McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamation

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

GD, can you identify where the apostles or Christ taught "you are to obey what God commands only if it is relevant to your culture"? I mean, this teaching of yours, that you are presenting here, is it taught in the Bible?

???

[good samaritan]

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;1379857]

The only thing I have to say about this is, where do we get the idea of a pulpit ministry from scripture? I guess that is more a question than a statement.

A pulpit or a platform is not of importance. Women should not stand out over men in the church(assembly). Ladies should focus on their own families or another lady audience, but should not be trying to teach another ladies husband. A pulpit is where someone stands before a congregation and preaches the word of God, but the pulpit itself isn't what I am placing focus. It is the position of the person exhorting behind the pulpit. Pulpits, pews, alter benches are like a/c they are just conveniences.

Which leads to my next question, where do we scripturaly get the authoritative position we give to the term pastors, other than derived from our definition of the word pastor in Ephesians 4. A shepherd shepherds by leading and caring not by any authority.
While you say seeking a position that is unbiblical, I say the position itself is unbiblical.

I think our terminology may be off, but the ministries are the same. I believe bishops(title) and pastors(ministry) are the same. Although, I don't believe scripturally all pastors were in the position of a bishop. Pastors where meant to be ministries, and there are many levels of influence in pastoring (I believe there are multiple pastors in our church as far as ministry is concerned). There is only one positional pastor, but scripturally I think that would be a bishop.IMO.

If a lady leads other women is she then a pastor? I think so or at least that is her gifting. That doesn't mean that she is to pastor men and become a bishop of a church (or as we call it today "pastor").

Much more could be said on the subject but let me leave with this. We have more confusion in the body because of the authoritative position we have claimed, because instead of working as servants of Christ submitted to one another, Eph. 5:21. We have set ourselves up as God's mouth piece giving our own definition to our individual groups as we perceive things and we cannot even agree among ourselves from one group to another. How can anyone say that is of God?

I think most of the confusion is having wolves in sheep's clothing. Church government is essential. This reminds me of gun control. Guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Just because a person has had a bad experience they should not quit, but instead they should be responsible and find Christian worship and fellowship elsewhere. It is not the system that is broke, it is some of the people involved in it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think most of the confusion is having wolves in sheep's clothing. Church government is essential. This reminds me of gun control. Guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Just because a person has had a bad experience they should not quit, but instead they should be responsible and find Christian worship and fellowship elsewhere. It is not the system that is broke, it is some of the people involved in it.

[Holy Ghost HH]

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This is cultural and archaic. Contextually comparing this scripture to Corintians is not justified. But you probably do that from the pulpit. You violate at least the blood and strangled part of this scripture if you don't kill your own pork, beef or chicken.
Not only that it could contradict acts if your not careful.
All of "the list" can be found in the 10 commandments and might as well be repeated as such.
To compact this to the culture of Corinth is a classic justification for a learned conviction. Noticed I said learned.
Do what you want as a man and dictated to your family what you desire. But to put YOUR convictions or YOUR standards on someone else based on cultural, historical and archaic doctrine is heresy.
So glad Jesus looks on the heart instead of me in my underwear while typing this in my recliner. But I digress.
Love Jesus, Obey his commandments and I'll see you on the other side benihin

[Esaias]

Wow. "Apostolics" who quote the Bible and write it off as "archaic".

Of course, those "gay affirming Pentecostals" do basically the same thing. We are definitely not in Kansas anymore.

Wow.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This is cultural and archaic. Contextually comparing this scripture to Corintians is not justified. But you probably do that from the pulpit. You violate at least the blood and strangled part of this scripture if you don't kill your own pork, beef or chicken.
Not only that it could contradict acts if your not careful.
All of "the list" can be found in the 10 commandments and might as well be repeated as such.
To compact this to the culture of Corinth is a classic justification for a learned conviction. Noticed I said learned.
Do what you want as a man and dictated to your family what you desire. But to put YOUR convictions or YOUR standards on someone else based on cultural, historical and archaic doctrine is heresy.
So glad Jesus looks on the heart instead of me in my underwear while typing this in my recliner. But I digress.
Love Jesus, Obey his commandments and I'll see you on the other side benihin

I am having trouble following you here. Are you saying that acts 15 wasn't talking about idolatrous practices? I don't really see where acts 15 really has much relevance with church government or home government. I made a statement father's day, "We don't need more government regulation, but we need more home regulation". The problem we have in American society is a breakdown of the family and it is sad that supposed apostolics can't even recognize it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This is cultural and archaic. Contextually comparing this scripture to Corintians is not justified. But you probably do that from the pulpit. You violate at least the blood and strangled part of this scripture if you don't kill your own pork, beef or chicken.

In Acts 15:20 your saying the apostles were telling 1st Century Romans how to prepare their food?

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

Not only that it could contradict acts if your not careful.

So, where did the apostle have cooking classes for Romans? The Apostle Paul was trying to get Romans to kill their animals by draining all the blood? In the 1st century Roman empire butchering was done pretty much the same way it is done today. Animals had their throats slit. Pigs weren't strangled. Wouldn't that have been a job and a half?

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

All of "the list" can be found in the 10 commandments and might as well be repeated as such.
To compact this to the culture of Corinth is a classic justification for a learned conviction. Noticed I said learned.
Do what you want as a man and dictated to your family what you desire. But to put YOUR convictions or YOUR standards on someone else based on cultural, historical and archaic doctrine is heresy.

Whoa! Where did this come from? My standards? My convictions? Acts 15:20 wasn't penned by me or the UPCI. They also weren't giving the 1st century Romans lesson on animal slaughter, food preparation, abstention of pre-marital relations, and covetousness. HH, not for anything, but your posts all say the same thing. You are a disgruntled customer. Hey, HH, everyone else is having a good time in Pentecost, you just need get over it.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

So glad Jesus looks on the heart instead of me in my underwear while typing this in my recliner. But I digress.

More information that we didn't need to know. This is what Acts 15:20 inspire? I guess Adam and Eve were also cultural situation? So, in 2015 God would of let them wander around in fig leaves. Talk about a pendulum of extremes. So, HH, when you were doing "standards" did you take a shower in your suit?

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

Love Jesus, Obey his commandments and I'll see you on the other side benihin

Standing in your soiled underwear?

[revrandy]

Ignorance is no excuse with the law or the Word... looks like financial restitution was made to the young people and hopefully repentance and forgiveness as well...people have to get on with they're life... one incident in Oregon does not paint an entire movement as the same.... I will go back in my hole...

[Godsdrummer]

Evang.Benincasa wrote Brother, the apostle isn't going outside of the commandments which were already prescribed by the law, but dealing with the Gentile religious system.

First the apostolic meeting deals with circumcision, this is their main focus of the meeting. Because the religious Judeans felt that these new Gentile converts needed to become physical Israelis, due to only proselytes being able to take part in religious ceremonies of Judea. Yet, the portion of Israelism which needed Gentiles to convert through circumcision was no longer needed due to the system getting ready to become null and void. Yet, what was still mandatory was that the Gentiles give up their religious practices. Fornication πορνεία in Acts 15:20 is temple prostitution, strangled animals, were ritually killed, blood was taken also during rituals, (especially in the Mithra cult) all forms of idolatry was forbidden and to be renounced.

The point you seem to be missing, do we have these religious practices today in say America?

But why did the apostles command the new Gentile converts to abstain from these things? Because they were expected to leave their religious practices behind, and not incorporate them into their newly adopted religion. 2nd Corinthians 6:14 -17 the Apostle repeats what was laid down in Acts 15:20, and handed over to the first Christian congregation of Antioch. 1 Corinthians 10:18-19 the Apostle Paul brings up the prohibition of Acts 15:20 again, but this time he speaks of Levites eating what was sacrificed to God, but goes on to explain that what Gentiles sacrifice to in their religious practices are demons. Yet, he goes on to explain that idols are nothing, the food offered to the idols are just BBQ, yet, the spiritual implication of the ritual is in opposition to God. Hence the reason why the Gentiles were to to abstain from their old religious practices. If this was merely just some cultural situation then obviously the apostles would be of been the ones adding. The religious Judeans had book, chapter, and verse for circumcising Exodus 12:48-49.

Seems to me you went to a lot of trouble to explain the meaning of this passage only to prove to me that these commandments lay down by the council still dealt with a cultural practice of that day. In other words, they rejected the keeping of the Mosaic law, in the very fact that they did not require circumcision. Then only placed on them those things needful in light of their present situation. Abstaining from the idolatrous worship from which they came out of.
Again, I ask you in what manner does this passage apply to you and I today. We did not come out of a religion that offers things unto idols, sexual debauchery etc.
And yes I agree that this passage is not teaching us how to prepare food.

[Godsdrummer]

[QUOTE]good samaritan;1379878]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

A pulpit or a platform is not of importance. Women should not stand out over men in the church(assembly). Ladies should focus on their own families or another lady audience, but should not be trying to teach another ladies husband. A pulpit is where someone stands before a congregation and preaches the word of God, but the pulpit itself isn't what I am placing focus. It is the position of the person exhorting behind the pulpit. Pulpits, pews, alter benches are like a/c they are just conveniences.

The point is that nowhere in scripture do we find anyone standing before an audience teaching or preaching THE WORD OF GOD, this of course does not include proclaiming the good news to the lost, but again this was outside the general meeting of those that were saved. We are to go out and proclaim the good news not get them to come to church in order for a preacher to preach salvation. The examples we have of the early church was that they gathered together and broke bread together, they did not have church as we do today.

I think our terminology may be off, but the ministries are the same. I believe bishops(title) and pastors(ministry) are the same. Although, I don't believe scripturally all pastors were in the position of a bishop. Pastors where meant to be ministries, and there are many levels of influence in pastoring (I believe there are multiple pastors in our church as far as ministry is concerned). There is only one positional pastor, but scripturally I think that would be a bishop.IMO.

Again I disagree there was ever a positional, pastor. That would go against Christ teaching on the subject.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

If a lady leads other women is she then a pastor? I think so or at least that is her gifting. That doesn't mean that she is to pastor men and become a bishop of a church (or as we call it today "pastor").

Again it is not a positional office, there for a moot point. Both men and women can teach, preach, or prophesy to both men and women, because it is not a position of authority.

I think most of the confusion is having wolves in sheep's clothing.

This cannot speak of those in positions of leadership for they were ordained after their lives were proven that they were acceptable. The problem is a system that allows for wolves in sheep's clothing to to become leaders.

Church government is essential.

Your are right church government is essential. But church government according to the examples in scripture not the way we do things today.

This reminds me of gun control. Guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Just because a person has had a bad experience they should not quit, but instead they should be responsible and find Christian worship and fellowship elsewhere. It is not the system that is broke, it is some of the people involved in it.

Your right the system is not broke, we have the wrong system period. I have another example different from you gun control example. Originally our government was "for the people by the people" in which the people placed into government those they felt would best work for the betterment of the people. It worked in the beginning because it was a good system. But the system in the church today does not work because it is not the system of the early church.

Leading back to the original subject of this thread. If church was conducted as it was in the early church this could never have happened, because there was not a singular man in position of authority that could bring shame on the church in general.