I'm going to try and pull my thoughts together into something coherent, so bear with me. I'm not sure how it will be received, but I would like to touch on several previous comments and some made by those high in the organization.
First, we understand and accept that the salvation plan of the New Testament is pretty much summed up by Peter's statements in
Acts 2:38, declaring that repentance, baptism in Jesus name and receiving the Holy Ghost is pretty much followed throughout the new testament. That is what links us to apostolic doctrine that was later corrupted by elements that moved into the body after the death of the apostles.
Second, not every form of division and debate is of the devil. Simply put, if you will move past
Acts 2, you will see that the early church had its share of debate. For those who know me, you know I've continued in apostolic tradition throughout my life.
In
Acts 3 after the initial out-pouring of the Holy Ghost, the church was attacked and called into question by the then-standing, ruling religious power in Jerusalem, brought before the Annas, the high priest and Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the families related to the high priest. Understand this is the bunch who stood before Pilate and demanded Christ's death just over a month before. The outward debate did not stop the church from growing. Peter preached to them on the day of Pentecost, calling them murderers. Note, he's still talking to the high priest, for all you cats that don't believe you can biblically withstand someone who is in FALSE DOCTRINE, HERESY or SIN, because of their age or position. There is a vast gulf between rebuke and railing or reviling someone. Don't think you won't be put out of an assembly or an organizations if you stand for God's word...even in Pentecost.
Third, confusion and sin inside the body will be dealt with by God. Annanias and Sapphira conspired to lie to Peter about the land they sold and the amount. God dealt with it and great fear fell on the church and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles, because the respect and fear of God was again dominant in the church. We worry so much about people leaving and going. For those of you who remember GC in the 90's, we lost a lot of men and women who walked up and laid their licenses on the altar and walked out.
Fourth, in
Acts 10-11 the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in the house of Cornelius the Jews at first rejoiced that the Gentiles had also received the Holy Ghost, but by
Acts 15, certain converted Pharisees tried to subvert the Gentiles by telling them they had to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised to be save. This sparked a major debate in the church and ended up with Peter confronting them and settling the debate before the church elders in
Acts 15:14-29. I mention this, because I have recently had this same debate in a church. The apostles settled this fight a long time ago. No need to rehash it with the HRM crowd. We see at the end of the chapter that Paul and Barnabas had such a contention among them over John Mark going with them that they parted company. That wasn't over a doctrine, just a man! It was all in God's will though as we see Paul chose Silas as a companion and continued on his journey. Not all contention is bad.
Fifth and finally, in
Galatians 2, the Paul withstood Peter to his face BEFORE ALL because he was to be blamed. Even though Paul and Peter were by that time established apostles, one to the Gentiles and one to the Jews, Paul was still wise enough to know Peter was the spokesperson for the church as a whole, selected by Christ himself. If you read the entire chapter, it gives a lot of insite as to respect of persons and people seeming to be in high positions. Do a study on verse 5. They did not give the men place for even an hour...why? Because of the gospel. Paul even documented that Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.
Debate is in the blood of the apostolic church, whether we want to accept it or not. Jesus braided a whip and laid into the money changers in the temple, but we 3rd and 4th generation apostolics seem to think that anything verbalized beyond a whisper is of the devil. Our views on leadership and what is leadership are so skewed that we have no concept of apostolic order. Paul's version of "Let all things be done decently and in order," had NOTHING to do with PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE and definitely didn't have a flip to do with a social program created by men.
These men were the head honchos of the early Apostolic church of the first age. Yet we want to critique good men of God in our generation for leaving an organization or taking a stand? How apostolic we are.... Debate is debate. Opinion is opinion. The last thing we need is to strike out verbally against God's anointed and slander them as renegades, rebels and rogues, as some in leadership roles of the UPCI have done with those who left them. The entire early church was marked with those titles. I've even debated on the UPCI site about this very subject.
Jesus said in the sermon on the mount that we were blessed when men withdrew from us, or cast out our name as evil, or drove us from the synagogues. He stated he would send us prophets, wise men and scribes and some they would persecute, kill and cast out of the synagogues. Maybe I'm just an ignorant hick, but I don't think he meant the city hall when he said synagogues. I think the hint was they would kick some of us out of the church. And that would imply that someone in "authority" did the kicking!
And don't think I'm being hateful about any of this. I'm not. I was rebuked on another site a year ago by a UPCI evangelist who told me that I was wrong and no one would leave the UPC. Amazing what God will confirm in a year. And don't bother asking if I'm for or against television. I'm simply for Jesus. He is where my allegiance lies.
We need to rethink where the spiritual authority of our ministries lies and that will destroy much of the reason for debate. Misguided thinking even among leaders has always been the cause of strife in organizations. Jesus in Matt. 20:25-28, told his disciples that the ministry will not bear rule over the church like the leaders in the gentile nations. I think we missed it in many aspects when we started putting words to paper in a manual that revises every few years, and start labeling men as sinners who are taking stands for their convictions even in the face of leaders they love who they feel are in error. I've been put in that place many times. God has always called the shots and dealt with it. I think he will in this situation too.
May God bless the ministers of the UPC and the WPF and bring them to unity as brethren, despite their minor philosophical differences. If they don't, this is only going to be the first of many splits and fractures. God is going to make us learn the lesson of unity in the body.
Linear Mode
