Two Methods of Evaluating Holiness In Apostolic Conservative Churches

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

. . . While it is true that some kinds of free spirited people often have a lower standard of morality because of their propensity to rebel and so forth, what is not factored in is the fact that people, who are free spirited, emotionally secure and or visionary are usually the first ones who have enough courage to initiate change. For example they do not respond to ‘group think’ mentality by following where everyone else is going. For example, they will not keep marching toward a cliff just because the majority is headed that way without reasonable explanation of why everyone is in lock step toward that direction. . . .

2. The second view or method of evaluating holiness rejects making personal anyone’s departure and subsequent history the issue and deals with strictly theological aspects of holiness doctrines. These people are not the reformers that the first group is, but as the cliff gets closer they become more open minded and after careful study of scripture, if they determine that there is a autocratic hegemony leading, they will also leave the group in larger numbers giving legitimacy to the claims of the reformers. All through church history this cycle was in effect. First, it was Martin Luther, the rebel, according to the Catholic Church, but in time, throngs of Protestants, or pro-test-tors followed Luther’s lead and the rest is reformation history. When dealing with holiness doctrines (and others) that seem extreme, keep in mind that Christ said the truth would make us free. If that be so, then always remember that to the degree we have truth is the same degree in which we are free. . . .

Most of us are weary of the unnecessary and restrictive rules that the government keeps adding to our lives. Likewise the church is weary of those laws of man that keep piling up and restricting our freedom in Christ. Eventually brave souls do decide that this performance based life is not the life that Christ promised . . . .

And it should be understood that grace does not automatically nullify the guidelines set in place by spiritual leadership……grace only asks that the standards be legitimized by proper scriptural exegesis rather than be accepted as truth simply because they happen to have been in the organizational archives of a previous group of leaders that made these holiness attachments in a snapshot of time and in a culture that no longer exists. This would lead to a relevance factor with regard to holiness standards that are attached to things like apparel, and activities allowed or disallowed as they are not carved in stone as are the principles of the Ten Commandments which are permanent for all time because they contain unchanging principles that are locked into the heart of God. . . .

When tradition makes the norm extremist and radical, it promotes a certain “unnecessary rebellion.” If for example leadership allowed more latitude for private interpretation, you would see the norm rejecting non-essential, burdensome standards. . . .

With a performance emphasis on holiness, grace becomes just a "word" instead of the refreshing balm of healing oil that God wants to apply. . . .

Boilerplate sour grapes.

This concept does not do away with clear scriptural prohibitions but rather redefines the whole template that religion lays upon us with the “oughts” and the “ought nots” that rain down a steady stream of guilt and condemnation to believers that feel totally incapable of living up to all of the standards contained in their church.

We agree that there are necessary load bearing walls of holiness that flow from the “Ten Commandment” that protect us and keeps us in the tower of the Name of Jesus.

. . . But there are too many unnecessary walls constructed by church denominations that keep people out of the church and puts abusive burdens on the people that remain in these churches.

The guidelines of shepherds buttress the walls of the 10C and keep them from crumbling. If your eyes are on Jesus, the pastoral guidelines are handrails, not chains and irons. His burden is light.

If leadership would draw the line in a different spot for excessive, non-essential standards there would not be an image of liberalism with regard to these controversial standards. Bottom line: Judging by the negative experiences and failures of free spirited people who have left and then been shunned by the church (which is unscriptural (Gal 6:1) and which may have helped push them to an extreme, is a poor excuse to continue trying to enforce any unnecessary yokes of religious tradition. . . .

The trouble with compromising with compromisers is that they always come back for more. Once the anchor has been yanked, it's difficult to draw an imaginary line somewhere out in the ocean and say that the ship will not be allowed to drift across it.


How's that for a response? Is that what you had in mind?

[berkeley]

Boilerplate sour grapes.

It is evident that you have not read his books.

The guidelines of shepherds buttress the walls of the 10C and keep them from crumbling. If your eyes are on Jesus, the pastoral guidelines are handrails, not chains and irons. His burden is light.

Define "shepherd". Pastoral guidelines are not necessarily HIS burden.
You just learned something new.

The trouble with compromising with compromisers is that they always come back for more. Once the anchor has been yanked, it's difficult to draw an imaginary line somewhere out in the ocean and say that the ship will not be allowed to drift across it.

Define "compromiser".

How's that for a response? Is that what you had in mind?

I really wasn't looking for a response. I bumped the thread to show NLYP that I had posted this.

[drummerboy_dave]

Mr. Berkeley,

Who is "DMW"?

I generally agree with his evaluation, though he lost me with his conciliatory plan.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Boilerplate sour grapes.



The guidelines of shepherds buttress the walls of the 10C and keep them from crumbling. If your eyes are on Jesus, the pastoral guidelines are handrails, not chains and irons. His burden is light.


The trouble with compromising with compromisers is that they always come back for more. Once the anchor has been yanked, it's difficult to draw an imaginary line somewhere out in the ocean and say that the ship will not be allowed to drift across it.


How's that for a response? Is that what you had in mind?

Handrails are for handicapped folks, not for the spiritually healthy, so the analogy fails.

BTW if the walls are on a solid foundation no buttressing is needed, so just preach the Word and leave the personal convictions for the Holy Spirit to establish in the individual as He sees fit.

The trouble with the legalists is that they appropriate the function of the Holy Spirit in the believers life, therefore the adherents are perpetuated to spiritual infancy and dependence.

[Steve Epley]

I reject his book years ago his ideas are not revolutionary the Latter Rain folks said the same thing in the 50's look where they are doctrinally today.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Mr. Berkeley,

Who is "DMW"?

I generally agree with his evaluation, though he lost me with his conciliatory plan.

David M. Wasmundt

[Sister Alvear]

Berk...see you have Portuguese on your sig. line...good for you! blessings...
Mom Alvear

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I reject his book years ago his ideas are not revolutionary the Latter Rain folks said the same thing in the 50's look where they are doctrinally today.

That would be; because he's satan?

[DividedThigh]

this is actually interesting, to me, anyway, i have been in the church , still attend a upc church since i was 10. i think there are three types, the first is one that compomises and rebels against the church standards because they are carnal, the second is because they dont agree with the biblical approach of certain standards, and the third is the hypocrit that conforms on the outside but doesnt on the inside, just because someone doesnt keep the standards of the upc doesnt mean they are lost and certainly doesnt mean they dont know god, imho, if we say that , then we are judging and even if we are right , we are wrong, dt