.

The crew on this forum would rather take matters into their own hands and call on the name of Smith & Wesson or on the mighty name of AR-15 to be there defender. Why are they so afraid of calling on the name of Jesus?

Notice how, instead of actually dealing with what was said, you create this red herring and straw man (with a side dish of ad hominem) about people on the forum greatly preferring to rely on Smith and Wesson or the AR 15 INSTEAD of calling upon and trusting God.

And there's the additional misrepresentation that people on this forum want to "fight" in the same context that Jesus talked about when He referenced the possibility or probability of His disciples taking up arms to prevent His execution.

I learned a long time ago that when person A makes a point, and person B responds by utterly misrepresenting person A, it is because person B has no argument and person A is likely correct.

And about that "calling on Smith and Wesson vs calling on the name of the Lord"...

To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, Maschil. We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them. Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for Jacob. Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us. For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. But thou hast saved us from our enemies, and hast put them to shame that hated us. In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah.
(Psa 44:1-8)

A few remarks:

1. This is a retelling of the basic story of how Israel took possession of the land of Canaan.

2. David and the old timers who were devout asserted they did NOT achieve victory through their own swords and arrows, by their own force of arms.

3. They did not trust in their weapons or military skills.

4. God is the One who gave them victory. God is the One in whom they trusted. God is the One upon whose name they called.

5. Yet it is an historical fact verified by even a modest perusal of the Bible that the Conquest of Canaan was achieved through the mechanism of military force of arms.

YOU and the other pseudo-pacificists* (see note below) on this board would have us believe there is a DILEMMA, that it is one or the other, that you can either trust God or use a weapon. But the BIBLE teaches that it is NOT a "one or the other" situation. The Bible teaches us that BY FAITH and TRUSTING in the Lord, by CALLING ON HIS NAME, the faithful of old WAGED ACTUAL PHYSICAL MILITARY WAR AGAINST THEIR ENEMIES AND PREVAILED.

It even says "Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us."

So once again, you are proving you do not actually believe the Bible. But instead you believe some other religion you like to call "Christianity".

*Note: I say "pseudo pacificists" because you people aren't REAL pacificists. You are perfectly fine with someone ELSE doing the "dirty work" for you. You have no problem with police using weapons, force, and even deadly force to enforce the laws. If your house were broken into, you know full well that after you had your prayer you would "trust in Jesus" to enable the cops to find and forcibly detain and imprison the thief by use of deadly weapons and if the cops killed the thief in the process you would just be like "Oh, that's too bad and so sad, but play stupid games win stupid prizes. Many such cases."

Amirite? You KNOW I'm right.

A TRUE pacificist abhors and protests and disavows the use of force at all times by all people in all situations. PERIOD. But that's not you guys. You aren't real pacificists, anymore than you are real Bible believers.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Actually based on Esaias doctrine (and previous discussions on this forum), Christians are supposed to be putting some unbelievers to death. Specifically, he mentioned witches, homosexuals among others who should be executed.
So yes, per his teaching, God has ordered him to be doing that…so you are the one arguing stupidly��

Talk about stupidity.

I have made it abundantly clear over and over and over again that the Bible teaches it is the responsibility of THE STATE to execute capital punishments against capital offenders.

See? You don't even know what you are talking about. So you resort to bearing false witness (a damnable sin, by the way, right up there with - gasp - idolatry and SABBATH BREAKING).

Did you know that THE LAW OF GOD requires capital offenders to be executed UPON CONVICTION with AT LEAST two witnesses? That THE LAW OF GOD would CONDEMN TO DEATH any person who just took it upon themselves to go out willy nilly and start killing people without having a proper governmental mandate to do such?

No, you would not know that, because you don't consider that "old testament law" to be of any real value to anyone today. Never mind that the LAW OF GOD defines what is SIN and displays the will of God on the subject of "how shall we live?"

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by MawMaw

Just saw a video from Pastor Spell that the US 5th Circuit Appeals Court, ruled in the Church's favor! This is wonderful! A victory for ALL churches!

Good news.