Would This Man be Welcome to Preach at Conference?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Adam "probably" created a rule for Eve?
Isn't the clear word of scripture enough??


It disgusts me to think how many souls we may have lost the opportunity to reach over the years, because of this kind of foolishness.

Now you see one of the reasons I've been looking for a "one-stepper" church that does not add to the Bible.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by 1399

Now you see one of the reasons I've been looking for a "one-stepper" church that does not add to the Bible.

Frankly my brother, one has nothing to do with the other.

One stepper doctrine is still erroneous. But the key thing is...you don't change your salvation theology over "the extra stuff" like that. Or at least you shouldn't.

If it came down to it, you could still find a "3-stepper" church that doesn't add to the Bible.But anyway, that's between you and the Lord.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by 1399

Now you see one of the reasons I've been looking for a "one-stepper" church that does not add to the Bible.

Frankly my brother, one has nothing to do with the other.
It is true that many apostolic churches add bunch of "extra stuff" that's not founded in scripture.

But the fact is, one stepper doctrine is still erroneous. (Not looking to argue about it. ...just making a point. )

Still, the key thing to me is ...you don't change your salvation theology over the "extra stuff" like that. Or at least you shouldn't.

If it came down to it, you could still find a "3-stepper" church that doesn't add to the Bible.

[theoldpaths]

You KNOW there's no scripture for that, so why would you even try to go there? Why not just stick to scripture instead of speculating and adding stuff that's not there? Isn't the clear word of scripture enough??

God only told Adam not to eat of it; but Eve said in Gen 3 that she was not to eat or touch it. So who told her not to touch it? Is it possible that since God told Adam not to eat of it, that Adam created a rule/standard for Eve not to touch it? There is nothing written that God said anything about not touching it. Did God use Adam to create a rule/standard about not even touching it? Is it within the realm of possibility?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The following is a quote from the raven concerning this topic...

the raven

Re: UC, MOD, or LIB...

In God's chain of command, Adam was also the pastor...for safety sake or love of his bride he said don't touch it.

Thus when he made the rule and told her, she who had not talked with the Lord took his words as being from the Lord.

The implication being that a pastor makes rules according to his love for the bride and not out of spite or vainglory..at least this should be the condition of the extra rules added.

To me it's just as appalling to see how so many pastors and church leaders have overreached beyond the intent of scripture to put people in bondage to their man-made rules... [don't wear RED, don't have a beard,don't drink coffee/tee, having a TV is sinful, no open toe shoes....etc, etc] totally missing the intent and meaning of the grace we have in Christ under the New Covenant.

Tell me dear brother, did Jesus in Matt 18 not tell his future church leaders that they could bind/loose things in earth and that Jesus would in response to them binding/loosing on earth, also bind/loose it in heaven? Now if Jesus had already given his word concerning something, then there wouldn't be a need for his church leaders to bind/loose something on earth once he was gone now would there; because we would already have his word concerning a certain subject.

Scripture does not give you the right to act as spiritual dictators over the lives of God's people. For too many pastors in Pentecost, it's about control; controlling people's lives and putting them under bondage to unscriptural rules, many of which have nothing to do with righteousness.

The above kinda reminds me of the following...

Num 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:
Num 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Num 16:4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

Kohath basically accused Moses and Aaron of taking responsibility upon themselves which didn't belong to them. Perhaps Kohath and company felt that certain responsibility that was laid upon Moses and Aaron that should NOT be their responsibility but that some of that responsibility should be Kohath's and his company's or perhaps all the congregation after all, all the congregation is holy. Or perhaps they were accusing Moses and Aaron of taking responsibility that belonged only to God.

Not only that, they accused Moses and Aaron of lifting themselves up and taking the leadership to themselves; but it was not Moses and Aaron who lifted themselves up to lead God's people, but it was of God. However, some people only see and hear the man. Its almost like they don't believe that God can inspire a man to speak what God wants him to speak and that a leader's heart is not in the hands of God who can turn it wherever he wants to. They were not self-called, self-annointed, self-appointed men, neither were they called, annointed, nor appointed by other men only; but they were called, annointed, and appointed of God.

And just like then, so it is now that some accuse God-called men of God of taking responsibility that does NOT belong to them, but either belongs only to God OR belongs to all the congregation that is holy. Some despise government (From G2962; mastery, that is, (concretely and collectively) rulers: - dominion, government); they don't want to have somebody rule over them and they don't want to submit themselves to somebody over them. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignities and just want to do their own thing and do that which is right in their own eyes.

But even tho Moses and Aaron knew they were called of God, what was their reaction to their calling/leadership being called into question? Did they fight and argue with them? Moses' first reaction was to fall on his face.

Num 16:9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?
Num 16:10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?
Num 16:11 For which cause both thou and all thy company are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?

But God's word reveals in the above is that Kohath and his company felt that certain responsibility that was Moses' and Aaron's, rightfully so, should have NOT been Moses' and Aaron's but should have also been Kohath's and his company. They wanted that responsibility to be theirs. Who were they to lead and tell us what to do when we are all the Lord's people and are holy; who do they think they are?

Fortunately, as the old generation passes off the scene, I'm believing that will raise up a new generation of leaders who love Him and His Kingdom more than they love their traditions and made-up rules.

There is nothing new under the sun. As the word shows, there will be those who will depart from the faith and will get their own teachers and start their own new thing. Doing so they become hypocritical, but show an example of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and speak perverse (distort, misinterpret, corrupt) things to "draw away" disciples after them. Funny how they want to split or do split, but they want to "draw away" those who haven't after them. They as false teachers among those in the faith bring in heresies and speak evil of the way of truth and by doing so, cause many to follow their destructive ways. They through coveteousness - not only desiring things they don't have, but also desiring things they SHOULD NOT have - and feigned words, they shall make merchandise out of the people. Why coveteousness? Perhaps because since they departed, they have allowed themselves to desire and get and have and try things that they were taught against before. And now they use coveteousness and feigned words to make merchandise of the people to draw them away as well.

Nothing new under the sun.

Shame on those who tear down the ancient landmarks that their fathers in the faith have made and build again those things that they once destroyed.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Shame on those who tear down the ancient landmarks that their fathers in the faith have made and build again those things that they once destroyed.

Lets talk about shame, then, since you brought it up.

Shame on those who don't have a proper grasp on the New Testament principle of grace, and what that means... but instead want to entangle people with man-made burdens for the sake of trying to legislate morality for people and exert undue control over their daily lives.

Shame on those who use theological sleight-of-hand to twist the Word of God to support their man-made doctrines when they find those doctrines unable to stand up to the light of scrutiny.

Shame on those who would rather twist the Word to support their traditions than to admit they may have been in error with any of their previous man-made rules, regulations, and burdensome traditions . These men have more loyalty to tradition than to the truth found in God's word. And these men would rather keep God's people in bondage so they can feel good about themselves "maintaining their fathers' landmarks"... rather than allow people to walk in the liberty and grace that we have in Christ.

And shame on those who mix their man-made errors with God's truth -- these men seem not to realize that when you mix error with truth, you end up not only elevating error, but also devaluing the truth, which too often serves to alienate people from the very truth of God that is supposed to save men. THAT is shameful.

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

God only told Adam not to eat of it; but Eve said in Gen 3 that she was not to eat or touch it. So who told her not to touch it? Is it possible that since God told Adam not to eat of it, that Adam created a rule/standard for Eve not to touch it? There is nothing written that God said anything about not touching it. Did God use Adam to create a rule/standard about not even touching it? Is it within the realm of possibility?
......

The following is a quote from the raven concerning this topic...

First off, I didn't even spend a lot of time reading all of that long post, because it's very clear that you feel comfortable relying on speculation to "fill in the blanks" on doctrinal issues. That is just bad practice, plain and simple.

Secondly, you quote "the raven" who speculated on the issue just as you did. Is that supposed to be convincing evidence of anything? Maybe in your mind it is, but to me it clearly is not. (I honestly don't know why you would think the raven's opinion is validation of anything.)

This kind of shoddy biblical analysis and exegesis is a prime cause of some of the insane and unnecessarily burdensome doctrines and practices that have been "added on" in too Apostolic churches; and frankly, I'm personally disgusted by it.

But anyway. Lets move along, sir. Frankly, I've become weary of discussing this topic.

Have a nice night.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

God only told Adam not to eat of it; but Eve said in Gen 3 that she was not to eat or touch it. So who told her not to touch it? Is it possible that since God told Adam not to eat of it, that Adam created a rule/standard for Eve not to touch it? There is nothing written that God said anything about not touching it. Did God use Adam to create a rule/standard about not even touching it? Is it within the realm of possibility?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The following is a quote from the raven concerning this topic...





Tell me dear brother, did Jesus in Matt 18 not tell his future church leaders that they could bind/loose things in earth and that Jesus would in response to them binding/loosing on earth, also bind/loose it in heaven? Now if Jesus had already given his word concerning something, then there wouldn't be a need for his church leaders to bind/loose something on earth once he was gone now would there; because we would already have his word concerning a certain subject.



The above kinda reminds me of the following...

Num 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:
Num 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Num 16:4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

Kohath basically accused Moses and Aaron of taking responsibility upon themselves which didn't belong to them. Perhaps Kohath and company felt that certain responsibility that was laid upon Moses and Aaron that should NOT be their responsibility but that some of that responsibility should be Kohath's and his company's or perhaps all the congregation after all, all the congregation is holy. Or perhaps they were accusing Moses and Aaron of taking responsibility that belonged only to God.

Not only that, they accused Moses and Aaron of lifting themselves up and taking the leadership to themselves; but it was not Moses and Aaron who lifted themselves up to lead God's people, but it was of God. However, some people only see and hear the man. Its almost like they don't believe that God can inspire a man to speak what God wants him to speak and that a leader's heart is not in the hands of God who can turn it wherever he wants to. They were not self-called, self-annointed, self-appointed men, neither were they called, annointed, nor appointed by other men only; but they were called, annointed, and appointed of God.

And just like then, so it is now that some accuse God-called men of God of taking responsibility that does NOT belong to them, but either belongs only to God OR belongs to all the congregation that is holy. Some despise government (From G2962; mastery, that is, (concretely and collectively) rulers: - dominion, government); they don't want to have somebody rule over them and they don't want to submit themselves to somebody over them. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignities and just want to do their own thing and do that which is right in their own eyes.

But even tho Moses and Aaron knew they were called of God, what was their reaction to their calling/leadership being called into question? Did they fight and argue with them? Moses' first reaction was to fall on his face.

Num 16:9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?
Num 16:10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?
Num 16:11 For which cause both thou and all thy company are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?

But God's word reveals in the above is that Kohath and his company felt that certain responsibility that was Moses' and Aaron's, rightfully so, should have NOT been Moses' and Aaron's but should have also been Kohath's and his company. They wanted that responsibility to be theirs. Who were they to lead and tell us what to do when we are all the Lord's people and are holy; who do they think they are?



There is nothing new under the sun. As the word shows, there will be those who will depart from the faith and will get their own teachers and start their own new thing. Doing so they become hypocritical, but show an example of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and speak perverse (distort, misinterpret, corrupt) things to "draw away" disciples after them. Funny how they want to split or do split, but they want to "draw away" those who haven't after them. They as false teachers among those in the faith bring in heresies and speak evil of the way of truth and by doing so, cause many to follow their destructive ways. They through coveteousness - not only desiring things they don't have, but also desiring things they SHOULD NOT have - and feigned words, they shall make merchandise out of the people. Why coveteousness? Perhaps because since they departed, they have allowed themselves to desire and get and have and try things that they were taught against before. And now they use coveteousness and feigned words to make merchandise of the people to draw them away as well.

Nothing new under the sun.

Shame on those who tear down the ancient landmarks that their fathers in the faith have made and build again those things that they once destroyed.

How did that work out for that congregation?

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Lets talk about shame, then, since you brought it up.

Shame on those who don't have a proper grasp on the New Testament principle of grace, and what that means... but instead want to entangle people with man-made burdens for the sake of trying to legislate morality for people and exert undue control over their daily lives.

Shame on those who use theological sleight-of-hand to twist the Word of God to support their man-made doctrines when they find those doctrines unable to stand up to the light of scrutiny.

Shame on those who would rather twist the Word to support their traditions than to admit they may have been in error with any of their previous man-made rules, regulations, and burdensome traditions . These men have more loyalty to tradition than to the truth found in God's word. And these men would rather keep God's people in bondage so they can feel good about themselves "maintaining their fathers' landmarks"... rather than allow people to walk in the liberty and grace that we have in Christ.

And shame on those who mix their man-made errors with God's truth -- these men seem not to realize that when you mix error with truth, you end up not only elevating error, but also devaluing the truth, which too often serves to alienate people from the very truth of God that is supposed to save men. THAT is shameful.

First off, I didn't even spend a lot of time reading all of that long post, because it's very clear that you feel comfortable relying on speculation to "fill in the blanks" on doctrinal issues. That is just bad practice, plain and simple.

Secondly, you quote "the raven" who speculated on the issue just as you did. Is that supposed to be convincing evidence of anything? Maybe in your mind it is, but to me it clearly is not. (I honestly don't know why you would think the raven's opinion is validation of anything.)

This kind of shoddy biblical analysis and exegesis is a prime cause of some of the insane and unnecessarily burdensome doctrines and practices that have been "added on" in too Apostolic churches; and frankly, I'm personally disgusted by it.

But anyway. Lets move along, sir. Frankly, I've become weary of discussing this topic.

Have a nice night.

I guess you are free to pick and choose what you read and respond to. If there are things that you would rather ignore, that is your choice. Its usually hard to communicate with someone if they ignore what you say. If that becomes a habit, it usually makes the other think twice about communicating with them.

Good nite to you as well.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by tstew

How did that work out for that congregation?

At that particular time in history, not good for those who opposed.

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I guess you are free to pick and choose what you read and respond to. If there are things that you would rather ignore, that is your choice. Its usually hard to communicate with someone if they ignore what you say. If that becomes a habit, it usually makes the other think twice about communicating with them.

Good nite to you as well.

Well this was certainly an interesting interchange! The moment I read this I thought "DEJAVU!" I thought my back and forth with TrFrance was just an unfortunate one between them and I but now I see I am not alone in this and it is a pattern. More and more I see THIS is what is the dilemna with so much of the Oneness Pentecostal movement NOT the doctrine or differences of standards but the hard headed mindset that absolutely cannot allow itself to see or respond to anything that disagrees with it.

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by TCSQ

Well this was certainly an interesting interchange! The moment I read this I thought "DEJAVU!" I thought my back and forth with TrFrance was just an unfortunate one between them and I but now I see I am not alone in this and it is a pattern. More and more I see THIS is what is the dilemna with so much of the Oneness Pentecostal movement NOT the doctrine or differences of standards but the hard headed mindset that absolutely cannot allow itself to see or respond to anything that disagrees with it.

Oh I forgot to add this "Now I have pontificated and therefor there is nothing more to say so I will ignore any response to this that may tend to contradict it." Good night to YOU sirs........