"universal rights of the people"

[heartstrings]

That's not an answer. That was a statement that some people have, perhaps still do, twist certain other Scriptures. That fact doesn't prove or disprove that being discussed.

Some say Scripture says infant baptism is right, some say not, both cite Scripture. To simply say one side or another may be twisting Scripture because some have twisted Scripture about a curse in the OT, doesn't answer whether one or both the baptism views are biblically right or wrong.

At the last camp meeting, the last speaker, an evangelist, mentioned something i was "guilty" of and I knew that either the Holy Spirit had to have told him to say that or he had been given 'inside information"; and I knew who that someone was. So after the service, I asked him privately* about it. He admitted that he had, in fact, been asked 'to pray about it" but when I asked him twice, point blank, if the Holy Spirit told him to mention it, he could not say. One of the statements he had made was: "Lemme say this right here...Dad, you are raising your children for somebody else". So I asked him if that was always true and pointed out what Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 7:6-40. He avoided discussing that and was ready to end the conversation. He later told my pastor on me and I was confronted. He was called and put on speaker phone during the confrontation at which time he accused me of questioning his preaching on two other occasions. I asked him to specify and he named the occasions. Both were untrue.
#1 The first instance was when he preached on the incident of Naboth's vineyard I had AGREED with him and merely asked him a question after the service.
#2. The second time he said that I disagreed with him on Calvinsm. But what really happened was that some of the men were discussing Calvinism after a service. I had merely joined in and showed him something I had found in my studies which refuted Calvinism as well.. I did not question his preaching that time either because his message had not even been on Calvinism. So I thought we had been in agreement them as well.

I am still totally stunned that a man of God would stoop that low, and seemingly trying to inflict as mich damage as possible, resort to false accusations. Does being a "man of God", give one the right to say anything he wants from the pulpit, even attacking people, making unscriptural statements and dareing anyone to question him? Even threatening people with "touch not mine anointed" so they will fear him? Some better wake up and realize that "touching God's anointed" means we better not hurt ANY of God's children...even if we are a preacher.

[John81]

At the last camp meeting, the last speaker, an evangelist, mentioned something i was "guilty" of and I knew that either the Holy Spirit had to have told him to say that or he had been given 'inside information"; and I knew who that someone was. So after the service, I asked him privately* about it. He admitted that he had, in fact, been asked 'to pray about it" but when I asked him twice, point blank, if the Holy Spirit told him to mention it, he could not say. One of the statements he had made was: "Lemme say this right here...Dad, you are raising your children for somebody else". So I asked him if that was always true and pointed out what Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 7:6-40. He avoided discussing that and was ready to end the conversation. He later told my pastor on me and I was confronted. He was called and put on speaker phone during the confrontation at which time he accused me of questioning his preaching on two other occasions. I asked him to specify and he named the occasions. Both were untrue.
#1 The first instance was when he preached on the incident of Naboth's vineyard I had AGREED with him and merely asked him a question after the service.
#2. The second time he said that I disagreed with him on Calvinsm. But what really happened was that some of the men were discussing Calvinism after a service. I had merely joined in and showed him something I had found in my studies which refuted Calvinism as well.. I did not question his preaching that time either because his message had not even been on Calvinism. So I thought we had been in agreement them as well.

I am still totally stunned that a man of God would stoop that low, and seemingly trying to inflict as mich damage as possible, resort to false accusations. Does being a "man of God", give one the right to say anything he wants from the pulpit, even attacking people, making unscriptural statements and dareing anyone to question him? Even threatening people with "touch not mine anointed" so they will fear him? Some better wake up and realize that "touching God's anointed" means we better not hurt ANY of God's children...even if we are a preacher.

I'm very sorry that you had to go through that. It seems this pastor has insecurity issues, problems with pride, and likely several other issues he needs to deal with.

You are right that some proclaim basically what amounts to the idea that pastors are beyond reproach, always to be trusted, never to be question, and the like. I don't believe that because it's unbiblical. Paul even praised the Bereans for double-checking everything he said with the Word of God and advocated that we all do that.

If you bring this up for the reason I think you are, then let me put your mind to rest, because, as I said, I don't believe in that false teaching, and because of that I would cite what such a pastor had to say on a topic because to me, they lack credibility.

If I recall, the issue arose here some time back regarding whether or not Beth Moore was operating within the bounds of Scripture when she would hold Bible studies outside the church which sometimes included men (from what I gather, those attending are mostly women, but some men do also attend, sometimes with their wives). It's been long enough ago that I couldn't name names, but I do remember there were those right here on OB which declared she was out of the will of God, that she was sinning because she was instructing men.

In any event, I'm truly sorry you had to go through that and from what you have said, the problem is with the pastor and he really should take a leave until he gets his issues resolved.

[HappyChristian]

Leading a Bible study and commenting on a forum are two distinctly different things...

[trc123]

Don't you be telling me how to think woman! God don't want no dang femail telling us men what ter do........ :unsure:

[heartstrings]

If you bring this up for the reason I think you are, then let me put your mind to rest, because, as I said, I don't believe in that false teaching, and because of that I would cite what such a pastor had to say on a topic because to me, they lack credibility.

Oh no, not at all. The only reason for mentioning'calvinism' was to show what haqd been discussed.

[HappyChristian]

Don't you be telling me how to think woman! God don't want no dang femail telling us men what ter do........

:lol:

[John81]

Oh no, not at all. The only reason for mentioning'calvinism' was to show what haqd been discussed.

My fault, I wasn't clear in that statement, I had actually forgot you mentioned Calvinism. I was referring to not believing in the false teaching that pastors are "untouchable" and whatever they say goes.

[John81]

Leading a Bible study and commenting on a forum are two distinctly different things...

I agree, I was just using that as an example of something here. Many, perhaps most, who hold to that view also hold that even in informal settings a woman isn't to be in a position of instructing a man unless she is doing so in partnership with her husband. Again, they most often point to Aquilla and Priscilla when addressing this.

[JerryNumbers]

Why is it that when some men disagree with something concerning women it's automatically assumed there is a "male ego" problem; yet when women disagree with something concerning men we don't jumpt to the conclusion it's a "female ego" problem?

For myself, and most other serious Christian men I know, in this areas, as in others, it's about what Scripture says, not about ego, not about how it was in grandpappys day, not about personal preference.

As I've indicated before, I agree that many professing Christians have and do put other things ahead of Scripture in this area, and others. However, we shouldn't jump to conclusions in this matter (or any other) and accuse a brother/sister of being among those. As I also said before, I've noticed nothing in Invicta's postings to indicate his question was coming from ego. His question should be addressed as a serious question in a serious and respectful manner.

As to the fundamentalist pastors who hold that certain verses, which I think I know which was being referred to, pertain to within and without the church, I know of many who hold that they apply both within and without. There are some on this board who hold to that position too; or perhaps I should say they did in the past because they have posted such in the past.

That said, there are other verses which apply, and others which may apply.

Along with this we should also consider the verses dealing with our attitude, speech, and how these and our conduct are viewed both from within and without.

Because that is an easy way out, and many people will buy it. Its a tactical move. It works many times. And they do not have to put up Holy Scriptures, to back them up.


The same as theses words are that was posted earlier towards you and I, its a tactical move, a way to shut us up.

"What was pointed out was your fallacious views of it." {This quote comes from post # 27 in this topic}

Doing this settles it with this person, and by saying it this way they do not have to put up Holy Scriptures to justify saying we have fallacious views. Also, there be many that will buy that too and defend it, as you noticed, and even mock and scoff it, and forget about the verses we posted that proved our point that could not ba answered any other way than to say its a fallacious view.

Now, If we were to stated to her, that her views were fallacious, without backing it up with Holy Scriptures, how long do you think we would be around here? And probably even if we backed it up with Holy Scriptures, We would be gone, for you see the path this has taken.

Its clear, she can do as she pleases, and call people out, and call them what ever she wishes.

[Annie]

Just a quick response to the OP...

Did God give humans the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Well, He certainly gave them the right to life...He said, "Thou shalt not kill." Of course, being finite creatures, all humans' days are numbered, but one human does not have the right to take another human's life by an act of murder. So, the "right to life" seems indeed to be given by God.

Was the "right to liberty" given by God? I'd have to say yes. God created humans with the ability to choose...the freedom to make choices as cognizant, moral creatures. Governments which seek to limit this liberty of moral choice cannot be pleasing to God, because they trample on this God-given responsibility to choose. I realize there's a huge spectrum here, but totalitarian governments which make every choice for their citizens are not in line with God's intentions, since He created people with the freedom to choose, and even requires choice from His creation. If people are not allowed to choose--to make their own choices--then they have been denied a God-given right, IMO.

Can a person say that the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" aren't spelled out in Scripture? Sure...but I think that these rights are implied throughout Scripture, as well as by the way God made us. I can't think of one person who wants to be dead, trapped in bondage, and/or held back from accomplishing his potential, can you? No one (not even the worst people) thinks of these things (for themselves) as "good."

[John81]

Just a quick response to the OP...

Did God give humans the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Well, He certainly gave them the right to life...He said, "Thou shalt not kill." Of course, being finite creatures, all humans' days are numbered, but one human does not have the right to take another human's life by an act of murder. So, the "right to life" seems indeed to be given by God.

Was the "right to liberty" given by God? I'd have to say yes. God created humans with the ability to choose...the freedom to make choices as cognizant, moral creatures. Governments which seek to limit this liberty of moral choice cannot be pleasing to God, because they trample on this God-given responsibility to choose. I realize there's a huge spectrum here, but totalitarian governments which make every choice for their citizens are not in line with God's intentions, since He created people with the freedom to choose, and even requires choice from His creation. If people are not allowed to choose--to make their own choices--then they have been denied a God-given right, IMO.

Can a person say that the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" aren't spelled out in Scripture? Sure...but I think that these rights are implied throughout Scripture, as well as by the way God made us. I can't think of one person who wants to be dead, trapped in bondage, and/or held back from accomplishing his potential, can you? No one (not even the worst people) thinks of these things (for themselves) as "good."

The liberty spoken of in Scripture refers to liberty in Christ. We are called to live joyful lives as slaves if that's where we find ourselves; we are called to suffer persecution for Christ without railing, we are called to enslave ourselves to the will of God, etc.

Even when God was king over Israel, there were restrictive laws in place (for their good). When God allowed Israel to have a king He made it clear they would then have a government over them like other nations; a government that would tax them, take away their land, press their children into their service, send their young me off to war, etc. No universal rights promised to those under human government, rather we are told to expect we will have few "rights" and what we do think we have can be taken at any time.

The American government doesn't practice the "universal rights" they demand other nations apply. How hypocritical of Obama, Hillary and the rest to point their finger at other leaders and demand they respect and provide "universal rights" to their people.

History also shows us that time and again the majority of people in various nations have voted for restrictions upon their freedom and "rights" in favor of other things...whether that be a pursuit of security, government handouts, the glory of their nation, etc.

Christians are called to a far higher calling and we are not to entangled in the things of this world which are temporal, but to be submitting ourselves to Christ in all areas of our lives, and pursuing His eternal goals.