I thought the article mentioned the pool was at the home of the mutual friend. After re-reading the article, you are correct. It isnt specified.
True, but in every post which I address this aspect of the story, I use the phrase "apparently" or something to the affect, therefore admitting it is speculation.
That's what makes discussion interesting. How long would a discussion last if the only response were 121 versions of "Yeah. That's right. Me too."?
I hope you havent included me in this "some". I mention my position on her actions, but I try to make it clear that I am more focused on the pastor's actions.
Speculation? Yes. Wild? I don't think I've made any rediculous leaps with my conclusions. I think each assumption I admittedly make is reasonable to make with the facts presented. I also thought I made it clear my opinion is subject to change if more facts were forthcoming.
And yet, all of the above circumvents my main reason for posting. My main point is the fact that the unanimous agreement that the pastor was wrong in his actions isn't exactly what one would expect from those of us who are portrayed as brainwashed and cultish for being affiliated with the UPCI. Perhaps those here who scorn the UPC and all it's loyal members need to re-evaluate the size of their brush.
Actually that possibility has been mentioned, and fairly early in the thread. Where have you been?
First let me address the speculation on the speed of the pastor's daughters engagement and wedding to the divorced man. At first I thought the speed of these events made the more probable scenario be that they grew close before the mans actual divorce. I no longer believe that scenario is more probable. It too was just wild speculation (by wild speculation I mean acknowledging any speculated scenario which casts a person in a bad light as being more probable without even having a basis for why that scenario is more probable) and I am guilty of it. For that I apologize.
Apparently is not a good word to denote speculation. It is a word that is often associated with things which are readily seen, visible, easily understood, plain, clear, obvious. In fact, it was along these very lines that I understood your use of the word: "apparently (according to the facts we know, she was clearly, plainly and obviously there) with neither spouse nor any third party present."
The article doesn't give us enough evidence to make it apparent that she was alone though. So, there was nothing apparent about what you were saying happened, it was just speculation and since your speculated scenario had no basis for being any more probable than any other scenario then it was apparently wild speculation. So yes, I have included you in that "some" that are trying to turn this back onto the woman with wild speculation.
As for your main point I disagree. The unanamious agreement that a leader did wrong who is far away and distant and most of us have never met only shows that we lack any personal connections to that leader. Further, if we look beyond the surface, some have tried to defend him by wildly speculating that the woman involved in this case must somehow be partly to blame. By making her appear bad then anything that he did wrong doesn't seem quite as bad... and this is coming from people not personally connected to him. Can you imagine the kinds of things that came from the people he pastors? So, I'm not sure this case is such a good one to use as proof positive that the UPCI is not "cultish". (DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT SAY I BELIEVE THE UPCI IS CULTISH. THOUGH THERE ARE SOME CHURCHES IN IT THAT I'M SURE ARE).
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Well I was serious... Now you got me thinking I was just trying to convince myself!
Seriously, wouldn't ANY guys out there agree they find a smartly dressed female... (perhaps in red spike heels LOL!) as alluring as her mostly undressed peers?
PS I don't just mean seductive, but attractive in general.
Hoovie, I can only speak for myself. and Myself tells me I am married to a hottie and that is all that matters! LOL!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The following is from a Pentecostal Herald article authored by Mark Fogarty.
I believe gives insight as to the mindset of Pastor Fogarty and what he clearly defines as 3 levels of Christian Character/Holiness and his opinions of the role of a pastor in the lives of saints.
I submit it for discussion as to whether you agree or not. What bothers me is the lack of any mention of Holy Spirit being the source of our holiness but rather puts the onus, even its "enforcement" apparently on the pastor.
----------------------------
Three Levels of Christian Character by Mark Fogarty.
Published in October 2004 issue of The Pentecostal Herald.
There are three levels to Christian character. This character is developed and matured by the level of holiness to which we have adhered.
First, there is Biblical holiness. This cannot be argued, disputed, compromised, or taken away. No individual is exempt from following Biblical holiness; it is the entrance level of walking with God. This level is forever settled, as stated in Psalm 119:89. Liberty should be granted to any minister at any time to preach Biblical holiness. In our efforts to be considerate of other ministries and churches, we often eleminate one of the identifying factors of the Apostolic church - that we are a holiness people. Never should we place restraints on the pulpit when it comes to preaching the Word of God. The preaching of the Word breeds holiness into people.
Second, holiness involves local church government. This refers to local church standards. No one can set these standards except the pastor. The responsibility lies with the pastor to preach, teach, and enforce the standards that he feels necessary for the church that he pastors. Ezekiel referred to the pastor as a "watchman" (Ezekiel 3:17). The Scripture plainly states that the pastor has the responsibility to set the standard (Ezekiel 44:23). Pastors violate and profane the law of God when they make no difference between the clean and the unclean (Ezekiel 22:26).
The responsibility and the burden of preaching, teaching, and enforcing holiness lies only with the pastor. No visiting minister, evangelist, or neighboring pastor can set a standard of conduct for a church that he does not pastor. Anyone who endeavors to do this is in violation of God's command. This level of holiness and character does and should control who is in the leadership of a church. If someone does not desire to climb to this level of holiness and character, he should not be used in a local assembly. To involve someone who does not adhere to what the pastor teaches causes confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.
The third level of Christian character involves personal convictions. Everyone should have personal convictions. Hearing and responding to preaching builds in us a desire to be holy and separated. Personal convictions are just that, personal. Never does a personal conviction need to be a test of fellowship with someone else. We develop personal convictions because of our backgrounds. Some people may feel strongly about involvement with certain things because of their previous involvement before they were saved. Never should one saint try to force the church or someone else to accept or live by his or her own personal convictions. Personal convictions are between individuals and God.
Understanding these three levels of holiness will help us determine the level of our Christian character of an individual. when someone does not want to step up from level one to level two and follow their pastor's direction, this is a flaw in his Christian character. A church member cannot be right with the Master and wrong with the pastor.
Christians cannot expect to go to heaven without being submissive to the Word of God. Neither can they expect to please God if they will not go to the next level and be involved in the work of God in their local church. Anyone who climbs to level two will also climb to level three and thereby fulfill Jeremiah 31:33: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they will be my people."
Ther following is from a Pentecostal Herald article authored by Mark Fogarty.
I believe gives insight as to the mindset of Pastor Fogarty and what he clearly defines as 3 levels of Christian Character/Holiness and his opinions of the role of a pastor in the lives of saints.
I submit it for discussion as to whether you agree or not. What bothers me is the lack of any mention of Holy Spirit being the source of our holiness but rather puts the onus, even its "enforcement" apparently on the pastor.
----------------------------
Three Levels of Christian Character by Mark Fogarty.
Published in October 2004 issue of The Pentecostal Herald.
There are three levels to Christian character. This character is developed and matured by the level of holiness to which we have adhered.
First, there is Biblical holiness. This cannot be argued, disputed, compromised, or taken away. No individual is exempt from following Biblical holiness; it is the entrance level of walking with God. This level is forever settled, as stated in Psalm 119:89. Liberty should be granted to any minister at any time to preach Biblical holiness. In our efforts to be considerate of other ministries and churches, we often eleminate one of the identifying factors of the Apostolic church - that we are a holiness people. Never should we place restraints on the pulpit when it comes to preaching the Word of God. The preaching of the Word breeds holiness into people.
Second, holiness involves local church government. This refers to local church standards. No one can set these standards except the pastor. The responsibility lies with the pastor to preach, teach, and enforce the standards that he feels necessary for the church that he pastors. Ezekiel referred to the pastor as a "watchman" (Ezekiel 3:17). The Scripture plainly states that the pastor has the responsibility to set the standard (Ezekiel 44:23). Pastors violate and profane the law of God when they make no difference between the clean and the unclean (Ezekiel 22:26).
The responsibility and the burden of preaching, teaching, and enforcing holiness lies only with the pastor. No visiting minister, evangelist, or neighboring pastor can set a standard of conduct for a church that he does not pastor. Anyone who endeavors to do this is in violation of God's command. This level of holiness and character does and should control who is in the leadership of a church. If someone does not desire to climb to this level of holiness and character, he should not be used in a local assembly. To involve someone who does not adhere to what the pastor teaches causes confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.
The third level of Christian character involves personal convictions. Everyone should have personal convictions. Hearing and responding to preaching builds in us a desire to be holy and separated. Personal convictions are just that, personal. Never does a personal conviction need to be a test of fellowship with someone else. We develop personal convictions because of our backgrounds. Some people may feel strongly about involvement with certain things because of their previous involvement before they were saved. Never should one saint try to force the church or someone else to accept or live by his or her own personal convictions. Personal convictions are between individuals and God.
Understanding these three levels of holiness will help us determine the level of our Christian character of an individual. when someone does not want to step up from level one to level two and follow their pastor's direction, this is a flaw in his Christian character. A church member cannot be right with the Master and wrong with the pastor.
Christians cannot expect to go to heaven without being submissive to the Word of God. Neither can they expect to please God if they will not go to the next level and be involved in the work of God in their local church. Anyone who climbs to level two will also climb to level three and thereby fulfill Jeremiah 31:33: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they will be my people."
Fogarty ends with .... Jeremiah 31:33: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they will be my people."
Ironic when most of the piece puts the writing of God's law in the preacher's hand not the Holy Spirit's.
Making each local pastor ... the vicar of Christ ... imo. This is Catholicism re-packaged. Sanctification need not apply.
In this church governance paradigm ... espoused by Fogarty and his peers ... the pastor is supreme over the evangelist ... over all ...
He is also the prophet ... in addition to the high priest of the OT.
Quote:
"Ezekiel referred to the pastor as a "watchman" (Ezekiel 3:17). The Scripture plainly states that the pastor has the responsibility to set the standard (Ezekiel 44:23)"
Here Ezekiel was not speaking of a pastor, or even high priest, but to the prophet. This type of faulty exegesis, prooftexting and legalism has its reward .... -500k.
Ther following is from a Pentecostal Herald article authored by Mark Fogarty.
I believe gives insight as to the mindset of Pastor Fogarty and what he clearly defines as 3 levels of Christian Character/Holiness and his opinions of the role of a pastor in the lives of saints.
I submit it for discussion as to whether you agree or not. What bothers me is the lack of any mention of Holy Spirit being the source of our holiness but rather puts the onus, even its "enforcement" apparently on the pastor.
----------------------------
Three Levels of Christian Character by Mark Fogarty.
Published in October 2004 issue of The Pentecostal Herald.
There are three levels to Christian character. This character is developed and matured by the level of holiness to which we have adhered.
First, there is Biblical holiness. This cannot be argued, disputed, compromised, or taken away. No individual is exempt from following Biblical holiness; it is the entrance level of walking with God. This level is forever settled, as stated in Psalm 119:89. Liberty should be granted to any minister at any time to preach Biblical holiness. In our efforts to be considerate of other ministries and churches, we often eleminate one of the identifying factors of the Apostolic church - that we are a holiness people. Never should we place restraints on the pulpit when it comes to preaching the Word of God. The preaching of the Word breeds holiness into people.
Second, holiness involves local church government. This refers to local church standards. No one can set these standards except the pastor. The responsibility lies with the pastor to preach, teach, and enforce the standards that he feels necessary for the church that he pastors. Ezekiel referred to the pastor as a "watchman" (Ezekiel 3:17). The Scripture plainly states that the pastor has the responsibility to set the standard (Ezekiel 44:23). Pastors violate and profane the law of God when they make no difference between the clean and the unclean (Ezekiel 22:26).
The responsibility and the burden of preaching, teaching, and enforcing holiness lies only with the pastor. No visiting minister, evangelist, or neighboring pastor can set a standard of conduct for a church that he does not pastor. Anyone who endeavors to do this is in violation of God's command. This level of holiness and character does and should control who is in the leadership of a church. If someone does not desire to climb to this level of holiness and character, he should not be used in a local assembly. To involve someone who does not adhere to what the pastor teaches causes confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.
The third level of Christian character involves personal convictions. Everyone should have personal convictions. Hearing and responding to preaching builds in us a desire to be holy and separated. Personal convictions are just that, personal. Never does a personal conviction need to be a test of fellowship with someone else. We develop personal convictions because of our backgrounds. Some people may feel strongly about involvement with certain things because of their previous involvement before they were saved. Never should one saint try to force the church or someone else to accept or live by his or her own personal convictions. Personal convictions are between individuals and God.
Understanding these three levels of holiness will help us determine the level of our Christian character of an individual. when someone does not want to step up from level one to level two and follow their pastor's direction, this is a flaw in his Christian character. A church member cannot be right with the Master and wrong with the pastor.
Christians cannot expect to go to heaven without being submissive to the Word of God. Neither can they expect to please God if they will not go to the next level and be involved in the work of God in their local church. Anyone who climbs to level two will also climb to level three and thereby fulfill Jeremiah 31:33: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they will be my people."
His idea of levels is absurd. If we view what he says as points some of them actually make sense.
Point 1 is good (As long as we can agree what is actual biblical holiness).
Point 3 is good also.
Point 2...
Point 2 is laughable. Scripture no where supports the idea of anyone making extra rules for God's people other than what God already gave. The bible calls such extra rules the "traditions and commandments of men". Those who made and enforced those extra rules in the bible were the Pharisees. In fact, just like the Pharisees of old, he goes on to say that if you won't do what he says then you are not right with God. And yet some of you are still wondering how the connection between such people and the pharisees can honestly be made...
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
His idea of levels is absurd. If we view what he says as points some of them actually make sense.
Point 1 is good (As long as we can agree what is actual biblical holiness).
Point 3 is good also.
Point 2...
Point 2 is laughable. Scripture no where supports the idea of anyone making extra rules for God's people other than what God already gave. The bible calls such extra rules the "traditions and commandments of men". Those who made and enforced those extra rules in the bible were the Pharisees. In fact, just like the Pharisees of old, he goes on to say that if you won't do what he says then you are not right with God. And yet some of you still are wondering how the connection between such people and the pharisees can honestly be made...
The term Pharisees aptly fits ... for the fence builders and those who lord over the people of God shutting the windows and gates of heaven ....
but in their religious, tradition-laden minds they think one is saying holiness is Phariseeism.
There is no connection in the synapses in the part of the corporate cerebrum that deals with rationalization and logic.
It's a wonderful article describing the corporate ideology, but I believe it to be over bearing and flawed.
Everyone has personal convictions which are level 1. unless the person with the convictions are the pastor, which are level 2.
Any person who wants to be used by the pastor, must fully align everyone of his convictions with his pastor. (major flaw)
There is no teaching in this article about what biblicle holiness is which is level 3. Instead it gives a person who has level 1 convictions, but because he is the pastor they become level 2 by default the ability to define level 3.
Linear Mode
