Bro Epley's Racine Apostolic Church Camp Meeting

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It is debatable whether television qualifies as an ancient landmark, but if it does, radio certainly qualifies as a more ancient landmark.

I said something to my grandmother about the evils of television and how the preachers preached against it many years ago. She told me that they used to preach against radio like they do now about television. The implication being that they would eventually cease preaching against television.

Time has proven her point to a large extent. Obviously some still preach against television, but it is surely becoming more and more rare. It may well go extinct, much like preachers preaching against radio. The path seems to be similar.

They went from preaching against radio, to preaching on the radio.

They went from preaching against the internet, to preaching on the internet.

They went from preaching against Facebook, to having a Facebook account, and preaching on Facebook.

They went from preaching against television?? . . .

Say what you want, but I think I see a trend developing here.

That the church is more like France in its habit of surrender?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

That the church is more like France in its habit of surrender?

Well, that’s certainly one way to interpret the data. But I’m not sure the UPCI should have ever taken a stand on television. I’m not sure preachers should have ever taken a stand on YouTube or the internet. It’s kind of hard to walk it back now, isn’t it? Besides I’m not sure it’s their place to figure out every detail of every saints life. Maybe leave something for the man of the house to establish.

Take YouTube for instance. Everything about YouTube is not necessarily sinful. How about preaching against the sin and not the device? I remember a preacher agonizing over whether or not he should be preaching against cellphones. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to separate the sin and the device.

An example would be if I drove my pickup truck to the bank to rob the bank. The preacher may decide to preach against pickups instead of robbing banks. Not realizing that I could instead drive it to church, or to feed the hungry. Internet would be the same.

Somehow I think preachers and organizations have decided that they are to make sweeping decisions on policy instead of simply preaching against sin.

Maybe they’re wrong.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Well, that’s certainly one way to interpret the data. But I’m not sure the UPCI should have ever taken a stand on television. I’m not sure preachers should have ever taken a stand on YouTube or the internet. It’s kind of hard to walk it back now, isn’t it? Besides I’m not sure it’s their place to figure out every detail of every saints life. Maybe leave something for the man of the house to establish.

Take YouTube for instance. Everything about YouTube is not necessarily sinful. How about preaching against the sin and not the device? I remember a preacher agonizing over whether or not he should be preaching against cellphones. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to separate the sin and the device.

An example would be if I drove my pickup truck to the bank to rob the bank. The preacher may decide to preach against pickups instead of robbing banks. Not realizing that I could instead drive it to church, or to feed the hungry. Internet would be the same.

Somehow I think preachers and organizations have decided that they are to make sweeping decisions on policy instead of simply preaching against sin.

Maybe they’re wrong.

Again I make my point about using todays logic to preach against Paul preaching on Mars Hill...the forums and marketplaces were yesteryears version of social media. You don't think temple prostitutes werent "advertising" as you walked past?



The early church was made of sterner stuff it seems.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

No, they left because the UPC kept voting until the TV movement got their way.
They had been told (at least twice) by the leadership that this was the last time it would be voted on.
But, it kept coming up again and again.
Until it passed.
Ironically, many of the "young guns" who voted for it, also left.
Insofar as TV goes, "remove not the ancient landmark".
Most of the "Church" today is so far into entertainment that this topic is not even thought of.
We have truly become the church that worships a God that we do not pray to.
Come quickly Lord Jesus.

That phrase has been taken out of context so much that it is almost insulting. I'm glad some people broke traditions "landmarks" with Scripture, starting from own our Lord Jesus Christ and the Pharisees "landmarks" (they called it "fences", coincidental?), and continuing with the early centuries movements, then the reformation period, and then the oneness pentecostal movement later on in the USA. That happens when the veneration for previous generations goes above the veneration for God and his Word.

BTW, I don't own TV, and refuse to own one, but have many Christian friends that do have it. I don't preach against having a TV screen, but I do preach against watching worldly entertaining regardless of the media, and I do warn also about even OK things showing in between extremely nasty and worldly ads.

[coksiw]

Owning a TV could fall into the realm of this teaching:

Mark 9:47-48 (NKJV) 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where
Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

If something makes you fall continually, you better go radical about it. Having a TV set in the living room may cause you to turn it on when you are in the sofa taking a break after work and wanting to do, read, or watch something lightheaded. The problem is that you may find some neutral content (hard to fine but maybe you are lucky) but you could end up with ads of homosexuals kissing each other and your kids watching it, or people close to naked, or free violence as something cool.
There is a difference between seeing it in public and just turning your head and disapprove it in your heart and walk away to our own business, than putting in front of your eyes as part of your entertainment.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

That phrase has been taken out of context so much that it is almost insulting. I'm glad some people broke traditions "landmarks" with Scripture, starting from own our Lord Jesus Christ and the Pharisees "landmarks" (they called it "fences", coincidental?), and continuing with the early centuries movements, then the reformation period, and then the oneness pentecostal movement later on in the USA. That happens when the veneration for previous generations goes above the veneration for God and his Word.

BTW, I don't own TV, and refuse to own one, but have many Christian friends that do have it. I don't preach against having a TV screen, but I do preach against watching worldly entertaining regardless of the media, and I do warn also about even OK things showing in between extremely nasty and worldly ads.

The bold statement applies to me as well. And that makes my point. I set the policy in my house. That is scriptural. And in both of our cases, it works on the issue of television. I think it’s better that I don’t have one IN MY HOME. It is a decision I have made for the good of my family. I don’t feel the need to make my decision apply to everyone, even though I could probably make a pretty convincing argument that it is a good policy.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Owning a TV could fall into the realm of this teaching:

Mark 9:47-48 (NKJV) 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where
Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

If something makes you fall continually, you better go radical about it. Having a TV set in the living room may cause you to turn it on when you are in the sofa taking a break after work and wanting to do, read, or watch something lightheaded. The problem is that you may find some neutral content (hard to fine but maybe you are lucky) but you could end up with ads of homosexuals kissing each other and your kids watching it, or people close to naked, or free violence as something cool.
There is a difference between seeing it in public and just turning your head and disapprove it in your heart and walk away to our own business, than putting in front of your eyes as part of your entertainment.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It is debatable whether television qualifies as an ancient landmark, but if it does, radio certainly qualifies as a more ancient landmark.

I said something to my grandmother about the evils of television and how the preachers preached against it many years ago. She told me that they used to preach against radio like they do now about television. The implication being that they would eventually cease preaching against television.

Time has proven her point to a large extent. Obviously some still preach against television, but it is surely becoming more and more rare. It may well go extinct, much like preachers preaching against radio. The path seems to be similar.

They went from preaching against radio, to preaching on the radio.

They went from preaching against the internet, to preaching on the internet.

They went from preaching against Facebook, to having a Facebook account, and preaching on Facebook.

They went from preaching against television?? . . .

Say what you want, but I think I see a trend developing here.

Not to quibble over small disagreements, but...
I've been in this thing for a long time and my family has been in it since we were kicked out of the AOG.
And I have never heard anyone preach against radio.
Now, I am sure it did happen, as some preached against everything from fresh air to sunshine.
But, it was not the issue that TV was.
And some have preached against all kinds of sin, only to fall into that very sin.
I would agree that you can get more on your phone or computer, than you can probably get on TV, these days.
Still, I will not tear down a fence that was put up by many elders that I respected.
And a fence that I know they had built with prayer, fasting, tears and sweat.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Not to quibble over small disagreements, but...
I've been in this thing for a long time and my family has been in it since we were kicked out of the AOG.
And I have never heard anyone preach against radio.
Now, I am sure it did happen, as some preached against everything from fresh air to sunshine.
But, it was not the issue that TV was.
And some have preached against all kinds of sin, only to fall into that very sin.
I would agree that you can get more on your phone or computer, than you can probably get on TV, these days.
Still, I will not tear down a fence that was put up by many elders that I respected.
And a fence that I know they had built with prayer, fasting, tears and sweat.

I haven’t heard anyone preach against radio either, but I’m confident that it happened. I have heard preaching against internet and Facebook and the like with my own ears.

As far as family in Pentecost, I’ve got longevity in my bloodline as well. My grandfather held a UPCI license dating back to 1948, maybe earlier. He was oneness before it was cool. But I’m not counting on his experience. I’m checking the Bible. If he’s been Pentecostal since the upper room and he doesn’t line up with the Bible, I’m gonna go with the Bible.



On the second bolded statement, my point is twofold:

1: The scripture is clear about headship. The order of headship is Jesus, the husband and the wife. For a pastor to set policy in my home is to circumvent that order of headship. I know it happens, but I’m not aware of any Apostolic instruction in the New Testament that allows that disruption.

2: Regardless how much prayer, fasting and tears he has put in, if he contradicts scripture I’ll do my part to follow the scripture. If he has a problem with that then I’ll give him a Bible study. I’m not getting an attitude about it. I’m just saying what it is. Now he may be right or wrong, and all the prayer, fasting and tears may bring him to a decision that is right for his family, and I may come to the same conclusion that he did, but for him to circumvent my authority and responsibility to lead my family is just wrong IMHO.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Who is?

And how is what he’s doing different from what others are doing?

Who is he? You name him in the post. What is he doing? None of the things you listed. What is he doing differently from others? Have him explain that to you.