tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47688396949769469622024-03-08T03:32:46.265-07:00If it's true...Phillipians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
--------------------------------------------------------
If you are in a UPCI congregation, I highly reccomend the site: www.spiritualabuse.orgJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-91245778493648972562016-01-12T20:09:00.000-07:002016-01-12T20:09:09.056-07:00Putting the "Mental" in FundamentalismSo, you're a "fundy". Or maybe you know one. I think everyone should know one. Their one fundy friend. Here's a fun(dy) fact:<br />
<br />
God hates them. Seriously. Mostly because they take the entire Bible out of context, and then condemn everyone to hell for not believing the same way. Good thing there's lots of unforgivable sins for the blood to be insufficient to forgive (<-sarcasm 49th="" and="" ask="" catholics.="" completely="" everyone="" for="" god="" homosexuals...because="" is="" just="" knows="" like="" obsessed="" of="" p="" pentecostals="" postolics="" sex.="" south="" the="" those="" with=""><br />
Another fun(dy) fact:<br />
<br />
I hate them. No sense of humour. If you can seriously read the entire book of Proverbs and not laugh uproariously, you're a sad sad person. An unfun one. Perhaps an un"fun"dy? I mean it. I read the safety labels on things (don't use <insert appliance="" electrical="" here=""> in the tub, don't put this <insert item="" plastic=""> over head/mouth) and giggle, chuckle, snort, belly laugh over how stupid people are. Proverbs is the same. Common sense advice for dumb people that would likely enhance the evolutionary process if products didn't have safety labels. I've yet to hear a fundy make a crack about something in Proverbs. Sad.</insert></insert><br />
<br />
Last fun(dy) fact:<br />
<br />
Everyone except fundys hate fundys (they hate each other though). This is where we get theological. Fundamentalists have extraordinarily (supernaturally???) warped and narrow beliefs based on the (invariably) English translations of the Bible. That's not to say they can't/don't have some normal views, even some liberal ones on occasion, or that they don't ever use the original languages, but in the end, they always come back to the English. I don't have a study (although I'm sure one exists) to cite that says there's an inverse proportion of knowledge of original grammar and context to level of fundamentalist belief, but there's no doubt that's exactly the case. <br />
<br />
There was a segment on the John Ankerberg show where Dr Nathaniel Urshan or Robert Sabin (I believe it was Nathaniel Urshan, I just don't feel like rewatching the whole thing all over again) said they feel there has been enough scholarly work into the English translations (and, hence, no need to study the original language), to which Dr Walter Martin replied 'You jolly well better know your Greek!!!'. Here's a forum post I found during a random google search session: <br />
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?237758-Every-Bible-in-English-translated-after-1611-is-the-work-of-Satan/page16 <br />
And there's the entire problem: when you read the English translation, you can miss subtleties and even entire contextual situations leading to a completely improper understanding of what the original writer intended. <br />
<br />
I recently had a conversation with someone most Christians would view as a fundamentalist, and had to explain this to them. Not educating yourself about the original language and studying as many different commentaries from as many different view points as possible is foolish and irresponsible. Basing one's entire salvation on the narrowest possible understanding of a flawed translation of a book that is under much debate as to its authenticity/accuracy is insanity. Teaching others the standards you think they must uphold/adhere to is spiritually abusive and reckless: it causes people to lose faith when they discover your standard is absolutely impossible, and even more so when the people exhorting those standards are caught red-handed in atrocious crimes (all you Catholic Priests and Pentecostal and Evangelical Pastors that have been caught and either confessed or been convicted of child molestation for instance - you know who you are). <br />
<br />
Don't take away the grace Jesus bought and replace it with the law. You go right ahead and convict yourself of the law by attempting to adhere to it (and failing miserably), while the rest of Christianity lives for God, not Moses, but stop trying to teach others they must adhere. If you truly believe the Bible, then you accept that God will write His law on the heart, not you. He doesn't need your "help". He's God. If he hasn't told someone that they are in error, just who do you think you are to correct Him?? Or perhaps you think you're better qualified to hear God's voice than the rest of His children? Back to Proverbs: <br />
"16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall"<br />
A related verse:<br />
"17:19 He loveth transgression that loveth strife: <i>and</i> he that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction"<br />
Basically, those that humbly accept their inadequacy and absolute need for God's redemption will find it, but those that lift themselves up in arrogance and claim that others must follow their "example" of holiness (laws) are headed for destruction.<br />
<br />
It drives me absolutely over the moon crazy mad when I ask a fundamentalist of any stripe "According to the Bible, am I saved?" and they reply "I don't judge, that's up to God", but then get in the pulpit on Sunday morning and espouse teachings and beliefs that say I'm damned to hell (a few have gone so far as to outright say I, personally, am damned to hell - backslid etc - just never in public, never to my face...you waffling cowardly hypocrites). If being Christian means being Christ-like, and you believe that your laws/rules/standards are right, you believe it enough to get up and preach/teach/demand obedience to them, then grow the balls necessary to do what the Christ did and be honest. I don't read anywhere that He evaded a question about salvation. In fact, He whipped people, in public, and kicked them out of the Temple. He told people outright they were forgiven. Someone asks? Tell them what you really think. Stop trying to pretend you don't judge. Liars. Either you believe someone is saved or you don't. Identify yourselves so the rest of the planet can see straightaway that you're crazy.<br />
<br />
Of course, that would really endear you to humanity wouldn't it? Would really increase your revenue stream. I can outright state that if you confess your sins, ask forgiveness, and accept God's gift of salvation, you are saved. According to the Bible. Everything else is works. Good works, sometimes important works, but still works. Nothing sickens me more than hearing a fundamentalist jackass say "God never gives more than we can bear" or a similar platitude, always in a backhanded slap that means stop whining and do what I say. My standard response is "Punching you in the face is a sin, but it's not the unforgivable one, and God will help you bear the scar". <br />
<br />
Fundamentalists: stop spiritually assaulting the rest of the world with your nonsense. Better yet, convert. Convert to any sect/religion except the one you are in now. You'll be happier, feel less isolated, and have a better chance at making it to heaven. You're nothing more than pharisees: straining out gnats and swallowing camels whole. Jesus died so that you don't have to live under such stress and worry.<br />
<br />
Everyone else: if you suspect a fundamentalist, ask them this: "Do you believe I, as a confessed Christian, am saved?" If they reply with anything other than an instantaneous, unqualified YES, run away, or kick them off your property...they are not preaching good news. If they do answer YES, immediately and without hesitation, shake their hand, shout hallelujah, and celebrate the rest of the day because you just met another of God's children. </-sarcasm>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-46084765534925449122009-11-03T10:40:00.003-07:002009-11-18T09:38:21.478-07:00Why the UPCI Church Service Model Fails The Biblical TestSo. It has been a while since I posted on here. I took a month off from some things, and I feel much refreshed. Everyone needs to step back at times and take a break from the grinding wheel. I do apologize to those that have missed my Blog, and to those that don't miss it but still return to see what I have to say. Today I want to examine some things Jesus said in Matthew 6:5-7.<br /><br />Having been raised <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UPCI</span> and attending as an adult, I continually heard the admonition to public prayer before service. There were times that a man would get in the pulpit and commend a group for the volume of prayer, and other times a man would condemn a group for a lack of volume. So let's look at whether this is actually a Biblical attitude.<br /><br />Matthew 6:5-7 says in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">KJV</span>:<br />"5 And when thou <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">prayest</span>, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.<br />6 But thou, when thou <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">prayest</span>, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">seeth</span> in secret shall reward thee openly.<br />7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."<br /><br />In Young's Literal:<br />"5 And when thou <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">mayest</span> pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites, because they love in the synagogues, and in the corners of the broad places -- standing -- to pray, that they may be seen of men; verily I say to you, that they have their reward.<br />6 But thou, when thou <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">mayest</span> pray, go into thy chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who [is] in secret, and thy Father who is seeing in secret, shall reward thee manifestly.<br />7 And -- praying -- ye may not use vain repetitions like the nations, for they think that in their much speaking they shall be heard,"<br /><br />We see very clearly here that Jesus commands two things: Don't pray in public, and pray in private. Of course, this seems very clearly to state that we should never pray in public at all, which totally eliminates the standard first 1/2 hour of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">UPCI</span> service. I would agree except that there are some seeming contradictions in the Bible, so, in fairness to the folks at your local UPC, let's examine them.<br /><br />We begin with perhaps the greatest prayer a man ever made to God (barring the Lord's prayer as that was an example, but amazing nonetheless): 1 Kings 8:22-53. In this passage we read the profound prayer of a man that is asking for the blessing and mercy of God to remain on the Israelite nation. He spends what would seem to be about 20-25 minutes on his knees with his hands up (try praying that prayer out loud and see how long it took). It is curious to note that there was no instrumental "background" music mentioned as is common in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">UPCI</span> churches nowadays. There is no mention of others praying. In fact, the only one praying is Solomon. Why this is important to examine is that you will often see a benediction made before and after a service. This is what Solomon is doing. He is dedicating the Temple and asking a benediction on the people. This is not the kind of public prayer that goes on for 30 minutes to an hour in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">UPCI</span> churches before the "Song service". To use this passage as a basis for public prayer before church would be pretty silly, yet I've seen it done...<br /><br />Now we move on to Hannah: 1 Samuel 1:10-13. Hannah wants a son. More than anything. Just a little boy. So she, in her desperation, goes to the Temple to plead with God yet again. Note that only Eli is mentioned as being present, not a group of people. This hardly qualifies as public prayer, but I suppose it could be important to someone trying to build a house of straw. So look at one very important thing: according to verses 12 and 13, she was <span style="font-weight: bold;">praying silently</span>. Her lips moved but no sound came out. That kind of makes the passage useless as far as the public volume in prayer argument goes. Also note, due to her prayer and her vow, she got her boy, who just happens to be my favorite Prophet/Judge in the entire Bible.<br /><br />The next example I want to examine is 1 Kings 18:36-37. Here we read of Elijah praying to God to show His power to the people of Israel so that they would no longer be caught between two belief systems. This was not a time of preparing to serve and worship God or to get "in tune with the spirit". It would seem to be apparent that Elijah was very much already "in tune with the spirit" based on his lifestyle and authority with God. So, once again, not justification for public praying for a period of time before church.<br /><br />The last of the OT references that seem to bear on the matter is Ezra 9:1-10:1. We read of Ezra praying to God in a very public manner. The reason this cannot refer to public prayer as a habit is that the text is very clear that Ezra was confessing and asking for divine forgiveness on behalf of the people, not himself. He was told what they were doing, so he lamented and mourned and grieved and begged God to be merciful. Since he was asking God to withhold judgement for acts done in public, he made the prayer public in the presence of the transgressors. That doesn't fit the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">UPCI</span> church service model one bit.<br /><br />As we move into the NT, we see that Jesus prayed publicly on 3 occasions that are significant to the discussion: When He raised Lazarus; when He took Peter, James, and John to the garden; and when He was on the Cross.<br />At the first example He was doing 2 things. First, He was training His disciples to understand that all power comes from God. Second, He was making very public that He was calling on the power of the Israelite God, and not doing it through sorcery or witchcraft.<br />For the second example, I would like to point out some things that are important. We so often miss the sorrow and emotional distress that Jesus Christ felt. He knew He was about to die. He knew He would endure terrible torments and physical harm. He knew that He would suffer this at the hands of the very people He was trying to reach for. In light of this, if you were going to go pray for strength from God, wouldn't you want your closest friends <span style="font-weight: bold;">that you had spent 3 1/2 years in continual close personal contact with </span>at your side? Of course you would. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">No one</span> wants to be alone the night before they die. This wasn't a regular habitual <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">occurrence</span>. This was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of almighty God asking for a reprieve but also preparing Himself to suffer as God saw fit. Also, note that they stayed back while Jesus went to pray a small distance away.<br />The last example is pretty clearly a singularly once in all of history <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">occurrence</span>. '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Nuff</span> said.<br /><br />The rest of the examples of Jesus praying were all by himself, or giving a benediction to a group of people, or training His 12 disciples.<br /><br />There are other examples in the NT of group prayer, but you always find a specific cause or reason that they are praying together for a very specific thing. Not the general purpose of getting "in tune" with God.<br /><br />We are called to be instant in season and out, and should not need 30 minutes or more of prayer before a service to try and "rid ourselves of the daily grind". If we are truly walking with God, and in the will of God, and in the Spirit of God, then we should be prepared to worship, to hear, to move at His desire without getting on our knees in a public meeting hall and saying the same repetitive things over and over and over and over ad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">nauseum</span>. I can't convey, in text, the annoyance I feel when I hear someone say "Thank you Jesus, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Hallelujah</span>, Praise God" etc over and over and over for 30 minutes or more straight. It's even worse when they do it at high volume every service for years at a time (I thank all the people that prayed quietly in your chairs and pews over the years, and apologize to you for the times I didn't). It's just clock punching to please the whim of a man that thinks that's what the Bible says to do.<br /><br />Prayer for the most part is personal. Worship should be public. Prayer can be public when there is a specific reason such as benedictions. Those are 3 very different things and you should be keeping them as such. If the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">UPCI</span> really feels the need to rev people up for 30 minutes and then jump pews for 30 minutes, why not just skip the prayer and have a 1 hour worship service? I dare say your services will be more lively...<br /><br />God Bless ALL His ChildrenJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-9547689911089739512009-09-11T16:07:00.002-06:002009-09-11T16:40:49.461-06:00All I can say is hahahahahahahaI am still laughing because this was hysterical. I just got a phone call from my wife. This is rich...seriously. So, as most of the readers of this blog know, my wife and I left a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UPCI</span> "church" earlier this year. About the same time (a bit before but not much) another young lady stopped attending. Well today she was told by a current member of that "congregation" that this person couldn't "in good conscience" hang out with her or be her friend (I paraphrased that FYI but after she and her boyfriend have dinner with us tomorrow I may edit it to put the actual quotes in for fun). The reason given: (here's the hilarious part) because she "associates" with my wife and I <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">lol</span>. Apparently, they seem to think that I'm the devil incarnate (hang on, gotta wipe my eyes <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">lol</span>), and that I will somehow through a weird Legalistic-Ritualistic-Pentecostal-Messed-Up-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Un</span>-Biblical-Logic-Chain transfer this devilishness to her and she will transfer it to them and they will infect others and we'll all be infected with a spiritual STD of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">satanistic</span> beliefs.<br /><br />I'm serious. This really is great...I needed a laugh to end my work week. So, I figured I'd spend 5 minutes (it really won't take long to rip apart yet another bunch of garbage coming out of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Modalist</span> organization) showing why they are in error yet again :D. I would like to know just one place in the NT where Jesus ever avoided someone that He knew to be of the devil. He didn't. Not even the pharisees. The only time He ever walked away was when they tried to take <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">hold</span> of Him to kill Him and that was AFTER He had (yet again) showed them their errors. He could have ran and hid and said nope...can't talk to you....but He didn't. So, if the Spirit of Jesus is living in these deluded people's (I wanted to say something mean but God said no) minds then why are they afraid to hang out with people that hang out with someone these people call a devil? Shouldn't they embody the word "Christian" (which means Christ-like) and just come cast the devil out of me? And then cast it out of everyone I ever talk to or associate with? And then everyone they associate with? And so on and so on.<br /><br />Nope, they are like the pharisee in the temple that said "Thank you Lord that I'm not a sinner like homeboy over there" and strutted away with his nose in the air quite self assured that he was doing God a favour. We are all (I hope) aware which one the Bible says was justified... The difference between me and this group of people is that I am willing to admit that I don't know everything and they aren't. They say they don't, but then hold forth at great length until "the Spirit tells them" it's time to be done. Apparently the "Spirit" can see people are yawning just as easy as they can... Any church that sets itself up as "the only church in town" (yep...exactly that, said, repeatedly, over the "pulpit") only proves that they are the pharisees that the early Christian church had to contend with. Especially when they spend hours and hours justifying standards and legalistic ritualistic requirements with OT laws and events.<br /><br />I have repeatedly (and do so yet again) challenged the man leading that group to get some gumption and write me an email to post on this blog so that he can attempt to prove me wrong. I put only four limitations on it: I won't post anything racist or <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">bigoted</span> (I will say this, he isn't racist in the least, he's very much against racism and I applaud that, but I will also not tolerate anything <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">bigoted</span> against a class of humanity and I want that clear at the outset), I won't post anything that is inflammatory (inflammatory defined as anything designed to rally people to a point of view or against a point of view by using anything OTHER THAN ORIGINAL DEFINITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXTS...I will accept Strong's Numbers as the definitive source if that is acceptable to him, or he can submit another source that I will have to examine first before agreeing or disagreeing), I won't post personal info about anyone as he seems to think that is worth attempting lawsuits over, and finally, I hold the condition that I will post (at great length I'm sure <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">lol</span>) in response to his email to show any and all errors that it may or may not contain (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">haha</span> pretty good job of being diplomatic on that part eh).<br /><br />God bless His children and I hope the rest of you learn who He really is.<br /><br /><br />PS I was originally going to post a bunch of videos regarding other organizations that are very similar in practice to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">UPCI</span> but this preempted it so I will post that later this weekend. :D I am planning on getting back into posting lots now that the summer is over.John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-14384931763188688002009-08-21T09:37:00.002-06:002009-08-21T09:42:31.755-06:00SummerWell, I haven't posted in almost 3 weeks (bad I know), but it's summer and life is busy so I have an excuse lol. I just wanted to post something I've been thinking about that always bothered me. According to a certain ex-pastor of mine, you aren't a real man until you go through labour with your wife when she's having a baby. This said multiple times over his "pulpit". My question then is thus: Does that mean Jesus and Paul were not "real men"? How about the rest of the Biblical Patriarchs that, historically according to custom, did not attend their wives during childbirth? Sounds like another instance of the Legalistic Pentecostal Cultish measuring stick that is never accurately and consistently applied.<br /><br />Have a great summer and God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-26286268537489433992009-08-03T18:55:00.002-06:002009-08-03T19:55:24.568-06:00Salvation - Can It Be Obtained Or Retained By Works?One of my pet peeves about the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UPCI</span> (and every other legalistic organization I've encountered) is that works are always taught as requirements of Salvation. The main examples of this are required baptism in Jesus name only, mandatory tithing of 10% of gross income (and usually required offerings too), mandatory attendance of services, and absolute compliance with a strict set of standards defining dress, conduct, even hair style.<br /><br />There are two issues with this and those are number one that the Bible says that our Salvation was paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross and is guaranteed for all that believe on Him, and number two that the standards required are flexible in certain circumstances.<br /><br />Let me elaborate: We were always taught that makeup was wrong because it meant you were trying to be seductive and fake like Jezebel in the Bible (side note: her intentions are not defined in the Bible when she dolled herself up, but legalistic cult leaders say she intended to seduce the man coming to kill her. But what's amusing about that belief is that makeup predated Jezebel by centuries, possibly a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">millennia</span>). However, the same people saying that mascara and lipstick, and rouge etc are bad, immoral, blah blah blah, don't mind when someone uses <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">cover up</span> to conceal a pimple, or <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">lip gloss</span> to make their lips shinier. Hypocrites. If you teach against artificial beautification, then you preach against it. Period. I don't buy for one second that the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">lip gloss</span> is to prevent dry lips....that's what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">blistex</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">chapstick</span> are for...and they don't make your lips shiny or a different colour.<br /><br />Dress standards were rigidly enforced EXCEPT if you were the pastor's son, daughter, wife. Or a new convert. The latter makes sense UNLESS you examine the fact that the rest of the congregation is taught NO <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">FREAKIN</span> PANTS ON WOMEN OR YOU'LL BURN!!! <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Ok</span>, so if I'm a woman (hypothetically) and I wear pants so I'm going to burn, then what's the difference between me and that lady over there? Not a thing in God's eyes. It's men that differentiate. And Men that create these ridiculous standards. I do disagree with pants on women for the most part, but seriously, if my wife was a nurse and had to climb up on a gurney to do CPR on some guy that just quit breathing, you can darn well believe that I prefer she be wearing a full length pair of loose fitting pants than a knee length skirt that some guy is going to look up. A full fitting pair of pants is far more modest than a great number of the skirts I see worn by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">UPCI</span> licensed pastor's wives and daughters.<br /><br />But that's all academic. Because John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son, that whosoever <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">believeth</span> in Him should not perish but have Everlasting life."<br /><br />John 11:25 "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">believeth</span> in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"<br /><br />John 7:37-39 "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">believeth</span> on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">receive</span>: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"<br /><br />Even Paul stressed faith and belief in God rather than works...and he was a Jew of the Jews. He was raised on the Law, yet he renounced it and actively <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">taught</span> against it, especially in the book of Hebrews.<br /><br />Yes there are fruits associated with the faithful, and there are things that someone who trusts in and believes in God will not do. But these do not buy, obtain, retain, or ensure Salvation. They are exhibited by those with true faith in God. They cannot be legislated by an organization or "Pastor". They must come from a sincere belief in God. Baptism does not buy Salvation...it is caused by Salvation. Modesty and humility do not cause salvation...they are fruits of it. Tithing and church attendance do not bring blessing...they are the result of blessings brought by faith in God.<br /><br />The fallacious statement by a pastor that he has to "force people into blessings" is ridiculous. It's the self-righteous, arrogant, selfish statement of a man that enjoys power and authority. True belief in Jesus Christ will bring the fruits that these people try to legislate. It will also bring freedom to live with peace and joy and harmony.<br /><br />Legalistic organizations sneeringly refer to this as easy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">believism</span>. So, the question I want to end with is this: Is it easier to believe that God came as a man to earth 2000 years ago and lived and died to buy our salvation and we must believe? Or to follow the lead of some self-proclaimed midlife "elder" (pastor) that says he will lead us to heaven, and abdicate our own responsibility to search the scripture? Haven't we heard of these types of things before? Waco? Hale-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Bopp</span>? Which is easier?<br /><br />God Bless YouJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-2354912179450539522009-08-02T23:18:00.007-06:002009-08-05T09:58:35.321-06:00Still No Attempt To Reach For My Wife Or MyselfThe following is a writing by my wife that she wanted posted on here. She also asked that I comment on it and why it was written. That will be found after her writing.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I'm just so very angry and sad right now. I'm angry at the people who profess to love God, but then turn their backs. I'm angry that the pastor I loved, respected, and obeyed turned his back on me when I needed his counsel(1) most. Also even though none of my fellow saints were not directly told to avoid or shun me, it had been implied many times over the pulpit. I can't even be considered one of the lost they claim they are desperately trying to save. I am "backslid", and going to burn, unless I beg forgiveness of my "pastor".<br /><br />Mat 18:12. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">goeth</span> into the mountains, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">seeketh</span> that which is gone astray?<br />13. And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">rejoiceth</span> more of that [sheep], than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.<br /><br />It is much easier for them to sit on their spiritual high horses, and poke fun....(cause Jesus did that all the time), than to actually admit that they might be wrong, or not have the answers.<br /><br />I may not be right, but I am unwilling to be spoon fed twisted teachings from a church who expects strict compliance to standards of a man. I am not satisfied to be told that I don't have enough of a prayer life, or faith, or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">spiritualness</span> because I come with questions that appear to be contrary to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">UPC's</span> doctrine. At least the writer of this blog is doing some homework, and coming up with some answers. That is more than I can say for the limp <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">wristed</span> attempt of a so-called “pastor” who in my opinion did nothing more than tuck tail and run.<br /><br /><br />(Editor's note: I made the following change to the above - (1) changed "council" to "counsel". The rest is the writing of my wife in it's entirety.)<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />My wife and I left a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">UPCI</span> congregation in May of 2009. I have posted on that previously, and am not going into the details that caused it here. However, my wife has gone through much more than I since the break, as I was preparing for it far earlier than she was. It's true that she left of her own choice, and, in her words: "Because I won't sit and listen to all the crap they will say about you after you leave".<br /><br />I had of course informed her I was leaving, and why. As well, I agreed to stay until after a women's conference she wanted to attend, and so we set the date a little later than my original intentions of mid-April. However, it was the women's conference that cemented in her the desire to leave. Two things <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">occurred</span> that caused this: first, all the men in the church were repeatedly told over the pulpit that this was a girl's trip only, no men. That was no issue until my wife found out that the very man making those pronouncements had intended to drive the van the women were taking down to the conference. The intentions were no doubt honourable, but <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">definitely</span> not in line with what the rest of us were being told. She was a little perturbed by that.<br /><br />The second thing that happened was that at the conference, a woman got up and spent most of a service teaching on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">UPCI</span> standards of holiness and separation. Bear in mind that this was an audience comprised of 99.9999% <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">UPCI</span> women that already knew the standards and lived them in all the self-righteous arrogance that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">UPCI</span> is known for. My wife said there was one visitor she noticed that was obviously not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">UPCI</span> as the attire she was in was not what would be normally observed in such a setting. It was this that really offended my wife. Here they are, all proud of their standards and how much God loves them because of their standards, and a lady in the crowd is totally out of place and being forced to see it. How christian of them.<br /><br />Of course, this was what caused my wife to leave. What has caused her to stay away, is outlined in the paragraphs she wrote above. Since leaving, she has witnessed (from a distance) the exact behavior she knew would come. She found some videos on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Facebook</span> that apparently make fun of me and my blog. Instead of showing compassion and reaching for her, the members and leadership of that cult have distanced themselves, ignored her, and ridiculed everything she and I have discovered about the truth. This was precisely what I told her would happen, and I pointed her in the direction of a website (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">spiritualabuse</span>.org) that <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">specifically</span> deals with people leaving the legalism and works-based Salvation of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">UPCI</span>.<br /><br />She finally had enough and decided she wanted to "rant" a little. So she did. Her goal, as expressed to me, is to make a statement, to vent, and to possibly help someone else that goes through the same deal someday. Her hope is that others will someday see that there is a better life <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">available</span> to those that trust in God....which leads directly into the post I was planning on doing today.<br /><br />God Bless YouJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-49829065150776624582009-07-28T08:55:00.004-06:002009-08-02T23:18:04.072-06:00Acts 2:38 ... At LastWell, I've been totally distracted from my original research into Acts 2:38 by a great number of topics that are related to each other and stem from the study of this verse. Because I want to post on those other topics though, I feel I need to get Acts 2:38 dealt with. In the context of this blog, namely to disseminate the heretical teachings of cultist, legalistic organizations, this verse is important in that it is the absolute basis of ALL <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UPCI</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">salvational</span> teachings. It is used to state that God is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">modalist</span> and that His name is Jesus (period), that baptism in that name is mandatory and required for salvation, and that the believer will receive the Holy Ghost the same way and with the same manifestations the Apostles did earlier. Of course, as any student of the Bible will tell you, you simply cannot use one verse of scripture as the fundamental basis of your doctrine. You absolutely MUST use the entire canon of scripture to support your belief.<br /><br />It should be mentioned here that I do not deny the accuracy, potency, and efficacy of Acts 2:38 in reference to the audience that heard it. However, I also ascribe it no greater value than any other scripture in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16).<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">ACTS 2:38 WAS TO THE JEWS</span><br />Acts 2:38 is an answer to a very specific question by a very specific group of people. In Acts chapter 2, Peter is delivering a sermon to a group of people composed (arguably) exclusively of Jews. There is no reason to believe or state that there were gentiles present at this "conference". This is important because it sets the stage for Peter's entire address, and he even makes reference to it when defining his audience in verses 14 and 22. This passage of scripture is the first time post-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">resurrection</span> that the Disciples of Jesus appeared as a unified whole before the Jews. Up till this point we read where they were scattered and fearful, but with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, they gained the confidence of belief and experience. Peter stands up (with the rest of the Disciples) and begins to expound to the incredulous Jewish multitude that this is, in fact, of God. He then gives a scriptural history of Christ, and then (very politely really) tells them they murdered the Messiah.<br /><br />It is at this point they become "pricked in their hearts". When the question is asked in verse 37 "Men and <span style="font-weight: bold;">brethren</span> what shall we do?" (emphasis mine) they are asking as a NATION which is evidenced by their askance as a whole, exclusive group: Brethren. They were not asking simply as humanity, they were asking as the chosen people of God. The laws of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics require that context and audience be included in all understanding of scripture, and this is no exception. The Jews understood (rightfully) that they were a nation set apart and chosen by God. To them, there was no reason to believe or expect that Peter was talking to Gentiles, nor would Peter have felt a need to discuss the requirements for Gentiles with the Jews present.<br /><br />It also bears mentioning that Peter was not <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">necessarily</span> thinking about the Gentile nations at this point. When the Holy Ghost was poured out on Gentiles later in Acts, Peter was a bit surprised himself. He knew that God had promised it, but he still seems to have not been expecting it. So when he was speaking to a group of Jews mere minutes or hours after the Holy Ghost was first given, there is absolutely no way to support a belief that he was speaking to the entirety of humanity throughout thousands of years to come.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">REPENTANCE</span><br />Legalistic organizations use the reference to repentance in verse 38 to say that you must give up all your sinful ways, and then go on to define what is sin...often with absolutely no regard for scripture or, more specifically, a complete lack of scripture to support their definitions. For instance, you can't drink even a drop of alcoholic beverage because the Bible says so. But wait, you can't smoke a nice cigar either...and God Forbid you wear a pair of shorts!!! However, they use cough syrup when they're ill (I assume they discourage <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">robo</span>-tripping though I've never heard it specifically taught on), they commute on major freeways through large cities where the toxin level in the air far exceeds that of a cigarette or cigar...and they even inhale while they drive (you don't inhale a cigar...that would hurt a fair bit), and they allow their women to wear skirts that are below the knee in length but are so tight they leave absolutely nothing to the imagination...except maybe the colour of thong underneath).<br /><br />What does all this have to do with repentance in Acts 2:38? Peter was telling an entire nation that they needed to call on God for repentance and forgiveness of the sins of murder and unbelief. He had already told them in verse 21 that if they called on the name of the Lord (he was quoting OT scriptural prophecy) they would be saved. In verse 38 he reiterates it at their request, and gets more specific.<br /><br />What legalistic cults never see, is that these were DEVOUT JEWS (verse 5) that lived according to the law of Moses, and as such, were not given to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">hedonistic</span> lifestyles and practices. These were Jews that were against all manner of sin and abhorred what the other nations considered common. The reason they were upset was because they realized they had broken two of the greatest commandments of the OT: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and Thou shalt not commit murder. To them, these were incredible breaches of the scripture, and they were saddened and fearful. Peter told them they had to repent of the old ways of living by the law, and of the old thought patterns that led to their disobedience.<br /><br />Does repentance still apply to the believer today? Of course! We still must repent of our old thought patterns and selfish ways of life, and we must accept our own responsibility for the death of Jesus as we are sinful in nature. Does this mean that Acts 2:38 applies to us? Not necessarily.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME</span><br />The Jews had just crucified Jesus Christ less than 2 months prior to the events in Acts 2. It was fresh enough in their collective <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">consciousness</span> to be remembered with clarity, but distant enough that they could look on it objectively. They had believed, up until this point, that they were right in what they did, and had most likely begun to rationalize and justify the action. When confronted by the miraculous works done by the Disciples in Acts 2, as well as Peter's assertion of Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, they were shocked into a place of receptiveness. It is at this point that Peter tells them they must be baptized in the name of the very person they had crucified. There is more to this seemingly simple command than meets the eye however.<br /><br />To the Jews, being baptized in any name other than that of Jehovah would be sacrilege or blasphemy UNLESS they identified this other name as being of God. Jesus said that if any were ashamed of Him before men, He would be ashamed of them before His Father in heaven, and thus implies that any who are ashamed of being identified with Him on earth will not live eternally with Him in heaven. When Peter told these devout Jews to be baptized and therefore publicly identified with Jesus, he was putting them in a position where they couldn't sit on the fence and play both sides. They were required to prove that they believed and had repented by doing something that went against everything they had believed prior.<br /><br />All this DOES NOT make baptism a requirement for everyone. It was only required of the Jews, and can be argued that it only applied to those present. To make it a requirement of salvation requires other scriptures that simply do not support it as an absolute. Jesus said "He that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">believeth</span> and is baptised shall be saved, he that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">believeth</span> not shall be damned." This scripture would appear to place far more emphasis on the necessity of belief than that of baptism. Further, in Acts Chapter 10, the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles BEFORE they were baptised, and in Acts 15:9 Peter says their hearts were purified by FAITH, not baptism. In Acts 10, Peter commanded them to be baptised after they received the Holy Ghost, but did not preach it as a commandment or a requirement for RECEIVING the Holy Ghost. So we see that it is a proper WORK of the believer, but does not in any way affect salvation, as salvation is not procured through works. If someone receives the Holy Ghost and dies before they can be taught about baptism or before it can be performed, there is no scriptural evidence to support the belief that they are lost.<br /><br />So back to the text: Peter was making it a commandment to those hearing the sermon, and, by extension, to the Jewish nation. He did not preach it to the gentiles as a requirement, only as a post-salvation work of belief.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE PROMISE IN ACTS 2:39</span><br />In verse 39, Peter says the following: "For the Promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Many <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">modalist</span>, legalistic cults use this verse to justify the universal application of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">preceding</span> verse. To do so however, you must ignore two very <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">important</span> grammatical constructions in the sentence:<br />-1st, it starts with the word "for"...this word means "because", not "because of". He is saying that the Jews have been given the opportunity for Salvation because the Promise is universal...not that the Promise is to everyone because of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">preceding</span> sentence.<br />-2<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">nd</span>, the word "Promise" is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">preceded</span> by the definite article, not by the word "this". The distinction is very big, because "The Promise" refers to the universal promise of Salvation, where "This Promise" would refer to the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">preceding</span> verse as the Promise, which we know grammatically is not correct.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SUMMATION</span><br />Acts 2 does not require baptism for Salvation in any permanent way. Ignoring the arguments about the usage of plurals and tenses in the original <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">greek</span>, it can be easily shown that verse 38 is not setting a pattern of required WORKS for salvation, but rather outlining what Peter felt led to tell the Jews present. Yes, baptism is a correct thing for a believer to do. Yes I believe that if you refuse to be baptized after the scriptural evidence is presented, then there are obvious questions as to why you would refuse. But No I do not believe or agree that you go to hell if you are not baptized. It simply cannot be shown. Even Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 states he baptized only three people. In that case, how could he be fulfilling the duties and requirements of salvation for those people? The answer is that he didn't consider baptism essential. I'll take his word and example over that of a legalistic, cultish dictatorany day.<br /><br />God Bless You<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span><span><span>PS I encourage you to check out the references when I include them because they often contain additional info and other points of view. I want people to discover the Bible for themselves, and the only way to do that is to study and discover things. I also sometimes include opposing viewpoints (such as the christiancourier.com one) so that the differences are easy to identify and refute.</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br />REFERENCES</span></span><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>http://www.letusreason.org/OCC12.htm<br /></span></span><span><span>http://www.letusreason.org/OCC15.htm</span></span><br /><span><span>http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/acts2.html<br />http://www.carm.org/christianity/baptism/baptism-and-acts-238<br />http://www.gospeloutreach.net/neginf.html<br />http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Act&chapter=2&verse=38<br />http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/77-acts-2-38-not-so-tough<br /><br /></span></span>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-8732313718166542612009-07-16T21:25:00.003-06:002009-07-17T12:14:39.737-06:00The Hypocrisy of Cultist AuthorityI was at lunch with my wife today and two things came to mind that were said and done in a previous cult we attended: 1st, the "pastor" got up after a conference and stated "Shepherds don't beget sheep, sheep do. If a shepherd did, it would be an abomination." on the face of it, he's right. But in the context he said it, he's wrong. What he was teaching on was outreach by the church, and likening himself to the shepherd and therefore stating it isn't his calling to convert everyone, but rather the "sheep" in his cult. I'll examine that a bit later.<br /><br />The next thing that happened was he started having everyone in his church watch a series of DVDs that were recorded of and by a "pastor" in the USA that has apparently (I have no reason to doubt this claim) converted thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of people to the UPCI in different cities. The series was on how to teach a Home Bible Study using a specific study guide.<br /><br />The problem with this is that our former pastor states that it is an abomination for a "shepherd" (read pastor in the UPCI allegory) to beget sheep, then commends another "pastor" for doing just that and holds this man up as an example. Now, I agree that a single person converting thousands of people to a belief system is impressive and takes a lot of work. I even grant an amount of admiration for the man's dedication and passion. I disagree with his fundamental doctrines, but I admire the Mormon missionaries as well for giving a portion of their life freely, but I disagree with them too.<br /><br />But admiration for passion does not change what was said and done. So I have to ask the question: If it's an abomination to do something, then why would you commend someone for doing it? There's many things labelled as abominations in the Bible, but we don't commend those things. So then I started thinking about why he would do these two things, and I believe I came up with the solution: In the Bible, there are places where the calling of Pastor/Deacon/Elder is synonymous with things like Shepherd and Doctor, but it isn't stated that they are literally those things. The problem that arises in a cultist atmosphere is that the "authority" takes on themselves the authority and position of God, rather than the actual position they are to be in, namely, a fellow laborer with ALL of God's people, not just the other elitist authority figures.<br /><br />Growing up in the UPCI, it was always weird to me that when we went to camp meeting, the ministers all ate in a separate room in the cafeteria with a closed in door. As well, they were to be ushered to the front of the line when it was meal time etc. Now, I know the Bible talks about honour where it's due and all, but Jesus made it clear that the apostles were to wash each others feet, and that commandment was extended to the rest of the brethren as the Church grew. Jesus also said that the greatest among the brethren was to be a servant. How then do you justify the elevation and segregation of the "ministry" to a place where they are not ministering to people, but rather being worshipped as greater than the rest of the Church? I was at a conference about a year and a half ago (UPCI), and there was a special dinner for the ministry and their families. It was not open to the rest of the church, and when I went in to ask my now ex-pastor something rather urgent regarding his children and a youth event, I was informed by a bystander that I wasn't supposed to be there. This person didn't know me or why I was there, and yet was arrogant enough to tell me to leave. What if I was a homeless person desperate for a meal? I was just kicked out of a meal where, supposedly, a whole bunch of "ministers" would have had an opportunity to minister to someone.<br /><br />Many of the so-called ministry in cultist organizations are hell-bent on living a higher standard than the people "below" them, and even justify this by saying that they have a right to so that everyone knows they're "blessed" (one man apparently said that he should have TWO CADILLACS to prove God's blessing on him...wow), and that because they spend time in prayer and fasting and Bible study to preach, they should be honoured. But wait, there's more: Paul said that they have a right to be sustained by the offerings of the Church. So now, they want to be sustained by your tithes (see a previous post on that one), eat separately because they are apparently above you (seems a lot like what God condemned Peter for regarding eating with Gentiles), and not be required to convert the lost as they are "Shepherds" (many still do which is hilarious in light of the statement about abominations).<br /><br />Let's turn it around: If a sheep goes and finds a goat (or any non-sheep animal), and brings it back to the flock and makes it look like a sheep, is it a sheep? Heck no! It's a goat! So then now we have sheep deceiving the shepherd!!! The only one that can beget sheep is Jesus Christ, the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lamb</span>. It's our lifestyle and testimony and freedom that will witness to people, not our status in a cult.<br /><br />A true Elder/Shepherd/Pastor/Deacon would never want to be elevated and honoured in such a way. He would be embarrassed and refuse the attention as the only one worth honouring is God. Even Jesus Himself said there is none good but God, deflecting the statement made by the rich young ruler. Paul, the greatest apostle, said that "in me dwelleth no good thing". The Bible says to pray for our leaders. It does not say they are to receive preferential treatment.<br /><br />If you are in an organization like this, you are in nothing more than an elitist, Pharisaical, un-Biblical cult. I hope this helps you understand why so much seems wrong in many UPCI "churches".<br /><br />God bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-64819636729152574202009-07-12T08:22:00.002-06:002009-07-12T09:24:16.807-06:00The Ten Commandments and CultsAbout 8 months ago, I realized that I was praying for the wrong things in life. I was in a pattern of breaking the legalistic rules of a cult I was in, and then getting down on my knees and asking for forgiveness from God, and getting up only to inevitably fail again. I was always confused as to why it was impossible to keep all these rules that were set when it was "obvious" that everyone else was keeping them. Then I learned the truth. I found a forum online where ex-UPCI (for the most part...there are people from other legalistic organizations on there as well) members talk and post about things that bothered them while in the UPCI, as well as what they have learned from leaving and so forth. It was quite enlightening to realize that I wasn't the only one on the planet that had this problem. <br /><br />Upon realizing and seeing all this, I went through something that I had always talked about but never experienced...I thought I had experienced it, but nope...sure hadn't: My eyes opened. I began to see some things that simply didn't add up. I was in a legalistic cult that didn't obey the Ten Commandments, and most certainly didn't obey the commandments Jesus gave, namely, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." and "Love your neighbour as yourself." (Matthew 22:36-40 is the reading for this).<br /><br />James said that the law was a yoke that our fathers couldn't bear, and then proceeded to state the four things that the gentiles were bound to.<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>This passage states several things:<br /><br />-First off, James states that we are not to be bound by the laws of the "religious elite" because we couldn't keep up with them before Christ and we won't be able to now. So he makes it clear that the phariseeical attitude is not welcome in God's kingdom.<br />-Second, he states 4 things that are common in that day and age, and that are unacceptable to God. 2 of them are still pretty common nowadays, but the blood and things strangled aren't in our culture. There was a practice in those days of drinking blood in pagan religious ceremonies that we don't face a whole lot of today. I am aware that there are some small satanist cults in North America that practice this, but it is not mainstream and, for the most part, goes unnoticed by society. James also sets a constraint against strangled meat as the blood is still in it and this is another of the pagan witchcraft practices.<br />-He then states that Moses is taught in the synagogues everywhere as it is, and the new converts don't need further condemnation brought on them by people that are well-meaning but wrong.<br />-Lastly, the apostles condemn and disown those that told the newly saved gentiles that they had to keep the law. It is clear from the original text that the gentiles were saved by faith in the blood of Jesus, and the grace of God. Therefore, the apostles had no wish to cancel out the wondrous work of God in the gentile nations. It is important to note that the law was only given to the Israelites...not to other nations. As well, it was not given in the beginning to Adam and Eve, therefore is not incumbent upon all humanity. We must always remember that the Old Testament is mostly a history of the Israelites and points to the Cross as the place where the old would be replaced by a new and better covenant.<br /><br />With all this in mind, I woke up this morning with something bothering me in no small way. 8 months ago I asked God to show me the truth about Him, and about right and wrong. Well, He is. The Ten Commandments are fairly well known, and the one that really bothered me this morning was "Thou shalt not steal". The reason it is bothering me is because of software and music piracy by people claiming to be living for God. Software and music piracy are defined as "the taking and using of copyrighted or patented material without authorization or without the legal right to do so" (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/piracy.html). In short, software and music piracy are the THEFT of the intellectual property of someone else. I brought this up once while still attending a UPCI cult, and was scoffed at by a member of the "pastor's" family. The attitude was that "we are not of this world and not bound by it's laws". The actual statement that was made is: "It's only spiritual jaywalking so who cares?" Well let me put this in perspective: If I write a book, then someone else plagiarizes it, they cn be put in jail as well as sued civilly. If I steal your car, then I'm going to jail. If your neighbour comes over and takes your lawnmower out of your shed without your permission, and uses it to cut his lawn, he can be charged with trespassing as well as theft. Theft is theft.<br /><br />The FBI actually had to create an entire task force dedicated to the fight against the piracy of music, motion pictures, and software. The RCMP has a parallel task force. In Britain, the police have a similar setup. This isn't "spiritual jaywalking", it's a flagrant breaking of one of God's moral standards, and even goes against what He said in person in Matthew: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 22:39) and likens to the commandment to love God with all your heart soul and mind. This puts great emphasis on what we call the "golden rule". As well, the Bible tells us to obey the laws of our country as long as they don't break the laws of God. So if you break a law, you just rebelled against the Bible.<br /><br />I guess in summation I will say this: I don't pirate software, music, or motion pictures. I have in the past, and this morning I repented of it. I am deleting and destroying anything I find that is pirated, and I suggest that you do the same. I thank God for His mercy and love.'<br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-27760759568856676472009-07-07T20:30:00.004-06:002009-07-07T20:56:17.676-06:00The Thieves On The CrossI was reading about baptism today specifically relating to the thief that asked for eternal life on the cross versus the one that didn't. I was reminded of a statement made by a former pastor of mine over the pulpit: "Was Jesus stating that the thief would be saved? or sarcastically throwing it in his face?" The argument was that because the thief had railed against Christ, that Jesus may have been scorning this man and that the verse could have been a rhetorical question based in sarcasm. If you end the verse with a question mark, it becomes a question that would seem to indicate that Jesus was telling the man that He (Jesus) would be in paradise, but He wouldn't be seeing the thief there.<br /><br />But let's examine the scripture: Luke 23:32-43<br />"32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.<br />33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.<br />34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.<br />36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,<br />37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.<br />38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.<br />39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.<br />40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?<br />41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.<br />42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.<br />43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."<br /><br />If you notice, the thief doesn't rail on Jesus, but in fact REBUKES the other thief. Then he makes an honest confession and acceptance of responsibility. Also notice that he doesn't ask for earthly deliverance as the other thief demands as a sign, but rather asks for eternal hope...something requiring faith in Jesus as God. Also notice that the signs that accompanied Christ's death on the cross that so affected the Centurion have not happened yet, so the thief has no earthly sign to motivate him.<br /><br />Thus, Jesus accepts the prayer as sincere and honest and grants the fellow forgiveness...something He had done in the past with others and SOMETHING HE HAD JUST FINISHED PRAYING THE FATHER FOR IN REGARDS TO THOSE THAT CRUCIFIED HIM. He doesn't ask the thief what his theological views are, whether or not he's been baptized, or even whether he understands God. He simply says YES. This is the God of mercy that died on the cross.<br /><br />I read a paper on a website that deals with whether or not salvation can be had without baptism, and this was one of the scriptures they used. They basically said that the man MAY have been baptized by John, and so had that part of the "Plan of Salvation" covered. But I ask this: if, as according to them, he was baptized by John, and John's baptism was temporary and only in effect during his life and the life of Jesus (they set two different limits depending where they are in the article....typical), then the thief would have been lost the instant that Jesus died on the cross as John the Baptist was already dead and beheaded. The baptism would have been out of force.<br /><br />However, if we recognize that this apparent vagueness only exists in the English as a cultish, fear mongering, power hungry attempt to induce people to believe a heresy regarding water baptism, then we can see that the original Greek never has this problem. Those verses in the original Greek do not offer the possibility of changing punctuation to fit your mood. It's just another example of UPCI buffet Bible church mentality that is so damaging to those seeking the true God.<br /><br />Rightly divide the word people; don't accept some self-proclaimed "pastor's" nonsense and let him put questions in your mind about the abundant mercy and grace of our Lord and Saviour.<br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-48929767770120336972009-07-01T18:48:00.005-06:002009-07-07T13:27:33.274-06:00Leavng a CultI am not posting on a specific scripture today, but, rather, a collection of thoughts I've had and statements made by people both in and out of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UPCI</span>. I don't honestly think that someone that has never lived, breathed, and absolutely believed in a belief system created by, and propagated by a cult can ever truly understand the complexity of emotions and feelings that a person leaving such an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">organization</span> feels. Having been born and raised in a cult, I was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">indoctrinated</span> from the very earliest possible days, with teachings and beliefs that go against everything the Bible says. Yes the Bible is the reference that was used, but in a twisted, non-Christian way.<br /><br />As children, we were taught that we were going to hell (which is true) and that we had to receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (absolute perfect statement of what the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">UPCI</span> teaches). The problem with this is that we were taught the judgement and fear of God before we were taught the mercy and grace of God. This, coupled with the constant repetition of the impending return of Christ, creates a spirit and feeling of abject terror in the mind of a young child. Instead of fearing the monster in the closet, a child fears Jesus Christ Himself as the harbinger of eternal damnation. I can remember waking up in absolute terror that the trumpet had rang because we lived beside a highway when I was young and, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">occasionally</span>, a truck would blow the air horn at an animal in the road.<br /><br />Even church wasn't a pleasurable or exciting experience to be looked forward to, because I knew that I would be reminded of what was waiting for me when God came back. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">UPCI</span> pastor would talk about repentance and damnation without ever mentioning the word mercy. I can count on one hand the times I heard messages by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">UPCI</span> preachers that were about God's grace and mercy without the inevitable stick of God's wrath and judgement. God was inevitably portrayed as the line in the movie Dogma says: a guy that lives thousands of miles away and is just waiting for us to do something wrong so He can spank us.<br /><br />When I finally experienced the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">UPCI</span>" salvation, I was 14 years old, and I can remember thinking only hours later "there has to be more". I had been given an expectation of exceeding joy and peace and absolute empowerment that didn't click at that point. I spent the next 3 1/2 years attempting to live the teachings, standards, and beliefs of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">UPCI</span>, but without success. I was always on this never ending treadmill of sinning-repenting-sinning-repenting-repeat ad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">nauseum</span>. To top it off, doctrines would change, standards would be loosened in some areas, tightened in others, and the pastor's family did things that were obviously against scriptures in the Bible (gossip, tale bearing, railing accusations without evidence, all out hypocrisy). In a situation like that, how do you know what's right and wrong?<br /><br />My wife was raised <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">LDS</span> and she once said to me (about that cult): "If new revelations to the prophet do away with other revelations and scriptures, then how do you ever have assurance of salvation because the standard can change at any time?" The same can be said about the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">UPCI</span> in that the "standard" changes from church to church, minister to minister, and even year to year under the same pastor in a church. I can give names of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">UPCI</span> licensed ministers that set standards of dress as heaven or hell (everything is heaven or hell in a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">UPCI</span> church because the pastor is the law and if you disobey him you are rebellious etc) and then changed those standards when their children grew up, when their wives put pressure on them, and even when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">circumstance</span> forced them to do something against their own standard. These men then ended up looking silly and the people in their churches were still expected to obey and take everything they said as gospel truth. I can talk about men that preach that we are to hold fast what they teach us as "their" saints using the references of 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Timothy 1:12-14, but who also hold teachings contrary to what they were taught by their own pastors. If we are supposed to believe everything we are taught by these men, but they can't keep their family in line with the Bible and don't teach what they were taught (the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">UPCI</span> claims to be the original church but their doctrines change from generation to generation...), then how do they justify even getting in the pulpit?<br /><br />So being raised in this with the fear of judgement and the belief that we have to hold all the standards of men has left a very bitter taste in my mouth...especially when the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">organization</span> I was raised in can't even agree among themselves as to what the standards should be. Since leaving, my wife and I have tolerated the comments and judgements of wilfully misled reprobates that refuse to acknowledge the Bible as the ultimate authority, preferring to accept the word of man as larger than the word of God. It's funny that people who have never attended a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">UPCI</span> church are far more tolerant and Christian (in the true sense of the word, not just self proclaimed) than the people that claimed to be our spiritual "family". These people my wife and I proclaimed as wrong and misled and deluded while we were in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">UPCI</span> have been incredibly kind and forgiving even when we were still saying they were going to hell. They have shown incredible grace and compassion to us in spite of the judgement we heaped on them.<br /><br />I was recently accused in a text from my ex-pastor's son (pray for him, he's a very nice young man) of having a very "critical spirit". I had sent him a couple texts trying to be friendly and was rebuffed. It's funny that a member of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">UPCI</span> church would accuse me of being critical in light of what goes on in their "services" every week. It's true, I am very critical of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">UPCI</span>. I have been for quite some time, even while I was still attending one. I had planned on leaving back in January/February, but my wife wanted to stay for a couple conferences and I was hoping that the one conference we went to would renew my faith and show me where I was wrong. So we waited till May to leave, but I was already studying and preparing for the day we left. I learned the critical attitude (one that I now have to pray about almost constantly) from listening to my pastors and other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">UPCI</span> ministers at conferences and in "revivals". They constantly belittle and deride every other non-Jesus-only <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">organization</span> on the planet as deluded and false. I agree that there are many <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">organizations</span> that are heretical, but there are many many more within the Christian body that aren't. So when that critical attitude was turned against them and their extra-Biblical standards, why were they so upset?<br /><br />I use scriptural exegesis and logic to show what is wrong with what they teach. I don't just spout off, but I actually examine what scriptures they use in light of the context and other parallel passages. My grandma called me the other night (she's been a huge mainstay in all this for me, and she reads all my posts so HEY GRANDMA, I LOVE YOU :D) and left me a message that said "criticism is the price we pay for moving out of mediocrity". It's true. Whenever someone leaves a false church to find God for real, they have to endure (pretty easy once you get past it) the criticism of people still in that false belief. There are snide comments, arrogant remarks, and the attempt to put down where you are in life. It's funny because they often refer to a "backslider" as a prodigal son, but instead of eagerly looking for the return of that person like the dad in the story, they criticize and attack them.<br /><br />I was once asked by a member of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">UPCI</span> church how I "jump into God's lap so easy". As far back as I can remember, I have been totally in love with God and He is everything I want in life. I have always found it easier than some people seemed to, to talk to God and spend time with Him. There is really nothing more satisfying to me than to talk to God and know He is near. So many times I have been in tough situations in life and just talked to God while going through my day and seen those situations completely resolved within days. It's awesome. I have been so grateful over the past many months that when I asked God to show me the truth, He took me on a roller coaster ride of discovery to bring me to where I am now.<br /><br />My grandma's pastor said something to me on Sunday when we were passing by about not finding fault. He's right, and I am trying to find the line between finding fault with people, and pointing out and proclaiming <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">hypocritical</span> false doctrine. If I cross the line sometimes, please forgive me in a Christian spirit as my intent is always to point out the wrong doctrines and practices rather than judge the people. The fear that was built into me as a child by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">UPCI</span> cult is the reason I sometimes lash out. In reading my Bible and praying, I have found that God really is love and that He doesn't give us a spirit of fear. I believe God will judge the wicked and sinful one day, but in this life I believe we are all called to serve Him and He leaves grace and mercy to lead us all into truth.<br /><br />Tomorrow or Friday I intend to post on why Acts 2:38 is not the New Testament plan of Salvation, but a statement to the people that crucified Jesus Christ. It will be a pretty strong indictment of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">UPCI</span> fundamental doctrine, but it really goes to the root of why they believe they are superior to other <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">organizations</span>. <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">{{{EDIT: I was studying a part of the argument against Acts 2:38 and have been distracted by another topic dealing with the Jewish law and the different sects of Judaism specifically related to John 1:1. I will be addressing Acts 2:38 at some point in the near future, but I intend to continue with the Godhead first as understanding Salvation is foundationally linked to the Godhead before everything else. For those of you that are looking for immediate gratification concerning Acts 2:38, I direct you to the following link for some of the info: http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/acts2.html}}}</span></span><br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-63772493701954148842009-06-21T12:47:00.009-06:002009-06-22T13:02:51.670-06:00New Testament Tithes<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Many churches nowadays teach and require their members to pay a "Tithe" of their earnings from jobs or other means to the religious organization they belong to. Most of these organizations that do this pay their ministry out of the tithes and/or offerings that are submitted by the members, and a very few use the monies for the exclusive use of feeding the poor, widowed, orphaned, etc. I was raised in a </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" >UPCI</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> congregation, and was taught that 10% (tithe literally means one tenth) belonged to God, and therefore was to be submitted every week or two, depending on my pay schedule. This money was then disbursed by the Pastor at his sole discretion, and that, supposedly, was the way it was supposed to be.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">When you are raised being taught something, you will generally accept it as true until you are confronted by someone asking questions. In my case, I was reading an article online, and the author mentioned tithes being used to run the church, with the Pastor's salary coming from the offerings. Of course, if you are familiar with the UPCI format, the opposite is what they teach, with the tithes belonging to the Pastor as his salary, and the offerings being what runs the church (rent, utilities, mortgage, etc).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Having been raised UPCI and attending a </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" >UPCI</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> congregation here in Medicine Hat as an adult, you can imagine my surprise when I heard this other way of doing things. So, in an effort to find out what the truth is, I started reading. There are many many many articles online written by scholars from almost every denomination, sect, and organization on the planet. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Most organizations have a model of a paid clergy. Some encourage giving as Paul did in 1 Corinthians chapters 9 and 16, but don't </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" >necessarily</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> require 10%. Others mandate a minimum 10%. Still other more legalistic ones mandate 10% tithes, with offerings required over and above. Some even more stringent congregations maintain 10% tithes, 5% offerings, and have other amounts that have to be paid or you are ostracized and looked down on. Lastly, some very strict congregations hold to the exact same Old Testament teaching of 10% every year to the </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" >Levites</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">, another 10% every year to the Temple for the care of the poor, widowed, and orphaned, and an extra 10% in years 3 and 6 of the 7 year sabbatical cycle to keep the Temple stocked for the charitable work, and to help provide for the 3 feasts totalling 22 days every year that the males of Israel were required to attend. Thus, the people would actually be giving approximately 23.3% to the Temple to be administered by the </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" >Levites</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">However, the Old Testament Law that required mandatory tithing was done away with twice: first when Jesus lived and died and was raised which removed the yoke that our forefather's couldn't bear (Acts 15:10-11), and second when the Temple was destroyed by invading armies in 70+ AD. Without the Temple, we cannot fulfill the law that required the tithes to be brought to the Temple, therefore the law is done away with. When the Israelites were in captivity they didn't bring tithes....they couldn't. So we have a precedent that when we don't have the Old Testament Temple, we don't bring tithes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">In the New Testament, the word tithe doesn't even appear anywhere as a commandment. It appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke where Jesus is condemning the Pharisees (a breed I wish had died out 2000 years ago but continues to blab away in our day and age) for there ritualistic and silly practices, and in Hebrews where Paul (presumed to be the author of the book) does a fantastic job of showing that the law is of no more effect or requirement, and especially so in chapter 7 where he specifically states the </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" >Levitical</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> priesthood collected tithes, but a new priesthood has been created and ushered in. So if we are no longer under the law, and no more </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" >Levitical</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> priesthood exists, who is claiming the right to mandate tithes?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Now, you say: But John, Paul stated that the ministry should be supported by the church in 1 Corinthians. My answer: absolutely. But where does the NT at any point mandate a 10% tithe to belong to the ministry as his/her salary? It simply cannot be shown. It isn't there. If you teach that 10% tithing is mandatory and </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" >Biblically</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> required by the NT church, and belongs to the ministry, you are completely out of line with God's word. Yes the ministry should be supported...but to the extent of their ministry. It all comes back to what a Pastor/Shepherd/Elder is in the Bible, which is completely at odds with what these self appointed Pastors in legalistic organizations state. If you wish to hold to the OT tithing system, then you must hold to the entire OT law. So you better have an appointed (</span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" >hereditarily</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> chosen by God) priesthood in your organization that also does all the work in the Church/Temple, and does all the ministering, and doesn't have an inheritance, etc. The problem is that we no longer live in a Theocracy. The OT tithing system was God's social tax system to support the Government (</span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" >Levites</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">), social assistance </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" >programs</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> (feeding the poor, widowed, and orphaned etc), and public festivals (feasts). When the Theocracy was no longer the model of </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" >government</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">, the tithes were no longer needed.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Yet we still come back to the absolute 10% tithes. As well, a UPCI preacher I know has stated on many occasions that you don't come before God empty handed. This was in reference to offerings. Then he would make comments about 5 and 10 bucks not being very big offerings. This from a guy that claims he is </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" >Biblically</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> entitled to 10% of all monies earned by members of his cult. So, now he is teaching that he is owed (through God of course, because the tithe is for God's ministry, and since he is the minister appointed by God, the tithes are his...</span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" >blabbety</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> blah blah blah) 10% from each and every penny earned by any living person in his congregation (and gets up to condemn and blast other cults that have monetary requirements). Ridiculous. So now we have to give 10% of our gross income (his teaching), plus offerings (say 20 bucks twice a week to not be in danger of giving too little) so the average house that earns 60,000 a year between 2 income </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" >getters</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">, now gives $10160 (if there are two services a week with offerings collected) per year, out of a total of $45600 (approx after taxes) net income, which reduces their entire disposable income to $35440 per year, or $2953 per month. This money then goes to INCREASE the "minister's" salary 500 dollars a month (tithes only, apparently the "pastor" would be entitled to $500 tithes but the House of God is entitled to only $250 offering according to this system). To top it off, these types of "pastors" then claim: "I pay my tithes too you know!" But hang on, if I give money to a fund that belongs to me, then I'm just paying myself...so how does that line up with the Biblical model? The Levites didn't pay themselves tithes. Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizidek. So where does the Bible say the ministry pays themselves tithes? It doesn't. Now if they paid tithes to someone else, I would perhaps agree that there's a sacrifice there, but they don't. Absolutely amazing what these guys pull off.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">In fairness to the current circumstance, this "pastor" does not get to collect the tithes for personal use as the building they are having meetings in costs more than what comes in as offerings. However, if enough people convert to this cult, then eventually enough would be coming in to support the church on offerings alone. At that point, he could realistically claim his "entitlement" to the 10% tithes, and be making buckets of money: say 20 families (conservative estimate as he thinks he's the only "real" church in his town and wants to convert everyone in the city) all making the above amount of 60000 per year = 1,200,000 gross total </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" >income</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> = 120,000 per year in tithes. Obscene. Jesus had not even a place to lay His head, Paul was a tent maker and died for the Gospel, Peter was a fisherman and was crucified for his adherence to Jesus Christ, but modern day so-called "ministers" are getting rich off the Gospel that Jesus and these men DIED for. Then they get up and preach that we should die to ourselves, all the while living far above the means of many of the people in their congregation.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Often, Acts chapter 5 is used as justification for the mandatory collection of tithes. In this chapter, Ananias and Sapphira were killed because they lied to the Holy Ghost about what was the price they had gotten for the land. This is at a time where people in the early church were selling what they had extra and giving the price of it to be disbursed to those that had need. The sin of Ananias and his wife was not that they gave too little; it was that they said they were giving the entire price of the land when they weren't. They were well within their right (according to Peter) to give less, but they were attempting to gain recognition and status for something they weren't doing. They were being deceitful. Read the story again: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=5&version=9</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So that scripture passage doesn't support the tithing model. Paul didn't espouse it, Jesus didn't espouse it as He was the one that did away with the Law....We have no record anywhere of Jesus paying tithes...taxes yes, tithes no.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I guess it comes down to this: what amount should we give to the church? Well that's pretty easy actually. Give what you can. 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 - "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." So it says Paul wants a collection "FOR" the saints, not a mandated tithe FROM the saints, and this money would be taken to Jerusalem to help in the ministry of God's word, and FOR the saints that had need. He even says "according to your liberality" not "according to the OT law that you are no longer under but which I use to force you to pay 10% of your gross income with".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">We are called to give to support the ministry it is true, and we should support the church we belong to with our funds (how can it exist without them). However, we are not called to make the so-called ministry rich. When you give, pray first, budget, see what you have left after your needs, give up something that is a want rather than a need that month or 2 weeks (depending on your budget) and give that for God to prosper and use in the ministry of His word. Give 10% if you feel that is appropriate. Give more than 10% if you are able. Give less if you aren't. It's possible you may fall under the category of poor, widowed, or orphaned...so then you should be receiving charity from the offerings. But in no circumstance should you be bound by Old Testament law and traditions of men...we are free of it. Jesus did away with the OT law, and if anyone had a right to collect tithes, He did. The l</span>aw is finished, God doesn't need your money, your church family does. Base your giving on that, rather than someone preaching at you that God wants 10% of your income.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Finally, don't attach yourself to a congregation that has a single person in charge of funds collection and disbursement. Find one that teaches the Bible, lives the NT church model, and has a council of Elders that prays, fasts, and decides the direction of the church. That's Biblical. All else isn't, and is based on traditions of men.</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">God Bless you</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">References:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">King James Version</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Young's Literal Translation</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">www.gotquestions.org/tithing-Christian.html</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.letusreason.org/Wf34.htm</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.intothelight.org/tithing.asp<br /><br />http://am.upci.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3160&whichpage=1<br /></span></span>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-30380304850046566842009-06-15T08:54:00.002-06:002009-06-15T10:14:37.892-06:00FriendshipI was recently accused of being spiritually immature. I take that as a good sign, due to to the fact it was someone that is upset I am no longer living <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">phariseeical</span> standards of men. Apparently, the fact that I choose to read my Bible and let it speak for itself is a sign that I am immature. Ah well, no biggie.<br /><br />The part that DOES bother me is that it's someone that I consider a friend that has said it. It was said in an effort to insult me, although I think I'm beyond being insulted. I've been called backslid, prone to false doctrine, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">prayerless</span>, etc in the process of leaving the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">UPCI</span> due to differences in what I was being taught and what the Bible says. It's funny because these are the same people that turn around and tell my wife that I am "articulate and quote scripture well" (their words not mine). I bear these people no ill will in spite of the fact that they obviously don't reciprocate the feeling. The whole point of this blog is to share my discoveries of what and who God really is, without the filters of man made doctrines. It isn't (as I have been accused of) an effort to take potshots at any specific person (if the shoe fits though...), but, rather, the goal is to show the light of God's word to any interested party.<br /><br />It's true that I have proffered to my ex-pastor the opportunity to email me and I will post his email in it's entirety with the exception of anything the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Blogspot</span> Terms of Use and Acceptable Use Policy prohibit. I will also block the names of anyone that has not provided (to me) written consent to have their names in here. This is an opportunity that he does not allow anyone to have in his pulpit, but I am willing to allow him that liberty. That offer stands firm and will as long as I am the author of this blog.<br /><br />I have absolutely nothing to hide from anyone as far as my doctrines, my standards (or lack thereof), my beliefs, and my habits (I smoke a Cigar every night while I drink a Scotch or other suitable beverage). That's the point of this blog: to show that the Bible grants us a great deal of liberty because of the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are no longer bound by 613 commandments and the ritualistic washing and cleansing that the Pharisees espoused. We are bound to 10 Commandments, to love our enemies (Jesus said it which is more than good enough for me) and the 4 things that the Apostles bound us to: No drinking of Blood, No eating of things strangled, No Idolatry, and No fornication. To teach otherwise is to miss entirely, the point of the NT. Peter himself said that the law was a yoke our forefathers couldn't bear. Yet legalistic organizations expect us to, once again, put ourselves in that position. The Pharisees added rules and standards to the lesser law because they were attempting to prevent anyone from even coming close to breaking the law. This led to more and more restrictive rules, with more rules added to keep you from breaking those rules, and so on and so on. This is no different than legalistic organizations of today. I have heard it said repeatedly that Doctrines are what's in the Bible, Standards are what aren't. So, going by that, legalistic organizations ADD to the Word of God by creating standards that are supposed to keep us from breaking the law (whose law I'm not sure, because Jesus didn't espouse or condone the Pharisees and their rules), which is precisely what Jesus was mad at the Pharisees about.<br /><br />It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with all the rules and regulations of a legalistic organization for one very simple reason: <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">They can't agree even amongst themselves what are and aren't correct standards!!!</span></span> One Pastor will teach that reading newspapers is a hell-worthy offence (no lie, I actually heard that taught), another will say that rollerskating is, another will say that you have to fast on a specific day of the week or you are rebellious and hell-bound. If all these issues are heaven or hell issues, then why is there not an organization wide ruling on the matter? If they aren't, then why does anyone teach them at all?<br /><br />I have posted links in previous blogs to stories about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">UPCI</span> licensed ministers that are caught soliciting homosexual sex in public parks, that are charged with child molestation, and that plead guilty to the continual rape of a young girl. Yet these are men that were allowed to sit in positions of leadership in a legalistic organization that denies (rightfully) all forms of sexual debauchery!!! How can any minister in that organization hold his/her head up with pride and state that they are licensed by such? You wouldn't catch me dead holding a licence with such a group. I am aware that the vast vast vast majority of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">UPCI</span> licenced ministers do not have these issues (that we know about, and I refuse to believe there are very many that are still in the closet), but even one bad apple spoils an entire pie. It begs the question: Where was discernment among the "Presbytery" that laid hands on these men and confirmed them to a position <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">that they used to fulfill sexual</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ly</span> immoral desires!?</span></span> How can any right-thinking person have any desire to have this same fellowship confirm THEM as a minister?<br /><br />They then state "well I wasn't one of those men that were caught or the men that confirmed them"...I know, but you still hold a licence with them. Still in fellowship. If the legalistic model of the church is correct, then where are the men that stand up and publicly (not in a private church group meeting) denounce these men? They feel free to blast the Roman Catholic church as a whole (I don't believe the Roman Catholic church is of God in any way, for the record) for the actions of a comparatively small number of it's "ministers" in regards to children, but they have the same cancer in their own organization.<br /><br />You simply cannot have it both ways people. God is not mocked. He isn't some old, weak, trembling, senile man sitting in His Heavenly rocking chair wondering what to do about the state of this world. He sits on His throne trying to draw all men to Him, and the legalistic, extra-Biblical, judgemental standards and attitudes of the so-called Jesus-only movement causes more people to stay away from God than to ever come to a place of communion with Him. I am reminded of a song that most Oneness people will know, and here is a verse from it:<br /><br />They call us Holy Rollers,<br />they're always poking fun,<br />but thank God I've got the Holy Ghost,<br />and spoke with other tongues,<br />Cause I know God is God,<br />and God don't never change,<br />I know God is God,<br />and Jesus is His name.<br /><br />This is totally indicative of the level of exclusivity and judgement that the oneness movement is proud of. They are so proud of their long hair, long sleeves, long dresses, and "other tongues", that they fail to see the true nature of Jesus Christ. For instance: Where did Jesus ever speak in unknown tongues? He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, He washed the feet of the Apostles, and He is the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">firstfruits</span> of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Resurrection</span>...but He didn't speak in other tongues. Oh, you say "the Holy Ghost hadn't been poured out yet, and tongues are the evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost". I ask you then: Why did John the Baptist never speak in tongues? He was full of the Holy Ghost from birth... If Jesus wasn't providing us with an example to follow, then what WAS He doing? If we are to fulfill all righteousness as He did, then why do "Holy Rollers" add to what He did? If the word "Christian" literally means "Christ-like", then why are we expected and taught to live standards of men and be bound to things Jesus Himself didn't do? When the woman caught in adultery was forgiven, why didn't Jesus say "Go thy way and sin no more, and make sure you don't wear short sleeves, drink alcohol (except cough medicine), smoke Cigars, and you better be in church 4 times a week or you're gonna burn!!!"?<br /><br />I choose to follow Jesus, not a man-made, legalistic, uninspired, old-boys club. I hope you do the same. I do believe in church attendance and fellowship. I also believe that we are free to choose where to attend as long as they teach the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, so help them God.<br /><br />"Beware lest anyone rob you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Colossians</span> 2:8<br /><br />I am including a link to another website that I found. I don't espouse everything this man says, but he is very intelligent, and has spent much time like myself in the Word of God trying to find answers. His experiences are typical of legalistic organizations, and I hope that you can be helped by reading his material: http://codybateman.org is the website. He has an article entitled "To hell with church" at: http://codybateman.org/2009/01/23/pastors-2/ He is a bit more <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">militaristic</span> in his feelings than I am, but it's not surprising in view of what he's been through. I have learned a great deal from reading his material. <br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-68596526955142305192009-06-13T17:00:00.003-06:002009-06-13T17:31:02.531-06:00Religion and Spirituality<p class="zemanta-img" style="margin: 1em; float: right; display: block; width: 310px;"><a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightning_over_Oradea_Romania_cropped.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Lightning_over_Oradea_Romania_cropped.jpg/300px-Lightning_over_Oradea_Romania_cropped.jpg" alt="Lightning over the outskirts of Oradea, Romani..." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" width="300" height="322" /></a><span class="zemanta-img-attribution">Image via <a href="http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightning_over_Oradea_Romania_cropped.jpg">Wikipedia</a></span></p>Leaving a UPCI church can be incredibly scary. I know, because I've done it twice. All the way home you expect the ground to open up or a lightning bolt to strike you dead. After all the things you've been conditioned to expect, you are absolutely certain that God is going to kill you for rebelling against the "man of God", and you keep expecting it to happen. Of course, it never does, and eventually you realize that something doesn't add up. As you go on with life, you believe that it is God's mercy that is prevailing against His judgement, and then, eventually, something scares you into returning to some un-Biblically legalistic church.<br /><br />The hope is, of course, that by doing so, you are fulfilling the story of the Prodigal son that returned to his father's house and to a place of provision and blessing. We hear this story many times over the course of a lifetime in a UPCI church, but it is never actually explained according to the actual meaning of the Parable. Jesus was not talking about someone that left an earthly organization and went to a different one. At the time, there were two basic religious groups in God's eyes: His backslid lost people, and the rest of the world which were heathens or gentiles. The Gospels make it clear that He did not come back only for the Jews, but also for all the people that were outside the covenant. The entire purpose of His coming to earth to dwell among men, was to make possible the return of the entire human race to a place of love and communion with God. So when we hear this taught as an example of someone "backsliding" from a legalistic church and returning, we ought to grit our teeth in disgust. This story is the third in what is commonly referred to as a "trilogy" (oh look, three again...legalistic oneness groups hate when there are 3's in the Bible :D) of parables regarding God's joy and love in heaven for the lost. If we read the parable in the context of the passage, we see that it is more aptly applied to the lost humanity of the world than it is to a single person:<br /><br />-someone decided to do their own thing and left the place of blessing = Adam and Eve in the garden<br />-they then spent everything they had on pleasures of the world without regard for the loss of God in their life = the gentile nations of the world that didn't worship God<br />-they came to their senses and decided to beg for mercy from their father...God is the Father of all creation = the gentile nations that have now come to believe and worship God<br />-the father said, not so, you will be heirs once again of promise and blessing = God pours out His Spirit on ALL flesh<br />-elder son was upset because he had been faithful (according to him) the whole time and felt he was being gypped = Jews didn't recognize that Jesus came to save the world, not set up an earthly kingdom for them<br /><br />The parables in this passage make it plain that the joy in heaven is God rejoicing, not the angels. It does not say anywhere that the angels are joyous, rather it states that "there is joy in the PRESENCE of the angels" (caps mine). The only way for there to be joy in the presence of the angels is for God to be rejoicing as He is the only one in the presence of the angels. If it were the angels that were rejoicing, then the Bible would read that there was joy in the COMPANY of the angels. I believe the angels are happy when God is happy, but the important thing is that God Himself rejoices when lost sheep come back to Him.<br /><br />To apply any of these parables to someone that leaves a church organization of any kind, then returns to the same, is to apply very poor Biblical knowledge and understanding of God Himself. Let the Bible speak for itself. The father in this parable is God, not a church group. God is our covering, not an organization. You can attend many different organizations and still serve the one true living God of eternity. Ephesians 4:5 says there is "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism". There is one FAITH not one church group or set of standards. Faith towards the God of the Bible. Any other faith is counterfeit. If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh, that He died for your sins and rose again, that He is the ONE Lord, and that you are baptized into His love, then you are in complete accordance with the scripture. There is no reason to make that scripture say any more than it already does.<br /><br />God Bless you, and I hope you enjoyed the picture I added for the fun of it<br /> <div style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://reblog.zemanta.com/zemified/f2b284b8-7146-46e1-9c56-f53cd5c2a61c/" title="Reblog this post [with Zemanta]"><img style="border: medium none ; float: right;" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f2b284b8-7146-46e1-9c56-f53cd5c2a61c" alt="Reblog this post [with Zemanta]" /></a><span class="zem-script more-related pretty-attribution"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js" defer="defer"></script></span></div>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-51902195447305778982009-06-13T13:00:00.004-06:002009-06-13T14:28:51.736-06:001 Corinthians 3:16-17I was recently on a walk with my wife and we got on the subject of this verse because I was smoking a nice Cuban cigar. I enjoy a cigar on occasion, and since I don't smoke inside, it's a nice way to combine the pleasure of a cigar with the pleasure of my wife's commentary on houses in the neighbourhood. The reason this came up is that I have been questioning absolutely everything I have ever been taught by UPCI ministers in an effort to discover what the Bible really says. A major point of concern has been standards of the UPCI that I cannot find in the Bible as a commandments. We have several places in the NT that talk about wine in a positive light, with the caveat that drunkenness is to be avoided. We do not however find any scripture that speaks of smoking in any form, and specifically doesn't say not to. In light of this, let's examine the standard UPCI standard on smoking, and what the Bible really says in the verses they use.<div><br /></div><div>The first passage is the one in the title of the post. The KJV renders it thus: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."</div><div><br /></div><div>The reason many UPCI and other legalistic organizations have teachings that other denominations decry as heretical, is because legalistic organizations take one or two scriptures from a passage here and a passage there, put them together, and make a doctrine/standard/teaching out of it. The problem with this is that the Bible was not originally written with scripture divisions in any way. It was written as books, with the exception of Psalms which is a collection of poetic passages grouped together and given chapter numbers to distinguish one from the next. So when we look at a scripture we absolutely MUST consider the entire passage and body that it is a part of. We simply cannot take 1 0r 2 scriptures out of places in the Bible and teach from them without understanding them within the context of the passage they are in. That is what happens here. Legalists take these two verses and state that if you do something that goes against what they consider to be pure, then God will destroy you. Of course, they are the ones that define what is and isn't pure, so pretty much everyone is in danger of hellfire. </div><div><br /></div><div>They use this passage to rail against drinking and smoking because those are (according to them) impure. What they fail to do is consider that within the entire body of this passage, Paul is talking about teachings and doctrines. Not life choices and habits. He talks about wisdom (worldly and otherwise), foundations (which is very obviously a reference to scripture and beliefs), and men's works (which are easily seen to refer to work by the church in winning souls and building the kingdom of God). As well, even within the passage quoted, we see that, in the greek, Paul is talking about the church at Corinth as a body (there's that singular plural again that the Oneness peeps deny) and not to the individual believer. There is no definite article preceding the word "ye" in verse 16, and the entire book is written to the church at Corinth, NOT the BELIEVER at Corinth. That is a major distinction in the Greek that we miss in the English. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, I have left the best for last: This passage is not translated as accurately as it should have been. The KJV translators strove for poetic and flowing prose, while holding to accepted translations of the scripture. We see that here in this passage: the word translated as "defile" in verse 17 is the exact same word they translated as "destroy" in the same verse. The rendering then in consistency is thus: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroy the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." This doesn't flow the same because we have the same word twice close together, and any good student of technical writing will tell you that this is not a proper way to have a passage flow (notice I used the word "flow" twice in the same sentence to illustrate the principal...it just sounds stilted instead of relaxed). However, this does not change the meaning of the word: If any man DESTROYS the temple. The word "destroy" is translated from the Greek "fithiro" which means to shrivel, wither, spoil, ruin, corrupt, defile, destroy. Those are all the same in the Greek. </div><div><br /></div><div>Consider: If God dwells somewhere because it is Holy and consecrated to Him, then someone defiles it with a false idol, and God withdraws, they have destroyed that Temple of God. The place may remain, but it is no longer a dwelling place of the Spirit. So it is destroyed as such. The words are interchangeable because you cannot partially defile the Temple of God...It would no longer be the Temple of God the instant that it was defiled/destroyed. </div><div><br /></div><div>So what the scripture actually says is: If you attack and cause the Temple of God (The body of Christ/people of God) to be withered, spoiled, ruined, etc then God will destroy you. This is absolutely consistent with Matthew Henry's commentary (<a href="http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=46&c=3&com=mhc">1 Corinthians 3 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary</a>), John Wesley's notes (<a href="http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=46&c=3&com=wes">1 Corinthians 3 - Wesley’s Explanatory Notes - Bible Commentary</a>), and Adam Clarke's commentary (<a href="http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1cor3.htm">Adam Clarke's Commentary - 1)) Corinthians 3</a>). It DOES NOT say that if you have a Cigar or a Scotch and Soda that you will be destroyed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lastly, let's actually examine a scripture that talks about defiling a man: Matthew 15:9-14 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And He called the multitude, and said unto them, 'Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.' Then came His disciples, and said unto him, 'Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?' But He answered and said, 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.'" The Pharisees were offended because Jesus had just denied the truth and validity of all their man-made rules of cleansing and eating. Jesus told the multitude (that were subject to the rules of the Pharisees) that all those rules, regulations, and STANDARDS were valueless and of no regard to God. They sound awfully similar to legalists of today with their ever increasing lists of do's and dont's. </div><div><br /></div><div>Here, within the context of the scripture, we see that it is what a man says that defiles him, not what he eats or drinks or hears or sees etc. As well, within the context of the scripture, it can be argued that Jesus is specifically saying that teaching false doctrine defiles a man. This would fit perfectly with 1 Corinthians 3 by saying that the false doctrine is the cause of God's wrath in both passages: Matthew 15 the plant will be plucked up, 1 Corinthians 3 him will God destroy. We have a direct parallel and neither talks about what legalist cultists apply the scripture to. </div><div><br /></div><div>If they can't show it Biblically, why do you believe it? It is written in the Bible that we are to make OUR calling and election sure. Seek knowledge, trust God, read your Bible, pray. God will show you and let you see His word in all it's beauty and majesty. </div><div><br /></div><div>God Bless you</div>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-57161805472928822382009-06-08T22:11:00.002-06:002009-06-08T22:23:50.314-06:00God is GreatWoot. I just had to post today on how amazing God is. He loves people so much. I don't have a specific scripture I'm posting about, but rather the entire body of God's Word. It's so amazing. He loves us so much that when we disobey, He kills a couple animals (another part of His Creation by the way) to clothe us, and then promises that even though we are wrong, He is going to shed righteous blood to allow us to come back to a place of communion with Him. What a God!<div><br /></div><div>He then spends 4 - 6 Thousand years teaching and revealing things to humanity through His chosen people. (The word "chosen" in that context is a verb not a noun or adjective. It says that they are God's people He chose to reveal Himself to humanity through, not simply the people He chose to bless.)</div><div><br /></div><div>My grandma Joy said something on Friday that has been seriously in my head all weekend and all day. It's something we all know and accept, but I think we forget about and lose sight of sometimes: </div><div><br /></div><div>If we all choose not to serve God and turn our backs on Him, He will still be just as glorious. All Glory is His. </div><div><br /></div><div>That is such a simple statement yet it truly defines God. He's amazing. Absolutely wonderful. I love Him so much. He is totally worthy of all honour and glory. In this instance, "worthy" means deserving and complete ownership. His Glory is not dependant on our participation or recognition. We just have the opportunity to witness it and bask in it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyone with a desire to know God has a promise that if they diligently seek Him, He will reveal Himself to them. That's how amazing His Love and Grace are. Awesome.</div><div><br /></div><div>God Bless you all</div>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-15309324609456285342009-06-06T13:37:00.005-06:002009-06-06T15:00:21.960-06:00What? I Can't Live Where?<div><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hehe</span>, I like that title. As most of the readers know, my wife and I recently left a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">UPCI</span> assembly in Medicine Hat, AB. We left due to extra-Biblical teachings, standards, and spiritual abuse by the leadership of the congregation. One event that occurred in the latter part of 2008 led to the title of this post, and was the main catalyst that led to my study of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">UPCI</span> as a cult. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>The term "cult" is generally accepted to define any organization or group of persons that consider themselves the judge of all the other churches on the planet. In such a circumstance, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">UPCI</span> fits in every way: They state that if you do not believe precisely what they teach as far as Baptism, Repentance, Salvation, and the Godhead, you are going to Hell. I defy them to state otherwise, at which point I will provide them with the literature from <u>their own Pentecostal Publishing House</u> that proves they teach it. Thus, they are a cult. Oftentimes, they will proudly state "If you define a cult that way, then yep, we're a cult. We're God's church so your definition doesn't bother us." That's fine for the gullible lemmings that feel a need to follow that kind of arrogance, but for the rest of humanity, that should be a major sign that something is wrong within their ranks. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>I began this post by mentioning an event that happened in late 2008. My wife and I were considering the purchase of a home in Irvine, Alberta, which is less than 20 minutes from Medicine Hat by paved, divided, well maintained highway. After looking at the price of the home, the price of fuel, vehicle maintenance, the utility cost, and property taxes, the home would have been $6,000/year less than a quite similar home that we looked at in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Redcliff</span>, Alberta. That's 500 dollars a month less in bills that we would have had with the minor inconvenience (sarcasm) of living in a quiet small town with a short 20 minute commute to the major shopping area at the East end of Medicine Hat. Where we currently live it is a 17 minute drive to the same area of Medicine Hat. The home had a beautiful lot, a heated attached garage, 2 1/2 baths, 3 bedrooms, and a very spacious kitchen with nice dining room. In spite of all this, I was told by the Pastor's wife (I quote) "That's too far away. Pastor would never let you move out there." That is a direct quote. Word for Word. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>At the time, I was a little confused by this, but I said OK, and didn't push the matter. My wife and I were absolutely faithful with our time and substance to this cult and I wasn't ready to cut the ties at that point. As well, I wasn't sure where my wife stood on the issues that were beginning to crop up in the group, so I didn't want to freak her out and cause more stress at home. I did, however, begin studying what the Bible taught about authority in God's Church, and, by extension, the standards that we were expected to uphold. I began to find some very serious differences between what the Bible taught and what we were being force fed. For instance, there is a false doctrine that has taken hold in some <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">UPCI</span> licensed congregations that had come into play in the assembly here in Medicine Hat. I had been taught this false teaching when I was a child in another <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">UPCI</span> congregation and so it was an issue that had to be dealt with. The pastor decided that it would be dealt with among the men only (except HIS wife of course...) and the women would not be informed that this doctrine existed in an attempt to "shelter" them. He told us men we were not to discuss it under any circumstances with anyone other than him (cause the Bible so gives him that authority...yeah right). One of the men in the assembly discussed it with a non-active previous member, and was STOOD UP AND YELLED AT IN A MEN'S MEETING FOR DOING SO!!! He wasn't talked to in private, wasn't questioned about it, was simply blasted with a hand grenade (figuratively) and expected to take it. The obvious assumption here is that the women were too stupid or too spiritually retarded to understand a false doctrine. Except the Pastor's wife of course. Oh, and children. Talk about double standards. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>So basically we were expected to accept without question every single thing the pastor or his wife said in any circumstance. We would be told that if we believed false doctrine was being taught then we should bring it to the pastor's attention. But then, when someone did question the teachings or actions of the leadership or, God forbid, simply disobey, they were slandered as rebellious and disobedient to <u>God's</u> authority, when in reality, they were simply ignoring the crap spewed out by self appointed authorities. Then, when these people would leave, the pastor would state OVER THE PULPIT that the "devil" just left the church, and compare them to Judas Iscariot. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>None of this is at all Biblical. In fact, it goes directly against the Biblical model of the NT church. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>Every group on the planet that lives with these levels of false doctrine and authority are labelled by society as cults. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Eg</span>: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Moonies</span>, Hale <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Bopp</span> comet nuts, remember Waco Texas?, etc. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">UPCI</span> condemns them for the level of control they exert, then does precisely the same. They tell you where you can and can't live, who you can and can't talk to, where you can and can't work, what you can and can't do for leisure, who you can and can't marry and when, and what you can or can't eat or drink and when (weekly mandated fasting on a specific day...like that's in the Bible or something). They do all this in the name of God, without a single scripture granting any man that authority over God's people. They label the rest of society as lost, confused, deluded, and hell bound. Again without any authority to do so. </div><br /><div> </div><br /><div>God's Church in the NT never had a single, human appointed leader over a group. We read in fact where the Apostles directed churches to appoint elders, in the PLURAL, to guide and direct the faithful. The only time in the NT where there was a single entity over the Church was when Jesus Christ still walked the earth. Even then, we see Him always in the role of a servant, never as a domineering authoritarian, even though He, as God, had the absolute right to do precisely whatever He felt like. Instead, He washed feet, He fed crowds, He built up, He healed people. We do see Him rebuking Peter, but even then He was doing it out of love FOR PETER, not feigned love for the rest of the people or anger. Jesus didn't get angry with a disciple even when Judas Iscariot was going to betray Him. He was sad, but not angry. The only times He got angry was when He blasted the hypocritical Jewish leaders in Matthew 23, and when He kicked the moneychangers out of the Temple. So when a human wannabe leader puts himself in a position of authority over people trying to serve God, he had better not show anger with the people of God or he is not Christ-like. Therefore he is not Christian. </div><div><br /></div><div>God does not ask for, need, or authorize any human to single <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">handedly</span> govern any group of the People of God. To do so is to put ones self in the precarious position of usurping the authority of God. Too often, men mistake the call of God to preach the gospel to the world as being a call to rule God's people in a city. Thus we have people frustrated with the leadership, and leadership frustrated with the people. Man was not created to serve man, but to serve and worship God. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you are in a church or organization that has a single entity that makes all doctrinal decisions that affect you, then you are NOT in God's Church. The only authority of standard, doctrine, and guidance is the Word of God. Not a man claiming to be the mouth of God. I scoff at any man that stands up and uses Moses as the basis for a statement that God talks to him face to face. You are not Moses. God hasn't called you to write the Ten Commandments or lead the People of God to the Promised Land. Don't be foolish. Get off your high horse and allow God to govern His people...He is far more qualified than you can even pretend to be.</div><div><br /></div><div>God Bless all His people</div>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-43547845375414648382009-06-05T19:16:00.002-06:002009-06-05T22:00:26.385-06:00John 1:1 - The Modalist MisconceptionWell, It's been a couple days since I posted and I apologize. I've been studying John 1:1 because it's one of the scriptures quoted most often by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Modalists</span>/Jesus-only believers. I want you to note that I use the word "believers" there. This is important because I DO consider a person that is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Modalist</span>/Oneness Pentecostal to be a believer. They believe in God as Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost indwelling the believer. In that regard they are no different than every other Christian sect. Due to that, I believe that, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Biblically</span>, they are going to heaven. My issue comes with their definition of God, and the propagation of a non-Biblical doctrine by the adherents. The saint in this situation has far less to be worried about than the leadership, and they are the ones that I consider worth reaching for. The leadership generally have more to lose by changing their beliefs, as well as they are not likely to admit that they were spreading a false teaching/doctrine.<br /><br />A great deal has been written about John chapter 1, both by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Modalist</span> apologists, and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Trinitarian</span> writers. John was the Apostle that Jesus loved the most, and the one that showed the highest level of understanding of Jesus' divine nature in contrast to the human nature that would allow Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins. The two natures existed simultaneously in the form of Jesus, and are absolutely integral to our salvation. The fact that John loved Jesus so much is seen by his rendition of the scene at Golgotha. It is by far the most heart wrenching material in any literature known to man. With this unique level of love and understanding, John begins his account of the gospel by stating an incredibly profound statement that spans 3 verses and in the original Greek is one sentence.<br /><br />"In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through Him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened." John 1:1-3<br /><br />It is important to understand that the Bible was not written with chapters and verses. Those were added by translators later, and they are used to show distinctions between clauses. When we <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">exegite</span> a passage of scripture, we must consider the entire sentence as written in the original language. As well, we must review the context of the scripture and the audience that it is intended for. In the case of the Gospel of John, the intended audience is the Jews of the day. Paul was sent to the gentiles, but scripture shows that John was not involved with that except for an excursion with Peter to investigate the claims of an outpouring in Samaria (<a href="http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/john-the-apostle-faq.htm">www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/john-the-apostle-faq.htm</a>).<br /><br />With this in mind, let's look at that first sentence of John chapter 1. It starts with a reference to a passage of the Septuagint that every <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Jew</span> would have been absolutely familiar with: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God..." By rendering the beginning of his Gospel thus, he is telling the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Jews</span> of the day that what he is about to say is in comparison to what they hold as the absolute beginning of all time. This would be an arresting statement to make, and would guarantee the rapt attention of the reader. He continues by stating that "the Word was with God". What is so incredibly important here is that in the Old Testament (OT) Hebrew, the "Word" is portrayed as a personality attribute of God, not as a separate entity. In contrast to this, John identifies the Word as being a person by preceding both with the article. Then, he uses a word that has an absolute application of being separate from: the word we translate as "with" in John 1:1 is almost properly translated as "toward", which signifies a personal, intimate relationship. That precludes the belief that the Word could be simply a part of God or a thought in His mind. We know, from further in the chapter, that the Word became flesh, and that this refers to Jesus Christ. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Modalists</span> contend that Jesus is almighty God in entirety, and that He, Jesus, manifest Himself as the creator. This has obvious logical problems in that Jesus couldn't be a thought in His own mind. The Word is given it's own personal reference and is given attributes throughout the passage beginning John's Gospel. Thus it must be a separate entity from the God that John refers to. Bearing in mind that John is speaking to the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Jews</span>, we can understand that John was speaking of "God", he was referring to the person that the Israelites knew as <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">YHVH</span>. He states that the Word had a personal, intimate relationship with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">YHVH</span> (FYI, Jehovah is an improper pronunciation. The actual letters sound phonetically like <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">YudHeyVavHey</span> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/2385597/the-secret-name-of-God">www.scribd.com/doc/2385597/the-secret-name-of-God</a>). To have a personal relationship toward something, you must be separate from that something. Otherwise you're simply <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">freakin</span> nuts (very scientific term :D).<br /><br />Next he states that "the Word was God". Now we reach a complete breakdown in the similarity between NT and OT beliefs. The Israelites worshipped and believed in God as an absolute single entity. They had the concept of plural singularity in their language, yet didn't worship in that context. So we have a statement that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">specifically</span> defines a duality in relationship, yet refers to the OT Israelite belief of One Singular Complete God.<br /><br />Next it states "This One was in the beginning with God"...again we have the duality of relationship. It's been stated twice for a reason.<br /><br />"All things through Him did happen" seems pretty clear...we have an imperative involvement of this second "thing" in the duality of relationship. So we must absolutely have 2 "things" involved here. It seems real easy to see based on the Greek.<br /><br />Finally, not one thing happened that did not happen without Him. So this second "thing" has now been proved to be both separate and involved.<br /><br />Keeping all this in mind, how can anyone possibly defend a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">Modalist</span> viewpoint? But wait, there's another issue: the whole point of Eternity is that it is without time as we know it. God exists outside of time. Since God cannot change, and God exists outside of time, and transition takes time, then how can God change from one mode to another? He simply cannot change between 3 different modes because it is impossible. So, there absolutely has to be a plurality of persons that contain, embody, and exist within the very nature of a single Spirit. That is God.<br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-34603917167504531112009-06-01T13:58:00.002-06:002009-06-01T17:34:25.975-06:00One God, Three Persons?<span style="font-family:arial;">I titled this as a question as a way of expressing the Oneness, Jesus-only mentality of the UPCI and other organisations that share the same modalist viewpoint. There is a complete air of disbelief that comes over them when you mention the word "Trinity" and they are most likely going to challenge you with the scriptures they claim prove that the concept of a Triune God is Biblically impossible. The fact that I was raised in the UPCI and taught the modalist viewpoint from birth has allowed me to understand it completely. The scriptures most commonly used to support the Oneness position are: Genesis 1:1, 26; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 28:19 in combination with Acts 2:38; and John 1:1. I am going to examine the actual statements in these scriptures, and show that they do not, in fact, deny the concept of three persons in One God. Quite the contrary, they all infer, and even state, a distinct plurality. The concept of singular plurality DOES exist in the Hebrew language, and the scriptures show that the original Hebrew supports the belief that a plurality in the Godhead existed in the OT, and even before the Creation itself. The Oneness belief is based on plays on words that only exist in the English language. These do not occur in the original language.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">We begin with Genesis 1:1 as the beginning seems like the logical place to search for clues. Genesis 1:1 in the KJV is rendered: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">In Young's Literal: "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth" (It is important grammatically to note that the "s" in "God's" is to denote possessive action not the plural "Gods"). The word translated "God" in the KJV rendering and "God's" in the YLT is from the Hebrew word "Elohim". Elohim is the <u>plural</u> form of the word "Eloah". Modalists attack this verse by stating that the KJV says "God" in the singular form. The problem with this statement is that they then accept Ezekiel 20:3 in the KJV which states "Thou shalt have no other <u>gods</u> before me.." where the word "gods" is translated from the exact same Hebrew word "Elohim" to mean a plurality OR a singularity. Specifically, they accept it to refer to anything or things that any person or group of persons might worship other than the One True God. Makes you wonder how modalists or Oneness churches can use a scripture to justify a belief when they must accept that it contains a word that denies what they state. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Genesis 1:26 in the KJV: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea.." in YLT: And God saith, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule...' ". We see in the KJV that God refers to Himself in the plural. We know that He wasn't referring to the angels, because if we were in the image of angels we would have wings (SWEET!!! :D). As well, the Bible says we are created a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5). It is clear from the text that the Psalmist is referring to man as a whole, not the Messiah, as Man was given dominion over the earth in the beginning...not as a messianic prophecy. Therefore, God was referring to someone other than the angels, and, unless you theorize there is another group as yet unrevealed to us, He must have been speaking to Himself in the plural. I have heard the very shallow argument that God was speaking in the "plurality of majesties" the same as many earthly monarchs do. The problem with this is that the concept of a "plurality of majesties" can not be shown to exist in any language or culture before the monarchies of what we now call Europe. It certainly cannot be shown to exist in Hebrew culture and language (Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, (Grand Rapids: Word Publishing, 1996), p. 528) . </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Deuteronomy 6:4 in the KJV: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" in the YLT: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah". There is quite a difference here in the translations. The KJV is stating that the Lord of Israel is one Lord. The YLT is stating that Jehovah the God of Israel is one Jehovah. The word Jehovah in the Hebrew is YHVH and refers to the <u>nature</u> of God. Even modalists believe this and I will prove it: modalists and/or Oneness Pentecostals state that Jesus was the name of God finally revealed in the NT when He came to earth to purchase our Salvation. Anything God was called before that was a description of His nature, and not His actual complete name. Therefore, in the YLT (proven to be more accurate than the KJV as far as translation), we see that the NATURE of God is ONE NATURE. In the original manuscripts you will find the Tetragrammaton, which denies the word play of the Oneness movement. This concept does not deny the possibility of a plurality in One God. The use of Deuteronomy 6:4 by the UPCI and others to deny the Trinity doesn't hold up to their own definitions or the meaning of the original Hebrew. The other thing I have heard them ask is: "Why didn't the Hebrews worship God in plurality?". The answer is pretty simple: The Hebrews didn't have the scriptures we now have by consequence of the NT. As well, (I am NOT racist against Jews; I believe them to be the chosen people of God according to the Old Covenant...please do not take my next statement in that context. As well, I understand that most Jews disagree with my belief in Jesus Christ being the Messiah) the Hebrews didn't follow the Messiah as they should have as He was the fulfillment of the prophecies they had been given. Yet the UPCI argue that they had a complete understanding of God? The UPCI position is untenable in this regard.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Isaiah 9:6 KJV: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." YLT: "For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace." Once again, Young's Literal comes through with a completely different perspective than the KJV. The KJV says the Child's name shall be called, but Young's says "He (God) doth call his name...". This obviously requires two separate entities in the scripture. One is the Son, the other is God. Now, we all agree (Trinitarians and Modalists alike) that Jesus IS God. Therefore, we have to accept that something ELSE is God as well to be calling the Son the "Mighty God". The major point that Oneness Pentecostals use is that the Son is called the Everlasting Father in the KJV. This again is a play on words in the English. Young's makes it very clear that the Son would be called the Father of Eternity. The word translated as Father in this verse is the Hebrew word "Ab". This word does not expressly mean "Father in Creation", but can mean father, principal (as in foremost), or even chief. So according to the proper translation of the verse, Jesus is the Father of Eternity in that He bought Salvation for the world. This doesn't deny His role and participation in the Creation, but it removes the UPCI wordplay used to deny the beautiful, majestic, completeness of the Triune God. (On a side note, if baptism is ONLY to be done in the name of the Son of God, then why doesn't the UPCI baptize in the name "Wonderful", or even "Counsellor"? Silly perhaps, but no sillier than their absolute requirement to "Jesus" name only.) </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Mathew 28:19 KJV: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" YLT: "having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," Acts 2:38 KJV "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." YLT: "and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,". There are several glaring discrepancies between the scripture and what the UPCI teaches. First, we have the fact that in greek and hebrew, there is no distinction between a name and a title. This distinction doesn't technically exist in english either, but we accept it as a fact of life. An example is someone named Mister Dave Jones. If he gets a PhD he becomes Doctor Dave Jones. Those are names, yet we accept that Mister and Doctor are titles. In greek though (the language of the NT), the UPCI play doesn't work; they say that in Matthew 28:19 we read titles referring to God, and that the "name" of those titles is revealed in Acts 2:38 by Peter. However, we come back the fact that a title IS a name. Now, they will ask: "Why does it state "in the <u>name </u>(singular please note) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? It says "name" singular! Therefore it can only be one name!!!" The word translated to "name" is the greek word "onomah". It can be interpreted to mean authority, CHARACTER, or even a surname. So, according to the wording of the greek, we can read Matthew 28:19 to mean that baptism is to be done "in the authority of", or, in contrast, "to the character of". Therefore, to state that Acts 2:38 says that Matthew 28:19 describes a modalist understanding of God is to ignore the original greek, and base everything on an english translation. Matthew 28:19 can be equally understood to mean that the disciples were to baptize people into the character of God as it can be understood to mean that they were to baptize people using a formal, rigid adherence to a strict formula.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">John 1:1 KJV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." YLT: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;". Well, identical translations remove the burden of trying to show that there is a play on words. Very refreshing. However, the UPCI still uses this verse to show that the Word (Jesus) was God. Period. Their explanation of this scripture is that the Word existed in the mind of God, and came to fruition when Jesus came to earth. Where they go wrong is that the word translated to "with" is the greek word "pros" which translates as "in opposition to". So the verse is better translated using the understanding of the word with in it's form of "face to face" rather than the abstract sense. The word is to be understood literally rather than as an abstract as you cannot be face to face with an abstract, idea, or concept. So now we have two separate entities present at the same time. "The preposition [pros], as distinct from [en], [para], and [sun], is of the greatest importance . . . . The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inhering in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him." (R. C. H. Lenski, St. John’s Gospel, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943) pp. 32-33). </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">This has been just a brief examination of the main scriptures used to support the Oneness or Modalist viewpoint. I intend to do some studies of the scriptures used to show the Trinity view. I hope this has helped your understanding. As well, there is a wealth of info available on the internet that deal with this. A Google search will help you get started.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">God Bless you</span>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-48022233181037836022009-05-28T16:29:00.004-06:002009-05-28T18:09:47.679-06:00Pentecostal HypnosisDisclaimer: I AM NOT A <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">HYPNOTIST</span>. This post is based on research into hypnotism and the way the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">conscious</span> and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">subconscious</span> minds relate to each other. This phenomenon is well documented through observation, although not completely understood in process. We know what happens and what causes it, we just don't know exactly why. If you wish to attempt the hypnotism of someone or a group of someones, please consult a treatise on the topic as you will be better served.<br /><br />A great deal of what goes on in modern-day "Pentecost" (an oxymoron if there ever was one: Pentecost refers to a day 2000 years ago, not a movement in this day and age) can be, and has been (by reputable researchers here's a link for you: <a href="http://users.stargate.net/~ejt/sky1.htm">http://users.stargate.net/~ejt/sky1.htm</a>) attributed to hypnosis. I speak specifically of the uncontrollable laughter, speaking in tongues, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">barking</span>, uncontrolled dancing, etc that you can witness at pretty much any camp meeting or conference held by a "Oneness" or "Jesus-only" group. The roots of these organizations are very easily traced back to early 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century experiences in California that match commonly known and used crowd/mass hypnotic techniques. The most simple way to describe the process is that a person (or group of persons) create an atmosphere where people are happy, peaceful, and focused on what is happening in front of them. The most common way to do this is to entertain them and get them involved in what is going on. An example is a movie theater. Have you ever gone to a movie theater, watched a 2 hour movie, then been slightly disoriented when it ended? During the movie, you jump when things happen, you laugh when there's laughter, etc. When it is over, you feel like time has passed but you're not sure where, and it takes a few minutes for you to feel like you have woken up. Those are the same feelings you go through when you are hypnotised. Contrary to common misconception, a hypnotic trance is NOT a sleep...quite the opposite: it is a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">HYPER ATTENTIVE</span> state. The reason this is important is that the reason many Pentecostals state they are not hypnotised is that they are awake. They are absolutely correct in that, except that is the whole point. Hypnotism is more a very vivid daydream than it is a sleep. People that are hypnotised are totally focused on something and very <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">susceptive</span> to whatever suggestion may take place. The difference between a true hypnotic state and what most people <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">believe</span> is that people that are hypnotised will not do something they would normally consider dangerous or immoral. These things are governed by the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">SUBCONSCIOUS</span> mind and therefore cannot be easily corrupted. For example, a person that is naturally shy about their body for moral reasons will not abandon those beliefs no matter how much suggestion is given.<br /><br />In a so-called "Pentecostal" meeting, all the fundamentals of group hypnosis are there: entertainment to focus the people, music to create <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">peaceful</span> and soothing feelings (which is funny in light of the fact that the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">UPCI</span> teaches against rock and roll based on the fact that it affects the minds rhythms), and repeated "suggestions" of group involvement. After the typical 1/2 hour meditation (yes, prayer IS a form of meditation and chanting), 30-40 minutes of "worship" (focusing) and entreaties to be involved, the group is perfectly primed and ready for suggestion. Then they spend 20-60 minutes listening to suggestions and being "prepped" for the Altar Call, where they will do all sorts of crazy <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">nutso</span> stuff that most sane people would discipline their children for (It's worth noting that shorter but more impassioned "sermons" are more effective than long ones as the people are alert through it). During the "Altar Call", there will generally be a guy (or gal for that matter) up on stage giving suggestions about running, talking in tongues, dancing in "the Spirit", etc. There's one experience that really comes to mind that I witnessed when I was 15. The church I was raised in had an "Evangelist" come through, and the first night he got everyone all pumped up. During the "Altar Call", everyone was singing and jumping etc, typical <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Pentecostal</span> stuff, and the dude said (I quote): "I am going to come around to each of you and put my hands on your head. When I do, I want you to state the date you were filled with the Holy Ghost. When you do, you will begin to speak in tongues and dance in the Spirit until I take my hands off your head." (Where do these people get this crap?) Now if THAT isn't a perfect to the letter example of hypnotic suggestion, then the experts are all wrong. Like clockwork, he went around, and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">whaddaya</span> know? It worked.<br /><br />One of the biggest tools used by Pentecostals in their focusing of crowds is the loud music. I like loud music. It's fun. I used to play piano in a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">UPCI</span> church (quite well too, although, apparently, the person that replaced me has a "special <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">anointing</span>" <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">lol</span>...I have yet to see <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">anointing</span> listed as one of the qualifications for music ministry in the Bible...hopefully, the "<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">anointing</span>" makes up for the lack of skill...) and, believe me, there's lots of volume. Volume is what creates the atmosphere where people get all focused on the stage and totally block out the rest of life. Next time you are at an event where an hypnotist is doing his/her thing, make sudden, loud, distracting noises that interrupt rather than complement the routine. The hypnotist will either ask you to stop (they generally ask for quiet and for cell phones to be turned off...kinda like a pentecostal church) or have you removed. The reason why is not that you are keeping the people awake, but rather that you are distracting them and preventing them from becoming <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">hyper attentive</span> to what they are being told. To prove this, take an air horn to a Pentecostal service, and set it off at random and see what happens. First, they will try to get you to stop, then, if you don't, it will be the deadest, most uninspired service ever. The reason why? You kept the mass hypnosis from setting in.<br /><br />So, you say "But I spoke in tongues, I felt everything I was told I would, I danced, I ran, I laughed, I felt elated and joyous and peaceful!!!" You certainly did. There is no doubt at all. I do not deny it as I have been there myself. I know how you felt and what you experienced. Now, look back over the times you tried to "pray through" and all the things you were told by people praying with you, over the pulpit, things you witnessed, and tell me that you did something unique that you weren't told about. I mentioned in a previous post that I had witnessed a woman being told she should say whatever babble popped in her head and that would be the evidence of the Holy Ghost. That again is a hypnotic suggestion. It's the way it is. Impossible to deny.<br /><br />Now we move on to the continued manifestations that people experience. After the initial experience people have, they are told that they must continue to seek that manifestation so that they will "know" they still are saved. What happens is that these people then practice meditation and chanting (called prayer) in an attempt to re-experience the same effects. Over time, they begin to learn how to get to that point of "enlightenment" easier and more often, and eventually need very little time at all. So then you have what are called "Adepts" in most Eastern Religions, and they continue to propagate what they have been taught.<br /><br />I was in this religion, I know what happens. I was raised in it. I experienced it. I lived it, breathed it, taught it. And then I realised it was false. There have been many people that have stated most of what I have stated here, and that are more knowledgeable than I. The difference is that I DID it. I can talk from experience. The movement that teaches, preaches, and believes the necessity of tongues for Salvation is simply re-experiencing the mass hypnotism that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">occurred</span> at the beginning of the 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century.<br /><br />On a side note: something that has been a bee in my bonnet for some time is that I was accused of being prone to false teachings due to being taught <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">Preterism</span> as a young child. Of course, it was taught by the Pastor that the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">UPCI</span> licensed to be over the congregation I was in. So I believed it. Now, I have left the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">UPCI</span> and all the false doctrines they hold so dearly (as well as the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">Preterist</span> doctrine they refuse to eject), and I would simply like to point out that, according to the accusation made against me, ANYONE THAT BELIEVES A FALSE DOCTRINE THEY ARE TAUGHT AS A CHILD IS PRONE TO FALSE DOCTRINE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. Therefore, if you are under a Pastor that holds the above accusation against me to be true, you'd better consider whether or not he believed the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">UPCI</span> "gospel" all his life, or if HE ALSO BELIEVED A FALSE DOCTRINE HE WAS TAUGHT AS A CHILD UNTIL HIS CONVERSION AS AN ADULT. If it's good for the goose, it's really good for the gander, and if that's what he holds to be true, then he isn't qualified to be a Pastor as he must be prone to false doctrine. However, if he wishes to retract the accusation, I would like to know if he made that statement in error, and, if he did, how he justifies counseling ANYONE.<br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-66783352383699863492009-05-27T12:26:00.003-06:002009-05-27T12:59:43.463-06:00Links proving the use of un-Biblical standardsI decided to do a post on links dealing with the un-Biblical standards taught in many UPCI churches today. I personally hold to certain standards based on <u>separation between the sexes, and separation from the "world"</u> but I do not teach them as Salvational or even necessarily Biblical. I state them as my own belief and conviction and DO NOT impress them upon or require them from other people. With that said, I hope the links below force you to examine what you believe, why you believe it, and discover what the Grace of Jesus Christ's Sacrifice really is.<br /><br />Some of these links are to articles written by Stephen Mann, who used to be a UPCI licensed minister. Others are by Jason Young.<br /><br />The point of these links is one and the same: Read the black, and leave the white alone. NOONE is qualified to add to, rewrite, or interpret scripture in modern day Christianity. The Bible was complete two millennia ago, and God doesn't need a group of men deciding what to add to it. If the Bible says it, then it's true. If, instead, a man says it in a modern day setting...it's most likely not true unless backed explicitly by scripture (eg: Men having sex with men is an abomination IS in the Bible, the sentence: A woman that wears pants is immodest and going to hell ISN'T in the Bible).<br /><br /><br />Pants (on women) - <a href="http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/dress/pants.html">http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/dress/pants.html</a><br /><br />Uncut hair versus cut hair - <a href="http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/hair/eisegesis.htm">http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/hair/eisegesis.htm</a><br /><br />Make-up - <a href="http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/makeup/makeup.html">http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/standards/makeup/makeup.html</a><br /><br />Jewelry - <a href="http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/jewelry-bible.htm">http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/jewelry-bible.htm</a><br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-79570204017365800432009-05-26T16:03:00.004-06:002009-05-26T18:48:44.844-06:00How are we saved?<span style="font-family:arial;">I am posting on the Plan of Salvation today. It's a huge point of contention between Orthodox Pentecostal standard, and modern day Oneness Pentecostal "revelation".<br /><br />Oneness Pentecostals hold to a rigorous standard of Repentance (complete turning away from) of sin, Baptism in Jesus name only (e.g. "I baptize you John Brown in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins", but " I baptize you Suzy Smith in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost by the authority of Jesus Christ" is completely wrong apparently) by full immersion in water, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the mandatory evidence of speaking in Heavenly tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance to the believer.<br /><br />Orthodox Pentecostals have believed for 2000 years that the Plan of Salvation according to Jesus and the Apostles was Repentance (commitment to avoid sin henceforward), Confession (audible) of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost by promise. Baptism is taught as a work one should do, but not as a mandatory necessity for Salvation. Orthodox Pentecostals urge everyone to be baptized, and it is considered to be a sin not to be if you have ever been shown the Biblical commandment for it, but it is not the unforgiveable sin and will not send you to hell. After all, Jesus died for the sins of the world, His sacrifice is efficacious on the believer, and not dependant on water baptism.<br /><br />I believe that is an accurate summary of the statements each "camp" would give for their beliefs. If someone in a position of authority (Full Pastor of a congregation at the very least) wishes to offer a different definition, or to modify the current one, please email me at </span><a href="mailto:themanlepage@gmail.com"><span style="font-family:arial;">themanlepage@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, and I will include it either as a footnote, or add it to the definition as a whole.<br /><br />I personally am fully and completely in the Orthodox camp as it is the traditional one, and not the product of 20th century "revelation". As such, I intend to show the issues in the "Oneness" or "Modalist" viewpoint from a salvational perspective. Before I begin, I issue the following disclaimer: NOT ALL ONENESS/MODALIST PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS WAY. It is the most common system and statement of the movement, but not completely accepted.<br /><br />I start with a statement of Salvation as made by the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:8-11 which gives us the necessary requirements that Paul taught. They are: Confession of Christ as Lord, and Belief that He rose from the dead by God's power (verse 9). Then in verse 10, he expounds upon these principals by saying that it is in the heart that we believe or have faith unto righteousness, and with the mouth we confess or testify of Jesus and His Gospel unto Salvation or Eternal Life. In verse 11 we read that when we believe in Jesus we will never be embarassed or ashamed because He CANNOT fail. Paul taught very accurate theology and Salvational doctrines. To question him would be foolish in the extreme. The importance of this statement is high as it goes to the root of the Modalist viewpoint that baptism is an absolute requirement for Salvation.<br /><br />Baptism is important and to be taught, but is not a Biblically necessary requirement to go to Heaven. Here's why: in Romans 8 we read statements that precisely define the relationship between the Spirit and Salvation. In verse 9 we see that "..ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." This statement is very clear that the Holy Ghost inside of you is absolute proof that you are saved. Verse 11 says that if the Spirit of God dwells "..in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Lastly, in verse 16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." followed by 17 "and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs WITH Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together." Taken together and in the context that Paul is teaching the Romans what Salvation is and what they should be teaching the lost, we see that the Holy Ghost in a person is absolute proof that they are saved. It doesn't matter how or through what process the Holy Ghost got there, only that it IS there. The reason this is significant as far as Baptism by water is concerned, is that in Acts 2 we read of the Holy Ghost being poured out on a group of people in the Upper Room. This group most likely was the approximately 120 that were present for Matthias' selection to succeed Judas, but certainly included the 12 Apostles at a minimum. The people present are nowhere in scripture as being baptized by anyone. They did have their feet washed by Jesus, but that is not full immersion in water. The argument has been made that since they were baptizing people in John 4:1-2, they must have been baptized already themselves, but this is not backed up by scripture as we do not have a record of John the Baptist having been baptized at any point of his life either. If the people in Acts 2 received the Holy Ghost and were saved without a recorded baptism, then the earliest and first outpouring of God into man's soul was not dependant on or accompanied by Baptism as a sacramental ordinance. If the first is always the true, then that is the model we should be observing. Of course, while we are in Acts 2, we may as well deal with verse 38. In this verse the greek says something very different than what we read in the english. In english, according to our grammar, it says that Baptism is what gives remission of sins. But in the greek, there are multiple clauses. First we have Peter saying Repent (metanoew = to change one's mind {for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins}) to them in the plural, then he says and be baptized every one of you (umwn) in the singular, then goes back to the plural with for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The reason the greek is so important here is that in greek, clauses are related by the group spoken of. A greek sentence could have 15 clauses describing 4 groups of people, and they would be linked by how many were in the clauses specifically. So in Acts 2:38, we have 3 clauses: 2 plural as a group whole (repent, remission) and 1 singular (baptized). So in the greek, it is the repentance that brings the remission or washing of our sins by faith in Jesus Christ, which is far different than the grammar and word plays employed by the english. In this light, it is far easier to suppose that Peter was requiring them to be baptized by the authority and under the name of Jesus Christ because after having crucified Jesus, they needed to publicly state that they accepted in and believed in Christ as Lord. Under OT law, this would be blasphemy punishable by death, so Peter was requiring them to proclaim to the world that they were transferring their allegiance from the Law and rules of the OT to the Grace and liberty of Jesus Christ. We do, of course, read multiple times throughout the book of Acts and in the Gospels where Baptism is linked to Salvation. But not in a causative way. It's always in a occasioned way: the Salvation occasioned the Baptism. This is supported by scripture that states we are not saved by works, but rather works are the fruit of our Salvation. Where we do read the NT saying that "Baptism doth also now save us.." (1 Peter 3:21), there is no evidence that it refers to water specifically. We read in Ephesians 4:5 that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" but the word baptism again isn't tied to water directly. Both of these scriptures can be just as easily (and actually more accurately in light of other scriptures like Romans 8) be read to speak of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Having said all that, the commandment to be baptized in water IS found in the scripture, and is therefore one that should be obeyed. It is not, however, absolutely necessary to go to Heaven. For example, a question that is asked repeatedly to people that require water immersion baptisms for salvation is thus: If someone gets filled with the Holy Ghost, but dies before they can make it to water to be baptized, do they go to Heaven or Hell? The blase answer given by these people is: It's between them and God. They abdicate all responsibility to stand by their creed and affirmation of faith. But then the same people will get in a pulpit and preach that if you aren't baptized in Jesus name only (sorry people, apparently you can't be baptized in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by the authority of Jesus Christ" because there's apparently too many words in it or something...) you are not saved and going to hell. They refuse to answer it to your face, but they will preach it from a pulpit where they refuse to let anyone challenge them. Hypocritical. I answer it thus: Heck yeah they're going to Heaven! If they repented of their sin, made a heartfelt commitment to spend their life trying to be more like Jesus, and believe on Jesus and His Resurrection, they are going to Heaven. If they sin, well guess what?, they have an advocate and are still saved. In fact, I will go further to state that the only way to lose Salvation is if they willfully state that "I know Jesus is true, but I am going to live my life how I see fit and without any regard for Christ and His suffering." This could be by actions OR words, but I believe it can be Biblically shown that actions are more important using the parable of the man with two sons.<br /><br />The next thing that Modalist's teach is that Heavenly Tongues WILL accompany the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Orthodox Pentecostals hold the opposite viewpoint, and exegite the scriptures as traditionally understood in that Tongues are NOT a requirement of salvation. There is nowhere in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about tongues being linked to His plan and commandments of Salvation. In fact, Jesus taught repentance, faith, obedience to God, and even taught Baptism (with far less import attached than the other three), but never mentions tongues. The reason tongues are considered as required evidence is because of the experience on the Day of Pentecost by the Apostles. It's silly though how that becomes an absolute without being taught ANYWHERE. What we have is an example or occurence becoming a doctrine. This is devastatingly poor Biblical exegesis. If you look at the original texts, you find that the "tongues" spoken of in Acts 2 were very specifically human languages understood and known to the people that were present...Verse 5-12. The Bible is INCREDIBLY clear that the Apostles were speaking to these people fluently in their own languages; languages the Apostles had never learned before. It wasn't just a few words here and there couched in gobbledygook. It wasn't simply babbling with the occasional Persian word thrown in for fun. Verse 11 states that "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." But in modern day churches that teach and practice Glossalalia, the people are said to be speaking some "Heavenly language as God speaks through them", and with "groanings that cannot be uttered". Two problems with that: first, Heavenly language? Which is that precisely? French? Russian? Ancient Aramaic? In all seriousness, the Bible clearly shows they were speaking known languages and MINISTERING in those languages as God saw a need to show His works to Jews of every nation. That's as plain as day if you actually read your Bible. Second, if they are groanings that cannot be uttered, then how do you propose to explain that they ARE uttered? It makes no sense. If they cannot be uttered, then no amount of influence from God will change that. The word "cannot" states an absolute, not a variable. What that scripture states is that the Spirit makes intercession FOR the saint, not THROUGH the saint. In that case, where can you exegetically show that the saint makes the groaning that they couldn't utter in the first place. The teaching breaks down completely in the face of logic and proper hermeneutics. Because of all this, there is no way to show that tongues are a required sign of Salvation. They are a gift that will manifest itself when there is a need. I was recently at a conference where a man was "praying people through" to the Holy Ghost. I was close enough to hear him tell a seeker that while she was praying, she would hear weird sounds in her head and that when she heard them she should speak them as that was God telling her what to say. LOL. I have yet to find that in the Bible. It sounded so much like the Charismatics that these people claim to eschew that I wanted to laugh right there. I think these people should rewrite Acts 2:38 to say "Then Peter said unto them (in a heavenly language), Repent, and be Baptized in Jesus name only for the remission of your sins (beware those that teach any deviation as they send you straight to hell!!!), and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost which will make you babble like a 3 year old again." What is interesting to note is that in 1 Corinthians 12 we read of the gifts of the Spirit as Wisdom, Knowledge, Faith, Healing, Miracles, Prophecy, Discernment, Divers (divers = diverse or many) Tongues, and Interpretation of Tongues. In Mark 16:17-18 lists the following signs: They'll cast out devils, Speak with New (the word "new" here translates properly as "previously unknown to the speaker") Tongues, they'll take up serpents (presumably without harm), they will not be harmed by deadly drink, and they will heal the sick through the laying on of hands. Ephesians 4:8-11 states that Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers are gifts, not callings or positions. With all these different gifts and signs, why do organizations put such an emphasis on one sign/gift such as tongues only? I guarantee that if you walked into a church where the entire population was babbling away, and threw 300 texas rattlesnakes on the floor, then handed out pitchers of cyanide laced koolaid, everyone would stampede each other to death trying to get to the door. I wonder how many of the survivors would actually brave the snakes to go lay hands on the people dying from the snake venom and heal them? You simply cannot take one sign out of one or two verses and state that it is the penultimate sign of Salvation when the scripture doesn't state that anywhere. I don't believe speaking in tongues is necessary for Salvation any more than playing with Cottonmouths or King Cobras is. I don't think there's a need to check someone's salvation by giving them Drano to drink when they claim they have prayed through. What the scripture shows is that, when necessary, these signs shall FOLLOW the believer. It doesn't state they should be sought after to prove you're saved. If you pick up a snake thinking it's a twig, then, Biblically (if you're a believer) it won't kill you...bite or no. Same for drinks: if you happen to drink some bleach thinking it's water (that actually happened to my brother when we were kids lol) then you aren't going to kick the bucket. If you happen to end up in company that doesn't understand english and you are full of the Holy Ghost and Faith, then by Biblical standard God will speak through you to those people...Just start talking and let Him work.<br /><br />I hope this clarifies for you what the Bible says about Salvation in the New Testament. Salvation is based on Faith and Grace. It's liberating!<br /><br />God Bless you</span>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-33570891900752822912009-05-25T17:39:00.005-06:002009-05-26T18:48:21.333-06:00What a leader is<span style="font-family:arial;">In light of the current state of affairs in so-called Christianity today, I have decided to examine what a Biblical Pastor/Shepherd is expected to be and do according to the word of God. Too many preachers these days are not qualified Biblically to be in the position of leadership, and this is the reason many people are turned off of God completely. When the so-called Pastor of a church does not respect the duties and principals of God's ministry, the people affected by it are more likely to not trust other true ministers with their soul. This often leads to people turning their back on God completely, rather than seeking out an actual church where there is healing of the hurts caused by the world, sin, separation from God, and other people, well intentioned as they may appear to be. Come along for a journey through the scriptures. At the end of this post I will include webpages I have used as references in my studying, as well as scripture references throughout so that you can study it further on your own.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The first thing to do is to define clearly what a Pastor actually is. It seems rather pointless to decide what exactly they do without first defining what they are. The word "Pastor" is the english translation of the Greek word "Poimaino" (Strong's # is 4166), and is found only once in the NT (Ephesians 4:11), and 7 times in the OT (Jeremiah 3:15, 10:21, 12:10, 17:16, 22:22, 23:1,2) (1). This word is not a common one used in reference to and by the NT church. It seems to be a holdover from the previous belief system. It would appear to be used as a reference to a Shepherd, although figuratively OR literally. In reality, the same word could be used to describe a literal shepherd with sheep, or a figurative one in reference to anyone that cared for, watched for, or fed a flock of something. This means that the Ephesians reference to a "Pastor" requires anyone fulfilling this role to do so by fulfilling what a Shepherd would do with his sheep. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">However, there is more assigned to this role than would meet the eye at first glance. When we look at sheep and the relationship with the shepherd, we see a man that leads his wards to food, water, and rest, and is responsible for protecting them from predators and natural dangers. A shepherd is also one that would go looking for lost sheep that strayed away or were missed when the flock moved and so were left behind. A shepherd would lead his sheep and they would follow him. We know from historical and current practices that sheep are relatively easy to herd. They tend to flock together as an inherited trait, and can be "hefted" to a specific pasture preventing them from straying...without the use of fences. This heft, once taught to a group of sheep, will be passed down by the elder sheep to the younger ones, and is not something a shepherd had to teach more than once, as long as the flock was never completely culled (2).</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Bearing in mind that the ministry in a congregation are chosen from God's church, or God's "sheep", we see that an Elder is also a sheep, albeit with more experience. Thus we must examine what an "Elder" is to fully understand the nature and calling of a Pastor/Shepherd as they are one of God's sheep. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The word "Elder" in the NT is translated from the greek word "Presbyteros" (Strong's # 4245). An Elder is one that can impart some knowledge to younger people based on his own life experiences and walk with God (3). This requires him to not be a young man but one who has been through some good times, some bad times, and some utterly desolate times. Without these things, he would have no ability to empathize with the troubles, trials, and elations that others experience, and therefore couldn't begin to counsel, encourage, or rejoice with them. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">To finalize the full meaning of a Pastor, we must examine the link in 1 Peter 5:1-2. We see that Elders are also equated with "Overseer" which is translated from the greek word "Presbuteros" (Strong's # 1985). The word refers to the duties performed by a person, and is not precisely related to the person themself (4). </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So the word "Pastor" is found to be synonymous to and inclusive of the words "Overseer", "Elder", and "Shepherd". This, in itself defines the Biblical duties and calling of a Pastor. A Pastor is called to lead and teach the flock, counsel them in life's paths, feed them with God's word, and to help the poor and deprived in the church. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So far, noone in modern day Christianity would have any disagreement with this. In fact, they would take it as justification for their status and position in the church. What the NT states therefore is thus: A Pastor is an Elder is an Overseer, an Elder is a Pastor is an Overseer, an Overseer is a Pastor is an Elder. The problem this creates for most modern day legalistic churches is that they have One Guy in charge and he is THE Pastor. Nowhere does the NT refer to a single Elder being in charge of a congregation. In fact, the opposite is true in that we continually read the NT speaking of Elders in the very specific masculine Plural in every congregation mentioned. If the Bible is correct that an Elder is a Pastor is an Overseer, then no congregation should have a single domineering authoritarian "leader" that is the complete authority in the lives of the members. This model is not found Biblically and is the reason why unethical conduct permeates many organizations. It allows for "absolute power to corrupt absolutely". The fact that the word "Pastor" only appears once in the NT church should be indicative of the lack of importance the Scriptures place on the title. The church was designed to be run by the Elders (plural) performing the different functions as their talents permitted. There was never in the NT church an instance where a single person was ever in complete authority over a group without full accountability to the other Elders in the assembly. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Now we come to what the Bible considers to be an Elder/Pastor. We are given definite requirements for this in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4. We find from these scriptures that an Elder is to be Blameless, Husband of one wife, circumspect, Sober, well behaved, hospitable, a teacher, not a heavy drinker, not a fighter, not greedy, patient, not covetous, one that rules his house well, having children that are obedient to him, experienced, of a good report of those OUTSIDE the church, unaccused, having children that are unaccused as well, not selfwilled, not soon angry, a lover of good men (not simply men in the "church"), just, holy, temperate, holding fast to what he has been taught, not as lords over God's people but as examples. This last clause means that they must fulfill all the statements made by Jesus and the Apostles as to what a Christian should be. If a man falls short of any of these qualities then he is no longer Biblically qualified to be a Pastor/Deacon/Overseer. On the other hand, any man that DOES fulfill these qualities automatically fulfills that capacity (5). </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It is worth mentioning that the NT does not record any specific annointing being poured on men to qualify them for this position/calling. It is based simply on their life and the requirement of the Holy Ghost residing in them. The scripture that is used to justify a body of men pointing out others that they feel are qualified to minister is Acts 13:1-3. The broad application of this is not supported Biblically as the scripture specifically states that it was for the work that God had for THOSE TWO individuals, not as a pattern for choosing ministers as a persistent doctrine. If God had wanted it set as such, He would have recorded it as such to the Apostles He chose in the first place. Not to a single assembly to help strengthen and encourage two men twho were going to do arguably the greatest amount of work the Kingdom of God has ever seen. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The other scripture that is twisted out of context is 1 Timothy 4:14. This scripture is written, once again, to a specific man, not to the Elders of the church as a general whole. Therefore, to apply it to the entirety of God's church is erroneous, and demonstrably incorrect Biblical exegesis. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Taking all this as a whole shows that congregations in God's church are to be ruled by a plurality of Elders/Pastors/Overseers, rather than the usual model of a single man setting himself up as the authority in a group. Regardless of a man's personal claim on God granted authority and the apparent confirmation of such by other men of the same organization, a congregation is Biblically shown to have a group of men that oversee it as a whole. It cannot be Biblically shown in the NT that the opposite is true. Therefore, if you truly want to be in God's church, you MUST be in a congregation that is ruled thus. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">In conclusion, the Elders/Pastors/Overseers are simply sheep within the flock that fulfill the requirements of the Bible. They do not have a special annointing, they don't have a higher calling. They are simply men that are shown and proven to live uprightly, with wisdom to share from life experiences. Any other form of church government cannot be proven as Biblically correct as far as the New Testament example is concerned. To do so requires you to ignore the quoted scriptures.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">References:</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">1 - </span><a href="http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/elders.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/elders.html</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">2 - </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_sheep"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_sheep</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">3 - </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_(Christianity"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_(Christianity</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">)</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">4 - </span><a href="http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read1/r00474.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read1/r00474.html</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">5 - </span><a href="http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-2presbyterion.php?type=print"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-2presbyterion.php?type=print</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I truly suggest you try studying these references as they go into quite a bit more detail.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">God bless and keep you</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;"> </span></p></span><br /></span>John LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-14343250502086819962009-05-25T01:10:00.004-06:002009-05-26T18:47:35.205-06:00Haha, lawsuit.Well I just plugged my phone in to charge and it came up saying I had a missed call and VM. I listened to the VM and it was <strong><u><em>(name removed for peace)</em></u></strong>. He stated he would be seeking legal counsel in reference to this blog. Still no refutation of scripture or specific allegations, just threat of legal action. I put my trust in God, the Bible, and truth. Yeah, I'll talk to a lawyer, but I haven't made an untrue or inaccurate statement yet. I'll keep you posted.<br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4768839694976946962.post-82674217975541120022009-05-24T18:13:00.006-06:002009-05-26T18:47:15.849-06:00Un-Biblical LegalismI decided that today I would post on legalism and standards in God's church. I am quite aware of the level of standards that are taught in extremely restrictive organizations, and I feel that this is truly at the heart of what God is all about.<br /><br />The first thing that bears mention is the control that is exerted by these organizations over what we can eat and drink. It shows just how much they want to be in control of everything we do. I recently left the UPCI organization, and am quite familiar with the LDS church as well. The LDS church specifically bans alcohol and coffee as being substances that pollute the body because they can harm it. The same rationalization is used for things such as cigarettes although the moderate use of coffee or alcohol has never been proven as unhealthy...quite the opposite in fact. The UPCI bans the same things (for the most part) except for coffee. The original reason given for coffee by the LDS church is ambiguous at best (D&C 89 actually talks about hot drinks, not coffee or tea specifically), but is interpreted nowadays in the light of what are common hot drinks. The two most common reasons put forth by the modern LDS believers about coffee are that caffeine CAN be addictive so they avoid it, and the other is that there are tannic acids involved in the processing of coffee beans that are bad for the stomach lining. I'm not sure if the latter is actually based on fact, but that is the reason I was given by a LDS bishop and his second counselor. As for alcohol, both organizations ban them because it can be addictive. Tobacco is banned by both organizations for commonly known health reasons, although they quote the scripture about polluting the temple of God (the believer) as the scriptural reference. While I agree that not smoking is good, and not being a drunkard is Biblical, I also believe that they are not the unforgivable sin. Jesus died that we might have liberty and grace and mercy. Not so we could live under men's laws and commandments. The Apostles bound only three things: no idolatry, no fornication, and no blood (including strangled meats) in Acts 15:20, 29. If those are the only three things bound by the apostles that had the authority to do so, why do we end up with all these organizations making up more rules? In Acts 15:21, we see that they do make mention of the Law, but which Law? the Ten Commandments? or the Lesser Law? It would seem that they would be referring to the Ten, because Jesus Himself condemned the phariseeical rules and Peter refers in Acts 15:10 to the yoke their fathers couldn't bear. I doubt he was referring only to circumcision as that was an act performed on every male at 8 days old...they didn't have to bear it because it was done before they would need to make a decision about it. In that light, it seems that we are called to live under grace, albeit with the effort and commitment to not break the Ten Commandments of God (the Bible says the Law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ) as they are the clearest and earliest record of right and wrong, with one huge exception: Cain and Abel. Cain was held responsible by God for the murder of Abel, even though the Law had not been given. We do not read where God had said "don't kill each other", yet Cain knew better. How would that be possible without the Law? Concience. The Bible states that God will write His laws on the hearts of His people. This shows a return to the pre-Law state of affairs where people knew right from wrong based on what God had put in man to begin with. The whole reason God had to die for man was because man had gotten so far from where we were supposed to be in our relationship with Him that we didn't have that inside voice telling us to not do certain things.<br /><br />What does all that have to do with standards like alcohol and coffee? Simply this: God doesn't care if you drink them, He doesn't care if you eat pork, He could care less if you like to eat vegetables only. Everything in moderation is the only admonition we have. We are told that getting drunk is bad, but Paul tells Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. A cup of joe can be a nice way to wake up or finish a meal, but 3 pots a day is probably a little excessive. A t-bone steak is good with some asparagus, but eating an entire rib roast is not good for your cholesterol. If you want to preach against alcohol, you better teach against cough syrup. Or, just simply teach people moderation in what they do. In all aspects of their life. Legalistic phariseeical standards are no longer required by God in the NT church. An organization that teaches them may well be good for someone that simply cannot control their drinking. But if you want to have a glass or two of wine with your meal, feel free. It aids digestion, inhibits the body's ability to absorb fat from your meal, and promotes heart health. It also has been shown that it may reduce the risk of most cancers. If you can't keep your drinking moderated at 2 glasses with your supper, then don't drink. As Paul said, don't be bound. If you want to have a cigar when your baby is born...go nuts. It isn't going to send you to hell. If you can't moderate your tobacco use, then don't smoke or chew in any form. Common sense. God will give you strength if you ask. Don't spend your life bound to an organizations standards of what men think is ok. Let God define it in your life.<br /><br />God Bless youJohn LePagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17590318533381309426noreply@blogger.com0