SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Authentic Biblical Christianity.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : The echo chamber of pride.

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Bro Allan writes........

"Does it mean that there would be no problems in churches if they were not denominational? Of course not; there were problems in the early churches. But I don't know why all of us (who are Bible believers) cannot at least acknowledge that the present denominational system of Christianity does not have its origin in God."

And bro Robert writes.........

"I would certainly agree with this. I would take a similar position to G.H. Lang's in his book "The Churches of God" as the ideal. "

And there we have it, we agree. Not sure what all the rest was, but it had certainly nothing to do with the agreed above statements...........bro Frank

 2014/10/10 13:03
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

I also agree! Although the denominational system as a whole may not have its origin in God, this does not mean God is cart blanche calling people out of their denominations or systems of organizations. God does not deal with inanimate denominations; He deals with the individuals of whom the denominations are comprised. Every organization, sooner of later, if enough people latch on, will become a denomination in itself by default. The House Church movement is a denomination (at least this is how it is viewed by those looking from the outside in). The remnant movement will too become yet another evangelical denomination once the separation increases. You just can't avoid the label. "Denomination" is not necessarily a bad word. It is simply a defining term, a label which encapsulates a system of non-essential tenets a Christian evangelical group adheres to. Once it becomes more than that, it ceases to be the denominational vehicle (that is, one road among many non-salvific-flavored tenets to Christ), and sways more to the side of a cultistic elititism mindset which can have very serious consequences. And before anyone gets upset and thinks I am personally attacking them, please know I am not accusing anyone in this forum of being cultistically elite. I am offering a simple observation.

I divorced myself from the Assemblies of God many years ago because I no longer held to the classical Pentecostal tenet of tongues as the uniform initial evidence of being filled with the Spirit. I came more into agreement with F.F. Bosworth's conviction rather than Parham's. But I could no longer allow AG theology to define my beliefs in this area. The thing is, I still held my AG brethren dear to me and counted many AG brethren as saved and much more spiritual than myself. We simply agreed to disagree and it was never brought up once I relinquished by credentials.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2014/10/10 13:56Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1992
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

I agree with pretty much all that brother Paul West just wrote, except for agreeing more with F.F. Bosworth's conviction over Parham's, as I do not know who either of those two are.

Some brethren have pointed out that the "Brethren" movement is an example of just being called "brethren", but I'd say that that is also a "name", though a very biblical one. It has also been argued that the churches in the NT were simply called the church at such and such. But that too is a "name", like today we have examples of that, like "The Church at Brook Hills". But then the argument comes up that the churches were distinguished from each other based on region, not certain beliefs or belief systems that divided them. But we do see that there were differences in non-essentials between the church at Jerusalem and the Gentile churches. The church at Jerusalem regarded many Jewish traditions as still being important while the Gentile churches didn't, with the exception of some that were being influenced by the heretical Judaizers.

In another current thread Romans 14 was pointed out as a scripture passage that teaches Christians to lovingly agree to disagree in non-essentials without dividing, and I completely agree.


_________________
Oracio

 2014/10/10 14:29Profile









 Re:

Paul writes......

" I agree!" Well there you have it, agreement all around. The rest of Pauls post is worthy of a thread itself but has no bearing upon the OP. I am not sure how many " Non-denomintainal," gatherings out there, but there are a lot and they feel the need to call themselves " non-denominational."

Paul himself left the AGand writes.........

"The thing is, I still held my AG brethren dear to me and counted many AG brethren as saved and much more spiritual than myself. We simply agreed to disagree and it was never brought up once I relinquished by credentials."

Do you imagine Paul it would be different with myself or bro Alan or anyone else who agreed with the OP? That is why I believe in sticking to what has actually been said rather than conjecture as to how a brother might feel, if we do that it may surprise us just how much we agree on...........bro Frank

 2014/10/10 15:00









 Re:

Hi Oracio,

The ancient Brethren church had no name, they did however merely refer to each other as brothers or sisters ( brethren being the old english name for brothers plural) The other examples of gatherings were, like the Hussites or Waldenses and so on were so named by their enemies.

If you were to go to back in a time machine to Ephesus you would find in that city one church, one body. Now they would often meet at multiple houses and so on, but if someone like Paul came or another apostle, then they would gather in a field or a place out of view of the general public. But there was only one church in that city. In every scripture reference there was only ever Church, single. The plural was only used in regard to regions. Some may argue that this was because the populations were so small in these towns and that today, with our large populations that would not be possible even if there was a will to simply meet as a single unit.

In the case of Corinth, some estimates put it as large as 350,000 or larger. In the case of Ephesus it was considerably smaller, around 50,000. In Rome there would have been about 1 million. In Jerusalem there would have been about 600,000 swelling to over a million during passover. In any case, you can see that we are dealing with large numbers and yet, still only one church per town or city at least according to the Scriptures. Imagine your own town with one set of elders and deacons and those given to hospitality and charity and administrations, then add those gifted by the Spirit of God in exhortation and teaching and wisdom and words of knowledge and so on operating in the many house groups, coming together for special occasions and so on. Imagine what a witness that would be to the world. Anyway, I am only musing Scriptural and what the church will look like prior to the return of Jesus in fulfillment to His own prophecy in JOhn 17. And if anyone disagrees, then let us disagree in love. Speaking to words spoken rather than conjecture of the writer is always more fruitful and avoids name calling and so on........bro Frank

 2014/10/10 16:06
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
And if anyone disagrees, then let us disagree in love. Speaking to words spoken rather than conjecture of the writer is always more fruitful and avoids name calling and so on


Brother, if anyone disagrees with you, the pattern has been extreme defensiveness on your part. What you've written here is beautiful, actually. I don't know anyone who would disagree with it. If a person makes a general observation in context to what is being discussed, it should not be taken as "name calling" or any other kind of ad hominem. Nobody is attacking you here, but if there is an agenda to propagate - regardless of how noble or spiritual it may be - it will be discerned and addressed.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2014/10/10 16:22Profile









 Re:

HI Paul,

I would disagree with that obviously, but let us leave it alone brother and rather than speak on personal issues of " discernment," we simply agree to disagree...........bro Frank

 2014/10/10 17:06









 rbanks

Quote:
Why are you heavy hearted Neil!



brother(sister?) do you have a month available?....so I can open my heart, and show you?

i'm not being sarcastic...i'm just weary of body and soul (especially weary of body, if you just stacked a cord of firewood on the porch, with a broken body of flesh...that "weary" I don't mind)

Quote:
I have seen you post many things over the years to a very emotional extreme whereby you would come back later and apologized!



is that a compliment or a rebuke?

since the Father and since Messiah Jesus are very "emotional extreme", and i am created in their image, with the Jesus living in me, yet by all admission i am but a man, who when convicted of the Holy Spirit of hurting or using ill spake words to any precious soul, i never hesitate a second to abase myself and ask for their forgiveness, because the evolving act of sanctification includes KILLING 'EGO AND PRIDE'...i'll take that as a compliment.

you made several charges:

Quote:
It seems though as of lately and in a recent thread that unless everyone agrees with everything that you and Frank agree on about coming out of all denominations that those who disagree are in error.



stay in the denominations then...my grievous situation is that in a 50 mile by 50 mile circle, rural, less than 50,000 people in a three county area, the majority of all churches are United Methodist and Evan Lutheran, both of which have decided its okay with God to ordain homosexual ministers....i cant sign up for that...and many times, i have gone into these churches because God ordered me...and made the ride home weeping, or heavy hearted because the Spirit of God has fled from these buildings.

you could say "i'm pre-judging...or just plain judging, but my criteria is may this assembly have AT LEAST one prayer meeting a week.....none of them do. the other non UM or Ev churches...same thing, no prayer meeting, but the most horrific thing is , there are none to little youth in these assemblies.

i'm telling you the truth, and this all, in the rural north "Bible belt".

so, if they are all comfortable in these denominational assemblies, stay there and be comfortable, be at ease in Zion, though the deadly dust of the hordes of babylon
lingers on the horizon.

i personally have great hope for these precious souls in these dry churches, because when God DOES come down in revival here, dry wood burns intense, and may it be so,amen.

Quote:
It seems to me that Frank has an agenda that you also agree with, that you both have received inspiration to teach others, that in order to be a part of the last day remnant that everyone must come out of all denominations.

It also seems to me that Frank (which I do agree with much of his writings also) considers himself to function as an apostle to the point that people should follow his teachings as he follows the Lord.




i cant speak for Frank, but the use of the word "agenda" has an ugly connotation to it. i have no "agenda"...and i don't believe Frank has. i know that I've "ATE" of John 17, so many times, that i cannot understand how any man could read and hear with the ears of his heart, That High Priestly Prayer and not obey Messiah, but instead cling to the traditions and institutions made by men, which they are free to do.

as far as Frank
Quote:
considers himself to function as an apostle to the point that people should follow his teachings as he follows the Lord.

....i have never heard nor seen Frank testify to such....quite the contrary, as the brother demonstrates humility and meekness, salted with a love for Jesus in all and only.

Quote:
You refuse to believe that God can use them maybe even greater than he is using you both in His Kingdom.



you are wrong, and that is a terrible charge to make, the implications inherent are ugly and accusatory....

and after that, to think that Frank was told not to post?

ah yes, the "fruit" of "strong leadership" has been unmasked in a flurry of accusations and commands.

"look how they love one another"...."made envious of so great a salvation"

and you ask me "why heavy hearted?

 2014/10/10 17:15









 Re: shameful accusations Paul

you accused:

Quote:
Brother, if anyone disagrees with you, the pattern has been extreme defensiveness on your part.



I've been around this forum, i have SEEN "patterns" of "extreme defensiveness", but never from Frank. His writings always contain even measured Grace, even in disagreement....you know this!

its seems to me, that the word "agenda" is the stone used to stone.....the last line you wrote, just broke my heart, because it smells like religious tyranny: (salted with a threat)

Quote:
but if there is an agenda to propagate - regardless of how noble or spiritual it may be - it will be discerned and addressed.

 2014/10/10 17:25
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3136
Texas

 Re: rbanks

HezWelling..

Quote:
Why are you heavy hearted Neil!



Quote:
brother(sister?) do you have a month available?....so I can open my heart, and show you?



Brother, I don't think a month would be long enough for us. Maybe in the Almighty's plan he might have us meet, were we might Bless each other by lifting some of the burdens of our heavy hearts, with hope through prayer and conversation. Sometimes I feel like Job Jr.


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2014/10/10 17:40Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy