Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    132

Everything posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. Sin by character is wicked. Sin by definition is any transgression against the will or Word of God. 1. Matthew 5:27-28 -- "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in her heart." Herein our Lord Jesus Christ was NOT cancelling the prohibition against adultery, as if it no longer applied. Rather, herein our Lord Jesus Christ was revealing that sexual lust in one's heart is equally as offensive in the sight of God as sexual adultery in one's actions. Clearly the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the behavior of the male gender (although this does not exclude the application of the principle from the female gender). Furthermore, the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the HEART-behavior of the individual, not just upon the outward-behavior of the individual. The specific HEART-behavior that our Lord confronts and condemns is that of lusting after a woman. This sinful scenario begins with a look, that carries a purpose or result of lusting within after a woman. No further action is necessary. Our Lord clearly states that this internal lusting after the woman is in the sight of God a commission of ADULTERY with her ALREADY in his heart. She does not have to agree. She does not have to even know. How she is attired does not matter. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not grant any avenue of excuse for the man. He has already committed a wicked sin against the Lord his God. Culture is irrelevant; it is a matter of the heart in the sight of the Lord God. 2. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 -- "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." Herein we find a New Testament instruction that clearly places its emphasis upon the behavior of the female gender (although this does not exclude the application of the principle from the male gender). Furthermore, the emphasis of this instruction concerns the external apparel and attire of women professing godliness. Women of God are required by the Lord our God to adorn themselves in a modest manner. This is the opposite of a "show-offish" manner. In that time the most common purpose for showing-off concerned one's material wealth or physical beauty. Thus the passage provides such examples of showiness as "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." However, the precept for "modest apparel" is all inclusive, encompassing any manner of showiness. Even so, in our time another common purpose for showing-off concerns one's sexiness and sexual attraction. This also would be contrary to the precept for modest apparel. Yet the passage does not emphasize only the matter of external apparel, but also indicates that a woman's choice of modest apparel should be founded upon a modest spirit, "with shamefacedness and sobriety." Such would be equivalent to the "meek and quiet spirit" of 1 Peter 3:4, "which is in the sight OF GOD of great price." Finally, the passage emphasizes that women of God are to pursue the spiritual adornment and attractiveness of good, godly works. Thus a woman of God is to be filled with a Spirit-filled attitude of modesty and meekness, to be externally adorned with modest apparel and attire, and to be spiritually adorned with good works. Certainly, the culture may change its fashions of showiness; however, the precept against showiness remains in any cultural setting. For a woman of God to transgress any part of this instruction is for her to commit a wicked sin against the Lord her God.
  2. Let us get this Biblically correct: 1. If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior. It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly. That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord. (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well. However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.) 2. If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior. It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her. That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord. (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly. However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.)
  3. Seriously now - For such a conference to be SPIRITUALLY successful, the speakers would have to be the most BIBLICALLY (TRULY) humble individuals that could be found. Not necessarily one of the "well-knowns" who has a supposedly "successful" ministry, but very possibly some of the "un-knowns" who have a truly humble walk with the Lord.
  4. Agreed, and it is partially my fault. For that I do apologize, and I shall refrain from adding anything further in this thread discussion to the "rabbit trail."
  5. But it would have to be a true SERVANTHOOD conference, not just a leadership conference under a different name, right?
  6. A VERY worthy point for consideration, Brother Dave.
  7. Melvin Baptist Church, Melvin, MI. Pastor Scott Markle (myself). http://www.melvinbaptistchurch.com
  8. Fully agreed. IF the position is that Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids ANY pant-wear on women as an abomination against the Lord, then ANY and ALL pants-wear should be included for the sake of Biblical (and apparently -- "spiritual") consistency. (By the way, without at all seeking to be crass, and praying that this will be taken in the correct spirit -- this would also include such things as PANTyhose and PANTies.) (For the sake of the moderators, if that last parenthetical is deemed inappropriate for this discussion, let me know; and I will edit it out of the posting.) Brother "Swathdiver," While (I believe) you and I do not hold precisely the same position concerning the "pants-wear on women" issue, I am compelled to commend the above posting with an expression of hearty agreement. Praise the Lord for the testimony concerning how the Lord our God worked in the heart of your dear wife.
  9. Brother Kurecki, That is correct. BY DEFINITION, culottes are PANTS-WEAR.
  10. First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless." Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5. Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following: https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266 https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287 1. In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments. Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear. 2. By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye. Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female. (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.) 3. In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities. However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged. Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else. 4. Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders. Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die. (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.) 5. It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned. I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda. __________________________________ Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered -- (1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt." (2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant." In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt." At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear. Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear. Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear. If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation). If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation). If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation). No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development. It is NOT a Biblical truth. Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises. First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing. Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body. Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing. In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word. IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.
  11. In order to answer this question, I will need to teach a little bit of Greek grammar. Greek nouns are generally classified under three different declensions. "A Manuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament," by Dana and Mantey, says the following on page 35 -- "Nouns which have 'a' as their characteristic stem ending are assigned to the first declension. Those with 'o' as the characteristic stem ending are in the second declension. The third declension includes nouns whose stems end in a consonant, or in 'I,' 'u,' or 'eu'." (Note that wherein I have presented italicized vowels in quotation marks, Dana and Mantey have actually employed Greek letters.) At this point I would focus your attention upon the first and the second declension nouns. Concerning the first declension nouns, Dana and Mantey say the following on pages 35-36 -- "The nouns of this declension are usually FENIMINE, though a few are masculine. The stem ends in 'a,' but this 'a' is frequently found in contract, or modified form." (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) Concerning the second declension nouns, Dana and Mantey say the following on page 36 -- "The nouns in this declension are MASCULINE and NEUTER, with A FEW FEMININES. There are two sets of terminations, ONE for masculine AND feminine and another for neuter." (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle) Now, best that I can discern, the Greek noun for "virgin" is a SECOND declension noun, as per the "--on" ending for the accusative case. As noted above, these declension nouns are USUALLY masculine or neuter nouns, but a FEW are feminine nouns with the same declension endings as the masculine nouns of this declension. So then, the Greek noun for "virgin" is a second declension noun that is one of the few FENIMINE second declension nouns. This this noun carries the SAME declension endings as the masculine second declension nouns. How does this impact our understand concerning the predicate adjective for "pass the flower of age"? If that adjective refers to the man in this context, then it would carry the masculine declension of the second declension nouns. If that adjective refers to the female virgin in this context, then it would carry the feminine declension of the second declension noun. However, grammatically the masculine declension of the second declension noun and the feminine declension of the second declension noun are the SAME. Thus the declension of the predicate adjective itself CANNOT in this context reveal the gender and application of the adjective. Rather, this gender and application MUST be discerned through the context flow of thought. As I have presented in a previous posting, I believe that the context bears out the application of the predicate adjective unto the female virgin, and that the male personage of the context is her father (as per the relation of 1 Corinthians 7:38, as well as per the far greater knowledge and wisdom of the King James translators than mine concerning the Greek language, wherein they translated it as applicable unto the female virgin).
  12. I can express broad agreement with the above (with some reservations because I am aware that you and I hold a different view concerning Deuteronomy 22:5). (On the other hand, my thought question from an above posting still remains -- Is there any Biblical PASSAGE which indicates that "laymen," or even church leadership, should "dress up" for church gatherings? Please understand that I DO "dress up" and that I encourage the congregation of believers to do the same, because it is culturally appropriate and necessary as a sign of respect for the Lord our God. However, I am asking if there is actually a BIBLICAL mandate for it.) By the way, my attire also includes a "beautiful bonnet." As far as the "strange looks," how many of those are judgmental that I am wearing the attire of a woman? (I believe that there would be a great deal of that judgmental spirit.) In addition, would I be permitted to be a LEADER in a Fundamental Baptist church while consistently wearing such attire? (I greatly doubt it.) So, why do I present such an outfit in my example -- Because such is similar to the VERY outfit that God HIMSELF designed for the male religious LEADER of Israel, the High Priest. (I wonder, since the book of Hebrews seems to indicate that the tabernacle on earth was designed after the likeness of the heavenly, was the High Priest's attire Old Testament similar to that which our Lord Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, is now wearing in heaven?) Finally, I would ask -- What exactly distinguishes a "robe" garment from a "dress" garment? (Not sure that I even have a clue.)
  13. Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services. However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings? (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)
  14. Brother Stafford, I certainly agree that the world keeps changing its standards of appropriate cultural attire, and that in many cases it changes toward that which would be Scripturally defined as immoral. Certainly, when that occurs, we should NOT follow along in the way with them. Yet it is not always wrong for God's people to adapt with the changing standards of cultural attire. In fact, the suit coat and tie is a cultural development. They certainly are not found within Biblical revelation. Furthermore, pants-wear as outerwear (on men or women) is also a cultural development. Such also is not found within Biblical revelation. Here is a question I have often wondered -- If I (an American man) showed up to most Fundamental Baptist churches wearing an embroidered robe, including tassels and bells on its hem, and wearing a girdle type belt, how would I be accepted in such churches?
  15. The adjective is in the nominative case because it is what we would grammatically call a predicate adjective. In the Greek the construction is a dependent clause beginning with the word "if" (Greek -- "ean"), then the singular Greek being verb "e," which assumes a pronominal subject either of "he" or "she," then the adjective (a predicate adjective, since it follows a being verb and modifies the subject of the verb) "past the flower of age" (Greek -- "uperakmos"). The translators joined the Greek being verb with the meaning the adjective to provide the verb "pass." (that is -- "be past"). For further information, the Greek adjective "uperakmos" is the joining of the Greek pronoun "uper" (meaning "over, beyond, above, more than") and the Greek noun "akme" (meaning "top point, highest peak, full bloom, full maturity"). If this Greek adjective applies unto a female in the context of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, then it would refer unto the prime of her maturity. If this adjective applies unto a male in the context of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, then it would most likely refer unto the fullness of his passions. Now, as I have indicated in my previous post, I believe that the context would indicate an application unto a virgin daughter.
  16. Actually, according to the best lexical research that I have been able to do, the construction of the Greek adjective "uperakmos" (translated in the King James translation as "pass the flower of her age") is able to serve either as a masculine OR as a feminine, with the usage to be determined by the context. Contextually, I believe that 1 Corinthians 7:36 is translated accurately in applying the Greek adjective unto a daughter. The immediate context encompasses 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. 1 Corinthians 7:36 covers a single case, which concludes with an acceptable marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:37 then covers a contrasting case, which concludes with an acceptable non-marriage. Finally, 1 Corinthians 7:38 summarizes both cases, the first half referring unto the case of 1 Corinthians 7:36 and the second half referring unto the case of 1 Corinthians 7:37. Now, in 1 Corinthians 7:38 both cases are referenced through the usage of the verb meaning "to give in marriage." Even so, FATHERS are those who "give in marriage" or not; thus I would conclude that the context of the passage is about the authority of fathers to give their daughters in marriage or not.
  17. Brother Jim, I myself would NOT teach any portion of 1 John 1 as being a "forgiveness in eternal salvation" context, but that all of it is a "forgiveness for daily fellowship" context.
  18. Sister Rose, I do apologize for taking so long to answer this question. So many responsibilities and commitments. I have been somewhat overwhelmed lately. Concerning Matthew 10:28. First, it is contextually clear that throughout Matthew 10:5-42 our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking to his believing disciples, not to the lost multitudes. Second, in Matthew 10:28 our Lord Jesus Christ did indeed speak about the soul, not simply concerning a person's life on this earth, but concerning a person's eternal destiny in the life to come. However, as we consider the truth of Matthew 10:28, it is important for us to recognize precisely what our Lord did say, and thus also what he did not say, and thereby to discern what our Lord intended by that which He said. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Herein our Lord did NOT pronounce a judgment upon unfaithful servants. He did NOT say -- "Fear God lest he destroy both your soul and body in hell." Our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT pronounce a judgment that God the Father will or even might destroy our soul and body in hell, if we are in some manner not faithful enough. In fact, herein our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT specify any particular individuals whose soul and body God the Father might destroy in hell. He did not say -- "Fear him which is able to destroy both YOUR soul and body in hell." Our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT specifically apply this truth unto His believing disciples. No, in Matthew 10:28 our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT pronounce a divine judgment. Rather, in Matthew 10:28 our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed a divine ABILITY. In fact, our Lord Jesus Christ revealed a contrast in ABILITIES, between the ability of human persecutors and the ability of the Lord our God. Yes, in some cases the authority and ability of human persecutors and human government may extend even unto the judgment of death in this life. They may indeed have the authority and ability of judgment to kill the body. Yet their authority and ability of judgment can extend no further than this life. It does not and cannot extend into the life of eternity. In contrast, our Lord God's authority and ability of judgment extends also into the life of eternity both absolutely and eternally. So then, when we find ourselves in a place wherein we must choose between these two authorities, we should choose to fear, respect, honor, and obey the greater (yeah, the Greatest) authority. We should not choose to fear, respect, honor, and obey human authority in contradiction to our Lord God's authority. Rather, we should choose to fear, respect, honor, and obey our Lord God's authority in contrast to human authority. This is our Lord Jesus Christ's exhortation in Matthew 10:28. With this exhortation it is not His intention to fill us with fear that we might lose our eternal life and be cast into hell. Rather, with this exhortation it is His intention to instruct and encourage us that we might remain faithful by choosing to fear, respect, honor, and obey God, rather than man. When we are in the midst of oppression and persecution for our Lord's sake, even possibly unto the judgment of physical death, we will be greatly tempted to fear our human persecutors, and thus to compromise under the persecution. However, our Lord Jesus Christ intends that we remember the greater and eternal authority of God our heavenly Father, and that we remember the limitations of human persecution. So then, is there any implication or Biblical teaching concerning those whose souls and bodies God the Father might destroy with the eternal judgment of hell? Yes, there is. In another context the specifically concerns the matter of persecution for our Lord's sake, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10 declares, "We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." Indeed, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10 is a context concerning persecution for the Lord's sake, just as Matthew 10:16-42. In 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10 those whose soul and body "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (in hell) are "them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is NOT the believing disciples who might be judged with the destruction of their soul and body in hell. Rather, it is the wicked persecutors who shall experience this divine judgment. In fact, 2 Thessalonians 1:10 reveals that in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ's coming, He shall be glorified and admired "in ALL them that believe." Believers are NOT judged with hell. Believers enter into the glory of the Lord, so to ever be with the Lord. With all of this in mind, we might understand the truth of Matthew 11:28 as follows -- "And fear not them [the wicked persecutors] which kill the [YOUR] body, but are not able to kill the [YOUR} soul: but rather fear him [God our heavenly Father] which is able to destroy both [THEIR - THE WICKED PERSECUTOR'S] soul and body in hell." As such, Matthew 11:28 serves as an exhoration to instruct us unto the right choice in times of persecution, as well as an exhortation to encourage us that the Lord our God WILL vindicate our faithfulness and WILL judge our persecutors. Their authority and ability of judgment may allow them to kill our bodies, but one day they MUST face the righteous judgment of the Lord our God, whose authority and ability of judgment is absolute and eternal, for how they treated His own.
  19. Brother McWhorter, The "mourner's bench"- "anxious bench" had a bit deeper history and meaning (especially for more Calvinistic system's of belief). However, overall your answer was quite solid; and I can stand in overall agreement.
  20. The original question of this thread discussion concerns salvation for sinners after the rapture, not the subject of Calvinism. I am interested to join in with the Calvinism discussion, but do not care do so in this thread (because of its original question). Thus I would like the Calvinism discussion moved to another thread, dedicated to that purpose. (Was that more clear, Brother Jim?)
  21. Ok, I must express some frustration concerning this thread discussion of late. I definitely desire to engage in the discussion concerning Calvinistic soteriology; however, that subject is NOT really the purpose of THIS thread. Thus I have refrained. If that discussion could be moved to another thread, I would be more comfortable engaging therein. Then again, maybe all would prefer that I just stay out of it.
  22. The answer to this question is found by seeing the contextual relationship between Acts 15:1-2 & Acts 15:14. Acts 15:1-2 -- "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this questions." Acts 15:24 -- "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment . . . " Now some thought questions: 1. Were these "certain men" preaching and teaching a false gospel? 2. If they were, should they have been disciplined from the church and marked as false teachers? 3. Was it Biblically righteous for Paul and Barnabas to engage so strongly in dissension and disputation with them? 4. Why was there so much disputing among the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church over this matter? (See Acts 15:6-7)
  23. Brother Alan, I do apologize, for I misunderstood. Because you included some discussion concerning Hebrews 12:22-23 and concerning the "General Assembly," I was under the impression that you were open to further discussion thereof. Now that you have clarified the intention of this thread discussion as being strictly about the local church, I shall withdraw my questions concerning the membership of the "General Assembly." I shall look forward to any further study that you do herein concerning the New Testament's teaching on the local church.
  24. Brother Alan, since you posted this, I am left to assume that you do indeed wish to continue discussing the point and that you do not wish to remain silent on the subject. Even so, I am now choosing to engage with you -- I AGREE with EVERYTHING that I have included in the above quote from your posting. However, concerning the following portion of your posting, I have some questions: In this portion of your posting, you indicate that the "General Assembly" is (1) "in heaven" and that it is an assembly (2) "of all the saints." I myself AGREE COMPLETELY that the "General Assembly" is in heaven, and ONLY in heaven. Furthermore, I would contend that ANY man-made attempt to reproduce a form of this "General Assembly" on earth is UTTER FALSEHOOD (which is why I UTTERLY REJECT any form of episcopal hierarchy, any form of denominational hierarchy, and the teaching of ecumenicalism). However, my questions to you focus upon your indication that this "General Assembly" is an assembly "of all the saints." 1. When you use the phrase, "of all the saints," are you including New Testament believers that are presently on the earth at this very present time? 2. When you use the phrase, "of all the saints," are you including only New Testament believers that are presently in heaven (through death) at this present time? 3. When you use the phrase, "of all the saints," are you including both New Testament believers and Old Testament believers together?
×
×
  • Create New...