Apostolics of Grant Parish/ Br. Lane Creech

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yeah. It took him 2 years to reach this point. He didn’t care for the carnage left behind by changing direction in a weeks worth of Facebook posts. Sad.

Thats the issue when you spend all that time proclaiming something as irrevocably true and then do a 180. I mean, you were so sure before...how do you know you wont change your mind on this as well? Why should we invest mentally and emotionally in your vacillation?



Its like hardcore training a dog to do a certain trick with treats and positive affirmation and suddenly using a shock collar the next day.


Bad Spot! *BZZZT*

[diakonos]

Had he just stopped preaching it he woulda got the desired results in a few years.

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Had he just stopped preaching it he woulda got the desired results in a few years.

Silence is permission.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by consapente89

Silence is permission.

That’s the point.

[UnTraditional]

Can I say this about the issue of standards of holiness, for what it's worth...

The Bible does teach that a believer should dress modestly. That is without a doubt a must for our witness. we are called not to be conformed to this world. But, in the same token of thought, modesty of spirit is also a must. Now, if someone is walking away from standards as rebellion against God, that is one thing. But, I also see some looking more to the change of heart that manifests outwardly, which I believe is the point of that aspect of the Christian walk.

I railed against standards for years. Then, after my own failures and backsliding, I began to think about things. Many pastors want the lives of their saints secure in Christ. So, in order to protect, they establish standards which they believe are aligned with Scripture. That is wonderful, a means to help protect the believer and encourage them in their walk of modesty. I have also known some to have standards as a means of establishing their own righteousness, which is contrary toi Scripture, period.

Saying all that to say this. If this pastor has rejected setting standards in order to be accepted by the world, then he needs to check the motives and repent of a wrong motive. However, if this man sees a needs for inward transformation that RESULTS in outer appearance, then maybe that is for a better reason. I may be off target, but just my thoughts.

Thanks for the great conversation.

[Bro Flame]

During our family Bible study last night, we had a discussion rooted in Brother Creech's theology about Deuteronomy 22:5. In a nutshell, he says that since it's under the Mosaic law then it does not need to be followed by the New Testament Church. If there are not other verses from the Mosaic law preached or taught, then this singular verse should not be used to stop modern women from wearing pants. Of course, he uses a lot of theological terms and justifies his reasoning through multiple studies. I don't recollect him ever saying anything about God telling him he was right, or seeking guidance through prayer. I could certainly be wrong there, so correct please.

I'm sure you're all aware of his theology. I won't brief it anymore.


In being quite honest, Brother Creech's argument will confuse people. For those will lack of knowledge of the Word and who haven't rightfully divided for themselves, they will slide into his theology. He'll confuse them. He claims grace and mercy, but that doesn't give Christians to live, dress, or act however we wish.

That's not how this works.

In First Corinthians 11, Paul addresses the distinguishing of the two sexes. He speaks of a few different things Christ expect to visually differentiate male from female. If pants can be worn both both men and women, then shouldn't the same be said for skirts and dresses? Should the two garments not be interchangeable?

[coksiw]

The Law still teaches us about righteousness.
Yes, the ceremonial/ritual stuff was a shadow, and the punishments and curses does teach us about what sin deserves, but everything else is somewhat applicable because it shows us how God is regarding righteousness.

The righteousness of the law does have a direct application or when direct application doesn't make sense, the application of its principle. Why? because they show the nature of God and what he cares about.

You can see how the apostle Paul used it:

Direct application:

[Eph 6:2-3 NKJV] 2 "Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: 3 "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."


Application of Principles:

[1Co 9:9-10 NKJV] 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

[1Ti 5:17-18 NKJV] 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy of his wages."

[2Co 6:14-15 NKJV] 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
[Deu 7:3-4 NKJV] 3 "Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. 4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Brother Creech is teaching Brother Creech's congregation. His preaching or what he teaches is for his congregation. Never meant for us, unless we decide to pick up and move to where he is at. He believes in the baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. Whatever he is teaching after that is on his head, and on his hands. While we might slice and dice doctrines taught by brothers we have to keep in mind that those brothers are going to have church whether we approve or not. They will continue to let the dogs bark and the trucks roll on. We all agree on things that Brother Creech preaches and teaches and disagree with some things Brother Creech preaches and teaches. But to me he is gathering in sinners and seeing God make them saints in Jesus name.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Creech is teaching Brother Creech's congregation. His preaching or what he teaches is for his congregation. Never meant for us, unless we decide to pick up and move to where he is at. He believes in the baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. Whatever he is teaching after that is on his head, and on his hands. While we might slice and dice doctrines taught by brothers we have to keep in mind that those brothers are going to have church whether we approve or not. They will continue to let the dogs bark and the trucks roll on. We all agree on things that Brother Creech preaches and teaches and disagree with some things Brother Creech preaches and teaches. But to me he is gathering in sinners and seeing God make them saints in Jesus name.

Saints? Sisters with pants and cut hair? Bro..he is backsliding. If history repeats itself with Bro Creech as it has with others who have went his direction, Acts 2:38 will soon be non issue. You didn't have the same attitude about Pixler.