***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

If your assessment is valid, than there should be no problem with a new set of landmarks. The landmarks established 50 years ago are not in the same place as the landmarks established in the Bible.

Landmarks are principles not rules. The guidelines established 50 years ago are rules.

I agree to an extent. But consider that when defining landmarks for today, it is just as important to "consider" the landmarks of recent years, as well as the lanmarks of 3500 years ago. It is only prudent for us to consider and take into account the reasoning behind our immediate predecessor's conclusions and integrate them in a way that is relevant and biblical today! Simply casting off the "landmarks" of our immediate predecessors is, IMO, unwise.

[tv1a]

There is no biblical precedence to suggests man made rules are infalliable, let alone establishing landmarks outside the Bible. The pharisees started out the same way. They interpreted principles a certain way.

Using your explaination of removing the ancient landmark, legalists are just as guilty of disobeying scripture by moving the landmarks to encompass a smaller space.
If the Bible says not to remove the ancient landmarks, it means not to move them in either direction.
It is difficult to see what the landmarks are with all the rules and regulations heaped on top of them.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree to an extent. But consider that when defining landmarks for today, it is just as important to "consider" the landmarks of recent years, as well as the lanmarks of 3500 years ago. It is only prudent for us to consider and take into account the reasoning behind our immediate predecessor's conclusions and integrate them in a way that is relevant and biblical today! Simply casting off the "landmarks" of our immediate predecessors is, IMO, unwise.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by tv1a

There is no biblical precedence to suggests man made rules are infalliable, let alone establishing landmarks outside the Bible. The pharisees started out the same way. They interpreted principles a certain way.

Using your explaination of removing the ancient landmark, legalists are just as guilty of disobeying scripture by moving the landmarks to encompass a smaller space.
If the Bible says not to remove the ancient landmarks, it means not to move them in either direction.
It is difficult to see what the landmarks are with all the rules and regulations heaped on top of them.

I agree... no problem here. But my simple little contention is not to disregard as "rules" the convictions of those who went immediately before us. They arrived at their conclusions through a process of prayer and personal consecration. And we must do the same as well. And yes, we are facing a different age, generation, and issues that those who went before us didn't face. And we are going to have to set some landmarks down ourselves. But in doing that, it is only appropriate to be studious as to WHY and HOW our immediate predecessors came to their conclusions. To simply disregard their stance and conclusions as "antiquated" etc. is unwise, and really is fundamentally foolish.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

[tv1a]

This is so evident with the internet television debate. I believe those who went before us established rules based on principles. I believe with my whole heart those men would be against internet as strong as they were against television. Just like in Jesus' day, we have a group of people who are unable to get a conviction on their own and rely on a 50 year old cultural conviction.

There are many who spent hours in prayer and concescration who come up with a different conclusion and they are ostracized.

I wonder how many rules were passed because of prayer and concencration and how many were passed just to keep the ''unity''.

If unity was more important to the merger than interpretaion of Acts 2:38, could it be that unity was still on minds of many when a lot of these cultural rules were decided?

Dress codes in those days were based on their culture. There were not major differences in dress codes when the clothelins rule was instituted. A majority of the world dressed the part anyway. It became a problem when fashioned changed and although a general principle of modesty was still prevelent, the church did not change because they were following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree... no problem here. But my simple little contention is not to disregard as "rules" the convictions of those who went immediately before us. They arrived at their conclusions through a process of prayer and personal consecration. And we must do the same as well. And yes, we are facing a different age, generation, and issues that those who went before us didn't face. And we are going to have to set some landmarks down ourselves. But in doing that, it is only appropriate to be studious as to WHY and HOW our immediate predecessors came to their conclusions. To simply disregard their stance and conclusions as "antiquated" etc. is unwise, and really is fundamentally foolish.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.