Pastors Leading the flock???)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

 Bro.  Welch:
  So the AVERAGE saint at your Church would be able to win such a debate?

 Mike:
 All things being equal, (In other words their average seven year veteran
against ours) yes ours would blow the Trinitarians in the weeds.  Of course
you realize that just because you lose an argument doesn't mean you are wrong.
One can build a convincing argument on an unnoticed false premise and come out
the victor.  I remember Bro.  Urshan and Bro.  Sabin (what I observed as)
being crushed by the late Dr. Walter Martin.  Since then Dr. Martin has
discovered his premises were faulty I am sure.
 
 Bro.  Welch:
 The "crux" of the problem is that the bottom line is that the Pastor's
personal convictions are sometimes promoted as if they have the weight of
the BIBLE, and average Saint in the pew's personal convictions are
sometimes even laughed at.  

 Mike: 
 I think you missed the point of Skip and my discussion here, but I will go
ahead and respond to your answer here regardless...
 You are saying very closely what I have been saying all along. I do *not*
believe that the "man made" standards established by a pastor are in and of
themselves a heaven or hell issue.  They (as you said) do *not* ellipse or
even equal the weight of the Bible.  You are correct in saying that they
"sometimes" do in some churches.  That is unfortunate.  However, at the same
time I don't think it is unbiblical for a pastor to establish standards in a
local assembly.  To avoid redundancy, I will not go on to explain why here,
but I have several reasons for believing such. 
 
 Bro.  Welch:
 But placing stumblingblocks in the way and declaring them either tests of
fellowship or out and out tests of SALVATION is dangerous.
 
 Mike:
 Good point. (honestly) I have thought about that myself on many occasions.
It is my opinion and obviously the opinion of my pastor that by removing the
standards, one would be placing more stumblingblocks in the way than by doing
what you suggest.  Here is an example.  I think most of us believe that it is
not unlawful (according to the bible) to drink wine.  However because of the
society we live in, it is a stumblingblock to a great many people.  Therefore
we abstain except for communion.  It is our opinion that more will "trip" (and
get drunk, and fall back into there old habits) over us allowing wine drinking
than there will be those that "trip" over the fact that we don't allow it.   
 (remember, wine is an example here, not the issue)

 Bro.  Welch:
 Then Jesus could not come into some of the Churches that teach against
having beards.
 
 Mike:
 Again, Please don't set up a straw man.  I suppose there may be some churches
that think that facial hair is some kind of a sin.  We do not.  However, we to
have a standard against it.  The reason is in our society (whether or not you
care to admit it) being clean shaven is a sign of conservatism.  Look at the
presidents for the past 70 or 80 years.  Almost all of congress and senate are
clean shaven.  There is a reason for that.  That is what gets you elected, you
are not thought of as (I don't even know what people think) trying to hide
something.?? 
 Jesus did not live in the age we live in. 
 
 Bro.  Welch:
 This is a common falacy in this discussion, I believe, that those of us
who QUESTION the standards issue as being equal with the Word of God do
not have or believe in standards. 
....For the sake of being accused of speaking for others online, is there
anyone here who does NOT have standards?

 Mike:
For the sake of being accused of speaking for others online, is there
anyone here who believes church standards are equal to God's word?

               Mike Reed