Should we teach others to rebel against standards?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Greek of "obey them that rule over you" means "to allow one's self to be persuaded by", indicating that obedience is there expected result from sound teaching and instruction.

www.onenesspentecostal.com/peitho.htm

If we take this out of this context, then any arbitrary command would be binding. A pastor could command polkadoted ties, giant red shoes, and red little noses, and we'd be expected to obey.

Teaching, persuasion, and the way of righteousness comes from the Scriptures.

The Thayers Greek Lexicon defines peitho as "to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with
To trust, have confidence, be confident." I said over and over God's ordained Pastor for you. Not just Joel Osteen or just whoever! But if God has put someone over you, and you just reject them, you are rejecting God. They are God's man when they agree with you, and they don't. You have to have someone to account for your soul. Being your own self appointed Pastor doesn't work! Sheep cant be their own Shepherd. If your not finding anyone you can agree with, then you need to look at yourself. It can't just be everybody else always bro.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...04&postcount=6

In this post you stated you didn't believe "it" was a salvific issue, then you give your "understanding" of pouring. Again, this is after stating you don't believe this is a salvific issue.

You posted more than once, in separate threads something which you said wasn't a salvific issue.

"A washing... rather[sic] it is done through immersion, pouring, or sprinkling is a "baptism"."

This was not part of a paragraph or quoted. It appears to be a statement.

Instead of arguing, let's put it out and make it clear:

Do you believe pouring or sprinkling is an acceptable form of baptism? You've said you don't believe it's a salvific issue (I completely, totally 100% disagree).

Please answer directly. No hyperbole. No beating around the bush. Yes or no, is pouring or sprinkling an acceptable form of baptism?

Scripture only shows immersion as it relates to New Testament water baptism. Therefore, that is the only "biblical" method of water baptism shown by example.

At the same time, Scripture doesn't set a given amount of water required. Nor does it even name immersion as a requirement specifically. My hesitation is primarily based on understanding that the Old Testament "washings" of Hebrews 9:10, which included sprinklings and pourings, are called "βαπτισμοῖς" (baptismois), or, "baptisms". And, the Jewish rite of burial included washing the body through the pouring of water. Lastly, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is depicted as God "sprinkling" clean water, and is "poured" out in the NT.

This is not intended to be a statement of endorsement, or advcacy, for baptism outside of immersion. It's only a statement expressing that I understand the position. And I wasn't seeing it as salvific on account of this knowledge.

However, I'd only immerse. My Dixie cups comment was just me being over zealous in my emphasis.

If your beard is keeping you from church, then the issue isn't the Pastor or the church.

Not necessarily. Because if a pastor has given a human edict on beards, and made it clear that I'm not welcome on account of my beard, that's on him. He has no Scripture for it. What else might be teach that isn't in Scripture?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Greek of "obey them that rule over you" means "to allow one's self to be persuaded by", indicating that obedience is there expected result from sound teaching and instruction.

www.onenesspentecostal.com/peitho.htm

If we take this out of this context, then any arbitrary command would be binding. A pastor could command polkadoted ties, giant red shoes, and red little noses, and we'd be expected to obey.

Teaching, persuasion, and the way of righteousness comes from the Scriptures.

That is extreme, but we do have church government in place for a reason.
An eldership telling me that I must grow a beard, is all fine and well. Are the people shaking like skinny puppies passing peach pits as I'm told the news? No, they are all looking at me like "come on boy you see the word, you heard the teaching" Great, Only problem is, I just don't see it. If I cannot see it, and don't understand why it is necessary for me to grow one, then there is one thing for me to do. Pick up my family and leave properly. The Greek word in the verse in Hebrews is Πείθεσθε which means to be convinced in that which is trusted. Which is actually speaking of the individual. Who had already proved himself and his qualifications to the church family. The students are to trust, be persuaded, convinced through reason that the elder is sighted and leading them to the strait gate. The Greek ἡγέομαι means chief, officer, ruler, one who leads by ruling. Yet, we are to ὑπείκω which simply means to submit to the authority placed over us. Therefore the KJV translators took Πείθεσθε and used the word OBEY. We are to submit to trusted, tested, rulers who are officers of the church, over the church family. Elders, who are to do this work with στενάζοντες NO MOANING!! No groans of frustration. Because the people are bowing up on them. If you don't like what is being taught, take it on down the line. It is that simple.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

The Thayers Greek Lexicon defines peitho as "to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with
To trust, have confidence, be confident." I said over and over God's ordained Pastor for you. Not just Joel Osteen or just whoever! But if God has put someone over you, and you just reject them, you are rejecting God. They are God's man when they agree with you, and they don't. You have to have someone to account for your soul. Being your own self appointed Pastor doesn't work! Sheep cant be their own Shepherd. If your not finding anyone you can agree with, then you need to look at yourself. It can't just be everybody else always bro.

So, if a pastor commanded that you have to dress like an actual clown, red nose and all, to a be welcome and in good standing, you believe you'd have to obey?

What if the pastor, or an entire body of pastors, decided to put emphasis on using Matthew 28:19 as a formula over Acts 2:38? Must you obey? If not, why?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, if a pastor commanded that you have to dress like an actual clown, red nose and all, to a be welcome and in good standing, you believe you'd have to obey?

Do you refuse to read my posts because you want to pick a fight with me?

Don't play that stupid stuff with me.

I have explained myself thoroughly in the beard thread concerning my position. I also gave a shorter explanation in this thread. But you want to play games with me? To what benefit?

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if the pastor, or an entire body of pastors, decided to put emphasis on using Matthew 28:19 as a formula over Acts 2:38? Must you obey? If not, why?

Because one, they wouldn't earn my trust. Listen bro, did you even read the post that you quoted? I answer this question in the very post? Or did it fly over your head? Did I use too many words? What's up?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That is extreme, but we do have church government in place for a reason.
An eldership telling me that I must grow a beard, is all fine and well. Are the people shaking like skinny puppies passing peach pits as I'm told the news? No, they are all looking at me like "come on boy you see the word, you heard the teaching" Great, Only problem is, I just don't see it. If I cannot see it, and don't understand why it is necessary for me to grow one, then there is one thing for me to do. Pick up my family and leave properly. The Greek word in the verse in Hebrews is Πείθεσθε which means to be convinced in that which is trusted. Which is actually speaking of the individual. Who had already proved himself and his qualifications to the church family. The students are to trust, be persuaded, convinced through reason that the elder is sighted and leading them to the strait gate. The Greek ἡγέομαι means chief, officer, ruler, one who leads by ruling. Yet, we are to ὑπείκω which simply means to submit to the authority placed over us. Therefore the KJV translators took Πείθεσθε and used the word OBEY. We are to submit to trusted, tested, rulers who are officers of the church, over the church family. Elders, who are to do this work with στενάζοντες NO MOANING!! No groans of frustration. Because the people are bowing up on them. If you don't like what is being taught, take it on down the line. It is that simple.

So you don't believe that a pastor's teaching must be based strictly upon Scripture? Opinions and "feelz" can be his sole basis for a standard? It can be an arbitrary whim?

I do see that you believe one has the right to find a different church. That's fair. But many teach that you're bound by God to stay under the pastor He gave you.

Funny story here. I think it was 1999. An evangelist came through one weekend and preached a pretty good sermon. But he got off track and started elaborating on how Johnson & Johnson's was owned by Satanists. The pastor got worked up and commanded that everyone had to get any products from the company out of their homes. About a week passed and the pastor lifted the ban because the evangelist's statements were verified as coming from an internet hoax that wasn't based on any factual information at all. Lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Do you refuse to read my posts because you want to pick a fight with me?

Don't play that stupid stuff with me.

I have explained myself thoroughly in the beard thread concerning my position. I also gave a shorter explanation in this thread. But you want to play games with me? To what benefit?




Because one, they wouldn't earn my trust. Listen bro, did you even read the post that you quoted? I answer this question in the very post? Or did it fly over your head? Did I use too many words? What's up?

I was responding to "1ofthechosen", not you.... EB.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, if a pastor commanded that you have to dress like an actual clown, red nose and all, to a be welcome and in good standing, you believe you'd have to obey?

What if the pastor, or an entire body of pastors, decided to put emphasis on using Matthew 28:19 as a formula over Acts 2:38? Must you obey? If not, why?

If they say we are obeying Matthew 28:19 you pack up and leave, they have gone straight charismatic. They have fallen from the truth, no more needs to be said. Gods man will not ask you to dress like a clown, that's unethical. The guy who baptizes in the name of Bam, bam, bam might , but nobody who is to be taken seriously would ever consider that! But Eb answered it, so are you going to argue with the scripture now? If you just don't want to submit say it. I can understand that. But arguing why you don't have to, and trying to find all the loopholes not to isnt going to help you. I can understand wherever your at, but you have to be honest about it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So you don't believe that a pastor's teaching must be based strictly upon Scripture? Opinions and "feelz" can be his sole basis for a standard? It can be an arbitrary whim?

I guess I have to use a dictionary with you again.

ar·bi·trar·y

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

whim
a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.

Is that what I posted? Chris? Is that what I posted about the church that has its men wear beards? That Brother Dan, just off the top of his head blurted out that everyone has to grow whiskers or else? No reasons, no whys, just do it or get out of here? Is that what I posted in my post? You are a funny guy. I guess you like me messing with you. OK, I now know where I stand.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Funny story here.

It's actually not funny. Because the pastor trusted the evangelist. Hence the reason the pastor gave the evangelist the pulpit.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think it was 1999. An evangelist came through one weekend and preached a pretty good sermon. But he got off track and started elaborating on how Johnson & Johnson's was owned by Satanists.

I thought it was Proctor and Gamble, but that was hoax too. So, the pastor trusted the evangelist. The evangelist went down the wrong road.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The pastor got worked up and commanded that everyone had to get any products from the company out of their homes. About a week passed and the pastor lifted the ban because the evangelist's statements were verified as coming from an internet hoax that wasn't based on any factual information at all. Lol

Pastor forced all of you, to throw out Johnson and Johnson products under protest?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was responding to "1ofthechosen", not you.... EB.

Don't worry, you made up for it when you did respond to me.