Internet Evangelism

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Quixotic

SiStEr do you SIng? Are you a sopraNO?

Yes, I am an ALTO!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I have an agenda.

27: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Col. 1:27-28

When in a discussion I will try to persuade concerning what I believe is the truth.

I think its good when someone is set free from doctrine such as beards are a sin or women cant trim their hair.

I think its bad when one departs the truth that baptism of water and spirit is essential to enter the kingdom of God.

CaN A mAn ENter thE kinGdOM oF GOd wiTH aN AgenDA?

Originally Posted by Old Paths

I have read numerous posts where folks say that an Internet forum can't/shouldn't be able to change a person's views on doctrine, standards, etc. We're just here for the fellowship.

HOGWASH!

Folks want to allow Branamites, two god proponents, anti-standards, trinitarian sympathizers, etc. to voice their opinions, while cheering them on and then say that a person that is seduced by the false doctrine is "weak" or "didn't really believe it".

Folks, words mean something, words are powerful, words can and do change people's lives and YOU are aware of it.

There is a mentality that is published that "I used to be under bondage to a preacher, but look at me now... I'm free from standards" and the posters start their applause for another one that has embarked on the slippery slope and is making the transition to liberal land.

Please don't think that everyone is naive and act like there is not a thrust to proselytize.

hOw ArE YOU uSIng thE WeB to REach ThE LOst?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Quixotic

CaN A mAn ENter thE kinGdOM oF GOd wiTH aN AgenDA?

It depends on what it is. If it is to present every man perfect in Christ, yes.

If it is to present men to Christ with spot, wrinkle, or blemish, no.

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by CC1

No doubt there are some who can be influenced but generally only people who already have questions about whatever the subject is.

I always like it how you cons characterize those of us opposed to corporate extra biblical legaism as having said things like "I used to be under bondage to a preacher, but look at me now....".

You know good and well that this is not the attitude or statement of 98% of libs. You just want to put forth an extreme and incorrectly characterize a position.

This is the same old schtick as when you cons used to always use Tammy Faye Bakker and Jan Crouch as examples of women with makeup when 99.9% of women in the world would not be caught dead must less alive with makeup like that!

Come on CC1, we have seen the "extreme" used repeatedly about overbearing standard preaching pastors, when in reality 98% of the conservative pastors are all well balaned men that love God and the Truth.

[Old Paths]

It just seems soooooo hypocritical to me when folks vehemently bash Apostolic pastors, Apostolic doctrine and Apostolic standards on an open forum and then when their words produce a result in a person's life, they go "oh my, they left that lifestyle because they already had questions or were weak".

Now that is hypocritical.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

It just seems soooooo hypocritical to me when folks vehemently bash Apostolic pastors, Apostolic doctrine and Apostolic standards on an open forum and then when their words produce a result in a person's life, they go "oh my, they left that lifestyle because they already had questions or were weak".

Now that is hypocritical.

I am missing the comparison you are making to establish the hypocrasy.

How does a vehement bash of some set of norms result in a hypocritical position if the same person goes on to say "they left that lifestyle because they already had questions or were weak"?

What is the inconsistency you are wanting to demonstrate/highlight?

It seems like the two things are topical 'apples and oranges'.

[Old Paths]

Ok.

Poster #1 reads comments made by various posters that vehemently bash Apostolic pastors, Apostolic doctrine and Apostolic standards on an open forum.

Poster #1 Later says "I have left the standards, don't believe I need to attend church and am no longer under a overbearing standards preacher".

Posts # 2 says "they left standards because they already had questions, my posts on the forum had nothing to do with it".

Poster # 3 says "they left that lifestyle because they weak, my posting did not sway them".

To me, that is hypocrital to act like you had nothing to do with the change in the person's life.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Come on CC1, we have seen the "extreme" used repeatedly about overbearing standard preaching pastors, when in reality 98% of the conservative pastors are all well balaned men that love God and the Truth.

98 per cent are balanced? This does not at all square with what I know of Apostolic Preachers. From what I have experienced I would say 80-90 per cent of Preachers are still saying its wrong either as a sin or as a "platform standard" for men to have a beard.

At least that many are still saying its sin for a woman to trim. Hardly a balance. To me these are matters of truth. Those who teach such things are simply teaching error. Now that many are finding out the erroneous nature of this are rejecting it that is a good thing. Im glad when truth prevails.

It could be these so called "conservatives" just cannot give the evidence that the truth demands. They are less willing to debate it. After all whens the last time ANY OF THEM ever tried to make a SCRIPTURAL CASE that beards are wrong? There never has been any support for it.

Instead of openly repenting for shutting souls out of the Church because of traditions of men now they simply say its a matter of the Pastors choice.

No I have not seen any real balance on this.

My last Traditional Apostolic Pastor defined perfection thus:

No wrist watches.
No beards.
No trimming hair or wearing pants.

That was my last night there.

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

98 per cent are balanced? This does not at all square with what I know of Apostolic Preachers. From what I have experienced I would say 80-90 per cent of Preachers are still saying its wrong either as a sin or as a "platform standard" for men to have a beard.

At least that many are still saying its sin for a woman to trim. Hardly a balance. To me these are matters of truth. Those who teach such things are simply teaching error. Now that many are finding out the erroneous nature of this are rejecting it that is a good thing. Im glad when truth prevails.

It could be these so called "conservatives" just cannot give the evidence that the truth demands. They are less willing to debate it. After all whens the last time ANY OF THEM ever tried to make a SCRIPTURAL CASE that beards are wrong? There never has been any support for it.

Instead of openly repenting for shutting souls out of the Church because of traditions of men now they simply say its a matter of the Pastors choice.

No I have not seen any real balance on this.

My last Traditional Apostolic Pastor defined perfection thus:

No wrist watches.
No beards.
No trimming hair or wearing pants.

That was my last night there.

Thanks.

You prove the point perfectly.