So I missed service yesterday morning, by the Grace of God

[HappyChristian]

:goodpost:

[IM4given]

It is one thing to go to a preacher and have a "man to man" talk with him. Unfortunately, that is not a biblical option for women who have disagreements with men. So from a woman's point of view, I stand on my previous post to separate on the issue.

Too many Christians decide to just leave a church without following Biblical commands of Church Discipline.

I do not think this applies to women, only to men. Men can discipline men, but it is not scriptural for a woman to point out a man's gross errors and delibrate Apostate assertions.

[HappyChristian]

But if a woman doesn't have a husband or a father to speak for her, she has every right to ask the Pastor to explain what he meant. And then to let him know that she has to leave the fellowship because she can't agree. That is not correcting him, that is simply pointing out to him why she is leaving, so there is no question.

She doesn't have to do that - she can just leave if that is the way God leads her to go. But I think that, as a matter of common courtesy and kindness, if the Pastor were to visit and question her leaving, she should in all meekness tell him why. Who knows whether the Holy Spirit could use that. That is not rebuke, nor is it usurping authority.

[IM4given]

If a man stands in front of a congregation and slanders King James publicly like that, his mind has been made up or he would not just go off all half-cocked about something as SERIOUS as that, now would he? He is supposed to be the messenger from God, and clearly by his words his is NOT! First discredit King James and then discredit the Bible that he commissioned - that is how Satan works. It is evilness of the most lowest and vile sort. The preacher ran his mouth and showed to the world that he is not a instrument of God he is an instrument of Satan. I have no dealings with such people. A wolf in sheeps clothing seeking to devour the flock!

[5dumplings@home]

James was just a man. God uses men. He was not a just man, nor was he perfect. Like the rest of us.

That God uses any of us is a miracle. Because I don't agree that James was a reverent, holy man (his son, Charles, rebelled against the debauchery that took place in his father's court) does not mean I discredit the version of the Bible. But, it is NOT James' version. It is God's. God picked the man to to authorize the translation.

It seems to me that we are putting James and the Scripture on the same plain, and I think we need to be careful.

That God can and does use imperfect men is a mystery.

[HappyChristian]

James was just a man. God uses men. He was not a just man, nor was he perfect. Like the rest of us.

That God uses any of us is a miracle. Because I don't agree that James was a reverent, holy man (his son, Charles, rebelled against the debauchery that took place in his father's court) does not mean I discredit the version of the Bible. But, it is NOT James' version. It is God's. God picked the man to to authorize the translation.

It seems to me that we are putting James and the Scripture on the same plain, and I think we need to be careful.

That God can and does use imperfect men is a mystery.

:goodpost:

[IM4given]

James was just a man. God uses men. He was not a just man, nor was he perfect. Like the rest of us.

That God uses any of us is a miracle. Because I don't agree that James was a reverent, holy man (his son, Charles, rebelled against the debauchery that took place in his father's court) does not mean I discredit the version of the Bible. But, it is NOT James' version. It is God's. God picked the man to to authorize the translation.

It seems to me that we are putting James and the Scripture on the same plain, and I think we need to be careful.

That God can and does use imperfect men is a mystery.

In the same sense, Paul was just a man too. However how many modern people today want to discredit Paul! I have heard sodomites try to claim him as one of their own,too (because he was never married, his relationship with Timothy, ad nauseum.)...it all stinks to high heaven if you ask me.

When someone who has not thoroughly researched and done their homework starts popping off about how bad King James was and yet cannot present one shred of documentation - not one single primary source - then they are just lying serpents and messengers of Satan, whether they are willing to admit it or not. If it is worthy of telling then they ought to tell the TRUTH! These guys are not interested in telling the TRUTH they are just interested in discrediting the KJV Bible by what ever means possible, just like Satan has been seeking to destroy this work ever since it's commission 400 years ago.

I am not putting King James and scriptures on the same plain - the ones who would discredit the King James Bible do that - it is a sneaky low down underhanded evil way to discredit the Holy Bible. I have seen it time and time again - discredit the King then you can discredit the Bible he commissioned - I am well aware that he was just a human being after all, but he was not the person that the slanderous low life slimy varmits would have you to believe. In their minds, without King James, the Bible just becomes another book. If it is just another book, then it has the same merit as the Modern Versions which are unholy conterfiets of the King James Bible.

[Calvary]

Will said,

I agree. Too many Christians decide to just leave a church without following Biblical commands of Church Discipline.

You would be right if this was the context of this thread brother. First off, this isn't about "church discipline". Second, you don't "discipline" a pastor.
Pastors are dismissed if they fail to meet the biblical requirements. Last I checked, the KJB only position is not a Biblical requirement to pastor.

If he [the pastor] does not agree with the KJB only position, that does not prove he has failed in the requirements of a pastor.

A Christian whose strong conviction is that the KJB is the only Bible that ought to be promoted, used, believed, memorized, defended, etc. has the obligation to himself to find such a congregation that is in agreement with that stand. If he finds himself in a church that he does not agree with, be it over dress standards, potlucks on Friday, using guitars, power point presentations, or any other color shirt than white, those are all issues that are personal. He has no debt to that congregation to "correct" any one on those issues, last of all the pastor. That includes the KJB issue.

This is no issue of discipline, it's a matter of conviction.

Take your convictions where they are more in line with what you like, prefer and are accustomed to.

Quietly, meekly and without fanfare or fuss.

And in case I forget to tell you.

You do it alone. Don't you dare divide a church. Don't you dare do it.

God bless,

Calvary

[IM4given]

:thumb Good posting Bro. Calvary.

[Will]

But if a woman doesn't have a husband or a father to speak for her, she has every right to ask the Pastor to explain what he meant. And then to let him know that she has to leave the fellowship because she can't agree. That is not correcting him, that is simply pointing out to him why she is leaving, so there is no question.

She doesn't have to do that - she can just leave if that is the way God leads her to go. But I think that, as a matter of common courtesy and kindness, if the Pastor were to visit and question her leaving, she should in all meekness tell him why. Who knows whether the Holy Spirit could use that. That is not rebuke, nor is it usurping authority.

All Christians have the God-given duty to exercise Church Discipline as needed, regardless of gender, nationality, or handicap. God didn't place limits there, neither should we.

[Will]

Will said,



You would be right if this was the context of this thread brother. First off, this isn't about "church discipline". Second, you don't "discipline" a pastor.
Pastors are dismissed if they fail to meet the biblical requirements. Last I checked, the KJB only position is not a Biblical requirement to pastor.

If he [the pastor] does not agree with the KJB only position, that does not prove he has failed in the requirements of a pastor.

A Christian whose strong conviction is that the KJB is the only Bible that ought to be promoted, used, believed, memorized, defended, etc. has the obligation to himself to find such a congregation that is in agreement with that stand. If he finds himself in a church that he does not agree with, be it over dress standards, potlucks on Friday, using guitars, power point presentations, or any other color shirt than white, those are all issues that are personal. He has no debt to that congregation to "correct" any one on those issues, last of all the pastor. That includes the KJB issue.

This is no issue of discipline, it's a matter of conviction.

Take your convictions where they are more in line with what you like, prefer and are accustomed to.

Quietly, meekly and without fanfare or fuss.

And in case I forget to tell you.

You do it alone. Don't you dare divide a church. Don't you dare do it.

God bless,

Calvary

My statement didn't necessarily have to do with the KJV issue. More of a general statement. And yes, you do exercise church discipline on a pastor, there is no Scripture that places a pastor above church discipline.

[Kubel]

Quite right. As King of England, James was the head of the Anglican church. He used his two roles to jail and persecute Puritans, forcing the Mayflower voyage to Amerca.
The Church of England is paedo-baptistic, which is to say that they practice infant baptism. They also see Communion as being more literal than symbolic.

People are twisting history to make James some defender of the faith, simply because he was associated with the KJV. He was the head of the Anglican Church for pete's sake! He murdered at least one person for their belief. Last time I checked, Jesus nor any of the disciples ever taught it was ok to murder someone that had different beliefs... Anyone remember the story of the Pilgrims? They were escaping religious persecution under none other than King James! The Church of England was not doctrinally sound church. It was closer to modern Catholicism than it was to modern Baptists.

I can't believe people here are ignoring their grade school American history classes. They believe for some reason that if they defend King James, they are defending the KJV (and conversely, those of us who attack King James by revealing commonly known history are somehow attacking the KJV). It doesn't work that way. There is no guilt by association. I just find it shocking that people will go to the length of changing history for an apparent cause. :Bleh

[IM4given]

People are twisting history to make James some defender of the faith, simply because he was associated with the KJV. He was the head of the Anglican Church for pete's sake! He murdered at least one person for their belief. Last time I checked, Jesus nor any of the disciples ever taught it was ok to murder someone that had different beliefs... Anyone remember the story of the Pilgrims? They were escaping religious persecution under none other than King James! The Church of England was not doctrinally sound church. It was closer to modern Catholicism than it was to modern Baptists.

I can't believe people here are ignoring their grade school American history classes. They believe for some reason that if they defend King James, they are defending the KJV (and conversely, those of us who attack King James by revealing commonly known history are somehow attacking the KJV). It doesn't work that way. There is no guilt by association. I just find it shocking that people will go to the length of changing history for an apparent cause. :Bleh

I find it equally shocking that anyone would honsetly believe that grade school American History classes are truthful! :Bleh

[Calvary]

My statement didn't necessarily have to do with the KJV issue. More of a general statement. And yes, you do exercise church discipline on a pastor, there is no Scripture that places a pastor above church discipline.

Absolutely Will, I did understand that your statement was general in nature. No problem there. I didn't apply it to the KJB issue.

But I would like to see the verses that allow for disciplining of a pastor.

No pastor is above being corrected, no pastor is infallibe. The ONLY case of church discipline in the entire NT is that of the man sleeping with his mother (in law). He was run out UNTIL such time as he repented and was allowed back into the fellowship.

Question:

IF a pastor slept with his mother is he subject to
a. Censure,
b. Temporary expulsion,
c. Dismissal.

If a pastor did anything that was worthy of dscipline (and again, I see the ONLY NT example as being expelled from the fellowship) would he not become unqualified to pastor, thereby making the point moot?

Help me out here brethren, I can't see it any other way at this juncture, but as a pastor, I am sure not above being shown that I am in error here. :smile

God bless,

Calvary

edited to add:

All disciplinary action for a church is for the sole purpose of restoration of the church's integrity and spiritual well being. An individual is not "churched" to run him off and that's it. He is "churched" to hopefully bring him back into right fellowship with God and His people. If you "church" a pastor, are you going to give him his position after said time of expulsion or...?

[Bakershalfdozen]

I realize this is but this is the 2nd time I've seen someone reference the I Cor. account of the man sleeping with his father's wife and saying it was his mother (or MIL). The Bible does not say it was his mother or his mother in law. Could it have been? Possibly, I suppose but it makes more sense to me that it was his father's wife since that is what it says. Ever heard of death and remarriage? Ever hear of an older man marrying some cute, young thing? Or perhaps this particular person had more than one wife?

Anyhoo... :uuhm: :back: