Conefssional, Fundy, & Other: In Answer to MechAg94

[lee n. field]

Would you like to hear about Federal Vision too?  laugh

AAAAAAaaaaaa!!!!

<runs screaming away>

Why am I afraid to ask?

Because it's a subtle divergence.  In my own current neck of the woods, it would have no traction at all.  "Covenant?" -- whoosh, right over the head.  Every time it comes up in something I read, I have to look it up.

the ex-pastor of the 'weird church' was involved in thinking up Federal Vision.

Which weird church was that?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Which weird church was that?

Church #3. It split from another 'reformed' church (church #4)... a split so jovial that the elders of church #4 referred to #3 church pastor publicly as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. The people at #3 are a touch (heh) clannish. And the church is fond of church discipline, knowing financial affairs of congregation, etc... among their oddities was the habit (whether taught or no, couldn't say) of members marrying young, only marrying other church members, and staying in the area raising hordes of kiddies. Practically all of 'em did it (that tactic nearly allowed them to keep the church building at the church they split from). They seemed to object to evangelism, too. Just a strange group of people.

[roo_ster]

(the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete)

[law_n_gospel]Be careful tossing out the OT, as it contains not only law but gospel, too.  While the former may show up my failings, I am awfully fond of the latter.[/law_n_gospel]

From your posts, it seems you have a systematic approach to the properly understood (by your lights) concepts presented in the Bible. 

Keep at it and someone might get the idea that you are fomenting doctrine.

[Stand_watie]

Romans 14 is worthwhile to contemplate regarding matters neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture

***

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
   " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
   'every knee will bow before me;
      every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

[lee n. field]

Church #3. It split from another 'reformed' church (church #4)... a split so jovial that the elders of church #4 referred to #3 church pastor publicly as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. The people at #3 are a touch (heh) clannish. And the church is fond of church discipline, knowing financial affairs of congregation, etc... among their oddities was the habit (whether taught or no, couldn't say) of members marrying young, only marrying other church members, and staying in the area raising hordes of kiddies. Practically all of 'em did it (that tactic nearly allowed them to keep the church building at the church they split from). They seemed to object to evangelism, too. Just a strange group of people.

Moscow, Idaho?

(the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete)

[law_n_gospel]Be careful tossing out the OT, as it contains not only law but gospel, too.  While the former may show up my failings, I am awfully fond of the latter.[/law_n_gospel]

Absolutely astonishing to come upon this conversation in a place like APS.

What's next, mono vs. bi covenantalism?  Covenant of works in Eden and it's republication at Sinai?    The manifold ungospelish muddle of classic and pop dispensationalism?

[Stand_watie]

     (sort of) on the topic, this article made me laugh, because I had a youth pastor who referenced "Stryper"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryper

 and compared Christian lyrics combined with rock/roll music to a woman "stripping for Jesus"
***

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/05/nevada.prostitute.wedding/

Hookers for Jesus founder, Christian rocker wed in Vegas

(CNN) -- She was a call girl working the streets of Sin City. He's a guitarist in a heavy metal band. They found commonality in their Christian faith and Friday evening, the two were married in a Las Vegas, Nevada, ceremony broadcast live via the Web.
Annie Lobért, who founded Hookers for Jesus, and musician Oz Fox of the Christian band Stryper said their "I do's" at the Church of South Las Vegas in front of an applauding crowd and an audience on the Internet. The wedding had been widely touted on several Christian Web sites.

Lobért, 41, walked up to the stage in a white strapless gown, gloves and veil. Earlier this week, she wrote on her MySpace blog: "I am getting married. It's about time."

She had worked as a prostitute for 11 years, making as much as $500 an hour. She said she hit rock bottom when she overdosed on cocaine and everything went black, according to an ABC interview posted on her Web site. She asked Jesus to help her and became what many jokingly call a "porn-again Christian."

Lobért says her mission now is to save the souls of women who sell their bodies. She often spends time at night on Las Vegas streets handing out Bibles to prostitutes and seeking to convince them there is a better way to make a living.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Moscow, Idaho?

Texarkana, AR, first listing.
http://www.crechurches.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=36

Very pally with Wilson and co. The pastor in question had to leave due to his son getting involved in the drug trade while teaching at DW's school, and is now at Nacogdoches, TX. Said pastor is the CREC moderator, last I checked.

[One of Many]

There are opposing aspects to the scriptural authority question.

One aspect says that anything that is not specifically prohibited by scripture is permissible.

Another aspect says that only that which is specifically required is permissible,

The group that allows anything that is not specifically prohibited by scripture, sets up councils of men to formulate doctrines that will be followed by the practitioners of that faith. Since there is such a huge area of "silence of the scripture", just about anything can be condoned by a group of people.

The group that allows only that which is specifically required by scripture, sets up councils of men to formulate doctrines that will be followed by the practitioners of that faith. Since there is such a huge area of "silence of the scripture", just about anything can be condemned by a group of people.

Most popular religions fall into the category that allows anything that they do not perceive as specifically condemned. They are usually described to be "liberal".

The few relatively unpopular religions that follow the idea of strict compliance with a few (and only the) specifically required commands found in scripture, are typically referred to as "fundamentalist" in a derogatory manner.

There are some religious groups that do not allow control of doctrine by any council or board of control. They follow the Biblical pattern of autonomous local control of the church. These churches determine among the local members what doctrine they believe and practice. Some fall into the liberal category, and others into the fundamentalist category. These churches are collectively referred to as non-denominational.

The lack of understanding of scriptural authority is the reason there are so many different faiths among those that purport to follow Christ. The problem is that some men like to have power and glory, and they set themselves up as rulers over the church, with doctrines that entice people into following their teaching. This is known as "tickling the ears" of the followers, and is a case of the cart going before the horse. People want to be allowed to do something that is opposed by the religion they were exposed to as a child, so they go "church shopping" until they find a doctrine that lets them continue doing whatever they want, and allows them to salve their conscience by claiming to be following the will of God. In this way people justify adultery, abortion, and many other practices that are condemned in the Bible. If they can't find a church that allows them to do what they want, they just start their own church and create their own doctrine. That is why there are upward of 15,000 different denominations with doctrines of their own making that claim to be "Christian".

Christ and the Apostles said that there is "ONE Faith", not many faiths. The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the majority of doctrines that are being taught are in conflict with the doctrine of Christ. How does a person determine whether the doctrine they follow is true? The answer is found by personally studying the scripture, and questioning every doctrine to see if it agrees with what was given by the Christ and the Apostles. In order to do that, people must be able to understand the principles of Biblical authority.

Direct Command, Approved Apostolic Example, and Necessary Inference. Nothing can be an Expedient that violates a command or approved apostolic example. It is critical to success to understand the concept of Generic and Specific Authority. These are not mutually exclusive to each other, as I demonstrated with my example concerning sending my son out to obtain food. If an interpretation results in one passage of scripture conflicting with a different passage of scripture, then one or both of those interpretations is incorrect. The Holy Scripture does not contradict itself. God is the God of truth, and can not contradict himself.

With thousands of opposing doctrines being taught by different denominations, the only thing that we can be sure of is that God does not approve. He gave one doctrine, not many. He told people to follow Him, not whatever man tickles their ears. He told people to obey God, not the lusts that they are tempted with.