How to destroy a thread

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

But the opening post is true, Carl's post is just funny but not true.

It was cute.

But you are correct.

Well intentioned or not, their actions set back the cause of Apostolic Distinctives and advanced the cause of those who seek to drive them from the UPC

God bless.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

It was cute.

But you are correct.

Well intentioned or not, their actions set back the cause of Apostolic Distinctives and advanced the cause of those who seek to drive them from the UPC

God bless.

What do you mean by " advanced the cause of those who seek to drive them from the UPC?" Is there a faction trying to drive the cons from the UPC? Isn't it always the cons who are trying to drive a wedge between those with differing beliefs and the libs trying to walk in unity?

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What do you mean by " advanced the cause of those who seek to drive them from the UPC?" Is there a faction trying to drive the cons from the UPC? Isn't it always the cons who are trying to drive a wedge between those with differing beliefs and the libs trying to walk in unity?

Forgive an old man for posting past his bedtime.

They advanced the cause of those who seek to drive the Apostolic Distinctives from the UPC.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Isn't it always the cons who are trying to drive a wedge between those with differing beliefs and the libs trying to walk in unity?

Even though I clarified who the "them" was in the previous post, I think this part of your post needs to be addressed since I read it so often.

If one group honestly believes something to be necessary to godly living, if not salvation itself, and another group totally rejects that position:

How can the more conservative NOT be thought of as intolerant or divisive?

Example - the esteemed theologian Miley Cyrus accusing Carrie Prejean of being intolerant of gays and a bad example for Christians.

How can the more conservative position maintain their standards and NOT be thought of as isolationist or aloof?

Without taking a stand either way, doesn't the strong conviction of a conservative make them seem intolerant per se to those of lesser conviction?

The liberal of course wants to walk together, their conscience is not the one being violated.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Even though I clarified who the "them" was in the previous post, I think this part of your post needs to be addressed since I read it so often.

If one group honestly believes something to be necessary to godly living, if not salvation itself, and another group totally rejects that position:

How can the more conservative NOT be thought of as intolerant or divisive?

Example - the esteemed theologian Miley Cyrus accusing Carrie Prejean of being intolerant of gays and a bad example for Christians.

How can the more conservative position maintain their standards and NOT be thought of as isolationist or aloof?

Without taking a stand either way, doesn't the strong conviction of a conservative make them seem intolerant per se to those of lesser conviction?

The liberal of course wants to walk together, their conscience is not the one being violated.

Well, Paul taught eating things offered to idols was taught against in Act 15:29, but in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul does not condemn eating meat offered to idols IF the eater recognizes that the idol is nothing. Paul is willing to never eat meat if he were to offend the conscience of those saints who have some type of respect unto the idol (the weaker brother) and in doing so Paul might cause a brother to stumble into sin. It's not a sin for Paul to eat because of the knowledge he has but it is a sin for the weaker brother who does not have that same knowledge. In Rom 14, Paul goes into a long discourse on eating things that are unclean and he presents the same principle there that he does in 1 Cor 8 only the context is different. In 1 Cor 8 he is speaking to Gentiles/ex idolators and in Romans he is speaking to Gentiles and Jewish Christians in the context of the Law of Moses and grace through faith therefore the focus of eating meat offered to idols vs unclean meats.

In Rom 14, Paul stresses that we should not be contentious about our freedom to eat food that a Jew, even a Christian Jew would consider to be unclean. Paul doesn't condemn those who do not believe as he does like some folks do when they call their beliefs "silly". But once the weaker on begins to teach what they believe as a rule in regards to those things not explicitly spelled out as sin/works of the flesh, then they have entered the realm of legalism and Paul does condemn them as legalists as we see in 1 Tim 4:1-4.

Somehow we have to live together in love and mutual respect. The stronger saints showing respect unto the weaker saints by not causing the weaker to stumble and not berating them for being "stupid" for believing what they believe. And the weaker saints who feel they have to have fences that God has not placed to keep them from sin (a type of constraint or bondage), have to understand that the stronger saints don't have the same convictions, yet we are both part of the body of Christ. We should pray for each other in love and care for one another's souls which are going to go somewhere for eternity.

In short the strong conviction of the conservative makes them seem more intolerant when they demand others conform to their strong conviction by making it a law. It's the principles that are being taught by Paul that we should hold to. These principles can be applied to other things...the grey areas.

1 Cor 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

[mizpeh]

Paul saying that to be single and not married is his preference and he gives his reasons, he does not make it a commandment just because it is what he does 1 Cor 7. But he does speak strongly against those who do forbid marriage 1 Tim 4. Some who want to be "more spiritual" than others go to extremes, imo.

Anyways, I think we can find a principle here of not making personal preferences into commandments for all otherwise we are introducing legalism which in 1 Tim 4 appears to be a deception introduced by "seducing spirits" and "doctrines of devils".

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by toof

Really...

I know most of them personally and NONE are "rabbles".

Also, every one of the "declarers" that I know are completely behind Bro. Bernard and are excited about his leadership.

I have met a few liars in my time and you seem to be one.

PM me and we'll compare notes... but your lack ethics would probably prohibit you from admitting you're wrong.

Did you sign?

Did you join in the fun and add other's names to it without their permission?

Did you understand the word "ethics" when used in a sentence (above)?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Even though I clarified who the "them" was in the previous post, I think this part of your post needs to be addressed since I read it so often.

If one group honestly believes something to be necessary to godly living, if not salvation itself, and another group totally rejects that position:

How can the more conservative NOT be thought of as intolerant or divisive?

Example - the esteemed theologian Miley Cyrus accusing Carrie Prejean of being intolerant of gays and a bad example for Christians.

How can the more conservative position maintain their standards and NOT be thought of as isolationist or aloof?

Without taking a stand either way, doesn't the strong conviction of a conservative make them seem intolerant per se to those of lesser conviction?

The liberal of course wants to walk together, their conscience is not the one being violated.

The issue of homosexual behavior is clearly discussed in the Bible.

The Bible is silent on the issue of the "bifurcated garment," however.

I respect your opinion and your previous posts. But it is very wrong to try and link these two issues. Most of those in America who oppose the homosexual agenda are frankly baffled by the skirt/pants issue that some of us make such a big deal over. And we depend on their support to try and keep the gay thing at bay.

And is Carrie Prejean really the best spokesman for "holiness" and "modesty" in dress and appearance?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The issue of homosexual behavior is clearly discussed in the Bible.

The Bible is silent on the issue of the "bifurcated garment," however.

I respect your opinion and your previous posts. But it is very wrong to try and link these two issues. Most of those in America who oppose the homosexual agenda are frankly baffled by the skirt/pants issue that some of us make such a big deal over. And we depend on their support to try and keep the gay thing at bay.

And is Carrie Prejean really the best spokesman for "holiness" and "modesty" in dress and appearance?

Good post on all points!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Paul saying that to be single and not married is his preference and he gives his reasons, he does not make it a commandment just because it is what he does 1 Cor 7. But he does speak strongly against those who do forbid marriage 1 Tim 4. Some who want to be "more spiritual" than others go to extremes, imo.

Anyways, I think we can find a principle here of not making personal preferences into commandments for all otherwise we are introducing legalism which in 1 Tim 4 appears to be a deception introduced by "seducing spirits" and "doctrines of devils".

Amen, Mizpeh! Good posts!