Phariseeism

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

TheOldPaths....please consider this scenario and answer a few questions for me if you don't mind:

John has been going to First Apostolic Church for 2 years, and has been praying for the Lord to give him a godly wife. He likes Denise, a fellow member of his church. Denise is a dedicated sister who loves the Lord. John and Denise both sing on the church's choir. After going out/dating for several few months, John and Denise are in love. After being prayerful about the situation, they feel it it the Lord's will for them to be together.

Before officially proposing marriage, John decides to seek his pastor's blessing. (John happens to be white. Denise is black.) The pastor disapproves of John marrying Denise, and lets him know that tradtionally at First Apostolic, interracial marriage is frowned upon, and always has been. The pastor insists he's not racist, but he just believes that people should "stick to their own kind". So he forbids John to marry Denise simply because of her race.

So...

1...Is this tradition ok with you?

2...Does a pastor have authority to order one saved, Godly member of his church not to marry another godly saint?

3...Is this pastor in line with the Bible by prohibitiing interracial marriage?

4....If John and Denise decide to get married anyway, have they commited a sin ?
-------------

I look forward to your responses.

Wow your asking tough questions LOL. These are some questions that someone in the ministry would probably be better able to address who is anointed of God.

My first question is, is the situation you described hypothetical or did it really happen?

Now my opinion...

First of all, I believe it is possible to fall in love with the wrong person. Not saying this was the case here.

Secondly, I believe that interracial marriage is ok and is not a sin that causes someone to be doomed for eternity.

Thirdly, is it a personal opinion of the Pastor or is it a conviction that he had gotten by revelation, etc? Or is it just a personal preference because maybe the kids might be teased by not being fully one or the other and the Pastor wants to try and spare them of that?

If it was a "standard" in the church, then the standards are communicated to the flock so that they all know and will obey. If this was the case, then it might not have been the best decision to KNOWINGLY rebel against the rule and move forward without the man talking to his Pastor first BEFORE perusing whether they might be compatible.

The Pastor cannot stop them from getting married. If they do get married against their pastor's advice and decide to stay in the church, then the Pastor will have to decide what to do about that.

I'm sure we have all heard of some in Apostolic Churches where a teenage boy and girl backslide together, get married, and then come back to church. Obviously it would have been better to stay in church, get married in church, and remain in church. That is the will of God. But just because that has happened, they have come back to God and they are not married.

Some people get married for the wrong reason.

There is neither Jew nor Greek in the body of Christ. That is the best scripture that comes to mind IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Different cultures can also present a problem as well, especially when both the man and the woman want to keep their culture and not throw it away for the other one. In addition to those being married having trouble in the flesh, sometimes different cultures can add to the troubles in the flesh.

That being said, there is neither Jew nor Greek in the body of Christ. Spiritually, I believe its ok, but naturally, due to culture, there could be an increase in the troubles in the flesh.

Now, here is an interesting turn of events to your story. What if the 2 decided to obey the Pastor, but determine that if it is really, truly the will of God for them to be together and get married, that they would pray and fast that God would speak to the Pastor about it. And God did, and the Pastor granted them to be married.

This is very similar to a saint feeling like God is calling them to preach or to go into the ministry or called to do something for God. In this case, he should talk to his Pastor. What I believe is that IF God is going to reveal something to a saint in the church FIRST before the Pastor, that at some point in the future, God WILL reveal it to the Pastor. Why would God reveal something to a saint in the church under the Pastor and not CONFIRM it to the Pastor in the church at some point? That would seem kind of inconsistent with God revealing to the saint, but not the Pastor before or sometime afterward.

We are not ignorant of the devil's devices and I know one of the devils devices is to CONDEMN a child of God if they don't obey their Pastor. I don't think it really matters to the devil whether the Pastor asked them to fast, pass out some tracts, or just asked them to perform a duty in the church or to go buy something for the church. If they fail to obey, the devil will jump all over it, whether it was written in scripture or not, to condemn them.

Other than the above, I don't really know what else I can safely answer to your questions. One good piece of advice is - when in doubt, do without.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

If some people come out of one cult to join another cult, then they should NOT go back to the original cult. LOL

Still ignoring the point. Your logic is seriously flawed and you have no answer for it

No, this is not about my claims, this is about what the word of God teaches.

When a pastor is wrong then a pastor is wrong - end of story.

It IS about your claims. It's about what YOU claim the bible is saying. If a pastor is wrong, should we continue to follow him and the false teaching?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

There is a difference b/n verbal traditions that were NOT written that were taught by the apostles, those in the truth and faith, that required obedience and the commandments of men that turn from the truth.

There is NO difference between then because both were the Apostles speaking authoritatively and as ambassadors of God. They were commanded to go out and teach the truth. At first everything they taught was word only....

I addressed all this already too....you ignored it. Traditions, the word used in the bible, simply means teachings. They can be traditions of men or they can be traditions inspired by God

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do you not agree that in Matt 18, Jesus gave MEN the ability to make binding decisions that Jesus said HE would back up? If not, then what is your interpretation of Matt 18:18?

.

I just addressed this verse and showed how it is being misused. The mormons and the Catholics can all claim this as their authority for teaching anything they want to. This is why we are Sola Scriptura.

[Praxeas]

Reposted from the post you just quoted and read and left out the answer lol

lol....so then I suppose at will we can decide God is really a trinity and Jesus is gonna back that up too? You are seriously mistaken. This is the fallen route Rome took and the Mormons take today. Jesus was not saying "whatever new doctrine you make up Im gonna back it up"...you are missing the entire point of authority. He said to God "your word is truth, sanctify them through you truth"...you got this thing backwards. HE is God and we obey. Not WE are God and He obeys. He is the law giver. HE is the one that pronounces truth and salvation, we OBEY and FOLLOW and BELIEVE Him. Jesus is thus saying the same thing he said in the "commissions" go and preach the gospel IN MY NAME and I will be with you always to the end of the earth.

Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...it's because they were preaching the New Covenant to the lost world with HIS authority....wow...I didn't really know you guys believed you can just make up any doctrine you want and God will back it up.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Thirdly, is it a personal opinion of the Pastor or is it a conviction that he had gotten by revelation, etc? Or is it just a personal preference because maybe the kids might be teased by not being fully one or the other and the Pastor wants to try and spare them of that?

(1) If it was a "standard" in the church, then the standards are communicated to the flock so that they all know and will obey. (2)If this was the case, then it might not have been the best decision to KNOWINGLY rebel against the rule and move forward without the man talking to his (3) Pastor first BEFORE perusing whether they might be compatible.




(4) We are not ignorant of the devil's devices and I know one of the devils devices is to CONDEMN a child of God if they don't obey their Pastor. I don't think it really matters to the devil whether the Pastor asked them to fast, pass out some tracts, or just asked them to perform a duty in the church or to go buy something for the church. (5) If they fail to obey, the devil will jump all over it, whether it was written in scripture or not, to condemn them.
[/U][/I]

(1)
If this was a standard, it is unbiblical-- creating a man made division that is clearly not the intent of the scriptures. Everyone knows that there are churches where this attitude is pervasive, even in America, in the 21st century. These churches are in sin-- practicing and encouraging sin!

It's an attitude of racial superiority that instills a feeling of racial inferiority, wounding the body of Christ and it a sin. This real-life situation is a perfect example as to why the "traditions of men" can NEVER be taught as commandment from the Lord: men are contradictory in their thoughts and actions, God is righteous.


(2)
The people "caught up" in this situation rebelled against a rule that itself was not biblical. God has granted the Pastor authority but since the Pastor has taken upon himself to use his authority in an unbiblical way, the "rebellious are the ones who are guilt-ridden. However, they feel guilty and are ostracized, criticized for no godly reason as what they have done does not violate any biblical principle.

This creates a situation very similar to the situation that's created when a father provokes his children to anger-- it causes "rebellion" and all sorts of pain, but the root of the problem is the father, not the child.

When a Pastor teaches for commandment stuff that's not biblical, the PASTOR causes the rebellion-- the PASTOR scatters God's Sheep.

In this case, and in other cases where the extra-biblical standard is made into a command from the Lord, the "rebellious" are not in sin. A command from the Pastor should not be disobeyed-- but it is only valid if it does not violate the established Word of the Lord. To add to the Word of the Lord is to violate the Word of the Lord.

(3)
So if you Pastored a church of 5,000, do you honestly expect to personally oversee the courtship of each and everyone of your members who are of courting age? Would you have subordinate leaders who would take charge of this responsibility? What would be their job title?

(4)
If you know this, then why give the devil any opportunity? When you add to the Word of the Lord your own whims and traditions, you are doing exactly what Eve did back in the garden-- giving satan a door by which he can deceive, kill and destroy.

(5)
For a while yes, but if that saint continues to search out the scriptures and realizes that the command of the Pastor was not Biblical, not inspired, not God-breathed in the first place, the guilt should leave them and they should leave the church of that Pastor that has set himself up to be equal with God.



By the way:

"When in doubt do without" is not an adequate answer-- it's a trite saying that dulls the mind of an adherent, blunting critical analysis.

The Word of the Lord is sharper than a two edged sword though-- it doesn't blunt, it pierces and convicts.

[A_PoMo]

Man, this is fascinating. Now I'll never have to wonder what it would be like to have been a fly on the wall in the courts of the Sahedrin when they were in session.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Man, this is fascinating. Now I'll never have to wonder what it would be like to have been a fly on the wall in the courts of the Sahedrin when they were in session.

Did the Sahedrin define the law or enforce the law? or both?

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Did the Sahedrin define the law or enforce the law? or both?

They wrote it and enforced it. LOL.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

They wrote it and enforced it. LOL.

I thought Moses wrote the law.

Maybe they interpreted the law?