Phariseeism

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Because trinitarianism was not the original doctrine and the RCC was not the original church.

That is being inconsistent! You imply it is not only for the original twelve in the first century to lay down new doctrines, but ANYONE IN AUTHORITY since then! You said it does not need to be written down beforehand to be laid down as doctrine by anyone in authority. Bro., you're cult bait!

It does not matter if Trinity is RCC or not. The RCC claims to be the original church just like you claim so about your church. And while they make up new doctrines, you claim you can just because your opinion about who is the true church is supposed to be more valid than their's. Had someone from what you claim is the true church concocted trinity you would have accepted it because you believe new doctrines do not have to be written in the BIBLE to be required of the saints today. It's a matter of OPINION of WHO IS WHO, and meanwhile you and the RCC are both wrong and in grievous error. You have your own version of TRADITION and MAGISTERIUM, where you believe God causes preachers in authority to preach doctrines never taught in the bible.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is being inconsistent! You imply it is not only for the original twelve in the first century to lay down new doctrines, but ANYONE IN AUTHORITY since then! You said it does not need to be written down beforehand to be laid down as doctrine by anyone in authority. Bro., you're cult bait!

It does not matter if Trinity is RCC or not. The RCC claims to be the original church just like you claim so about your church. And while they make up new doctrines, you claim you can just because your opinion about who is the true church is supposed to be more valid than their's. Had someone from what you claim is the true church concocted trinity you would have accepted it because you believe new doctrines do not have to be written in the BIBLE to be required of the saints today. It's a matter of OPINION of WHO IS WHO, and meanwhile you and the RCC are both wrong and in grievous error. You have your own version of TRADITION and MAGISTERIUM, where you believe God causes preachers in authority to preach doctrines never taught in the bible.

No, not anyone in authority - I did qualify that before in a previous post in this thread.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I find it very interesting that you chose to respond to my post there, but not to my previous posts:
(http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...0&postcount=87)
and (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=102)

Are you dodging those simple questions sir?

Frankly, I think it's obvious that you are. And I think we both know why.

I replied to your post - seek and ye shall find.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You just spoke the seed-bed of a cult. "It's not in the Word, but I just LOOSED it into the kingdom!"

Jesus DID NOT authorize the apostles to make up doctrines that He did not incite, Himself. I cannot believe you take the references to binding and loosing and claim that means we can make up doctrines the bible does not propose. WOW!

That is not even what binding and loosing is referring to. Binding and loosing is shown in Matt 18 to refer to things like forgiveness and loosing someone from a "prison" of bondage for sin. Check the entire chapter and notice the flow of terms used. And as Praxeas said, it involved Christ's authority. It is simply the same as commanding something in Jesus' name, but that does not include concocting new doctrines! MY LAND!!!

Old paths, alright.. the old paths that led Adam and eve out of the Garden.

Someone ought to start a new thread about the cult of concocting new doctrines due to misinterpreting the idea of binding and loosing. It's one of the most dangerous I have ever heard of! Joseph Smith would be proud!

The apostles were given foundational directives and revelation. We cannot think we can take their place and add to the church foundation after the original twelve are gone. The foundation is the apostles and prophets and Christ the cornerstone, and THEY were led by the Spirit to FOUND the basis of doctrine for the church -- not everyone who gets an urge to concoct a new doctrine since then.

Once again, holiness is not a new man-made doctrine and holiness standards are practical applications of holiness principles taught in the word of God.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I replied to your post - seek and ye shall find.

Pardon me sir. I missed that post. After asking the second time it had appeared you were avoiding the questions. But anyway...

Not surprisingly, overall I found that the tone of your response defers heavily toward the will of the Pastor, moreso than to what the Bible plainly shows. In my mind what the Bible says always trumps whatever any man says or feels.

I'll just focus on a few portions of your response I found interesting:

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

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.

Based on that logic on might say: if its God's will, He will certainly "speak to the pastor on it" ... and if the Lord didn't "speak to the Pastor" to change his mind, then the pastor must be right in the decision he made.

But keep in mind, for example...
Some Apostolic pastors teach that TV is ok, but others teach that it's a sin to have one.
Some approve of interracial relationships.... while others teach against it...

etc, etc...

So clearly some pastors are hearing from God on these [and other] topics, and others are not, but are convinced that the Lord "revealed" something to them. Men (yes, even pastors) often "hear from God" through the filters of their own mind, and their own preconceived notions. So I think your premise is incorrect, in that it assumes that if the Lord didnt "confirm" something to the pastor, then the saint of God is the one who is in error.

When I hear, for example, of one pastor preaching that "the Bible says men must be clean shaven" (!)... I'm convinced that unfortunately, too many of these men of God miss the will of God more often than we might like to admit.

Anyway... good day to you sir.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Pardon me sir. I missed that post. After asking the second time it had appeared you were avoiding the questions. But anyway...

Not surprisingly, overall I found that the tone of your response defers heavily toward the will of the Pastor, moreso than to what the Bible plainly shows. In my mind what the Bible says always trumps whatever any man says or feels.

I'll just focus on a few portions of your response I found interesting:


Based on that logic on might say: if its God's will, He will certainly "speak to the pastor on it" ... and if the Lord didn't "speak to the Pastor" to change his mind, then the pastor must be right in the decision he made.

But keep in mind, for example...
Some Apostolic pastors teach that TV is ok, but others teach that it's a sin to have one.
Some approve of interracial relationships.... while others teach against it...

etc, etc...

So clearly some pastors are hearing from God on these [and other] topics, and others are not, but are convinced that the Lord "revealed" something to them. Men (yes, even pastors) often "hear from God" through the filters of their own mind, and their own preconceived notions. So I think your premise is incorrect, in that it assumes that if the Lord didnt "confirm" something to the pastor, then the saint of God is the one who is in error.

When I hear, for example, of one pastor preaching that "the Bible says men must be clean shaven" (!)... I'm convinced that unfortunately, too many of these men of God miss the will of God more often than we might like to admit.

Anyway... good day to you sir.

I accept your pardon, sir.

what the Bible says always trumps whatever any man says or feels.

I agree that if a man says something that contradicts the bible, the bible trumps - amen to that.

Based on that logic on might say: if its God's will, He will certainly "speak to the pastor on it" ... and if the Lord didn't "speak to the Pastor" to change his mind, then the pastor must be right in the decision he made.

I believe that when it comes to a saint under a Pastor being called by God to preach and/or into the ministry, that it will be done with that man's Pastor being involved. That is, I don't believe that God will call someone underneath God-given authority without informing or letting that God-given authority know about it. Therefore, if a situation came up where one believed that God was calling them to preach and they talked to the Pastor about it, if the Pastor hadn't heard from God about it YET, then I believe that person should pray and ask God to reveal it to their Pastor and in the meantime, still obey and submit themselves to their Pastor. Like I said, if God truly is calling that man to preach, then I believe that God will make it known to the authority in their life as well.

One might ask, well then why doesn't God just speak to the man of God first? Well, maybe God wants to see if that person has faith in the call and therefore will put some ACTION to it by going to talk to their Pastor. Who knows? That is up to God.

I know that Pastor's differ on some holiness standards - that does not concern me. My responsibility is to submit to MY pastor and obey him.

Some just want to find excuses NOT to obey holiness standards such as - well so so Pastor allows that so why can't we?

So clearly some pastors are hearing from God on these [and other] topics, and others are not, but are convinced that the Lord "revealed" something to them. Men (yes, even pastors) often "hear from God" through the filters of their own mind, and their own preconceived notions. So I think your premise is incorrect, in that it assumes that if the Lord didnt "confirm" something to the pastor, then the saint of God is the one who is in error.

Just as each of the 12 tribes of Jacob were unique and had their own characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, etc, I don't find it hard for church to have their own individuality. Holiness standards could come from 1 Pastor's particular convictions which may differ from another Pastor's.

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themseves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

2Co 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

Also, I believe that God can use and reveal things to saints in the church. However, if a saint and a Pastor disagree on something, I would be more inclined to take the Pastor's side. That does not mean that a Pastor can be wrong sometimes. My pastor has apologized from the pulpit for being wrong before. However, all things being equal, if both can't agree, I think it would be safer to take the Pastor's side. If he's wrong and honest, then hopefully he will own up to it and make things rite.

When I hear, for example, of one pastor preaching that "the Bible says men must be clean shaven" (!)... I'm convinced that unfortunately, too many of these men of God miss the will of God more often than we might like to admit.

I don't see anywhere in the bible where it says for men to be clean-shaven; if I'm wrong and have missed it, then I hope someone will correct me and point it out to me.

And a good day to your too, sir.

[Sister Alvear]

Doctrine has been given and anything added is wrong. Man does not have a Bible right to put yokes on people that are not in the Bible. If we or an angel from heaven preach any other doctrine let him be acursed says the word...

[Sister Alvear]

well that is just my personal opinion...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

No, not anyone in authority - I did qualify that before in a previous post in this thread.

Then I hope you also qualified it by saying NO ONE SINCE THE ORIGINAL APOSTLES can propose doctrines not already written.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Doctrine has been given and anything added is wrong. Man does not have a Bible right to put yokes on people that are not in the Bible. If we or an angel from heaven preach any other doctrine let him be acursed says the word...

Amen and amen. This new add-a-new-doctrine doctrine is so insidious, I cannot begin to describe it.