A Relevant Holiness Message - Page 48

rgcraig · #**471** 03-02-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

My 13 year old just looked at my screen and said, "Michael Phelps the swimmer?" (In sort of a hopeful tone.)

LOL - - did you tell her, YES!

mizpeh · #**472** 03-02-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, it doesn't. Paul was telling the Galatians about a conflict he had with a fellow minister of the Gospel. After the fact. After it had been [presumably] resolved. And he told the Galatians that Peter "was to be blamed."

Can you imagine the reaction if Bro. Mangun stood up at BOTT and relayed a similar experience with, say, Rob McKee? LOL!!! The silence would be stony and awkward.

Paul used that incident to make a point within the larger context of what he was writing about... keeping the law versus the grace of God in Christ. Paul was not only rebuking Peter at that time but all of the Jewish Christians who followed Peter that day in separating themselves from eating with the Gentile Christians.

Charnock · #**473** 03-02-2011, 04:33 PM

See, it was fine for RM to blast unnamed liberal Charismatic emergents for using "worldly" music, but it's okay for his buddies to do it.

The same principle works with all kinds of other issues as well.

Far too many conservatives preach against everything that moves, and/or are outside the pale of "Apostolic Identity," and all the while they cover for their buddies that are screwing around with women in their churches, embezzling money, or stealing "sheep."

It's twisted and warped.

We ALL justify those thing we want to do, as we see fit, and we are not consistent in application in any way, shape or form.

Michael Phelps · #**474** 03-02-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

My 13 year old just looked at my screen and said, "Michael Phelps the swimmer?" (In sort of a hopeful tone.)

Lol, well, I do swim..........but, I think I know what the real question was!

mizpeh · #**475** 03-02-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

LOL - - maybe that's all he's doing with RM.

He going to great lengths, don't ya think?

But he's not even trying to correct important doctrine that he thinks is another gospel. This all has to do with allowing a visiting minister to have a musician play secular music in a church setting and not taking a stand. Minor, nit-picking stuff, imo. It seems phariseeical to me. Unlike the weightier matter in which Paul called Peter and the other Christian Jews out on in Galatians. Matthew 23:23

Michael Phelps · #**476** 03-02-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Paul used that incident to make a point within the larger context of what he was writing about... keeping the law versus the grace of God in Christ. Paul was not only rebuking Peter at that time but all of the Jewish Christians who followed Peter that day in separating themselves from eating with the Gentile Christians.

Good point, and I agree.......I'm using this incident with GP to make a point within the larger context of what I'm writing about .... and in the process rebuking all preachers who would use racism and sterotypicalism in the pulpit!

Seriously, that is my only concern with this entire incident....

mizpeh · #**477** 03-02-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charnock

See, it was fine for RM to blast unnamed liberal Charismatic emergents for using "worldly" music, but it's okay for his buddies to do it.

The same principle works with all kinds of other issues as well.

Far too many conservatives preach against everything that moves, and/or are outside the pale of "Apostolic Identity," and all the while they cover for their buddies that are screwing around with women in their churches, embezzling money, or stealing "sheep."

It's twisted and warped.

We ALL justify those thing we want to do, as we see fit, and we are not consistent in application in any way, shape or form.

I agreed early on that RM was being hypocritical if he didn't speak to GP about this.

What would you have done if you were in RM's shoes, Charnock? If you were offended by the use of "worldly" music in church and then a visiting minister did what GP did? Would you have told the piano player to sit down? Would you have explained in front of the congregation that worldly music is not allowed in your church?

MissBrattified · #**478** 03-02-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I agreed early on that RM was being hypocritical if he didn't speak to GP about this.

What would you have done if you were in RM's shoes, Charnock? If you were offended by the use of "worldly" music in church and then a visiting minister did what GP did? Would you have told the piano player to sit down? Would you have explained in front of the congregation that worldly music is not allowed in your church?

This is more extreme than the RM/GP contradiction, but my father interrupted a visiting preacher's sermon (he was also a very dear family friend) and asked him to sit down for preaching what he believed was false doctrine. It was blatantly and purposefully contrary to what our church taught, and my father was heartbroken over the incident, but he was not afraid to respond accordingly.

In this case, RM could have responded by not posting the message online. By doing so, his support was clearly shown.