Laodicea Had A Warning

[rrford]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I was thinking if we had to lose a letter, maybe 1 Corinthians would have been the better one to lose ;-)

I imagine there are several that some folks would like to lose.

In perspective, I am not sure any of us would have wanted to read the contents of the epistle to the Laodiceans.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by rrford

I imagine there are several that some folks would like to lose.

In perspective, I am not sure any of us would have wanted to read the contents of the epistle to the Laodiceans.

There could have been one more rule in the book of Laodiceans RRFord.

Possibly Lao. 2:3 would read, " men that call youselves holy shant wear sandles that have been blackened by the shoesmith"

With this being lost to the church, it's possible, that all us men who wear black shoes are in danger of the judgment.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by rrford

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.

Beyond that I won't venture much into a discussion on standards on a Forum. Sorry.

You don't see this as being somewhat promblemtic in that the deciever added to the requirements regarding the standard of not eating the tree in the Garden.

He seemed to improved/ exceeded God's standard by adding the don't touch portion.

I highlighted your comment as that was what I was addressing.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by keith4him

You don't see this as being somewhat promblemtic in that the deciever added to the requirements regarding the standard of not eating the tree in the Garden.

He seemed to improved/ exceeded God's standard by adding the don't touch portion.

I highlighted your comment as that was what I was addressing.

Ahh, but the difference is he was attempting to get her to disobey the original. He was not merely adding to the original. Had she obeyed the origianl she would not have fallen. After all, you can't eat unless you touch.

IMO, if one takes a Biblical stand of modesty to mean to properly clothe the body and then goes further and wears only long sleeved shurts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a stand in and of itself.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by keith4him

I was addressing his point about those who are zealous to go beyond the scriptural requirements in the area of Standards, and his statement that there is nothing wrong with that in itself.

I wont puport to speak for him, but I'll add my 2 cents from what I'm seeing here. I dont think rrford is saying what you think he's saying.

I think what he's is saying is that some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by rrford

Ahh, but the difference is he was attempting to get her to disobey the original. He was not merely adding to the original. Had she obeyed the origianl she would not have fallen. After all, you can't eat unless you touch.

IMO, if one takes a Biblical stand of modesty to mean to properly clothe the body and then goes further and wears only long sleeved shurts, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a stand in and of itself.

True, but the problem is when that same person views, responds and treat others in regard to his addition or his interpretation.

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I wont puport to speak for him, but I'll add my 2 cents from what I'm seeing here. I dont think rrford is saying what you think he's saying.

I think what he's is saying is that some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.

See above post.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I wont puport to speak for him, but I'll add my 2 cents from what I'm seeing here. I dont think rrford is saying what you think he's saying.

I think what he's is saying is that some people will have personal convictions that sometimes exceed what the bible requirements...and THAT is fine--- for them. But what's not ok is when they want to impose those convictions on everyone else and imply that those who dont share those same convictions are going to hell.

That sounds like what he was actually saying. That also happens to be something I very much agree with.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by keith4him

True, but the problem is when that same person views, responds and treat others in regard to his addition or his interpretation.

If you read my posts I think you will see I addressed that.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by rrford

Ask 50 different people and get 50 different answers. IMO, the legalism we deal with today is when folks have sincere stands of consecration that exceed a Biblical teaching (which is not wrong in and of itself) and contend that everyone must follow the same or risk being lost.

Beyond that I won't venture much into a discussion on standards on a Forum. Sorry.

BUMP for Keith. I think this answers what you are asking.