The Addiction that is Costing Christians their Freedom? {Control}

[nebula]

4 hours ago, Butero said:

Yes, yes and yes.  There is this thing called freedom of religion, and I strongly believe in it. 

With all of the damage these kinds of churches do to people's faith and all the broken lives these create, you care only for freedom of religion?

When Jesus first publicly claimed Himself to be the Messiah, He quoted this prophecy:

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

How can such a church represent the ministry of Christ on earth, as proclaimed by the above, with such manipulation and proclamation of a false Gospel? How can you represent the ministry of Christ on earth, as proclaimed by the above, if you have no compassion for the broken of faith due to such control and manipulation?

[GoldenEagle]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 11:46 PM, Butero said:

A private ministry or church is well within it's rights to control anything the members do.  They can control how people dress, hair style, if they can have tattoos, that they must pay tithes, anything.  We are free to go elsewhere if we don't like the rules.  Why shouldn't a church be able to control the members?  I personally want a church that controls the members to some degree.  Why shouldn't I as a private individual be able to choose to join a controlling church? 

Actually I would strongly disagree. A ministry or church is within it's rights to establish rules or guidelines for members to follow. Some of those may be based on the Bible (how a church is led), legal issues (think laws relating to child-care), and some may just be personal preference (when services are offered).

If you enjoy churches who have strict rules then that is fine. Go for it! Not everyone does enjoy churches like that. Good thing there's a lot of diversity in the churches today I guess right?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

We aren't supposed to eat animals that were strangled and we aren't supposed to eat meat with blood.  I don't care if people are guilty or not.  We are told not to do it.  When I cook meat, I do everything I can to cook it to the point there is no blood.  It is extra well done.  I have no idea about animals that were strangled, not having the ability to see how each animal is slaughtered, I have no choice but to eat what is sold in the market place.  If I am made aware that animals were strangled at this place or that, I am wrong to eat them.  Those commands are controlling people.  It is not left up to conscience.  I am not told it is ok to break them if my conscience doesn't bother me.  I understand the greater message in the passage, but that doesn't mean that this passage isn't used to control people in those areas that are mentioned. 

Hiya Butero!  

Re: Acts 15

The commands were not controlling. They were in fact very minimal as the Judaizers ironically wanted Christians to follow Jewish law and customs such as circumcision. I think this passage speaks exactly to the opposite of what you are saying it speaks to regarding control of others. James literally is saying not to trouble Gentiles... Which can be translated “worrying” or “harassing.”

James  is not giving as a decree but as a resolution which was submitted as the judgment of the Apostles and elders. He is summarizing the Apostles and elders position on the matter of circumcision of Gentiles. This is a big turning point in the history of the Church. However, the commands to abstain from idolatry, fornication, from things strangled, and from blood would be nothing new to them if they (Gentiles) were being taught from the OT (Torah) which is all that Christians had at this point in time. Kind of common sense for anyone who understood the 10 commandments for example.

Regarding meat sold in the marketplace... Actually there is always a choice isn't there?

But question to understand if you are consistent. So do you follow the literal Sabbath as prescribed in the 10 Commandments and OT?

12 hours ago, Butero said:

I take this passage as absolute instructions on what the church must do in regard to qualifying people to serve as Bishops, Pastors and Elders.  Only men can serve in these positions, as this person must be the husband of one wife.  He cannot be divorced and re-married.  He cannot be an unmarried man.  His wife and children must be in submission to his authority and well behaved and living right.  He can't be a person who is a drunkard.  Not given to wine has to mean that because we are told in another passage to drink a little wine for our stomach's sake and oft time infirmities.  I take that literally that wine in small amounts should be used for that purpose.  These commands directly control the behavior of certain members in the church, certainly those in three leadership roles, as well as their family members.  I take this very serious and always have. 

Re: 1 Timothy 3

Ah yes I might imagine you view this passage in terms of absolutes. You are more of a either/or kind of person. I'm more of a both/and I guess. See this post for reference.

So was Paul ever married? What about Timothy?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

It most definitely is controlling how people worship.  It is in opposition to those who are against order in the church service.  There are some who want a church where people can just jump up in the middle of the sermon and speak a word or prophecy.  We are given instructions on conduct.  We are told that the wives are not to be talking and asking questions of their husbands during church services, but to wait until after church when they are at home to do so.  This isn't about "encouraging" people to show self control.  It is instructing them to do things in a specific manner.

The Bible also instructs that women have their head covered when they pray and prophecy.  Men are to have their head uncovered.  That is specific.  The passage makes it clear this is not a sin issue, and if someone insists on being argumentative about it, they don't have to comply, but it makes a strong case why they should.  It says it is a shame for women to have short hair and men to have long hair.  That is controlling those who actually care what God has to say on the matter.  To the contentious, they won't be committing a mortal sin if they don't comply, but they shame their head. 

As for controlling how one dresses, the Bible says people are to be modest in their dress.  Control.  We are told that women are to wear what pertains to women and men are to wear what pertains to men.  Control.  There is no question people are often times refusing to be controlled.  That is called rebellion.  They won't listen to God or man.  They disobey the Bible and the men God places in positions of authority.  A church will have rules, and you will have rebels challenge them.  It happens all the time.  There are people that will visit churches just to try to change them.  I have seen this first hand.  I had a woman visit the church largely to try to get me to change my dress code, and I wouldn't do it.  There were churches all over the county that had no dress code, but so what.  She, like many others, are on a mission to make all churches conform to their anti-legalist views.  Thank God there are still some that won't listen to them. 

Re: 1 Cor.  14

The instruction by Paul are guidelines for worship. Not set in stone. God is a God of order so laying out some basic principles like there should be interpretation for tongues and only a few people should speak just makes sense.

Now let's talk about the command to women for a minute:

1 Corinthians 14: 33b-35

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

It is probable that, on pretense of being inspired, the women of Corinth had assumed the office of public teachers. To understand 1 Corinthians 14 we need to look at 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2. A woman having a shaved head meant she was likely a priestess to pagan god's or a prostitute. The head covering for men was a well-known Jewish custom and sign of submission to God. Costly attire and braided hair would be considered sensual I imagine for the culture of the day.

Yet we also know that Anna, who was a prophetess, gave thanks to the Lord in the temple as found in Luke 2:36-38. Phillip's daughters also prophesized in Acts 21:8-9.

This is essentially a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy. Prophecy would be understood to be of men only and not of women for the most part in the culture. This occurrence of women prophesying being considered a disorderly practice and what was not used in other churches. Men were not taking leadership roles.

Re: Modest dress (1 Timothy 2 and Deuteronomy 22:5)

I think we've discussed this multiple times. Modest dress is relative to a person's personal preference and culture. It's a subjective not an objective measurement. The Bible does say for a person to dress modestly. 1 Timothy 2 and Deuteronomy 22:5 I guess is what you are referring to? (It would be helpful to know at least the passage references you are talking about as a heads up.)

A person dressing modestly in S. America or Africa would look different than in N. America or Europe for example.

Notice that 1 Timothy ends with "Self-control".  

What do you think?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

8 hours ago, nebula said:

With all of the damage these kinds of churches do to people's faith and all the broken lives these create, you care only for freedom of religion?

When Jesus first publicly claimed Himself to be the Messiah, He quoted this prophecy:

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

How can such a church represent the ministry of Christ on earth, as proclaimed by the above, with such manipulation and proclamation of a false Gospel? How can you represent the ministry of Christ on earth, as proclaimed by the above, if you have no compassion for the broken of faith due to such control and manipulation?

Excellent questions. I wonder what @Butero thinks?

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

12 hours ago, eileenhat said:

Regarding the original topic of a church addicted, we must recall we are the temple, not outside physical structures, nor assemblies.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 ESV

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Hiya Eileenhat!  

Yes, we've discussed the semantics or wording of using "Church" multiple times.

See Ezra's objections here for example and my responses to him here and here.

Or Marilyn's post here and clarifications here. And my response here.

Seems like a lot of people were hung up on the wording instead of discussing the issue of controlling others as being a problem. That's why I changed the topic to "Christians" instead.

Also, 1 Corinthians 3 in context is talking about divisions in the church right? That we shouldn't follow Paul, Apollos, or any other one person but Jesus Christ?

God bless,

GE  

[GoldenEagle]

3 hours ago, Butero said:

The primary reason God gave authorities was to control people, whether that be in secular government or the church. 

Was it to control (determine the behavior or supervise the running of) or to guide (show or indicate the way to someone) them? I think they're two very different approaches to leadership.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind about equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. Notice the purpose of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc. is not to control but to equip?

Eph 4:11-16
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

5 hours ago, Butero said:

Paul wasn't a Bishop, Deacon or Elder.  Those were created positions to take the burden off those with ministry gifts.  Timothy may have been a Bishop, but I don't know.  The Bishop is not necessarily the Pastor.  People get them mixed up because many Pastors take on the responsibilities of Bishop.  Paul was an Apostle.  I don't know if Timothy was married. 

The Christian Sabbath is the rest we enter into when we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and enter into his true rest.  When it comes to what is sold in the market place, unless we know their origin and how they were processed, we are told specifically we can buy and eat whatever is sold there.  If I know that a particular meat product was strangled or dedicated to an idol, I am not to eat it. 

Paul was a leader of the church. There's no evidence that he nor Timothy ever married. There is no evidence that a leader of the church cannot be unmarried...

20 hours ago, Butero said:

I take this passage as absolute instructions on what the church must do in regard to qualifying people to serve as Bishops, Pastors and Elders.  Only men can serve in these positions, as this person must be the husband of one wife.  He cannot be divorced and re-married.  He cannot be an unmarried man.  His wife and children must be in submission to his authority and well behaved and living right.  He can't be a person who is a drunkard.  Not given to wine has to mean that because we are told in another passage to drink a little wine for our stomach's sake and oft time infirmities.  I take that literally that wine in small amounts should be used for that purpose.  These commands directly control the behavior of certain members in the church, certainly those in three leadership roles, as well as their family members.  I take this very serious and always have. 

So if they are not married they could not be leaders in the church according to what you said?

Also, how do you address people who want to be pastors or elders in the church but were divorced?

 

So you obey to the best of your ability the avoidance of eating strangled animals and of animals with blood... But you take the view that the Sabbath is that of a Christian Sabbath instead of the literal Jewish Sabbath? That seems inconsistent to me. Or am I misunderstanding you?  

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

No Golden Eagle.  That is a perversion of what I said and you know it.  You can't serve in three offices unless you are a married man:  bishop, deacon and elder.  You can serve in other offices.  Try again. 

How do I address those who are in the church desiring to be a bishop, deacon or elder who are divorced and re-married or unmarried is more like it?  They are not qualified.  Jobs have qualifications.  That goes for any job. 

I don't care if you think my view of the Sabbath is consistent or not.  It is what it is.  That is what is taught in Hebrews.  I don't believe we must keep the portion of the law dealing with the Levitical priests either.  That is because of the cross.  There are some things that changed under the New Covenant.  Besides, even if I am wrong about the Sabbath, it doesn't change our responsibility to do what the Bible teaches.  It only makes me wrong in something I am doing, and means I need to change. 

What is the evidence that a bishop, deacon or elder must be a married man?  Scripture that states they must be the husband of one wife. 

Notice I asked if I was misunderstanding you...

I always view pastors, elders, and deacons as the leaders of the church.  I think too often our interpretation of passages takes a literal meaning without context and culture. 

I for one believe that people can serve in those positions who have been divorced. Didn't you go through something like that yourself? 

In theory, I don't have a problem with women teaching men.  I think it's fine for a couple to code lead as co-pastors of the church for example.  They are doing it together regardless of the semantics of titles. However, I would never be a part of a church where the senior pastor was a woman. At least that is where I land right now on this issue. 

My mother for example served as a music minister at a church. The wives of one of my former pastors was a very influential teacher in my life.

I'm sorry if I offended you it was not my intent.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

9 minutes ago, Butero said:

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding divorce and re-marriage.  I have been married one time to the same woman for 31 years.   The Bible lays out clear qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and Elders.  Those are the only offices they apply to, nothing else.  It is not for all church leaders, so what you are saying makes no sense. 

The women teaching men prohibition deals with leadership in the home.  The wife is not to usurp her husband's authority.  Women can be Pastors if there is a Bishop in place that is running the day to day operations of the church.  The Pastor doesn't have any qualifications listed except to be called of God.  If the Pastor is filling the role of Bishop, it must be a man who meets all the Biblical qualifications. 

You have made it clear that you see the Bible as only giving guidelines, which means we can pick and choose what to follow.  If that is the case, we don't need a Bible.  We can get our guidelines from a church manual or anything else.  One guideline is as good as another.  Why do you even bother quoting scripture?  The way you seem to look at it, the things in scripture are of no more weight than the books you review when it comes to how we conduct ourselves.  

I guess I'm thinking of someone else then. 

I believe there are essentials to the faith and there are non-essentials. I think too you are reading into what I say. See this discussion on the subject.

I believe that a person who was divorced and re-married can be an elder, deacon, or bishop. He is at that point in time the husband of but one wife. I just see things differently than you on this matter. And that is okay by me.

No problem in my eyes. On this post you admitted to changing what the OT Sabbath literally meant so apparently we all look at Scripture through the lens of our own interpretations. 

Brother, I'm going to take a break from this thread for a bit. It seems we are having trouble staying on topic. I'll come back at some point in the future to discuss the issue of control further. 

God bless,
GE