PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Need input



poochie
Dec 29th 2008, 04:39 AM
I just started my section on separation from disobedient brethren and will be focusing on various texts (2 Thes 3:6,14-15, Rom 16:17-18, 1 Cor 5,etc).

I do not believe its wise to separate entirely for all evangelicals and Charismatics,because God works in believers and when people get to heaven the only thing that will matter will be Jesus and what was done for him in the body. But none the less its Biblical to separate from disobedient brethren as commanded in the scriptures. But the question is how far will you go?

In your churches and fellowships do you not associate with your disobedient? Would you not eat or drink or fellowship with them?

Kahtar
Dec 29th 2008, 04:53 AM
We go through a process. We don't just cast them out. We try love and instruction first. Our desire is to see them restored, rather than cast out to the dogs. We don't kick them while they're down, we don't cast stones at them for falling into the mire, and we don't hack their legs off for being deceived.
Above all, we understand that those who have accepted Christ in their lives are in God's hands, Who is able to finish that which He began in them, and that He will not lose a SINGLE SHEEP.

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 05:05 AM
After Jesus told Peter "You will deny me" and Peter then pretty much called Jesus a liar, then the Lord ask Peter to "come and pray with me".

I wonder if Jesus should have just separated from him. :saint:

SIG
Dec 29th 2008, 05:06 AM
I'm not willing to discuss "them" vs. "me." ALL believers are disobedient to some degree. Where are you drawing the line?

I keep trying to separate from myself....

Vhayes
Dec 29th 2008, 05:47 AM
I'm not willing to discuss "them" vs. "me." ALL believers are disobedient to some degree. Where are you drawing the line?

I keep trying to separate from myself....
One on level this is hysterically funny while on another, it is so profound it made me almost cry.

Well said, SIG! Well said!
V

poochie
Dec 29th 2008, 05:54 AM
The ideal is Matt 18:15-18 and the restoration process. Thanks as I would do the same. Disobedient Evangelicals and Charismatics are in error because they do not take separation or the scriptures seriously and why Fundamentalist separate from them. but within a fellowship the ideal is to restore the disobedient.

I personally do not believe in 100% of 2nd and 3rd degree separation.


We go through a process. We don't just cast them out. We try love and instruction first. Our desire is to see them restored, rather than cast out to the dogs. We don't kick them while they're down, we don't cast stones at them for falling into the mire, and we don't hack their legs off for being deceived.
Above all, we understand that those who have accepted Christ in their lives are in God's hands, Who is able to finish that which He began in them, and that He will not lose a SINGLE SHEEP.

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 06:03 AM
We go through a process. We don't just cast them out. We try love and instruction first. Our desire is to see them restored, rather than cast out to the dogs. We don't kick them while they're down, we don't cast stones at them for falling into the mire, and we don't hack their legs off for being deceived.
Above all, we understand that those who have accepted Christ in their lives are in God's hands, Who is able to finish that which He began in them, and that He will not lose a SINGLE SHEEP.

The fear of the Lord will keep a man from evil. But it is the kindness of God that leads a man to repentance. Sometimes we get those things backwards.

It was God's lovingkindness that led me to repent of sins after I was saved. Not fear. Proper fear just kept me from sinning in the first place.

poochie
Dec 29th 2008, 06:16 AM
Consider the context of the passage, and also consider the differences between personal and ecclesiastical separation. I do not believe entirely in personal separation, just as Jesus did not.

There are Fundamentalist mission boards and schools that want their candidates to practice personal separation and I strongly disagree with them on this point as its not what Jesus taught.

But separating from American Baptists, CBA, Calvary Chapel, and others that do not believe in the Doctrine of Sufficiency among others is warranted and is what Paul taught. But we are always welcome to restoration once they repent of their disobedience.


After Jesus told Peter "You will deny me" and Peter then pretty much called Jesus a liar, then the Lord ask Peter to "come and pray with me".

I wonder if Jesus should have just separated from him. :saint:

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 06:53 AM
Consider the context of the passage, and also consider the differences between personal and ecclesiastical separation. I do not believe entirely in personal separation, just as Jesus did not.

There are Fundamentalist mission boards and schools that want their candidates to practice personal separation and I strongly disagree with them on this point as its not what Jesus taught.

But separating from American Baptists, CBA, Calvary Chapel, and others that do not believe in the Doctrine of Sufficiency among others is warranted and is what Paul taught. But we are always welcome to restoration once they repent of their disobedience.

Interestingly enough, when Jesus was here, he went to church with some folks that had really bad doctrine. He didn't go out and form a separate denomination or separate from the synagogue system.

So we have the example of Christ who asked Peter to pray with him. And then we have his example and how he regularly attended synagogues that were run by hypocrites.

I find it fascinating.

poochie
Dec 29th 2008, 06:11 PM
Mark what chapter and what verse says that the synagogue's that Christ attended had bad doctrine?


Interestingly enough, when Jesus was here, he went to church with some folks that had really bad doctrine. He didn't go out and form a separate denomination or separate from the synagogue system.

So we have the example of Christ who asked Peter to pray with him. And then we have his example and how he regularly attended synagogues that were run by hypocrites.

I find it fascinating.

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 06:22 PM
Mark what chapter and what verse says that the synagogue's that Christ attended had bad doctrine?

Well, the first one he preached at in Luke 4 tried to kill him and it was his local synagogue. How many of them did he preach at that had it wrong about the sabbath?

poochie
Dec 29th 2008, 11:14 PM
Well, the first one he preached at in Luke 4 tried to kill him and it was his local synagogue. How many of them did he preach at that had it wrong about the sabbath?

Mark you need to understand what Dispensationalism is. Christ lived in a culture, and that culture required the attendance at churches. In our day the culture does not require attendance at churches and we have the freedom of choice in a church. Also Christ lived before the Church age dispensation and therefore certain Hermeneutical methods cannot be applied to him. The Historical Grammatical approach must be utilized which means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical
The historical-grammatical method, also referred to as grammatico-historical or grammatical-critical, is a component of Biblical hermeneutics that strives to find the intended original meaning in the text. [1] This original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations.[2] The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning and the significance of the text. The significance of the text includes the ensuing use of the text or application.

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 11:19 PM
Mark you need to understand what Dispensationalism is. Christ lived in a culture, and that culture required the attendance at churches. In our day the culture does not require attendance at churches and we have the freedom of choice in a church. Also Christ lived before the Church age dispensation and therefore certain Hermeneutical methods cannot be applied to him. The Historical Grammatical approach must be utilized which means.

Got it. In other words, if his example doesn't fit for us, we simply find another way to interpret it so we can have our own doctrine. ;)

poochie
Dec 30th 2008, 12:16 AM
Got it. In other words, if his example doesn't fit for us, we simply find another way to interpret it so we can have our own doctrine. ;)

Wrong.

Mark check out the book The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne. Its a long and large book, but with it will youn understand how to read and interpret the Bible. Good luck!

Brother Mark
Dec 30th 2008, 12:18 AM
Wrong.

Mark check out the book The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne. Its a long and large book, but with it will youn understand how to read and interpret the Bible. Good luck!

I would rather use the rules of interpretation that Paul and Jesus used instead of using some rules a man made up. ;)

poochie
Dec 30th 2008, 03:17 AM
I would rather use the rules of interpretation that Paul and Jesus used instead of using some rules a man made up. ;)

Have it your way then.

Mark when Jesus said to pluck out your eye or to cut off your hand will you do this and why or why not?

Brother Mark
Dec 30th 2008, 03:59 AM
Have it your way then.

Mark when Jesus said to pluck out your eye or to cut off your hand will you do this and why or why not?

I have never advocated grammar alone as an interpretive style. I would read all of Jesus words and come to this one "The words I have spoke to you are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing" and there you would have your answer. I would also see how he dealt with those caught in adultery and have another answer. He explains himself when he gets alone with his disciples. So the Spirit explains things to us as well, just as He did to Paul and Jesus.