Being an Iconoclast

[OneAccord]

[QUOTE=jaamez;683069]

I agree with you. The definition says an iconoclast is a "breaker or destroyer" and someone who "attacks". This should be a grim reminder to everyone that before we tear something down, we should build something up that can serve as a stable, suitable alternative.[/QUOTE]

This is so true. Elijah and Elishas were both prophets, but, there ministries were quite different. While some are called to be destroyers, others are called to be builders. Though I sometimes fail miserably, I try to be the latter.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't mind reading any opposing thoughts or opinions. When they are forced down my throat and it feels like I'm being forced to change my views, then I don't like it. Vice versa for all - it goes both ways.

I agree!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

This is so true. Elijah and Elishas were both prophets, but, there ministries were quite different. While some are called to be destroyers, others are called to be builders. Though I sometimes fail miserably, I try to be the latter.

Amen, OA!! Good post!!!!

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Ferd

hmmm.... I think i disagree. There might be a strong contengent of traditionalists (in one form or another) who oppose what the neo-apostolics are doing, but I wouldnt call them iconoclasts. They dont oppose the standard. They oppose those of you who are working so diligently at taking thier system apart... of course the taking apart is being done with the intention of building your own system afterwards....

but that doesnt mean those who oppose you are equal to you. THIS wrecking ball swings one way MOW. It is opposed for sure, but it only swings one way.

Working so diligently at taking their system apart? You've got to be kidding! Whose system?

Equal? You're right about that because it is usually ONE side which accuses the other of being hell-bound. Now, talking about "tearing down" how can a person be torn down worse than their salvation not only being questioned, but canceled out?

It would really be great if their could be enough mutual respect that someone's salvation wasn't called into question. That my friend is the hard fact. The wrecking ball DOES, in fact, swing both ways and the tearing down as well.

Who determines what THE standard is and who has the wrecking ball? The predominant thinking pre-Affirmation Statement? The predominant thinking at the merger? The predominant thinking 15yrs after the merger?

That's my point. It DOES swing both ways. It just depends upon which direction you're looking at it from. That is why mutual respect is paramount.