The Pastor King
- Thread starter TrueWords
- Start date
Count
Regular Member
TrueWords said:
You didn't tell me how did the church solve that problem!
TrueWords said:
Brother have a look back to my last post carefully. After quoting this part of Scriptures:
"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are distrubing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"
I said:
"This is the wrong doctrine brother according to Scriptures; the preaching of another gospel. Paul, the person with such a love, who wouldn't eat meat for the rest of his life for the sake of the brothers, who would even prefer to go to hell himself, only that his fellow Hebrews could know Christ, this beloved brother would never tolerate another gospel."
Your example with Paul rebuking Peter is exactly the same with my example. At that time when Paul rebuked Peter at front of all the church of Antioch, some (false) brothers were preaching 'another gospel' that of being saved by the keeping of the law.
TrueWords said:
Again this doctrine is all about 'another gospel', not about two or three different views on a topic. It's not about head covering, women keeping silent, etc.
TrueWords said:
Could you be more specific brother? What do you mean with wrong doctrine? You said that after a while, out of the blue members would leave for they cannot bear it anymore. They cannot bear what, just a different view on a specific topic, or a really wrong doctrine? Be careful brother because if we are quick to call 'wrong doctrine' any doctrine that is contrary to what we believe, our fellowship is founded in wrong basis. It is founded in agreeing is some doctrines rather than in Christ Jesus. The result would be that either way, there will always be brothers who at some point would leave out of the blue.
I have already made the difference between 'another doctrine' and just having different views on several topics.
TrueWords said:
No, I don't believe that we should have the same opinion in every topic. After all we are not robots. The real unity comes from the real relationship of the church with Christ, not by agreeing in everything. In a family, for example, there are several brothers. They often disagree with each other, they often have different opinions in different issues, but they still are brothers and they still love each other. The same goes with the church. We all may have different opinions in different topics, but this is not the case. The problem is when somebody wants to impose their own beliefs as the only 'right doctrines'.
TrueWords said:
Brother I am not talking about that kind of unity. I don't believe in such a unity within the religion system. In fact, I have stepped out of the organized christianity ecxactly for this reason. I have seen that old wineskin cannot keep New Wineskin (Christ) and that's why I am out of that worldly system.
I am talking about the unity among those who long to experience church life and want to be under the headship of Jesus Christ, among those who really want to be filled with the New Wineskin. But, let us who stepped out of the organized christianity, be careful lest we bring to the real body of Christ, things that belong to the fallen religion system. Let His Cross crushes anything that belongs to our fallen nature, so that He favours us to fill us with the New Wine.
Upvote
0
Count,
Hello again, and God bless
You had said,
"Could you be more specific brother? What do you mean with wrong doctrine? "
My response,
I will answer this with your other thinbking on the gospel being the only real wrong doctrine to deal with or to seperate from etc.
Wrong doctrine or teaching can be in many areas. Sometimes it is dangerous to the soul of those who hear, i mean damnable and other times it is not ging to destroy thier souls. For example some might teach a post, or pre trib view. these are not damnable doctrines neccessarily, depending on how they teach it and what consequences they attach to their view. But if someone comes in for example and says woan can rebuke their husbands and usurp authority over the man. That can cause much division and problems in the homes and marriage and it goes against the direct command of God in 1 Corinthians 14:37,38. thoses in such a ve are not to be recieved and ignorant as paul teaches. Or if a person teaches doctrines that bind men up, or cause then to add wroks to the gospel we can agree this would teach another gospel. many teachings do this, they are caled legalism.Legalism is mans attempt to merit righteousness by his own works. But obedience of faith is not legalism.
Paul wrote that the time is coming when men will not endure sound doctrine, and he told Titus about what some of those sound doctrine are, We read,
"But speak the things that become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the younger women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discrete, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Young men also exhort to be sober minded. In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned..." (Titus 2:1-8)
So here we see just a sample of some sound doctrines. i could show many others that are not directly related to the gospel (which is, 1 Cor 15:1-5). We could speak of the "doctrine of baptisms, (Hebrews 6;2) or the teachings abouit the end times, or holiness, or teachings on faith, gifts of the spirit etc.
Even the doctrine that teaches that we can have the baptism with the Holy Ghost today, can be a major doctrine. For some will teach that we cannot have this toady and so make all those that prophesy or speak with tongues or have gifts of healing or miracles etc in error. Imagine a brother teaches that we can be filled with the Spirit today and says that we can prophesy and speak with tongues, (in order and as a sign to unbelievers) and then another person says they are of the devil if they speak with tongues, for he has been taught that it is not for today. What do you think an error in this matter will do? This is not the gospel doctrine directly, or another gospel, but it is a doctrinal issue that must be dealt with.
There are many doctrineal or teaching issues that must be set in order and deal with in meetings. Such as fleshly ministry or spiritual ministry, womans issues, gifts, end times teachings, holiness, marriage issues, divorce, remarriage, the doctrine of prayer, the doctrine of repentance, the doctrine, of covenants, the doctrine of the unevangelised, the doctrine of the church, the doctrine of eternal judgement and the second coming, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the new birth, justification, redemption, sanctification, perfection, ministry, the doctrine of the trinity etc etc etc etc etc.
For example tak the tri-unity doctrine, or the doctrine of the trinity as it is called. If a person comes into a meeting and preachs the jesus only doctrine and has a unique way of baptism, that will cause disunity in the body etc.
All I can say is what I showed earlier in Pauls direction for all, he said,
"...by the name of our Lord jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement." ( 1 Corinthians 1:10, then he went on to show how they were not in the same mind and teaching etc in their divisions)
You said about this verse,
"No, I don't believe that we should have the same opinion in every topic. After all we are not robots. The real unity comes from the real relationship of the church with Christ, not by agreeing in everything...."
My response,
i disagree with you here, and agree with paul. the same mind and judgement and speaking the same things is what we should all seek for. it does not make us robots. For example if you and I agreed that a man must first repent and believe the gospel to be saved, we are not robots for speaking the same things. But another might say, no, you cannot repent first you have to believe and then repent. I disagree according to scripture and this would cause a division.
We need the five fold ministry also so others are not tossed about by every wind of doctrine, paul said we should all come into the unity of the faith, and right after saying this in Ephesians 4 about unity he said something concerning DOCTRINE, "by every wind of doctrine"
i agree with paul, this should be the case wil all of us, no division, speaking the same things and the same mind and doctrine. this does not make us robots. I feel that you misunderstand what Paul means in 1 Cor 1:10.
Nice talking to you, bye for now. Look foreward to your responses.
God bless.
Hello again, and God bless
You had said,
"Could you be more specific brother? What do you mean with wrong doctrine? "
My response,
I will answer this with your other thinbking on the gospel being the only real wrong doctrine to deal with or to seperate from etc.
Wrong doctrine or teaching can be in many areas. Sometimes it is dangerous to the soul of those who hear, i mean damnable and other times it is not ging to destroy thier souls. For example some might teach a post, or pre trib view. these are not damnable doctrines neccessarily, depending on how they teach it and what consequences they attach to their view. But if someone comes in for example and says woan can rebuke their husbands and usurp authority over the man. That can cause much division and problems in the homes and marriage and it goes against the direct command of God in 1 Corinthians 14:37,38. thoses in such a ve are not to be recieved and ignorant as paul teaches. Or if a person teaches doctrines that bind men up, or cause then to add wroks to the gospel we can agree this would teach another gospel. many teachings do this, they are caled legalism.Legalism is mans attempt to merit righteousness by his own works. But obedience of faith is not legalism.
Paul wrote that the time is coming when men will not endure sound doctrine, and he told Titus about what some of those sound doctrine are, We read,
"But speak the things that become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the younger women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discrete, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Young men also exhort to be sober minded. In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned..." (Titus 2:1-8)
So here we see just a sample of some sound doctrines. i could show many others that are not directly related to the gospel (which is, 1 Cor 15:1-5). We could speak of the "doctrine of baptisms, (Hebrews 6;2) or the teachings abouit the end times, or holiness, or teachings on faith, gifts of the spirit etc.
Even the doctrine that teaches that we can have the baptism with the Holy Ghost today, can be a major doctrine. For some will teach that we cannot have this toady and so make all those that prophesy or speak with tongues or have gifts of healing or miracles etc in error. Imagine a brother teaches that we can be filled with the Spirit today and says that we can prophesy and speak with tongues, (in order and as a sign to unbelievers) and then another person says they are of the devil if they speak with tongues, for he has been taught that it is not for today. What do you think an error in this matter will do? This is not the gospel doctrine directly, or another gospel, but it is a doctrinal issue that must be dealt with.
There are many doctrineal or teaching issues that must be set in order and deal with in meetings. Such as fleshly ministry or spiritual ministry, womans issues, gifts, end times teachings, holiness, marriage issues, divorce, remarriage, the doctrine of prayer, the doctrine of repentance, the doctrine, of covenants, the doctrine of the unevangelised, the doctrine of the church, the doctrine of eternal judgement and the second coming, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the new birth, justification, redemption, sanctification, perfection, ministry, the doctrine of the trinity etc etc etc etc etc.
For example tak the tri-unity doctrine, or the doctrine of the trinity as it is called. If a person comes into a meeting and preachs the jesus only doctrine and has a unique way of baptism, that will cause disunity in the body etc.
All I can say is what I showed earlier in Pauls direction for all, he said,
"...by the name of our Lord jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement." ( 1 Corinthians 1:10, then he went on to show how they were not in the same mind and teaching etc in their divisions)
You said about this verse,
"No, I don't believe that we should have the same opinion in every topic. After all we are not robots. The real unity comes from the real relationship of the church with Christ, not by agreeing in everything...."
My response,
i disagree with you here, and agree with paul. the same mind and judgement and speaking the same things is what we should all seek for. it does not make us robots. For example if you and I agreed that a man must first repent and believe the gospel to be saved, we are not robots for speaking the same things. But another might say, no, you cannot repent first you have to believe and then repent. I disagree according to scripture and this would cause a division.
We need the five fold ministry also so others are not tossed about by every wind of doctrine, paul said we should all come into the unity of the faith, and right after saying this in Ephesians 4 about unity he said something concerning DOCTRINE, "by every wind of doctrine"
i agree with paul, this should be the case wil all of us, no division, speaking the same things and the same mind and doctrine. this does not make us robots. I feel that you misunderstand what Paul means in 1 Cor 1:10.
Nice talking to you, bye for now. Look foreward to your responses.
God bless.
Upvote
0
lismore
Maranatha
- Oct 28, 2004
- 20,683
- 4,358
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
TrueWords said:
Hi
I had a couple of thoughts on this article, which was very good.
As Yeshua said:
Matthew 23:10
Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
Jeremiah 31:34
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD.
Mark 10:
43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Upvote
0
Count
Regular Member
The church gathers around Christ to felloship with Him, declare her love to Him, as well as brothers and sisters declare their love to each other. There is also encuragment in Christ and teaching from those whose God has selected to be teachers in the church.
If somone is going to teach that a sister can usurp authority over the man, it is the whole church that will handle this crises. Of course there will be brothers who are more mature than others, and they will be of great benefit in the church, but it is when e problem appears in the church that the church should deal with it. As long as there is no problem, let the church fellowship with the Lord and focus on Him only.
But I was not talking about those kind of different views in the church. Let me give you an example. Let's suppose there are some ex-alcoholic brothers.Thay cannot even smell wine. What will the church do in the Lord's Supper? Are they going to be forced to drink wine? I don't think so. They can take juice instead of wine.
Brother, this passage talks about behaviour, not about different views. Paul, even with those brothers shows great love, and patience. Let me remind you the case of Corinth. There were so many problems there. Imorality, division, brother sending another brother to court, etc. However, Paul called them saints. It's another thing to teach the saints behave as God's peple should and another thing to make them accept the same doctrines with me. (eg should a woman speak in the church or not)
A small group of christians gathers in my home. Once, we were reading Acts and we read the part of disciples speaking in tounges. A sister asked about the gifts of tounges, and we discused for a while. Then I said that we read the Scriptures in order that we be fed with Jesus Christ in our spirit, not in our mind. Our intention is to eat from the Tree of Life instead of the Tree of Knowledge. I belive that God gives His gifts according to His will, so if He pleases to give us that gift, Amen, but if not, Amen again. However, for the time being we need not be concerned, since we don't seem to have this gift. So let us continue with focusing on our Lord and eating Him.
So brother, I don't now what is going to happen in the future if someone come and say that we should all speak in tounges. I guess we all will read the Scriptures carefully and He will show us how to deal with that problem. But for the time being we don't need to worry about something that may never happen. If we were to spend weeks or months on the doctrine of tounges, we would waste a lot of valuable time with our Lord.
Brother I don't believe this. I believe that we should be focused only on one Doctrine, Jesus Christ. We should fellowship with Him and let Him take care of other issues. For example, Paul didn't write to Colosians or Thesalonions about the Lord's Supper, because they seemed not to have those kind of problems. Paul wrote to the churches according to their problems. The same goes with the churches today. They should be concerned only with the problems they are encountering at the moment. The problems are not the same with each local church. They are always different and they are to be dealt in different ways.
Again, let me give you an example. Let us suppose that we are brothers of the same local church. You and some other brothers believe that sisters should remani silent in the church, while I and others believe that they can speak freely in the church. Let's suppose that there has been a discussion for several months and still we are divided in two groups. What should be done to solve the problem?
Paul says that we should have the same opinion. What does that mean? Women should speak, or not speak? I think that Paul's words mean that we should be in the same opinion that we should accept each other as brothers in Christ and love each other. This is the same opinion! So, the brothers who belive that sisters should be silent, let have their wives not speak in the church, but on the same time not judge the brothers who doesn't have any problem with their wives speaking in the church.
The problem begins when one part cannot accept the other part as brothers and cannot fellowship with them. This means that they have made center that particular doctrine. This causes division.
Upvote
0
Count,
Hello and God bless,
I want to say first that I appreciate your discussion and I see where you are coming from. I have no ill feelings towards you. it would be better if we were in a home among brethren talking but this will have to do .
To me, Christ is the center of all we do and I have believed this and taught on this for a while. I also know that when we have a doctrine that is all part of the doctrine of Christ. Jesus said if we do his will we will know the doctrine. All doctrine is grounded in personal knowledge and doing the will of God. This was the same for Paul and others. So when I hear Paul teaching or correcting or charging some that they teach no other doctrine, he is dealing with where men go astray from the doctrine of Christ. All the doctrines I mentioned are all founded in the revelation and will of Christ. They are all part of the doctrine of Christ as I understand.
You had said,
"Let me remind you the case of Corinth. There were so many problems there. Imorality, division, brother sending another brother to court, etc. However, Paul called them saints."
My response,
Brother, Paul also said that there were some in Corinth that did not have the knowledge of God, and he warned some in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that they were decieved if they thought they would enter the kingdom of God and do such sins. there was a man in relations with his Fathers wife in 1 Cor 5 etc etc etc.
You said,
Brother I don't believe this. I believe that we should be focused only on one Doctrine, Jesus Christ.'
My response,
There are more than one doctrine in the bible, Though all doctrines are grounded in the revelation of Christ and doing his will. Then we know the doctrine. Christ is the foundation for all doctrine. We read of different doctrines, for example, "the doctrine of baptisms, or laying on of hands or judgement to come hebrews 6:1,2. The doctrine of baptisms, is not the only doctrine in the bible. All scripture is profitable for doctrine. Any one can have a psalm, a "doctrine' 1 Cor 14;26 etc. We red of the doctrine of God, (Titus 2:10).. And we should include all the other "behavioural doctrines, I mentioned before.
The word doctrine means, instruction. Paul instructed many things. Christ was speaking through Paul many times, paul even said that the things that he wrote were the commandements of God 1 Cor 14:37,38. Notice that Paul siad the "THINGS' (plural, that he wrote, he did not just write one thing, or one doctrine. though all doctrine is in Christ. And can truly be said to be the doctrine of Christ.The anointing teacheth us of all things. Not just one thing, but all things. And a teacher has the anointing also to teach of all things. We have learned from God to listen for the Spirit in the teachings and at the same time to not throw out the teaching.
Paul said, "these things teach" , (1 Timothy 6:2), or These things command and teach" (1 Timothy 4:11). the word teach has a similar meaning to doctrine and is 1321 in Greek, the word doctrine is 1322 and 1322 is from 1321. Notice the "plural ' form, these things teach, showing more than one thing.
Anyway bye for now hope to hear from you soon.
And as far as the woman in the meeting I was helping with the elders unfortunately were not patient with her and told her she would have to leave. I would have not done that, I would have talked with her as long as God allowed us to and prayed for more light. Unless she had to leave and could not bear to be with the body.
I have been patient with all those who come into our meetings and willing to go for the long haul in hope for understanding. But for example we had two men on our meeting for a while and they both eventually expressed their heresy that they did not believe that jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. We tried to talk with them and it lasted for a short time. then they are the ones who had to leave. I was stilll hoping we could talk more and work through this issue. But I realized they had another jesus and another doctrine.
God bless
Hello and God bless,
I want to say first that I appreciate your discussion and I see where you are coming from. I have no ill feelings towards you. it would be better if we were in a home among brethren talking but this will have to do .
To me, Christ is the center of all we do and I have believed this and taught on this for a while. I also know that when we have a doctrine that is all part of the doctrine of Christ. Jesus said if we do his will we will know the doctrine. All doctrine is grounded in personal knowledge and doing the will of God. This was the same for Paul and others. So when I hear Paul teaching or correcting or charging some that they teach no other doctrine, he is dealing with where men go astray from the doctrine of Christ. All the doctrines I mentioned are all founded in the revelation and will of Christ. They are all part of the doctrine of Christ as I understand.
You had said,
"Let me remind you the case of Corinth. There were so many problems there. Imorality, division, brother sending another brother to court, etc. However, Paul called them saints."
My response,
Brother, Paul also said that there were some in Corinth that did not have the knowledge of God, and he warned some in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that they were decieved if they thought they would enter the kingdom of God and do such sins. there was a man in relations with his Fathers wife in 1 Cor 5 etc etc etc.
You said,
Brother I don't believe this. I believe that we should be focused only on one Doctrine, Jesus Christ.'
My response,
There are more than one doctrine in the bible, Though all doctrines are grounded in the revelation of Christ and doing his will. Then we know the doctrine. Christ is the foundation for all doctrine. We read of different doctrines, for example, "the doctrine of baptisms, or laying on of hands or judgement to come hebrews 6:1,2. The doctrine of baptisms, is not the only doctrine in the bible. All scripture is profitable for doctrine. Any one can have a psalm, a "doctrine' 1 Cor 14;26 etc. We red of the doctrine of God, (Titus 2:10).. And we should include all the other "behavioural doctrines, I mentioned before.
The word doctrine means, instruction. Paul instructed many things. Christ was speaking through Paul many times, paul even said that the things that he wrote were the commandements of God 1 Cor 14:37,38. Notice that Paul siad the "THINGS' (plural, that he wrote, he did not just write one thing, or one doctrine. though all doctrine is in Christ. And can truly be said to be the doctrine of Christ.The anointing teacheth us of all things. Not just one thing, but all things. And a teacher has the anointing also to teach of all things. We have learned from God to listen for the Spirit in the teachings and at the same time to not throw out the teaching.
Paul said, "these things teach" , (1 Timothy 6:2), or These things command and teach" (1 Timothy 4:11). the word teach has a similar meaning to doctrine and is 1321 in Greek, the word doctrine is 1322 and 1322 is from 1321. Notice the "plural ' form, these things teach, showing more than one thing.
Anyway bye for now hope to hear from you soon.
And as far as the woman in the meeting I was helping with the elders unfortunately were not patient with her and told her she would have to leave. I would have not done that, I would have talked with her as long as God allowed us to and prayed for more light. Unless she had to leave and could not bear to be with the body.
I have been patient with all those who come into our meetings and willing to go for the long haul in hope for understanding. But for example we had two men on our meeting for a while and they both eventually expressed their heresy that they did not believe that jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. We tried to talk with them and it lasted for a short time. then they are the ones who had to leave. I was stilll hoping we could talk more and work through this issue. But I realized they had another jesus and another doctrine.
God bless
Upvote
0
Count
Regular Member
Count,
Paul said this to Corinthians: "I thank my God...that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and knowledge." (Cor. 1:5)
Now, let come to your verse. Paul didn't say that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God. Let me bring the verses as they are. "Or do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Don't be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Can you see the difference. Paul doesn't say that there were among them some that had not the knowledge of God, but that, some of them, before their convertion, were "such". But they were no more in that condition. They were sanctified in Christ.
As for the man in relation with his father's wife, he turned back in the church. Today this man would have been stoned by his fellow christians. We immediately would call him a false brother and expell him. Paul didn't do this.
Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that a brother believes that the right baptism is by sprinkling water in one's head. What will you do, will you not accept him in your fellowship? I am not saying that he is to teach this kind of baptism in the church, but simply believe for himself that this is the right baptism.
Let me give another example. I read the Atkerson's article about the women's role in the church. I didn't agree with his view. He believes that women should not talk at all in the church. Do you understand what does this mean? This means that any holy sister that wants to talk in the church, cannot fellowship with his church. This, brother is called division. By setting this rule in their church, they are not able to fellowship with sons and doughters of God.
On the other hand, if Atkerson just believed that women should not speak in the church, but let every women decide for herself what to do in the church, this would be the right thing. He would accept all those who Jesus Christ accepted.
Can you see now what does it mean to focus on Christ instead of different doctrines? When we focus on Christ, we accept all those who are His, when we focus on some doctrines, we accept only those who agree with us.
Please tell me something. Were the elders that told her to leave or the church as a whole? I mean it was a decision of the church, or of the elders, wanting to protect thus the church?
If that was a decision taken only from some persons, I don't agree with this. I believe that the church as a whole should take her decisions. The elders are there just to serve the church, not to decide for her.
Paul said this to Corinthians: "I thank my God...that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and knowledge." (Cor. 1:5)
Now, let come to your verse. Paul didn't say that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God. Let me bring the verses as they are. "Or do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Don't be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Can you see the difference. Paul doesn't say that there were among them some that had not the knowledge of God, but that, some of them, before their convertion, were "such". But they were no more in that condition. They were sanctified in Christ.
As for the man in relation with his father's wife, he turned back in the church. Today this man would have been stoned by his fellow christians. We immediately would call him a false brother and expell him. Paul didn't do this.
Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that a brother believes that the right baptism is by sprinkling water in one's head. What will you do, will you not accept him in your fellowship? I am not saying that he is to teach this kind of baptism in the church, but simply believe for himself that this is the right baptism.
Let me give another example. I read the Atkerson's article about the women's role in the church. I didn't agree with his view. He believes that women should not talk at all in the church. Do you understand what does this mean? This means that any holy sister that wants to talk in the church, cannot fellowship with his church. This, brother is called division. By setting this rule in their church, they are not able to fellowship with sons and doughters of God.
On the other hand, if Atkerson just believed that women should not speak in the church, but let every women decide for herself what to do in the church, this would be the right thing. He would accept all those who Jesus Christ accepted.
Can you see now what does it mean to focus on Christ instead of different doctrines? When we focus on Christ, we accept all those who are His, when we focus on some doctrines, we accept only those who agree with us.
Please tell me something. Were the elders that told her to leave or the church as a whole? I mean it was a decision of the church, or of the elders, wanting to protect thus the church?
If that was a decision taken only from some persons, I don't agree with this. I believe that the church as a whole should take her decisions. The elders are there just to serve the church, not to decide for her.
Upvote
0
Count
hello again, God bless.
You had said to me in your last post,
"Paul didn't say that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God'
My response, please bear with me as I must correct you here
Paul said,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" ( 1 Corinthians 15:34)
"Howbeit there is not every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...' ( 1 Corinthians 8:7) and paul said, the unrighteus shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor 6;9,10, "neither ...idolaters" .
Paul also said,
about some of the ministers in Corinth, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. ' (2 Corinthians 11:130 and he called them ministers of Satan.
You said,
"Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that a brother believes that the right baptism is by sprinkling water in one's head. What will you do, will you not accept him in your fellowship? I am not saying that he is to teach this kind of baptism in the church, but simply believe for himself that this is the right baptism.'
My response,
I do not believe water baptism is for salvation and i would be patient with that person as long as it took. But if they are condemning others and will not get off their falsehood and start saying all are lost and this theme continues week after week. we will have a consensus about it and examine all things and if all but the one do not come to consensus, we will at least have unity in what most believe. I still will not kick them out, for I have no power to do so. but if the whole church decides that they have transgressed against all they ca make decisions according to Matthew 18. I , however have great patience with such people as the Lord has had patience with me..
You said,
Let me give another example. I read the Atkerson's article about the women's role in the church. I didn't agree with his view. He believes that women should not talk at all in the church. Do you understand what does this mean? This means that any holy sister that wants to talk in the church, cannot fellowship with his church. This, brother is called division. By setting this rule in their church, they are not able to fellowship with sons and doughters of God.
On the other hand, if Atkerson just believed that women should not speak in the church, but let every women decide for herself what to do in the church, this would be the right thing. He would accept all those who Jesus Christ accepted.
"
My response,
I met with Steve and i disagreed with him to his face and i showed why. but we did not have enough time to fully get into it. We allow women to speak in Christ and as they are led. We only have problems with women rebuking their husbands and teaching in authority over the man. That is another discussion. But I know where they come from, they believe they are following Gods command in 1 Cor. 14 about women, and so if the whole church felt that way, their erronious doctrine would cause problems, but not for them, if they are in consensus about it. If I visited their assembly and began to show the freedoms for women that God has given, they may rebuke me or agree that i should not speak on such things. I would allow them to have their consensus, for what can i really do but use the word, and pray, and that is alot ib Gods eyes. i could not fellowship with them for too long, for I , like you would have great problems in quenching the spirit in other women. This is truely a church issue as i have been talking about, and needs to have grounded teaching on it by the Spirit. And a blanace.
But if they all just said thei piece and agreed not to disagree as the popular worldl;y saying goes, then they would have tensions mounting so great that a split would happen eventually. the women who prophesied or testified of jesus and had a revelation etc, would be rebuked sharply by the men who believed they were disobeying Gods commands. if you ask the men with conscience towards obedience of Gods command, not to rebuke the women this way, they will go against their conscience and sin if they "just do nothing" . But if you ask the women who, with conscience towards God feel free to minister as God reveals things to them, they will go against God in their conscienec if they hide their gift. This is where iI come in with sound doctrine of Christ, and prayer and seek for Gods wisdom on this matter I have resolved it and taught about this and seen peace in this area.
You said,
"Please tell me something. Were the elders that told her to leave or the church as a whole? I mean it was a decision of the church, or of the elders, wanting to protect thus the church?
If that was a decision taken only from some persons, I don't agree with this. I believe that the church as a whole should take her decisions. The elders are there just to serve the church, not to decide for her.
"
My response,
I am not sure, I was told that the woman was not welcome by a few elders, i think they were to much in control, but they may have been speaking for the whole body who were upset at her. I would have taken her aside and talked much before such an action was taken. But if a person is wilfully stubborn and will not soeak truth and persist in a heresy or damnabkle doctrine we are not told to just let them go on. we are to reject a heretic after the second admonision.
Bye for now.
You said,
hello again, God bless.
You had said to me in your last post,
"Paul didn't say that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God'
My response, please bear with me as I must correct you here
Paul said,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" ( 1 Corinthians 15:34)
"Howbeit there is not every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...' ( 1 Corinthians 8:7) and paul said, the unrighteus shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor 6;9,10, "neither ...idolaters" .
Paul also said,
about some of the ministers in Corinth, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. ' (2 Corinthians 11:130 and he called them ministers of Satan.
You said,
"Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that a brother believes that the right baptism is by sprinkling water in one's head. What will you do, will you not accept him in your fellowship? I am not saying that he is to teach this kind of baptism in the church, but simply believe for himself that this is the right baptism.'
My response,
I do not believe water baptism is for salvation and i would be patient with that person as long as it took. But if they are condemning others and will not get off their falsehood and start saying all are lost and this theme continues week after week. we will have a consensus about it and examine all things and if all but the one do not come to consensus, we will at least have unity in what most believe. I still will not kick them out, for I have no power to do so. but if the whole church decides that they have transgressed against all they ca make decisions according to Matthew 18. I , however have great patience with such people as the Lord has had patience with me..
You said,
Let me give another example. I read the Atkerson's article about the women's role in the church. I didn't agree with his view. He believes that women should not talk at all in the church. Do you understand what does this mean? This means that any holy sister that wants to talk in the church, cannot fellowship with his church. This, brother is called division. By setting this rule in their church, they are not able to fellowship with sons and doughters of God.
On the other hand, if Atkerson just believed that women should not speak in the church, but let every women decide for herself what to do in the church, this would be the right thing. He would accept all those who Jesus Christ accepted.
"
My response,
I met with Steve and i disagreed with him to his face and i showed why. but we did not have enough time to fully get into it. We allow women to speak in Christ and as they are led. We only have problems with women rebuking their husbands and teaching in authority over the man. That is another discussion. But I know where they come from, they believe they are following Gods command in 1 Cor. 14 about women, and so if the whole church felt that way, their erronious doctrine would cause problems, but not for them, if they are in consensus about it. If I visited their assembly and began to show the freedoms for women that God has given, they may rebuke me or agree that i should not speak on such things. I would allow them to have their consensus, for what can i really do but use the word, and pray, and that is alot ib Gods eyes. i could not fellowship with them for too long, for I , like you would have great problems in quenching the spirit in other women. This is truely a church issue as i have been talking about, and needs to have grounded teaching on it by the Spirit. And a blanace.
But if they all just said thei piece and agreed not to disagree as the popular worldl;y saying goes, then they would have tensions mounting so great that a split would happen eventually. the women who prophesied or testified of jesus and had a revelation etc, would be rebuked sharply by the men who believed they were disobeying Gods commands. if you ask the men with conscience towards obedience of Gods command, not to rebuke the women this way, they will go against their conscience and sin if they "just do nothing" . But if you ask the women who, with conscience towards God feel free to minister as God reveals things to them, they will go against God in their conscienec if they hide their gift. This is where iI come in with sound doctrine of Christ, and prayer and seek for Gods wisdom on this matter I have resolved it and taught about this and seen peace in this area.
You said,
"Please tell me something. Were the elders that told her to leave or the church as a whole? I mean it was a decision of the church, or of the elders, wanting to protect thus the church?
If that was a decision taken only from some persons, I don't agree with this. I believe that the church as a whole should take her decisions. The elders are there just to serve the church, not to decide for her.
"
My response,
I am not sure, I was told that the woman was not welcome by a few elders, i think they were to much in control, but they may have been speaking for the whole body who were upset at her. I would have taken her aside and talked much before such an action was taken. But if a person is wilfully stubborn and will not soeak truth and persist in a heresy or damnabkle doctrine we are not told to just let them go on. we are to reject a heretic after the second admonision.
Bye for now.
You said,
Upvote
0
Count,
Hello, are you still there?
Let me know if I answered you correctly and if you now agree with the need of doctrine and what i showd you in the last post. that would be a good closure for this section. Admitting if we are in error is a good thing.
You had said to me in your last post,
"Paul didn't say that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God'
My response, please bear with me as I must correct you here
Paul said,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" ( 1 Corinthians 15:34)
"Howbeit there is not every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...' ( 1 Corinthians 8:7) and Paul said, the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor 6;9,10, "neither ...idolaters" .
Hello, are you still there?
Let me know if I answered you correctly and if you now agree with the need of doctrine and what i showd you in the last post. that would be a good closure for this section. Admitting if we are in error is a good thing.
You had said to me in your last post,
"Paul didn't say that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God'
My response, please bear with me as I must correct you here
Paul said,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" ( 1 Corinthians 15:34)
"Howbeit there is not every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol...' ( 1 Corinthians 8:7) and Paul said, the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor 6;9,10, "neither ...idolaters" .
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Count
Regular Member
TrueWords,
As I promised I am giving you an answer, but please don't wait that I answer in every post. There are times that I have more time and desire to answer and there are times when I am busy and I am not in a mood to answer. I don't see this forum as a place when I am to pursue others for my beliefs. I see this forum just as a place for sharing. Now, if someone doesn't agree with me, that's ok. After all, I don't want that everybody agrees with me.
Back to our discussion now.
You had said to me in your last post,
Brother, let me remind you how we got here in this issue.
You said:
It is this part of your post that made me give you my above answer. As you can see, my response was on 1Cor. 6:9-11, not on all the epistle. So, I missed a phrase in my answer. I should have written it this way; "Paul didn't say in that verse that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God, but bla, bla, bla...." Do you see now the difference?
Let me say you something. When I write here in this forum, I try to share with y'all what I have learned from my studies and/or experience with my Lord. I don't open my handkonkordanz to find out any word and search all the bible where this particular word is found and so answer to any one here. I just share what I know.
So, I didn't open the Corinthians to see where the word knowledge is used so that I answer you. When I saw your answer I remembered that Paul says in the begining of this epistle that He thanks God that they were rich in every knowledge etc. In that particular verse Paul didn't say that they didn't have knowledge, but that before converting to Christ they were plunged in some particular sins, but at the time Paul write to them they were no longer in the previous condition since they were sanctified.
As for the the other verse of Corinthians that talks about some of them who didn't have the knowledge of God, I opened the N.T. and read all the chapter 15 carefully.
It is dangerous to make copy&paste from the Scriptures. If we see carefully all chapter, we'll notice that Paul speaks about another gospel, wich brings us to the very begining of our discussion. Some of them were preaching another gospel. They were teaching in the church that Christ's resurrection hadn't took place. Paul was not talking about different views in different matters that has nothing to do with another gospel.
You brother cannot copy Paul's saying that there are some who don't have the knowledge of God and then paste this verse here in forum and telling others that they don't have the knowledge of God either, just because they happen to have a different opinion with you.
I would also like to give my opinion about the Scriptures authorities. I strongly believe that our only authority is God's Authority, Holy Spirit's Authority. Any other thing apart from Him, is less than God. If we make our outhority any other thing apart from our God, we take the limelight from Him and put it elsewhere. A book, even if it is Scripture, is not our outhority. Our authority is our Lord.
I am not saying that Scriptures are useless. We can see Christ in every page of them, we can be fed by them. But it is in our spirit that we are fed whenever we read the Scriptures, not in intellectual knowledge. These two things are worlds apart. Praise the Lord we have examples that Pharesees and Saducees, and Scribes were those who knew the "word of God" better than anyone else, but it was them that failed in aknowledging the true Word of God. The same goes to us. If we take the limelight from our Lord and put it to the scriptures, we will fail to recognize His voice.
That is why I have told you that it is dangerous to reject everyone only because they don't happen to have the same opinion with us in some issues. Again I am not saying for those who teach another gospel, but for people who have different opinions in other issues.
It is the Spirit who gives life, not the letter. So we have to learn to focus on our Lord and to learn to live by Him. So, we will learn to love our brothers and sisters. The Lord will teach us, either by circumstances, or by other brothers and sisters, or by Scriptures, how to live according to His will. But let us be careful lest we reject all those who our Lord has accepted in His bosom.
Again you bring a verse out of the N.T. for proving what? That there are some false apostles among us? What do you want to support by bringing this verse to us?
Amen! That's exactly what I have tried to say in my previous posts. That person can have another opinion about baptizing, but he cannot force this opinion in the church. The same with the rest of the church. The rest have the right opinion, but they cannot force them change his mind. They can try to explain him the right baptizm, but if he is not convinced, he is still brother in Christ and thus, wellcomed at the meetings of the church. The Lord Himself may show him later his error. In the meantime he is still our brother.
That's good that you disagreed with him. It is also good that you will not talk about this issue at their meetings. But the problem is much deeper. Your wife will never be allowed to share that portion of Christ that belongs to her. This is law. By the law, the Spirit of God is quenched.
I think that this happens because people often are under Scriptures authority instead of being under God's authority. That is they focus on different doctrines, interpret them as they think it's best but they fail to give Christ to Gods people.
If they gathered around Christ, praising Him, adoring Him, talking with Him, encouraging each other by His words from Scriptures, loving Him and each other, they would never thought of that kind of doctrine. Probably, some brother would one day come up with that doctrine, but the church as a whole would decide according to how the Spirit leads Her, what to do with this doctrine. I believe that if the church is lead by the Spirit there is union. It is when the church is disconnected by the spirit that division comes, or some people try to keep that union by human means. The result is that around those people will gather only those who agree with them.
As I promised I am giving you an answer, but please don't wait that I answer in every post. There are times that I have more time and desire to answer and there are times when I am busy and I am not in a mood to answer. I don't see this forum as a place when I am to pursue others for my beliefs. I see this forum just as a place for sharing. Now, if someone doesn't agree with me, that's ok. After all, I don't want that everybody agrees with me.
Back to our discussion now.
You had said to me in your last post,
TW said:
Brother, let me remind you how we got here in this issue.
You said:
It is this part of your post that made me give you my above answer. As you can see, my response was on 1Cor. 6:9-11, not on all the epistle. So, I missed a phrase in my answer. I should have written it this way; "Paul didn't say in that verse that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God, but bla, bla, bla...." Do you see now the difference?
Let me say you something. When I write here in this forum, I try to share with y'all what I have learned from my studies and/or experience with my Lord. I don't open my handkonkordanz to find out any word and search all the bible where this particular word is found and so answer to any one here. I just share what I know.
So, I didn't open the Corinthians to see where the word knowledge is used so that I answer you. When I saw your answer I remembered that Paul says in the begining of this epistle that He thanks God that they were rich in every knowledge etc. In that particular verse Paul didn't say that they didn't have knowledge, but that before converting to Christ they were plunged in some particular sins, but at the time Paul write to them they were no longer in the previous condition since they were sanctified.
As for the the other verse of Corinthians that talks about some of them who didn't have the knowledge of God, I opened the N.T. and read all the chapter 15 carefully.
It is dangerous to make copy&paste from the Scriptures. If we see carefully all chapter, we'll notice that Paul speaks about another gospel, wich brings us to the very begining of our discussion. Some of them were preaching another gospel. They were teaching in the church that Christ's resurrection hadn't took place. Paul was not talking about different views in different matters that has nothing to do with another gospel.
You brother cannot copy Paul's saying that there are some who don't have the knowledge of God and then paste this verse here in forum and telling others that they don't have the knowledge of God either, just because they happen to have a different opinion with you.
I would also like to give my opinion about the Scriptures authorities. I strongly believe that our only authority is God's Authority, Holy Spirit's Authority. Any other thing apart from Him, is less than God. If we make our outhority any other thing apart from our God, we take the limelight from Him and put it elsewhere. A book, even if it is Scripture, is not our outhority. Our authority is our Lord.
I am not saying that Scriptures are useless. We can see Christ in every page of them, we can be fed by them. But it is in our spirit that we are fed whenever we read the Scriptures, not in intellectual knowledge. These two things are worlds apart. Praise the Lord we have examples that Pharesees and Saducees, and Scribes were those who knew the "word of God" better than anyone else, but it was them that failed in aknowledging the true Word of God. The same goes to us. If we take the limelight from our Lord and put it to the scriptures, we will fail to recognize His voice.
That is why I have told you that it is dangerous to reject everyone only because they don't happen to have the same opinion with us in some issues. Again I am not saying for those who teach another gospel, but for people who have different opinions in other issues.
It is the Spirit who gives life, not the letter. So we have to learn to focus on our Lord and to learn to live by Him. So, we will learn to love our brothers and sisters. The Lord will teach us, either by circumstances, or by other brothers and sisters, or by Scriptures, how to live according to His will. But let us be careful lest we reject all those who our Lord has accepted in His bosom.
Again you bring a verse out of the N.T. for proving what? That there are some false apostles among us? What do you want to support by bringing this verse to us?
Amen! That's exactly what I have tried to say in my previous posts. That person can have another opinion about baptizing, but he cannot force this opinion in the church. The same with the rest of the church. The rest have the right opinion, but they cannot force them change his mind. They can try to explain him the right baptizm, but if he is not convinced, he is still brother in Christ and thus, wellcomed at the meetings of the church. The Lord Himself may show him later his error. In the meantime he is still our brother.
That's good that you disagreed with him. It is also good that you will not talk about this issue at their meetings. But the problem is much deeper. Your wife will never be allowed to share that portion of Christ that belongs to her. This is law. By the law, the Spirit of God is quenched.
I think that this happens because people often are under Scriptures authority instead of being under God's authority. That is they focus on different doctrines, interpret them as they think it's best but they fail to give Christ to Gods people.
If they gathered around Christ, praising Him, adoring Him, talking with Him, encouraging each other by His words from Scriptures, loving Him and each other, they would never thought of that kind of doctrine. Probably, some brother would one day come up with that doctrine, but the church as a whole would decide according to how the Spirit leads Her, what to do with this doctrine. I believe that if the church is lead by the Spirit there is union. It is when the church is disconnected by the spirit that division comes, or some people try to keep that union by human means. The result is that around those people will gather only those who agree with them.
Upvote
0
Count
You had said,
It is this part of your post that made me give you my above answer. As you can see, my response was on 1Cor. 6:9-11, not on all the epistle. So, I missed a phrase in my answer. I should have written it this way; "Paul didn't say in that verse that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God, but bla, bla, bla...." Do you see now the difference?
My response,
I see where you are trying to come from. But, even in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul had the man who was in fornication with his fathers wife in mind. He had just spoken about it. He also had other sins they were in in mind. So this verse applied even when he wrote it. The ones that Paul refers to when he begins the epistle and says things like, Unto the church... he is speaking to them as a whole. But among them were some who had not the knowledge of God and the ones who were in sins such as the man fornicating etc did not have that knowledge as they are in sin. John said when someone walks in darkness and says they are in the light they lie, and John said whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not, whosoever sinneth hath not seen him neither known him , (1 John 3:6). So to know God is eternal life, and to abide in Christ is eternal life, if a man was in fornication he isn't abiding in eternal life and can not claim to have seen God or known him, (as he is in the darkness of sin, or at the time he is in sin). So even 1 Cor. 6:9-12 does speak of those who have not the knowledge of God.
You said,
Let me say you something. When I write here in this forum, I try to share with y'all what I have learned from my studies and/or experience with my Lord. I don't open my handkonkordanz to find out any word and search all the bible where this particular word is found and so answer to any one here. I just share what I know.
My response,
I believe we should use all the means God provides.The Spirit of God can lead us to search in this way also. Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.
You said,
As for the the other verse of Corinthians that talks about some of them who didn't have the knowledge of God, I opened the N.T. and read all the chapter 15 carefully.
It is dangerous to make copy&paste from the Scriptures. If we see carefully all chapter, we'll notice that Paul speaks about another gospel, which brings us to the very begining of our discussion. Some of them were preaching another gospel. They were teaching in the church that Christ's resurrection hadn't took place. Paul was not talking about different views in different matters that has nothing to do with another gospel.
My response,
In the very verse I showed you, Paul said,
Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. ( 1 Cor 15:34).
Here it seems that he is concerned with sin. Yes, he was talking about the ressurection etc which is a doctrinal issue, but he was in context of verse 32 -34 putting in a little plug about not being deceived about how corrupt communications corrupt good manners. He even said in verse 31, I protest by your rejoicing..I die daily ( 1 Cor 15:31) ..the context would bring out that he is talking about their commincations and corruption and sin, they rejoiced in things Paul would not have. Paul had said this earlier in 1 Cor 5:2,6. Paul is rebuking the eat drink and be merry mindset that some might have had. he rebuked drunkenness in 1 Cor 11:21. He had already said that if some come drunk they deceived themselves if they thought they would enter the kingdom. here in 1 Cor 15 Paul uses a similar expression and says,
Be not deceived..Awake to righteousness and sin not.. If all of them were already AWAKE and were not sinning. what would be the need for such talk?
You said,
I would also like to give my opinion about the Scriptures authorities. I strongly believe that our only authority is God's Authority, Holy Spirit's Authority. Any other thing apart from Him, is less than God. If we make our outhority any other thing apart from our God, we take the limelight from Him and put it elsewhere. A book, even if it is Scripture, is not our outhority. Our authority is our Lord.
My response,
When Paul spoke or wrote, he said things like,
For this cause we thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
We see here that Paul did not consider his words the word of men unless he said so, and he only said this a few time. All other things he wrote are called scripture and are from God speaking to the church. This is not instruction to be righteous, or saved, in many things he said, but instruction IN righteousness. The gospel also was according to the scriptures. Even the traditions, or patterns that were delivered by the apostles are from God, they were transmitted from God to the church. They are authorative therefore. Paul said to Titus,
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. ( Titus 2:15)
Paul could say such thing to Titus because he was absolutely convinced that the THINGS that he WROTE to Titus were from the Lord. That is where the authority comes. We also can show others the things from the Lord and have this authority. If we speak the truth I love and faith and in the Spirit.
Paul also said,
"..the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" ( 1 Cor 14:37)
'Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our lord jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received of us." ( 2 Thessalonians 3:6)
"...this we command you...' ( 2 Thessalonians 3:10)
"...but they are commanded to be under obedience...' (1 Cor 14;34)
"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (1Thessalonians 4:11)
"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and saviour." ( 2 Peter 3:2)
"For ye know what commandment we gave you by the Lord Jesus.' ( 1 Thessalonians 4:2)
"...after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.' ( Acts 1:2). Notice that the Holy Ghost gave commandments which the apostles later delivered to us. When Paul said that the things he wrote were the commandements of the Lord he meant it and I believe it.
"..sisters son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments..." ( Colossians 4:10)
and of Peter it is said,
"And he commanded them..." (Acts 10:48)
It is obvious that Jesus gave commandments and expected all to follow.
You said,
If we take the limelight from our Lord and put it to the scriptures, we will fail to recognize His voice.
My response,
Jesus speaks to us though the holy scriptures also, we have his very words. All scripture is profitable for doctrine...instruction in righteousness (2 timothy 3:16)
You said,
That is why I have told you that it is dangerous to reject everyone only because they don't happen to have the same opinion with us in some issues. Again I am not saying for those who teach another gospel, but for people who have different opinions in other issues.
My response,
I do not reject anyone in their person, The Lord has taught me to love my neighbor and to hope for the good. But i reject anything they say if it directly contradicts Gods words and commands.Or if if leads people away from the patient waiting on God and sets up man made religious traditions that make the word of God of no effect. Jesus also rebuked such things.
You said,
It is the Spirit who gives life, not the letter. So we have to learn to focus on our Lord and to learn to live by Him.
My response,
The Spirit of God gave commandments to the apostles, and they delivered them to us and they are for instruction in righteousness etc. They were in a unique place to rite such things for us to have and which would become scripture. Paul warns the churches and commands them to obey the traditions and if men do not he says withdraw from them. These things are only made vague if we do not seek diligently to know what Paul is talking about. Paul said they were to follow his ways and everything they saw in him, to do. We see paul setting up churches in homes around Christ as the head, and all them body taught to wait for revelation of God and for their particular ministry and to allow elders to be made by the Holy Ghost, then to recognize them etc etc.
You had said,
It is this part of your post that made me give you my above answer. As you can see, my response was on 1Cor. 6:9-11, not on all the epistle. So, I missed a phrase in my answer. I should have written it this way; "Paul didn't say in that verse that there were some who didn't have the knowledge of God, but bla, bla, bla...." Do you see now the difference?
My response,
I see where you are trying to come from. But, even in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul had the man who was in fornication with his fathers wife in mind. He had just spoken about it. He also had other sins they were in in mind. So this verse applied even when he wrote it. The ones that Paul refers to when he begins the epistle and says things like, Unto the church... he is speaking to them as a whole. But among them were some who had not the knowledge of God and the ones who were in sins such as the man fornicating etc did not have that knowledge as they are in sin. John said when someone walks in darkness and says they are in the light they lie, and John said whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not, whosoever sinneth hath not seen him neither known him , (1 John 3:6). So to know God is eternal life, and to abide in Christ is eternal life, if a man was in fornication he isn't abiding in eternal life and can not claim to have seen God or known him, (as he is in the darkness of sin, or at the time he is in sin). So even 1 Cor. 6:9-12 does speak of those who have not the knowledge of God.
You said,
Let me say you something. When I write here in this forum, I try to share with y'all what I have learned from my studies and/or experience with my Lord. I don't open my handkonkordanz to find out any word and search all the bible where this particular word is found and so answer to any one here. I just share what I know.
My response,
I believe we should use all the means God provides.The Spirit of God can lead us to search in this way also. Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.
You said,
As for the the other verse of Corinthians that talks about some of them who didn't have the knowledge of God, I opened the N.T. and read all the chapter 15 carefully.
It is dangerous to make copy&paste from the Scriptures. If we see carefully all chapter, we'll notice that Paul speaks about another gospel, which brings us to the very begining of our discussion. Some of them were preaching another gospel. They were teaching in the church that Christ's resurrection hadn't took place. Paul was not talking about different views in different matters that has nothing to do with another gospel.
My response,
In the very verse I showed you, Paul said,
Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. ( 1 Cor 15:34).
Here it seems that he is concerned with sin. Yes, he was talking about the ressurection etc which is a doctrinal issue, but he was in context of verse 32 -34 putting in a little plug about not being deceived about how corrupt communications corrupt good manners. He even said in verse 31, I protest by your rejoicing..I die daily ( 1 Cor 15:31) ..the context would bring out that he is talking about their commincations and corruption and sin, they rejoiced in things Paul would not have. Paul had said this earlier in 1 Cor 5:2,6. Paul is rebuking the eat drink and be merry mindset that some might have had. he rebuked drunkenness in 1 Cor 11:21. He had already said that if some come drunk they deceived themselves if they thought they would enter the kingdom. here in 1 Cor 15 Paul uses a similar expression and says,
Be not deceived..Awake to righteousness and sin not.. If all of them were already AWAKE and were not sinning. what would be the need for such talk?
You said,
I would also like to give my opinion about the Scriptures authorities. I strongly believe that our only authority is God's Authority, Holy Spirit's Authority. Any other thing apart from Him, is less than God. If we make our outhority any other thing apart from our God, we take the limelight from Him and put it elsewhere. A book, even if it is Scripture, is not our outhority. Our authority is our Lord.
My response,
When Paul spoke or wrote, he said things like,
For this cause we thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
We see here that Paul did not consider his words the word of men unless he said so, and he only said this a few time. All other things he wrote are called scripture and are from God speaking to the church. This is not instruction to be righteous, or saved, in many things he said, but instruction IN righteousness. The gospel also was according to the scriptures. Even the traditions, or patterns that were delivered by the apostles are from God, they were transmitted from God to the church. They are authorative therefore. Paul said to Titus,
These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. ( Titus 2:15)
Paul could say such thing to Titus because he was absolutely convinced that the THINGS that he WROTE to Titus were from the Lord. That is where the authority comes. We also can show others the things from the Lord and have this authority. If we speak the truth I love and faith and in the Spirit.
Paul also said,
"..the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" ( 1 Cor 14:37)
'Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our lord jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received of us." ( 2 Thessalonians 3:6)
"...this we command you...' ( 2 Thessalonians 3:10)
"...but they are commanded to be under obedience...' (1 Cor 14;34)
"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (1Thessalonians 4:11)
"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and saviour." ( 2 Peter 3:2)
"For ye know what commandment we gave you by the Lord Jesus.' ( 1 Thessalonians 4:2)
"...after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.' ( Acts 1:2). Notice that the Holy Ghost gave commandments which the apostles later delivered to us. When Paul said that the things he wrote were the commandements of the Lord he meant it and I believe it.
"..sisters son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments..." ( Colossians 4:10)
and of Peter it is said,
"And he commanded them..." (Acts 10:48)
It is obvious that Jesus gave commandments and expected all to follow.
You said,
If we take the limelight from our Lord and put it to the scriptures, we will fail to recognize His voice.
My response,
Jesus speaks to us though the holy scriptures also, we have his very words. All scripture is profitable for doctrine...instruction in righteousness (2 timothy 3:16)
You said,
That is why I have told you that it is dangerous to reject everyone only because they don't happen to have the same opinion with us in some issues. Again I am not saying for those who teach another gospel, but for people who have different opinions in other issues.
My response,
I do not reject anyone in their person, The Lord has taught me to love my neighbor and to hope for the good. But i reject anything they say if it directly contradicts Gods words and commands.Or if if leads people away from the patient waiting on God and sets up man made religious traditions that make the word of God of no effect. Jesus also rebuked such things.
You said,
It is the Spirit who gives life, not the letter. So we have to learn to focus on our Lord and to learn to live by Him.
My response,
The Spirit of God gave commandments to the apostles, and they delivered them to us and they are for instruction in righteousness etc. They were in a unique place to rite such things for us to have and which would become scripture. Paul warns the churches and commands them to obey the traditions and if men do not he says withdraw from them. These things are only made vague if we do not seek diligently to know what Paul is talking about. Paul said they were to follow his ways and everything they saw in him, to do. We see paul setting up churches in homes around Christ as the head, and all them body taught to wait for revelation of God and for their particular ministry and to allow elders to be made by the Holy Ghost, then to recognize them etc etc.
Upvote
0
discernomatic
Well-Known Member
Hi TrueWords,
I agree with a lot in your original post, but don't agree with everything that Frank Viola writes. I agree with some of his reasoning concerning the false role that pastors have in many churches, but cannot agree with other things.
I looked at the resources he recommends.
Viola also recommends Watchman Nee, and his disciple Kaung.
Here some info about Nee, Rick Ross, an expert on cults has collected information about Nee: http://www.rickross.com/groups/local.html.
Viola seems in favor of rejecting mainline Christianity. I wouldn't reject all of it, although I agree that changes could be made. Indeed, I favor the house-church form if at all possible. The problem is that he wants to substitute the old form with something so formless and doctrineless that Peter and Paul wouldn't even recognize it. Viola is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no doctrine holding a house church or house-church system together, it is very easy to create one's own doctrine. In all of Viola's entreatments to do church biblically, he rejects biblical doctrine.
He seems to criticize the third-wave, but only their methods and not is what behind it - which very well may be a false spirit. He wants it too, but puts his own method forward for gaining it.
He criticizes guruism, but accepts the works of Gene Edwards, a self-acclaimed Apostle. Edwards is part of the Apostolic Movement, the five-fold ministry is a part of that. Even though Viola claims to re-think the five-fold ministry, I cannot be sure he is really doing that if his ministry recommends works by Gene Edwards.
He seems to criticize cell churches, but is only questioning their form of leadership.
In Rethinking the Wineskin he lists points for a "biblical Paradigm", one of them is:
"spends most of its resources on "the poor among you" and apostolic workers"
Ah. So that is what it is really about, APOSTOLIC workers.
Viola also admits: "The only way to renew the institutional church is to wholly disassemble it and build something far different!" I think that Viola is trying to discredit and disrupt mainline churches, not in order to build New Testament house churches, but to reconstruct the church in a new APOSTOLIC way, which is to say that he is trying to reconstruct the Body of Christ with a new form of control, namely the Apostolic/Prophetic system. In this system you could even dispense with the role of pastor and still control the congregation if the adherents are willing to listen to a few apostles and prophets.
There have been so many yammering about old-fashioned and staid church systems and bad pastors lately. Rick Warren, McLaren and others have taken one direction with emerging churches to accomodate the sort that want to continue in churches with buildings but reject traditions and specifically target the unchurched. Warren's 40 days program is designed to get cell groups going in churches of any size. Viola also noticed that the wind was changing and made the appropriate adjustment, except that he is targeting those that wish to have home churches and the unchurched that would never feel at home in a public building. He is telling this target group what they want to hear so that they follow him.
In throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he'll have to get another baby, but it won't be Jesus Christ anymore. If every last thing is rejected from the church system and systems that have existed up to now, even the core beliefs that every Christian shares that are based on the gospel itself, then even the gospel may be lost in the rebuilding. Viola may be preaching a new gospel afterwards, with a new Christ which would not be one at all.
"What is needed is a new wineskin and a new garment (Luke 5:36-38)! What is needed is a paradigm shift (on a natural plane). What is needed is a fresh revelation of Christ and His church (on a spiritual plane)."
He will do this in a series of paradigm shifts, the final result will not resemble the first one in the least. I have put together a few links about it here: http://www.jamesfive19.com/Hegelian_Dialectic_and_Diaprax.html.
Sure, the reasons he wants changes may be valid, I agree with many of them, but cannot agree with the final results of the changes he proposes. I think that he is not telling us the whole story about the final state of the new church he intends to build. His works and affiliations reveal inconsistency, something that should not be found in someone who claims to teach and lead. They also reveal an intelligent purpose, which coupled with inconsistency in a leader can be a dangerous mixture.
Like I said before, I agree with a lot of what you posted, TrueWords, and am in favor of house churches, but cannot accept Viola's solution to the problem.
I agree with a lot in your original post, but don't agree with everything that Frank Viola writes. I agree with some of his reasoning concerning the false role that pastors have in many churches, but cannot agree with other things.
I looked at the resources he recommends.
Viola also recommends Watchman Nee, and his disciple Kaung.
Here some info about Nee, Rick Ross, an expert on cults has collected information about Nee: http://www.rickross.com/groups/local.html.
Viola seems in favor of rejecting mainline Christianity. I wouldn't reject all of it, although I agree that changes could be made. Indeed, I favor the house-church form if at all possible. The problem is that he wants to substitute the old form with something so formless and doctrineless that Peter and Paul wouldn't even recognize it. Viola is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no doctrine holding a house church or house-church system together, it is very easy to create one's own doctrine. In all of Viola's entreatments to do church biblically, he rejects biblical doctrine.
He seems to criticize the third-wave, but only their methods and not is what behind it - which very well may be a false spirit. He wants it too, but puts his own method forward for gaining it.
He criticizes guruism, but accepts the works of Gene Edwards, a self-acclaimed Apostle. Edwards is part of the Apostolic Movement, the five-fold ministry is a part of that. Even though Viola claims to re-think the five-fold ministry, I cannot be sure he is really doing that if his ministry recommends works by Gene Edwards.
He seems to criticize cell churches, but is only questioning their form of leadership.
In Rethinking the Wineskin he lists points for a "biblical Paradigm", one of them is:
"spends most of its resources on "the poor among you" and apostolic workers"
Ah. So that is what it is really about, APOSTOLIC workers.
Viola also admits: "The only way to renew the institutional church is to wholly disassemble it and build something far different!" I think that Viola is trying to discredit and disrupt mainline churches, not in order to build New Testament house churches, but to reconstruct the church in a new APOSTOLIC way, which is to say that he is trying to reconstruct the Body of Christ with a new form of control, namely the Apostolic/Prophetic system. In this system you could even dispense with the role of pastor and still control the congregation if the adherents are willing to listen to a few apostles and prophets.
There have been so many yammering about old-fashioned and staid church systems and bad pastors lately. Rick Warren, McLaren and others have taken one direction with emerging churches to accomodate the sort that want to continue in churches with buildings but reject traditions and specifically target the unchurched. Warren's 40 days program is designed to get cell groups going in churches of any size. Viola also noticed that the wind was changing and made the appropriate adjustment, except that he is targeting those that wish to have home churches and the unchurched that would never feel at home in a public building. He is telling this target group what they want to hear so that they follow him.
In throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he'll have to get another baby, but it won't be Jesus Christ anymore. If every last thing is rejected from the church system and systems that have existed up to now, even the core beliefs that every Christian shares that are based on the gospel itself, then even the gospel may be lost in the rebuilding. Viola may be preaching a new gospel afterwards, with a new Christ which would not be one at all.
"What is needed is a new wineskin and a new garment (Luke 5:36-38)! What is needed is a paradigm shift (on a natural plane). What is needed is a fresh revelation of Christ and His church (on a spiritual plane)."
He will do this in a series of paradigm shifts, the final result will not resemble the first one in the least. I have put together a few links about it here: http://www.jamesfive19.com/Hegelian_Dialectic_and_Diaprax.html.
Sure, the reasons he wants changes may be valid, I agree with many of them, but cannot agree with the final results of the changes he proposes. I think that he is not telling us the whole story about the final state of the new church he intends to build. His works and affiliations reveal inconsistency, something that should not be found in someone who claims to teach and lead. They also reveal an intelligent purpose, which coupled with inconsistency in a leader can be a dangerous mixture.
Like I said before, I agree with a lot of what you posted, TrueWords, and am in favor of house churches, but cannot accept Viola's solution to the problem.
Upvote
0
discernomatic
Hello, and I am glad to hear your thinking here,
You said,
"The problem is that he wants to substitute the old form with something so formless and doctrineless that Peter and Paul wouldn't even recognize it. Viola is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no doctrine holding a house church or house-church system together, it is very easy to create one's own doctrine. In all of Viola's entreatments to do church biblically, he rejects biblical doctrine."
My response,
I agree with you here, I talked to Frank in person a while ago, I also talked to some of the people in the home meetings he helped with. they seem to not be concrned with doctrine at all. I was a bit troubled with them and ther mindset.I do not follow Frank Viola, I just happen to agree with some of his writings, but not all. The Lord showed me along time ago about his church and waiting on him and allowing Christ to be the head and to lead us. I also withstood gene edwards before a whole house church ( so called 0 conference and he was to be blamed. He also downplays doctrine and when I tried to use scripture to correct his error, he just proudly stood back and looked at me with a mocking tyoe attitude and implied that i was like som pharisee for trying to use scripture to correct him. He greatly troubled me with his understanding and ways.
You said,
"Do not be satisfied with an illusion, however beautiful it may be. Always search for the truth. The truth is not always pretty. Do not take anyone at his word, check it out for yourself."
My response,
I do not follow other ideas of the church if they contradict the clear message the Lord has shown myself and my other brethren. I was looking at the primary command in 1 Cor 14;26-38. vs 37 is the command part. If this comand is allowed to happen, then God is allowed to give revelation and doctrines and gifts freely. But when this is hindered then freedom is hindered and Christ may be outside knocking while inside they think all is well.
Anyway God bless, nice to talk to you. there is so much more to talk about, God willing we can get into different areas of Gods building plan.
"
Hello, and I am glad to hear your thinking here,
You said,
"The problem is that he wants to substitute the old form with something so formless and doctrineless that Peter and Paul wouldn't even recognize it. Viola is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no doctrine holding a house church or house-church system together, it is very easy to create one's own doctrine. In all of Viola's entreatments to do church biblically, he rejects biblical doctrine."
My response,
I agree with you here, I talked to Frank in person a while ago, I also talked to some of the people in the home meetings he helped with. they seem to not be concrned with doctrine at all. I was a bit troubled with them and ther mindset.I do not follow Frank Viola, I just happen to agree with some of his writings, but not all. The Lord showed me along time ago about his church and waiting on him and allowing Christ to be the head and to lead us. I also withstood gene edwards before a whole house church ( so called 0 conference and he was to be blamed. He also downplays doctrine and when I tried to use scripture to correct his error, he just proudly stood back and looked at me with a mocking tyoe attitude and implied that i was like som pharisee for trying to use scripture to correct him. He greatly troubled me with his understanding and ways.
You said,
"Do not be satisfied with an illusion, however beautiful it may be. Always search for the truth. The truth is not always pretty. Do not take anyone at his word, check it out for yourself."
My response,
I do not follow other ideas of the church if they contradict the clear message the Lord has shown myself and my other brethren. I was looking at the primary command in 1 Cor 14;26-38. vs 37 is the command part. If this comand is allowed to happen, then God is allowed to give revelation and doctrines and gifts freely. But when this is hindered then freedom is hindered and Christ may be outside knocking while inside they think all is well.
Anyway God bless, nice to talk to you. there is so much more to talk about, God willing we can get into different areas of Gods building plan.
"
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
discernomatic
Well-Known Member
Hi TrueWords,
I don't agree with verse 34, even despite the command in verse 37. I still think that some things came out of Paul's own head, but since they are from an Apostle (I don't believe in modern day apostles as you may have gathered) that they have considerable weight, more than say what Calvin or Wesley wrote, but not infallibility. It may be that we interpret 1 Cor. 14 differently, as well.
I agree with you, that some congregations would be surprised to find Jesus still knocking to get in, but not necessarily due to tradition or doctrine, rather to whether they have hearts of stone or of flesh. The most sound doctrine available would do no good if Christians don't tend their relationships to God and to one another. Agreement is good, obedience to God is better, but Christian faith is the spring that originated with the Holy Spirit which He planted in believer's hearts, and after that faith comes from the heart. Without that and its evidence, it is just hot air and works, a heart of stone.
In all of my wandering I have only seen one congregation without a toxic atmosphere in the church where you could sense that people were upright, honest, open, and eager to learn Scripture - what it really says, not what they wanted to hear. I was just visiting for one month, but knew that I had come home. I was sorry to have to leave that group of people. They had a form of house church, but without any gimmicks or programs, just expository teaching. The doctrine was a bit staid, but the people were not. There were just a few tiny bits of doctrine that I could not agree with, but that group was walking in the Spirit, I recognized it as the real thing. There were no tongues or prophecies, there was no ecstasy or a feeling of spiritual "weight" when they got together. They sang very little, there were no drums (thank goodness) or even other musical instruments, but their hearts were in the right place. The pastor was humble, a real servant, they have community down well. I keep in touch with their activities through relatives, and know that they help each other in any way they can, that everyone is consistently honest and upright with the others.
I hope that I can be blessed enough someday to find a group like that - or found one. As I doubt I will find one like it where I live now, I am trying to found one. There is no protestant presence in my town at all, much less any group for born-again believers. The concept of house church is too strange here, everyone would think it is a cult, so I will call it a bible study. If no one can be found that has a gift for teaching - and has the character traits recommended by Paul - we can still encourage each other and learn by studying together. I hope that we can be a community like the one that I was blessed enough to visit. Eventually, as we grow together, the idea of house church may present itself without my help.
Am looking forward to your posts, TrueWords, but may not get into many discussions like I used to. May be restricted to lurking sometimes. Am not always here on the forum, am in a few others and have a site to tend.
Upvote
0
Count
Regular Member
Discernomatic, I read your posts directing to TrueWords and I just wanted to share some thoughts with you.
As I was reading your first post, it gave to me a sense of discouragment. What do I mean by this? My English is not so good and often I refuse to write because I am not sure that I will rightly convey my thoughts.
I noticed in your first post that you said that you didn't agree with this and didn't agree with that. I think that this is the very center of our problem. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that all of us that are sharing with each other are born-again Christians? Do you believe that the rest of us are your brothers and sisters in Christ? If yes, do you believe that we could felowship with each other? Do you believe that the fact we are in Christ is enough to fellowship with each other?
Let me give you an example. At this time I am discussing in another forum (Albanian forum) with a Catholic. I can see through his posts his love for the Lord. I know, that he is an born again Christian. I can see it from his writings. However, because he is Catholic, I disagree with him in many things, but, seeing his love for the Lord, I never have talked to him for our differences.
I feel/believe that if we were to live at the same neighbourhood, I could fellowship with him. I could meet with him and pray together to the Lord, praise together the Lord, talk together for the Lord, listen together of what the Lord wants to say to us, and so on. I believe that regardless to our differences, if we don't focus on those, but focus on our Lord, we could easily fellowship together. I strongly believe that he is a regenerated Christian, that he is a brother of mine, a child of our Father's family. How could I reject him, just because he is a Catholic?
The same goes with your post. You disagree with this, or that, giving the opinon to the readers that the others are dangerous, or not worthy of fellowshiping with them.
What do I want to say with this? The same thing that I have tried to convey to brother TrueWords. We tend to have our own ideas for some spiritual things, and we tend to fellowship only with those who happened to agree with us. I think that this is the problem. This way we only restrict our fellowship with those who happened to agree with us in most of our ideas. What about the most important thing? The fact that the others are as brothers and sisters as those who agree with us? Have you ever thought that rejecting one of these brothers and sisters, is the same as rejecting our Lord himself? Why don't we let others have their own views, by not focusing on them, but on our Lord instead?
I would also like to say something about W. Nee. I think that you have made a big mistake by confusing W. Nee with the Local Church. The Local Church has little to do with W. Nee, not to say nothing. The movement of Watchman Nee was called the Little Flock, and that movement has nothing to do with the Local Church.
Witness Lee may have been one of Nee's disciples, but it doesn't mean that Watchman Nee, if he was alive, would agree with some really peculiar beliefs of Lee. Have you ever read Nees books? Have you ever heard about his story? Have you ever read that because of his love for Christ, suffered 20 years in prison until his death?
If not, please read his books, and you will see that Nee is one of the greatest Christians of all the times. I have greatly been influenced by his books and really believe that He is one of the modern....Apostles. I know that you don't believe in apostles, but it happens that I believe that there have been apostles, apart frome the twelve. (sorry for that ) Apostles are not more and not less than sent-ones. I mean really sent ones, not when others think they are sent ones.
I have also read books from Frank Viola and Gene Edwards, but I wouldn't want to defend them because they are still alive, and I would be misunderstood. But I really believe that they are brothers in Christ who have a lot of revelation about Christ and the Church. I don't know them in personal, but I have read their books and I agree in most of what they write, especially of what they write about the centrality of the cross in believers's lives and church life.
However, let me strongly support what you have said in your previous post:
I couldn't agree more with your above statement, sister. AMEN!
As I was reading your first post, it gave to me a sense of discouragment. What do I mean by this? My English is not so good and often I refuse to write because I am not sure that I will rightly convey my thoughts.
I noticed in your first post that you said that you didn't agree with this and didn't agree with that. I think that this is the very center of our problem. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that all of us that are sharing with each other are born-again Christians? Do you believe that the rest of us are your brothers and sisters in Christ? If yes, do you believe that we could felowship with each other? Do you believe that the fact we are in Christ is enough to fellowship with each other?
Let me give you an example. At this time I am discussing in another forum (Albanian forum) with a Catholic. I can see through his posts his love for the Lord. I know, that he is an born again Christian. I can see it from his writings. However, because he is Catholic, I disagree with him in many things, but, seeing his love for the Lord, I never have talked to him for our differences.
I feel/believe that if we were to live at the same neighbourhood, I could fellowship with him. I could meet with him and pray together to the Lord, praise together the Lord, talk together for the Lord, listen together of what the Lord wants to say to us, and so on. I believe that regardless to our differences, if we don't focus on those, but focus on our Lord, we could easily fellowship together. I strongly believe that he is a regenerated Christian, that he is a brother of mine, a child of our Father's family. How could I reject him, just because he is a Catholic?
The same goes with your post. You disagree with this, or that, giving the opinon to the readers that the others are dangerous, or not worthy of fellowshiping with them.
What do I want to say with this? The same thing that I have tried to convey to brother TrueWords. We tend to have our own ideas for some spiritual things, and we tend to fellowship only with those who happened to agree with us. I think that this is the problem. This way we only restrict our fellowship with those who happened to agree with us in most of our ideas. What about the most important thing? The fact that the others are as brothers and sisters as those who agree with us? Have you ever thought that rejecting one of these brothers and sisters, is the same as rejecting our Lord himself? Why don't we let others have their own views, by not focusing on them, but on our Lord instead?
I would also like to say something about W. Nee. I think that you have made a big mistake by confusing W. Nee with the Local Church. The Local Church has little to do with W. Nee, not to say nothing. The movement of Watchman Nee was called the Little Flock, and that movement has nothing to do with the Local Church.
Witness Lee may have been one of Nee's disciples, but it doesn't mean that Watchman Nee, if he was alive, would agree with some really peculiar beliefs of Lee. Have you ever read Nees books? Have you ever heard about his story? Have you ever read that because of his love for Christ, suffered 20 years in prison until his death?
If not, please read his books, and you will see that Nee is one of the greatest Christians of all the times. I have greatly been influenced by his books and really believe that He is one of the modern....Apostles. I know that you don't believe in apostles, but it happens that I believe that there have been apostles, apart frome the twelve. (sorry for that
) Apostles are not more and not less than sent-ones. I mean really sent ones, not when others think they are sent ones.I have also read books from Frank Viola and Gene Edwards, but I wouldn't want to defend them because they are still alive, and I would be misunderstood. But I really believe that they are brothers in Christ who have a lot of revelation about Christ and the Church. I don't know them in personal, but I have read their books and I agree in most of what they write, especially of what they write about the centrality of the cross in believers's lives and church life.
However, let me strongly support what you have said in your previous post:
I couldn't agree more with your above statement, sister. AMEN!
Upvote
0
discernomatic
Hello,
You had said in your post,
I don't agree with verse 34, even despite the command in verse 37. I still think that some things came out of Paul's own head,
My response,
Sorry to hrear that. Paul would say to you, about these things and right after verse 37, ( I show you this in love to your soul, please do not think I am trying to hurt you)
But if any be ignorant. let them be ignorant ( 1 Cor 14:38 KJV)
If he ignores this he himself will be ignored ( 1 Cor 14:38 NIV)
If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized( 1 Corinthians 1`4:38 RSV)
If he does not acknowledge this, God will not acknowledge him ( 1 Cor 14:38)
I have an understanding of 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35 etc about womens roles that allows women to seak in the metings. The kind of speaking here is the issue, this speaking has o do with judgeing their husbands in the meetings, not the prophesying and tesifying and praying that women are allowed to do IN CHRIST. As I understand it. if you think, or have heard that tis verse has been used to totally silence the women, I can understand your trouble. But we must believe what Paul wrote, or we cannot believe anything he wrote. He said that what he wrote were not the words of men but of God.
You also said,
but since they are from an Apostle (I don't believe in modern day apostles as you may have gathered) that they have considerable weight, more than say what Calvin or Wesley wrote, but not infallibility.
My response,
There are apostles today and there were more than the twelve apostles in the bible. We read of Timnotheous and Silvanius, and Paul, and barnanbas and possibly Titus. Who were all apostles after the ressurection .In Ephesians 4:8-11. We see that the gifts of apostles etc were given after the ressurection also. Barnabas was an aposlte as we read in Acts 14:14, and so were Silvanius and Timothious in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 with 1 Thessalonians 2:6)
You said ,
I agree with you, that some congregations would be surprised to find Jesus still knocking to get in, but not necessarily due to tradition or doctrine, rather to whether they have hearts of stone or of flesh.
My response,
yes the inner heart attitude is the key. But when men have things of their own hardened hearts that hinder God from coming in, and their traditions of men that make the word of no effect, they add to this condition of their heart and keep it there.
You said,
The most sound doctrine available would do no good if Christians don't tend their relationships to God and to one another.
My response,
Yes the love from the heart and in Christ is the key. But the same coulkd be said, the relationships would not be right if they are in false doctrine that does not allow or teach them how to nurture this relationship with God and eachother.
You said,
Agreement is good, obedience to God is better,
My response,
Obedience to the commandements of the Lord is best as we read in 1 Cor 14;26-38.
You said,
In all of my wandering I have only seen one congregation without a toxic atmosphere in the church where you could sense that people were upright, honest, open, and eager to learn Scripture - what it really says, not what they wanted to hear. I was just visiting for one month, but knew that I had come home. I was sorry to have to leave that group of people. They had a form of house church, but without any gimmicks or programs, just expository teaching....The pastor was humble, a real servant, they have community down well.
My response,
I am glad to hear that you have seen the freedoms God wants and his order in some measure, but, they had a major flaw already by setting up a one man pastor show, read my article again and see why.
You said,
I hope that I can be blessed enough someday to find a group like that - or found one. As I doubt I will find one like it where I live now, I am trying to found one.
My response,
First use your home as a base and if you are a women inviute other families or friend to your house and start to wait on the Lord, ask him to build you up.
You said,
There is no protestant presence in my town at all, much less any group for born-again believers. The concept of house church is too strange here, everyone would think it is a cult, so I will call it a bible study. If no one can be found that has a gift for teaching - and has the character traits recommended by Paul - we can still encourage each other and learn by studying together. I hope that we can be a community like the one that I was blessed enough to visit. Eventually, as we grow together, the idea of house church may present itself without my help.
My response,
Yes, and wait on the Lord seek and you shall find.
You said,
Am looking forward to your posts, TrueWords, but may not get into many discussions like I used to.
My response,
I am looking foreward to talking with you also. God bless, and i hoe that I could have helped you in some way as the Lord leads me.
Hello,
You had said in your post,
I don't agree with verse 34, even despite the command in verse 37. I still think that some things came out of Paul's own head,
My response,
Sorry to hrear that. Paul would say to you, about these things and right after verse 37, ( I show you this in love to your soul, please do not think I am trying to hurt you)
But if any be ignorant. let them be ignorant ( 1 Cor 14:38 KJV)
If he ignores this he himself will be ignored ( 1 Cor 14:38 NIV)
If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized( 1 Corinthians 1`4:38 RSV)
If he does not acknowledge this, God will not acknowledge him ( 1 Cor 14:38)
I have an understanding of 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35 etc about womens roles that allows women to seak in the metings. The kind of speaking here is the issue, this speaking has o do with judgeing their husbands in the meetings, not the prophesying and tesifying and praying that women are allowed to do IN CHRIST. As I understand it. if you think, or have heard that tis verse has been used to totally silence the women, I can understand your trouble. But we must believe what Paul wrote, or we cannot believe anything he wrote. He said that what he wrote were not the words of men but of God.
You also said,
but since they are from an Apostle (I don't believe in modern day apostles as you may have gathered) that they have considerable weight, more than say what Calvin or Wesley wrote, but not infallibility.
My response,
There are apostles today and there were more than the twelve apostles in the bible. We read of Timnotheous and Silvanius, and Paul, and barnanbas and possibly Titus. Who were all apostles after the ressurection .In Ephesians 4:8-11. We see that the gifts of apostles etc were given after the ressurection also. Barnabas was an aposlte as we read in Acts 14:14, and so were Silvanius and Timothious in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 with 1 Thessalonians 2:6)
You said ,
I agree with you, that some congregations would be surprised to find Jesus still knocking to get in, but not necessarily due to tradition or doctrine, rather to whether they have hearts of stone or of flesh.
My response,
yes the inner heart attitude is the key. But when men have things of their own hardened hearts that hinder God from coming in, and their traditions of men that make the word of no effect, they add to this condition of their heart and keep it there.
You said,
The most sound doctrine available would do no good if Christians don't tend their relationships to God and to one another.
My response,
Yes the love from the heart and in Christ is the key. But the same coulkd be said, the relationships would not be right if they are in false doctrine that does not allow or teach them how to nurture this relationship with God and eachother.
You said,
Agreement is good, obedience to God is better,
My response,
Obedience to the commandements of the Lord is best as we read in 1 Cor 14;26-38.
You said,
In all of my wandering I have only seen one congregation without a toxic atmosphere in the church where you could sense that people were upright, honest, open, and eager to learn Scripture - what it really says, not what they wanted to hear. I was just visiting for one month, but knew that I had come home. I was sorry to have to leave that group of people. They had a form of house church, but without any gimmicks or programs, just expository teaching....The pastor was humble, a real servant, they have community down well.
My response,
I am glad to hear that you have seen the freedoms God wants and his order in some measure, but, they had a major flaw already by setting up a one man pastor show, read my article again and see why.
You said,
I hope that I can be blessed enough someday to find a group like that - or found one. As I doubt I will find one like it where I live now, I am trying to found one.
My response,
First use your home as a base and if you are a women inviute other families or friend to your house and start to wait on the Lord, ask him to build you up.
You said,
There is no protestant presence in my town at all, much less any group for born-again believers. The concept of house church is too strange here, everyone would think it is a cult, so I will call it a bible study. If no one can be found that has a gift for teaching - and has the character traits recommended by Paul - we can still encourage each other and learn by studying together. I hope that we can be a community like the one that I was blessed enough to visit. Eventually, as we grow together, the idea of house church may present itself without my help.
My response,
Yes, and wait on the Lord seek and you shall find.
You said,
Am looking forward to your posts, TrueWords, but may not get into many discussions like I used to.
My response,
I am looking foreward to talking with you also. God bless, and i hoe that I could have helped you in some way as the Lord leads me.
Upvote
0
Count
Hello, God bless
Let me give you an example. At this time I am discussing in another forum (Albanian forum) with a Catholic. I can see through his posts his love for the Lord. I know, that he is an born again Christian. I can see it from his writings. However, because he is Catholic, I disagree with him in many things, but, seeing his love for the Lord, I never have talked to him for our differences.
My response,
I understand what you say here, and I have met some, (only some however among the Catholics who I believe might be saved). But, the problem is that I will often stand in doubt of them, when they go into their idolatry of the Mass and Mary worship, etc, etc, etc.. And yes, they do worship Mary and pray to her and give her special adoration that is not biblical) . I find that we would not be able to walk together for to long, since in ameeting I might be showing what I believe Jesus is saying to the church of Thyatira and show how I see the Roman Catholic church spoken of prophetically. And when I speak of many teachings we sill have great tensions among us. or when I say that God delivered me from the Roman catholic church., they may be offended etc. They will certainly get offended when I show them scripturally and by comparing their catechism, that they teach another gospel for salvation.
You had said,
I could fellowship with him. I could meet with him and pray together to the Lord, praise together the Lord, talk together for the Lord, listen together of what the Lord wants to say to us, and so on. I believe that regardless to our differences, if we don't focus on those, but focus on our Lord, we could easily fellowship together
My response,
But what will you do and how can you two agree together in prayer when they pray to mary or other saints? Or how can you listen to what the Lord wants if they are not born again? Or if they oreach another gospel for salvation, or if they trust in meritous works for salvation etc etc etc etc etc etc.W must preach and tech the truth and all things that Jesus commanded us. We must not shun to speak all the things of God, for fear of others hating us.
I would openly accept any Catholic into a meeting and hope they could bear with us and we all seek to walk in the truth of God. They may be the ones who leave, but I will try patiently to teach the true gospel to them and show them as much light as God has given me, and I would eagerly rely on all the rest of the body for light as well. But when they start preaching their other gospel, we will take issue.
But as my brother John said,
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed ( 2 John 10)
So if a person comes to a meeting preaching another gospel, (and many do preach another gospel) and another doctrine of Christ, we should not receive them. I feel, that when you try to accept everyone you make this command of God through John have no meaning or application.
I have love towards you Count, and I hope we can discuss these things in truth and love and come to peace about it. If you were in our meetings, and you would be welcome, i would speak to you about these things also and bring other brethren into it after the meeting with us and pray and seek the Lords guidance I these areas. We see many men in the past for example who tried to stay within the Roman catholic church and help from within. But some were burned and had to flee etc. we learn that there is only so far we can go before we must withdraw from some.
In Christ love and truth
TrueWords
Hello, God bless
Let me give you an example. At this time I am discussing in another forum (Albanian forum) with a Catholic. I can see through his posts his love for the Lord. I know, that he is an born again Christian. I can see it from his writings. However, because he is Catholic, I disagree with him in many things, but, seeing his love for the Lord, I never have talked to him for our differences.
My response,
I understand what you say here, and I have met some, (only some however among the Catholics who I believe might be saved). But, the problem is that I will often stand in doubt of them, when they go into their idolatry of the Mass and Mary worship, etc, etc, etc.. And yes, they do worship Mary and pray to her and give her special adoration that is not biblical) . I find that we would not be able to walk together for to long, since in ameeting I might be showing what I believe Jesus is saying to the church of Thyatira and show how I see the Roman Catholic church spoken of prophetically. And when I speak of many teachings we sill have great tensions among us. or when I say that God delivered me from the Roman catholic church., they may be offended etc. They will certainly get offended when I show them scripturally and by comparing their catechism, that they teach another gospel for salvation.
You had said,
I could fellowship with him. I could meet with him and pray together to the Lord, praise together the Lord, talk together for the Lord, listen together of what the Lord wants to say to us, and so on. I believe that regardless to our differences, if we don't focus on those, but focus on our Lord, we could easily fellowship together
My response,
But what will you do and how can you two agree together in prayer when they pray to mary or other saints? Or how can you listen to what the Lord wants if they are not born again? Or if they oreach another gospel for salvation, or if they trust in meritous works for salvation etc etc etc etc etc etc.W must preach and tech the truth and all things that Jesus commanded us. We must not shun to speak all the things of God, for fear of others hating us.
I would openly accept any Catholic into a meeting and hope they could bear with us and we all seek to walk in the truth of God. They may be the ones who leave, but I will try patiently to teach the true gospel to them and show them as much light as God has given me, and I would eagerly rely on all the rest of the body for light as well. But when they start preaching their other gospel, we will take issue.
But as my brother John said,
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed ( 2 John 10)
So if a person comes to a meeting preaching another gospel, (and many do preach another gospel) and another doctrine of Christ, we should not receive them. I feel, that when you try to accept everyone you make this command of God through John have no meaning or application.
I have love towards you Count, and I hope we can discuss these things in truth and love and come to peace about it. If you were in our meetings, and you would be welcome, i would speak to you about these things also and bring other brethren into it after the meeting with us and pray and seek the Lords guidance I these areas. We see many men in the past for example who tried to stay within the Roman catholic church and help from within. But some were burned and had to flee etc. we learn that there is only so far we can go before we must withdraw from some.
In Christ love and truth
TrueWords
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I had been quite discouraged as of late. I had been quite enthusiastic about the possibility of leading a college group at our little church, an "unreached" age group. I had discussed the possibility with the pastor before Christmas, but now it is almost mid January, and he has not approached me about it. I have planned to work on the materials for the group on my own without the pastors mentioning it for the following reason, and here's where your article about "the king" comes into play...
I had asked the Lord about this, and I had an impression that I should "keep my sword sharp"....so that if he does ask, I'll be ready. I also had an impression that pastors as a whole are more like kings hiding in their lofty towers, seeking to control their "subjects" rather than that which I believe us men are seeking, that is, a general ready to lead us into battle....and a general must lead by example....
I had asked the Lord about this, and I had an impression that I should "keep my sword sharp"....so that if he does ask, I'll be ready. I also had an impression that pastors as a whole are more like kings hiding in their lofty towers, seeking to control their "subjects" rather than that which I believe us men are seeking, that is, a general ready to lead us into battle....and a general must lead by example....
Upvote
0
Similar threads
