hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 19:50:41 GMT -5
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 19:50:41 GMT -5
Yes The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. 3 They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. 4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 20:10:46 GMT -5
For some of us, who do not quote verses out of context, the preachers to which the writer was referring to in the Epistle to the Romans, are identified by what was written immediately thereafter. Also, at this point, I can accept a priesthood of all believers, much like those stars of heaven. No light, no message written on anyone's heart.
Thank you, Hberry, I just read what you posted before mine. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2015 20:12:33 GMT -5
What LL is saying is that salvation is in the ministry and meeting in the home. It is not Jesus who saves but the ministry, - mans works rather than Jesus life, death and sacrifice. He has done exactly what he accuses others of doing which is taking a few verses which Jesus clearly said were to be in effect only while he was with them and LL has weaved a doctrine around them making them the essentials for salvation. Not quite accurate. The head worker for Alberta, Canada was fond of saying, "The way to Jesus is the church in the home and the ministry without a home". The head worker for Ontario, Canada told us that "Jesus came to us in Spirit and in Truth. The Spirit is Christ and the Truth is the church in the home and the meeting without a home". We also heard that the apostles were instructed to continue in the "apostles doctrine and fellowship". Acts 2:42 This meaning that Jesus established a pattern of worship for all time. Nowhere in those quotes do I see anything remotely like your statement, "it is not Jesus who saves but the ministry". Not true.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 20:18:01 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 22, 2015 20:18:01 GMT -5
Paul thought the ministry was important in Romans 10:14. Probably because Jesus did too. I don't find the way Jesus sent the ministry out and chapters like John 17 very easy to blow off. Each will have to decide for themselves how important they think it is. I don't agree with those who think Jesus reversed previous instructions to the disciples. Hi Jesse. Your comments seem to be directed at my earlier post but I admit having difficulty following your line of thinking. I make no pretensions of being a biblical scholar but it seems to me that if you follow Paul's reference back to Isaiah, he too is referencing the substance of the message carried (peace and good tidings) not the nature of the vehicle used to carry the message. I am not sure if you had the opportunity to finish reading my entire post. I attempt to describe my understanding of a substantive basis for the practice of sending out the carriers of Jesus' message of peace and love by pairs of individuals. Perhaps you take issue with my understanding, if so, I would be delighted to hear a more cogent argument interpreting Jesus' directive to send the disciples out in pairs. If you are still referencing my post when you speak of "blowing-off" John 17, my confusion deepens. Perhaps my form of expression leads to incorrect interpretations of intent but I can assure you that I am not in the habit of blowing off anything of substance on this forum. Regretfully, I am unable to engage your comment regarding "Jesus reversed previous instructions" since I have no awareness at all of any debate concerning reversed instructions, sorry, wrong hombre. I hope you have the opportunity to clarify some of the points leading to my confusion. Thanks I was referring to the long discussions here about Luke 22:36, some believe Jesus reversed previous instructions about the ministry in that verse. I'm pretty sure you weren't in on those discussions. The friends and workers think the way Jesus sent the ministry has meaning. Others disagree and criticize them for that. In order someone to "blow off" the way Jesus sent the ministry they would almost have to believe Luke 22:36 was a reversal. Actually I think it was the other way around, the way Jesus sent the ministry is deemed by some to have no meaning, then confirmation bias leads to the interpretation that the ministry instructions were reversed in Like 22:36. Just a general observation.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 20:23:50 GMT -5
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 20:23:50 GMT -5
What LL is saying is that salvation is in the ministry and meeting in the home. It is not Jesus who saves but the ministry, - mans works rather than Jesus life, death and sacrifice. He has done exactly what he accuses others of doing which is taking a few verses which Jesus clearly said were to be in effect only while he was with them and LL has weaved a doctrine around them making them the essentials for salvation. Not quite accurate. The head worker for Alberta, Canada was fond of saying, "The way to Jesus is the church in the home and the ministry without a home". The head worker for Ontario, Canada told us that "Jesus came to us in Spirit and in Truth. The Spirit is Christ and the Truth is the church in the home and the meeting without a home". We also heard that the apostles were instructed to continue in the "apostles doctrine and fellowship". Acts 2:42 This meaning that Jesus established a pattern of worship for all time. Nowhere in those quotes do I see anything remotely like your statement, "it is not Jesus who saves but the ministry". Not true. I always thought that you could not be saved without this ministry, but not that you were saved by the ministry. Leo Stancliff often preached that the ministry was the foundation of Christianity, but then, he also preached that without the NT ministry, you didn't have the blood of Christ. DS preached last year in our field that the ministry that meets Jesus' guidelines has the 'ministry of reconciliation' spoken of in 2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation." If you can't be reconciled to God without a particular form of NT ministry, that would beg the salvation question, but still....I wouldn't say I ever heard it was the ministry rather than Jesus who saves. I always heard you indicated you had lost your salvation if you left, but that's a separate discussion.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 20:29:05 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 22, 2015 20:29:05 GMT -5
For some of us, who do not quote verses out of context, the preachers to which the writer was referring to in the Epistle to the Romans, are identified by what was written immediately thereafter. Also, at this point, I can accept a priesthood of all believers, much like those stars of heaven. No light, no message written on anyone's heart.
Thank you, Hberry, I just read what you posted before mine. Exactly. Here's from a commentary on Blue letter Bible;
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2015 20:31:34 GMT -5
Surely the verse "then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" includes reading. At the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans it is likely that the Gospels had not been written. The early Christians had had direct contact with Jesus and the Gospels were not their main access point to Jesus words. The oral re-telling of Jesus life was the only access point to the Gospel. Today we so take the Bible for granted, we don't realise that the Bible wasn't available to the laity until the invention of the Printing Press and the translations into English. And likely in Paul's day, there was no written Gospel at all.
The verse begins with faith and the ultimate source is "the word of God". The method of transmission must include reading the Gospel as well as hearing it. Do we think that the Spirit can not speak to someone who only reads the Word?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2015 20:42:16 GMT -5
Not quite accurate. The head worker for Alberta, Canada was fond of saying, "The way to Jesus is the church in the home and the ministry without a home". The head worker for Ontario, Canada told us that "Jesus came to us in Spirit and in Truth. The Spirit is Christ and the Truth is the church in the home and the meeting without a home". We also heard that the apostles were instructed to continue in the "apostles doctrine and fellowship". Acts 2:42 This meaning that Jesus established a pattern of worship for all time. Nowhere in those quotes do I see anything remotely like your statement, "it is not Jesus who saves but the ministry". Not true. I always heard that you could not be saved without this ministry, but not that you were saved by the ministry. Leo Stancliff often preached that the ministry was the foundation of Christianity, but then, he also preached that without the NT ministry, you didn't have the blood of Christ. DS preached last year in our field that the ministry that meets Jesus' guidelines has the 'ministry of reconciliation' spoken of in 2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation." If you can't be reconciled to God without a particular form of NT ministry, that would beg the salvation question, but still....I wouldn't say I ever heard it was the ministry rather than Jesus who saves. I always heard you indicated you had lost your salvation if you left, but that's a separate discussion. The clear implication is that if you hear the Gospel through a non 2x2 ministry, you receive a false Christ. Workers will concede that those who have never heard the Christ from the f&w ministry will be judged according to how they would react if they did hear Christ. In contrast to that, a very senior worker once told me that he had once thought that God never spoke to anyone before they encountered the ministry but he now believed God did work with people outside contact with the ministry, or rather before they came into contact with the ministry. I happened to be looking at the Catholic Catechism in conjunction with Dennis' Usurpation thread, and their doctrine is quite similar to this. Check clauses 846 and 848. www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_church_is_catholic.html
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 20:44:24 GMT -5
faune likes this
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 20:44:24 GMT -5
The clear implication is that if you hear the Gospel through a non 2x2 ministry, you receive a false Christ. Workers will concede that those who have never heard the Christ from the f&w ministry will be judged according to how they would react if they did hear Christ. In contrast to that, a very senior worker once told me that he had once thought that God never spoke to anyone before they encountered the ministry but he now believe God did work with people outside contact with the ministry. And implied that certainly they would respond to the workers' ministry if brought into contact with it. I happened to be looking at the Catholic Catechism in conjunction with Dennis' Usurpation thread, and their doctrine is quite similar to this. Check clauses 846 and 848. www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_church_is_catholic.htmlYou know a Catholic friend of mine had told me that awhile back but I never knew where to look it up. Thx for the link.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2015 20:44:44 GMT -5
I always heard that you could not be saved without this ministry, but not that you were saved by the ministry. That's a very good point hberry. It is a very subtle difference. Basically you need to be a professing member of the 2x2's to be saved because that type of ministry is the only right way, but you are not saved by the ministry, you are saved by following what Jesus said. Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 20:50:03 GMT -5
My earlier mention of getting out of the cocoon, brought a few thoughts. The only way to become a beautiful butterfly is get out of the cocoon. But don't lay your eggs on my Wife's pot plants or you will cop a blast of insect spray. The moral of it is, go bush, get out into the wide world and do your work.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 20:50:03 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2015 20:50:03 GMT -5
For some of us, who do not quote verses out of context, the preachers to which the writer was referring to in the Epistle to the Romans, are identified by what was written immediately thereafter. Also, at this point, I can accept a priesthood of all believers, much like those stars of heaven. No light, no message written on anyone's heart.
Thank you, Hberry, I just read what you posted before mine. Exactly. The church called the Brethren think so. They don't see ministers as a separate class and believe all are called to ministry. Some are called to ministry full-time as their life's work; that is the only difference. Thank you, John Nelson Darby.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 20:58:24 GMT -5
Post by emy on Jun 22, 2015 20:58:24 GMT -5
My earlier mention of getting out of the cocoon, brought a few thoughts. The only way to become a beautiful butterfly is get out of the cocoon. But don't lay your eggs on my Wife's pot plants or you will cop a blast of insect spray. The moral of it is, go bush, get out into the wide world and do your work. I trust you noticed that LL said he was home after an absence of 7 years? I think some of the time has been in Ecuador -- pretty "bushy."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 22, 2015 21:01:36 GMT -5
The clear implication is that if you hear the Gospel through a non 2x2 ministry, you receive a false Christ. Workers will concede that those who have never heard the Christ from the f&w ministry will be judged according to how they would react if they did hear Christ. In contrast to that, a very senior worker once told me that he had once thought that God never spoke to anyone before they encountered the ministry but he now believe God did work with people outside contact with the ministry. And implied that certainly they would respond to the workers' ministry if brought into contact with it. I happened to be looking at the Catholic Catechism in conjunction with Dennis' Usurpation thread, and their doctrine is quite similar to this. Check clauses 846 and 848. www.catholicity.com/catechism/the_church_is_catholic.htmlYou know a Catholic friend of mine had told me that awhile back but I never knew where to look it up. Thx for the link. Hberry ~ I also invited a Catholic friend to join me on a trip back home during college days and she met some of the friends and workers on the way. She commented later that she could see a lot of similarities between our beliefs, which amazed me as she equated the workers to the priests as "mediators" in the Church between God and us instead of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 22, 2015 21:08:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry this statement upset you. As I read it, I think several posters have misunderstood it. (Couldn't be me, could it? ) Let me re-write it with certain emphasis: " IF the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I took this to mean that unless there was more that separates us from an ungodly world (scripturally sound), then our faith (I would see this as meaning the fellowship - maybe not too accurate use of a word?) doesn't have much left to defend. To me it meant that the form of ministry and worship helps develop a strong relationship with God, but it's important that there is MORE than a form. When you visited convention, did you think all you saw and heard rested ONLY on form? edit: What I put in italics at the end seems likely to be me reading between the lines.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 21:10:48 GMT -5
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 21:10:48 GMT -5
For some of us, who do not quote verses out of context, the preachers to which the writer was referring to in the Epistle to the Romans, are identified by what was written immediately thereafter. Also, at this point, I can accept a priesthood of all believers, much like those stars of heaven. No light, no message written on anyone's heart.
Thank you, Hberry, I just read what you posted before mine. Exactly. The church called the Brethren think so. They don't see ministers as a separate class and believe all are called to ministry. Some are called to ministry full-time as their life's work; that is the only difference. Thank you, John Nelson Darby. That is the teaching of my church, but we aren't Brethren
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 21:30:32 GMT -5
Post by hberry on Jun 22, 2015 21:30:32 GMT -5
I always heard that you could not be saved without this ministry, but not that you were saved by the ministry. That's a very good point hberry. It is a very subtle difference. Basically you need to be a professing member of the 2x2's to be saved because that type of ministry is the only right way, but you are not saved by the ministry, you are saved by following what Jesus said. Interesting. Actually I went back and edited my post. I never actually heard it said that way, but that's the way I figured it was. Now that's a subtle point too, but I just wanted to clarify that I'd never actually heard it preached that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 21:34:26 GMT -5
[quote author=" emy" I trust you noticed that LL said he was home after an absence of 7 years? I think some of the time has been in Ecuador -- pretty "bushy." [/quote] Emy, I acknowledge that, and commend it. I have a 2x2 Cousin who has been in a third world country for many years and wants to return. I have no problem with that, but I hope that they don't preach that it is the only way to find Christ. Many other Churches are doing the same thing. When I was Treasurer for the Uniting Church we used to support Overseas Missions. Many times I met the people who did the work, very sincere and dedicated. You would think that you were talking to a Worker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 21:35:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 21:35:41 GMT -5
Quote - "Jesse, my pastor will tell you he was sent and tell you how God gripped his heart. Talk to any pastor: they are clearly sent. But I don't intend to argue with you about this, because your viewpoint was mine until a few years ago and I understand it. It isn't how I read scripture, but that's between God and me--I have to live by my scriptural convictions, as do you." When I was growing up RC nuns were a Big Thing. They too spoke of a "calling" and "sacrifice" I am half okay with the sacrifice bit but the calling had me bothered. Why did God call women to dress as penguins?
And one nun in the 1970's said she quit because nuns didn't have anymore 'esteem' in the community. So maybe that is what it was - esteem.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 21:43:55 GMT -5
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2015 21:43:55 GMT -5
That's a very good point hberry. It is a very subtle difference. Basically you need to be a professing member of the 2x2's to be saved because that type of ministry is the only right way, but you are not saved by the ministry, you are saved by following what Jesus said. Interesting. Actually I went back and edited my post. I never actually heard it said that way, but that's the way I figured it was. Now that's a subtle point too, but I just wanted to clarify that I'd never actually heard it preached that way. It is a subtle point. Looks like we are back to square one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 22:26:17 GMT -5
Bert I don't think it is respectful to say Nuns dress as penguins. You may wish to delete that.Wonderful ladies. We could say 2x2 ladies are dowdy, a comment made on your previous list. We could also say they do it for esteem, but we are not going to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 22:49:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 22:49:08 GMT -5
Redback, pretty lousy way to get esteem, being a Worker, don't you think? Paul said to esteem the preacher highly for their works sake - that's a huge difference from being esteemed in the general community. Jesus certainly had no esteem outside his church.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 23:01:32 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jun 22, 2015 23:01:32 GMT -5
I'm sorry this statement upset you. As I read it, I think several posters have misunderstood it. (Couldn't be me, could it? ) Let me re-write it with certain emphasis: " IF the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I took this to mean that unless there was more that separates us from an ungodly world (scripturally sound), then our faith (I would see this as meaning the fellowship - maybe not too accurate use of a word?) doesn't have much left to defend. To me it meant that the form of ministry and worship helps develop a strong relationship with God, but it's important that there is MORE than a form. When you visited convention, did you think all you saw and heard rested ONLY on form? edit: What I put in italics at the end seems likely to be me reading between the lines. Thanks for pointing this out Emy. I think you are right, and I interpreted it wrongly. If LL means that we must have more than our form of ministry and worship to give us a defendable faith then I'm in agreement with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 23:07:22 GMT -5
Bert, as usual you dodge the issue. The post was about Nuns and 2x2 Ladies, nothing about Workers. Do you do this on purpose, or are you confused by the 2x2 glasses you wear. Also as a decent man, and respect for Women, you would delete your statement, Nuns dress as penguins.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 23:24:40 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Jun 22, 2015 23:24:40 GMT -5
I'm sorry this statement upset you. As I read it, I think several posters have misunderstood it. (Couldn't be me, could it? ) Let me re-write it with certain emphasis: " IF the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I took this to mean that unless there was more that separates us from an ungodly world (scripturally sound), then our faith (I would see this as meaning the fellowship - maybe not too accurate use of a word?) doesn't have much left to defend. To me it meant that the form of ministry and worship helps develop a strong relationship with God, but it's important that there is MORE than a form. When you visited convention, did you think all you saw and heard rested ONLY on form? edit: What I put in italics at the end seems likely to be me reading between the lines. _______________________________________________________________________ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? When you visited convention, did you think all you saw and heard rested ONLY on form? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Emy, emy, emy, you are kidding, right? Read this sentence: "I walked away with a renewed conviction that these were indeed a group of people set apart in some meaningful way from most of the people I interact with from day to day." What does that sentence say to you? Does that sound like an accusation that all I saw and heard rested ONLY on form? Come on! " . . . a group of people set apart in some meaningful way . . . " could not speak more highly, specifically or directly of a people with a faith and conviction of substance. You open your post with the observation that you are "sorry that this statement upset me." I appreciate your concern but the strange thing is that it "frightens me that this statement does not upset you." What does it mean: "that unless there was more that separates us from an ungodly world, then our faith doesn't have much left to defend". No one in the F&W community can possibly hold this belief. (I know, I am getting emotional, but I find this whole conversation surreal). Has the faith, belief, confidence and convictions of the F&W Fellowship truly been eroded to the point that this statement holds any credence. Oh please tell me I am misunderstanding both your intent and the sentence that you have written. When I professed, it was my faith that separated me from an "ungodly world", not the other way around. And I can assure you (because I still carry much of that faith with me), there was never a question in my mind nor in the mind of those with whom I had fellowship what needed to be defended and why. Perhaps the world and the F&W Fellowship have changed to the point that one can no longer differentiate and must cast about for causes to defend. Oh how I hope this is but my misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jun 22, 2015 23:36:29 GMT -5
Hiya! I also believe we're born innocent, but we are born into sinful flesh. I was looking at my grandson yesterday he's one yr old, and I told him "no" quite sternly because he was about to get hurt and he got upset. But straight away he forgot and threw his arms around me when I picked him up. And I thought children when young are very forgiving. And God wants us innocent like that. If we have a fall, or someone hurts us then quickly forgive and forget and don't hold it like we do. That's why God wants us to become like little children, because our hearts should be innocent. Now as for the suffering, I dont drive, and the day before yesterday I was watching my husband driving and everything just flowed naturally. And I said that I wished I could do drive that easily, but when I try, I find it hard. He told me, that its hard at first, but when you've got it right, you do it without even thinking about it. Just like I can type, he said you type without even looking where your fingers are going next yet you do it with ease. But I would struggle. And I saw this in God. At first its hard, and we start having a conscience and the spirit is warring against the flesh and at first we find this contrary to our will but as we keep fighting it gets easier. Until in the end we don't even think about the things we were doing wrong, and it comes natural not to do them and we are free! We are then guided by the spirit. But at first its hard, like giving birth to a child. It's painful and we suffer, but once the child is born, we forget all that pain and we're just glad to see the child. This is like the new birth. At first we fight, but once the we are guided by the spirit and not the flesh then this is being born again. And we become a new person with Christ living through us. When we see understanding and wisdom in the hearts of someone young in God it's like hearing the first cry of the living child just born. And its amazing to see the birth. And you know it's real, because you've been through it, and you know what you are hearing that it is real and from God! And you rejoice with them. But it's not just the giving up and then it's all easy after that, we still have Satan with us. Tempting us and trying to deceive us. Trying to pull is back into what we have left behind. Making our life hard, tempting us with what we enjoyed through others, putting wrong thoughts in our mind, and this happens daily, and will happen until the day we die, but Jesus has overcome the world and Christ in the heart can give us the strength to overcome too, if we keep our faith in God! It's very hard to explain what I mean in writing, but I hope I have written it so you can understand me, thanks for taking the time to read it [/quote] maryhig, I'm sorry I couldn't respond sooner. I appreciate your comments. I am a mother and love my children deeply and was very protective of them when growing up. But I believe there is a difference in being concerned about real danger and perceived danger. And I also know that there is a real danger in forcing our own prejudices and opinions on our children in an attempt to make them believe that same things we do. This is not honest and certainly not healthy. I find it helpful to read the gospel of Christ - not the gospel of Paul or any other who flavored the words of Jesus with their own viewpoints and opinions. If you read ONLY the words of Jesus you'll find that he did not attempt to make individuals feel unworthy or filthy. Instead he was full of love and compassion. Instead of condemning them he encouraged them to consider what might make their lives more peaceful and joyful. He was not at all concerned with outward appearances but was focused on the heart. He never once suggested that our outward appearance would be a reflection of what was in our heart but that our actions and our love and care toward others would be a reflection of what was in our heart I'd be happy to discuss anything Jesus said that you believe contradicts what I'm suggesting. In reading LLs sermon it would seem that for the most part he is very concerned with insignificant matters and totally ignoring what is far more relevant.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 22, 2015 23:46:17 GMT -5
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 22, 2015 23:46:17 GMT -5
Emy what do you hear when you sit in convention ? So are you saying the sermons I have posted about have all been edited ? First of all, the ones you linked have been "chosen" (edited from the whole group of workers' sermons/letters) and sometimes parts of them have been selected to publish. Emy do you know this for a fact ? Have you spoken to the person that put all the notes together ?
|
|
|
LL
Jun 23, 2015 0:12:47 GMT -5
hberry likes this
Post by emy on Jun 23, 2015 0:12:47 GMT -5
I'm sorry this statement upset you. As I read it, I think several posters have misunderstood it. (Couldn't be me, could it? ) Let me re-write it with certain emphasis: " IF the only remaining difference between them and us is the ministry and meeting in a home, how can we defend our faith?” I took this to mean that unless there was more that separates us from an ungodly world (scripturally sound), then our faith (I would see this as meaning the fellowship - maybe not too accurate use of a word?) doesn't have much left to defend. To me it meant that the form of ministry and worship helps develop a strong relationship with God, but it's important that there is MORE than a form. When you visited convention, did you think all you saw and heard rested ONLY on form? edit: What I put in italics at the end seems likely to be me reading between the lines. _______________________________________________________________________ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? When you visited convention, did you think all you saw and heard rested ONLY on form? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Emy, emy, emy, you are kidding, right? Read this sentence: "I walked away with a renewed conviction that these were indeed a group of people set apart in some meaningful way from most of the people I interact with from day to day." What does that sentence say to you? Does that sound like an accusation that all I saw and heard rested ONLY on form? Come on! " . . . a group of people set apart in some meaningful way . . . " could not speak more highly, specifically or directly of a people with a faith and conviction of substance. You open your post with the observation that you are "sorry that this statement upset me." I appreciate your concern but the strange thing is that it "frightens me that this statement does not upset you." What does it mean: "that unless there was more that separates us from an ungodly world, then our faith doesn't have much left to defend". No one in the F&W community can possibly hold this belief. (I know, I am getting emotional, but I find this whole conversation surreal). Has the faith, belief, confidence and convictions of the F&W Fellowship truly been eroded to the point that this statement holds any credence. Oh please tell me I am misunderstanding both your intent and the sentence that you have written. When I professed, it was my faith that separated me from an "ungodly world", not the other way around. And I can assure you (because I still carry much of that faith with me), there was never a question in my mind nor in the mind of those with whom I had fellowship what needed to be defended and why. Perhaps the world and the F&W Fellowship have changed to the point that one can no longer differentiate and must cast about for causes to defend. Oh how I hope this is but my misunderstanding. Aarrgh! I had this all in a reply and managed to lose it while previewing. I'll try again in the morning.
|
|