 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Paul Cain - The homosexual Prophet | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/27/2004 11:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | I think we have to at least entertain the possibility that Paul Cain might fall into the category of people Jesus describes in Matt. 7:21-23:
Matt. 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' NASB
My, how judgmental Jesus could be.
(Again, I must reiterate that I hope and pray for nothing but Paul Cain's full restoration to godly living in Christ; I realize that those who advocate Sinnianity effectively mock the call of Christ to holy living by saying "no one can live without sinning," but the Coming Terrible Day will reveal who is and who isn't guilty of mocking our Savior's direct command, "If you love me, keep my commandments.")
Soberly,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/27/2004 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | .
MY POINT -- is that it is without conscience to intentionally set out to defame, discredit or otherwise do harm by purposefully posting information on THE INTERNET that will CAUSE defamation.
INTERNET floggings cannot be rationalized as 'godly' (or, loving) confrontations.
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/27/2004 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | Would a pastor be considered a public figure if he stayed within his church, without writing books, doing radio, etc? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/27/2004 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mayflower
.
MY POINT -- is that it is without conscience to intentionally set out to defame, discredit or otherwise do harm by purposefully posting information on THE INTERNET that will CAUSE defamation.
INTERNET floggings cannot be rationalized as 'godly' (or, loving) confrontations.
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
Mayflower,
With all due respect, I think your definition of defamation is in need in some fine tuning (see below). Also, these are publicly known facts about Paul Cain that spenlake has brought to our attention; these facts were brought to light in an open letter distributed on the internet last week by Paul Cain's own closest associates in ministry--Rick Joyner, Jack Deere, and Mike Bickle--on Joyner's own website.
Also, your accusation that spen has defamed Cain misconstrues the definition of "defamation." According to the legal dictionary at law.com, defamation is defined as:
defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp
According to the same dictionary, what spenlake has done is make a "fair comment" about a public figure based on facts that are already publicly known:
fair comment
n. a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment. This is a crucial defense against libel suits put up by members of the media.
Regards,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kublai Khan
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 10/28/2004 2:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Balaam did give true prophecies and is condemned as a false prophet through to Revelation. If Rick Joyner, Jack Deere, and Mike Bickle would call Paul Cain a false prophet, then we could possibly have a Balaam situation. This is not the case, however. Even if they said that his past minstry was "suspect," this may be better. The fact that they state that this should in no way negate or reduce his past ministry is shocking.
See, that's what I'm asking. Let's say P.C. had given a prophecy that had REALLY helped save someone's marriage. And it was deemed worthy back then based on it's own merit (it was biblical) and based on it's fruit (it helped save a marriage). Why, then, would that prophecy be "negated" or considered "suspect" now?
And how would you "negate" or "reduce" anything that was helpful in the past?
Personally I'm not "up" on contemporary prophecy and what's going on in the fringe element but most the prophecy I've heard is usually lame, general and vague, neither provable nor disprovable ("You will be as an arrow shot out" - said to a high school senior who would obviously be moving away from home in the future). I'd consider this type of stuff neither helpful nor harmful, no matter who said it.
I'm not arguing that an alcoholic should be sought for advice, just wondering why or how something deemed helpful in the past would be rethought now.
"Arrest the usual suspects." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/28/2004 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | A Catholic church in Minneapolis known for its progressive stands on social issues has been ordered by the Vatican and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to remove Gay Pride material from its Web site and stop allowing unordained guests to speak during mass.
www.startribune.com/stories/614/5056033.html
The letter said the church plans to allow guest speakers before mass begins, a move to satisfy one of the archdiocese's concerns.
Although Wertin said the Gay Pride information will be removed from the church's Web site, those pages remained there Wednesday.
The site has photos and long articles about the parish's participation in Minneapolis' annual Gay Pride parade. Some of the parish's speakers have been gay-rights advocates. | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 10/28/2004 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I work with homosexuals and am grateful to benefit from their talents and wisdom.
OKay
quote:
Is it true that God would establish a practicing homosexual to rebuke the sinning nations and threaten them with wrath if they don't listen to him?
Wasn't Balaam's message just as valid?
I'm not trying to justify the guy's behavior (the alcoholism seems more damaging, imho), just asking why any past work of his would be thrown away even though it was judged useful at the time.
Balaam did give true prophecies and is condemned as a false prophet through to Revelation. If Rick Joyner, Jack Deere, and Mike Bickle would call Paul Cain a false prophet, then we could possibly have a Balaam situation. This is not the case, however. Even if they said that his past minstry was "suspect," this may be better. The fact that they state that this should in no way negate or reduce his past ministry is shocking.
Hey Spen!
I printed out the letter from Joyner. I'll read it soon with interest. This topic came up at our weekly prayer meeting as one of our members is close with the Bickle people. Some think surely Mr. Cain has to have had this problem since his youth. I don't know. Some think it bad form to publish for the "church" to see...knowing anyone on earth can get to the info as well. I have one pastor friend who thinks it just awful that the thing is aired so publically. I think I agree quite alot with you on this one. Matthew 18 seems to have been followed...Mr.Cain was approached first one on one and then taken into conference with witnesses. I am told Bickle and company worked with him for months. A man like Cain with a huge audience and respect can surely have a hugely detrimental effect if he is caught in such as a delusion as he seems to be.
I do appeal to our attitudes to be one of sorrow and hope for Cain's healing and restoration. I also would not throw out just all his teaching. On this, I wonder of my own dad's 4 decades of ministry. He is definitely nothing of an orthodox, apostle's creed-believing minister...still I think God's word being read and preached will have and has had good effect on the hearers...me being one. Even with my own dad, knowing him intimately as I do and his very unorthodox, basically new age core beliefs, am I accountable to tell leaders of his church? I say no as I am not a member there, a city of another state, and the leaders of that church are posted by God to be watchmen.
This is a thorny issue though. I can see Selah's advice to leave names out. This is also my urgent suggestion when it comes to discussing doctrinal items and issues like psychology use in the church. Many times I think it ends up destroying people and ministries that God intended for good. Just saying a name without a deep discussion of that one's belief system often results in the bypassing of the good of the message...throwing babe and bathwater out together. There is a difference with the cain thing. If it is true that he will not stop practicing homosexual behavior, a discussion on issues won't do. A visible, non-repenting and still-ministering leader, should,imho, be stopped. And those stopping him need to heed Paul's warning..."You who are spiritual" go and beware"lest you be caught in the same sin". I love the story RT Kendall shares about being on the way to confront a man. The man going with Kendall made it clear...this sin could never happen to me. Kendall said that if that is your conviction, I'll not take you along. He says we must all admit..."But for the grace of God I'd be there too...."
Good sharing and thought. And let's pray God turns this and Cain from dark to light!
Barry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/29/2004 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Barry wrote:
quote:
.....Some think it bad form to publish for the "church" to see...knowing anyone on earth can get to the info as well. I have one pastor friend who thinks it just awful that the thing is aired so publically.
.
Amen.
Peace & blessings,
<><
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/29/2004 4:21 AM (GMT -6) | | .
To infer that "all" (in biblical times) referenced worldwide (!!) humiliation / condemnation has the potential for limitless sorrow & damage.
As we all know -- the internet has great value; and, great potential for abuse.
Therefore -- the culture/context in which "all" was originally referenced is of critical importance.
Peace & blessings,
<><
quote:
.
Spen wrote:
quote:
Thus, the "church" that he "ministered" to is to be contacted via the web.
. quote:
Mayflower wrote:
To utilize THE INTERNET for character assassination is to be intentionally devastating -- by design.
When such allegations -- true or untrue, are posted on the internet, the ripple effects are never ending.
Is this genuinely a "loving" confrontation? Or, might the purpose be more sinister??
I disagree that "all" (as used below) was intended to be used as justification for large-scale "spectator sport" flogging.
I believe that your interpretation is in error.
.
.
Spen wrote:
quote:
..... "rebuke in the presence of all , so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning."
This may not mean what I think it means, but it must mean something.
.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/30/2004 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Christ said to not cast our pearls before the swine or that which is holy to the dogs.
I hear that "pearls/swine" verse quoted a lot (mostly by people who regard themselves as non-swine people), but, to be honest, I don't get it. If anyone wants to explain it to me (Tom) I'd love to hear it. Until then, I just find it kind of random...
What's really interesting though is the context around that verse.
Check it out:
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
...ask seek knock verses here...
12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Incredibly interesting don't you think?
quote:
Do you think there is ANYTHING currently on the internet by a Christian(s) falls into that category? I.e., might some of the problem be that there is more on a world-wide, public forum than ought to be there in the first place, positive or negative?
I'm not sure how to answer your first question...(yes?) I do think there's a lot of potential (for good and evil) on the internet, sure. So where does that leave us?
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/30/2004 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
quote:
I hear that "pearls/swine" verse quoted a lot (mostly by people who regard themselves as non-swine people), but, to be honest, I don't get it.
If it is, indeed, a command of Christ, it behoves us to understand it. I'm not sure I totally understand all of it's ramifications, but I do think it should cause Christians to pause before dumping any and everything about their ministries on the WORLD WIDE WEB.
quote:
I'm not sure how to answer your first question...(yes?) I do think there's a lot of potential (for good and evil) on the internet, sure. So where does that leave us?
Well, it leaves me thinking that Spen, if he is wrong at all, is probably the least of the problem with regards to the publicizing of the whole incident. And since we (you and I), confessedly, don't know all of the ramifications of Christ's command, we may be guilty of posting, on this public forum, things that ought not to have been said publicly. So should we be so upset at Spen for simply saying what was already publicly aired? For as you so aptly quoted -
quote:
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/30/2004 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Jefscott said:
quote:
...And since we (you and I), confessedly, don't know all of the ramifications of Christ's command, we may be guilty of posting, on this public forum, things that ought not to have been said publicly. So should we be so upset at Spen for simply saying what was already publicly aired? For as you so aptly quoted -
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
The thing is that I'm ok with that. I probably am guilty of saying things that ought not to have been said publically. Spen pointed out the Calvin issue, for one. And when he did, I agreed to stop making it personal. Not a problem. Additionally, I am not so upset with Spen for simply saying something that was already publically aired. If you reviewed my posts, I think you'd see that I am quite intentional about saying things like "that's just me" and "carry on." I am well aware of the fact that I don't know the whole story -- therefore, I cannot make fully informed judgments.
My motive on this thread has been to look with you at the issue of publically shaming a brother in Christ and/or questioning the validity of his ministry in a public forum (especially one that's not conducive to it). That's pretty much all. I've tried to frame my thoughts as wondering out loud... and also end them in respect. I love Spen. I love Paul Cain. I love you (and I believe Jesus does too - moreso). I have nothing to gain by trying to judge. I would suck at it if I did. There is only one all wise and completely fair Judge...
OK, I hope that made sense. I'm so tired I'm falling asleep as I write
 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 11/1/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
[quote]
Christ said to not cast our pearls before the swine or that which is holy to the dogs.
I hear that "pearls/swine" verse quoted a lot (mostly by people who regard themselves as non-swine people), but, to be honest, I don't get it. If anyone wants to explain it to me (Tom) I'd love to hear it. Until then, I just find it kind of random...( Selah)
HEY Selah et al: I love the "pearls and swine" verse. I know I don't completely get it. I believe one application is when one has a very great revelation...a dream or vision or prophesy. When one shares this with great enthusiasm, the other is in the "swine" role when they "pooh-pooh" the other and the revelation. Believers are sometimes the very best at being "swine". I confess I've been one. The bible talks of Christ being one who will not break off a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick. I believe we Christians often do just that. Christ sees those of us who are "SMOLDERING WICK TYPES" and he speaks encouragement...Go on, my child, you are walking in pleasing ways to me" The "quenchers" are so quick to criticize and condemn. I do think the verse is not mainly saying.."don't tell the unbeliever how God has touched or blessed you". Unbelievers are sometimes far more gracious to me when hearing things of God that are so foreign to them.
I once heard that a real pig when he sees something shiny in his pig sty will trample it down in the mud. It seems by experience or instinct he knows "shiny things" mean trouble...like glass or shiny stones. Such are no good for him to eat. The "swine-ness" in us humans seems to come out sometimes when the minister is really giving forth pearls of Truth. It seems almost instinctual, from the old man, to want to trample such things down and not deal with them or not have them deal with us. Ever heard this before?
Grace from heaven,
Barry | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 11/1/2004 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by barryatk
HEY Selah et al: I love the "pearls and swine" verse. I know I don't completely get it. I believe one application is when one has a very great revelation...a dream or vision or prophesy. When one shares this with great enthusiasm, the other is in the "swine" role when they "pooh-pooh" the other and the revelation. Believers are sometimes the very best at being "swine". I confess I've been one. The bible talks of Christ being one who will not break off a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick. I believe we Christians often do just that. Christ sees those of us who are "SMOLDERING WICK TYPES" and he speaks encouragement...Go on, my child, you are walking in pleasing ways to me" The "quenchers" are so quick to criticize and condemn. I do think the verse is not mainly saying.."don't tell the unbeliever how God has touched or blessed you". Unbelievers are sometimes far more gracious to me when hearing things of God that are so foreign to them.
I once heard that a real pig when he sees something shiny in his pig sty will trample it down in the mud. It seems by experience or instinct he knows "shiny things" mean trouble...like glass or shiny stones. Such are no good for him to eat. The "swine-ness" in us humans seems to come out sometimes when the minister is really giving forth pearls of Truth. It seems almost instinctual, from the old man, to want to trample such things down and not deal with them or not have them deal with us. Ever heard this before?
Grace from heaven,
Barry
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Barry,
I believe that the entire context of the verse makes it clear that we are not to cast what is holy to those who dispise or distain it because they will hate you for it. I don't believe that one can claim that their own words are "undeniably" or holy or that I can claim my personal revelation is holy.
Two verses later we see, additional focus on what and who is holy and what and who is evil,"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
Finally, in the same sermon Jesus warns us of false prophets and their revelations to close on the difference between those who build on a foundation of stone and those who build upon sand. The entire passage seems to be about the difference between what is holy, God and His Words and judgments, and what is without eternal value - mens words and judgments. Those who are unconverted and cling to what is of the world and men, these will hate what is holy.
Read Matt 7 and let me know if this makes sense.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 11/2/2004 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Barry, thanks for your response. I think you've touched an important concept - our holy relationship with God is not easily shared in common language with another. Sometimes there just aren't words. No matter what words you use, the words can't give meaning to the actual experience because the reality is the experience is spirit to spirit. Attempting to share that can be very disappointing.
Spen,
Gee, we sure disagree a lot! What's up with that?
you:
quote:
I believe that the entire context of the verse makes it clear that we are not to cast what is holy to those who dispise or distain it because they will hate you for it.
me:
Where are we commanded to not be hated in Scripture. Jesus shared holy things and was hated - no?
you:
quote:
I don't believe that one can claim that their own words are "undeniably" or holy or that I can claim my personal revelation is holy.
me: If you don't know what is holy, how can you know what not to throw before the swine? If the Father (as you say below) is holy, how are we not to share that?? How do we carry out our commission spen?
you:
quote:
Two verses later we see, additional focus on what and who is holy and what and who is evil,"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
me:
you lost me here...
quote:
... The entire passage seems to be about the difference between what is holy, God and His Words and judgments, and what is without eternal value - mens words and judgments. Those who are unconverted and cling to what is of the world and men, these will hate what is holy.
me:
again, I thought we were supposed to share Christ. I'm not sure that he cares if the "unconverted" hate him/His Words. He shared Himself with tons of unconverted (that's how many converted) and He prayed for them on the cross, right? Shouldn't we mirror Him and do likewise?
Again, it would help if you could make this concrete Spen. How is it that you DO this in real life? How do you keep what is holy from the swine?
Thanks,
love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 11/2/2004 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
Hi Barry, thanks for your response. I think you've touched an important concept - our holy relationship with God is not easily shared in common language with another. Sometimes there just aren't words. No matter what words you use, the words can't give meaning to the actual experience because the reality is the experience is spirit to spirit. Attempting to share that can be very disappointing.
Spen,
Gee, we sure disagree a lot! What's up with that?
you:
quote:
I believe that the entire context of the verse makes it clear that we are not to cast what is holy to those who dispise or distain it because they will hate you for it.
me:
Where are we commanded to not be hated in Scripture. Jesus shared holy things and was hated - no?
you:
quote:
I don't believe that one can claim that their own words are "undeniably" or holy or that I can claim my personal revelation is holy.
me: If you don't know what is holy, how can you know what not to throw before the swine? If the Father (as you say below) is holy, how are we not to share that?? How do we carry out our commission spen?
you:
quote:
Two verses later we see, additional focus on what and who is holy and what and who is evil,"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"
me:
you lost me here...
[quote]... The entire passage seems to be about the difference between what is holy, God and His Words and judgments, and what is without eternal value - mens words and judgments. Those who are unconverted and cling to what is of the world and men, these will hate what is holy.
me:
again, I thought we were supposed to share Christ. I'm not sure that he cares if the "unconverted" hate him/His Words. He shared Himself with tons of unconverted (that's how many converted) and He prayed for them on the cross, right? Shouldn't we mirror Him and do likewise?
Again, it would help if you could make this concrete Spen. How is it that you DO this in real life? How do you keep what is holy from the swine?
Thanks,
love,
selah
Thanks for the support Selah. And spen, I am glad you are such a stickler for the literal meaning. I jsut was saying there is ONE application that seems to work. I have known many times when trying to communicate, what holy things are being said, and what swine-like responses are coming forth. Let us work to respond as Christ, yes?
Barry | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 11/6/2004 1:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Again, it would help if you could make this concrete Spen. How is it that you DO this in real life? How do you keep what is holy from the swine?
I am not sure if I understand this all clearly, but I will share what I think it means in real life. As I walk through life and attempt to share the gospel, there are some who are "not open" or "openly opposed." If they are openly opposed, instead of forcing the gospel (the redemptive life, death, and resurrection of Christ) upon them as a prerequisite for relationship, I simply establish a relationship based upon the "law" in some fashion. I mean by this that I have relationships with secular friends that "work" because they we don't maliciously exploit one another. I don't steal his wallet and he doesn't steal mine. This is not a realtionship built upon the gospel, but the law. I have the same relationship based upon law with the other citizens with which I live. My neighborhood , workplace, city, etc. functions because of the law and I have relationships within these structures and work together with pagans, homosexuals and other "dogs - according to the gospel" because of the structure provided by the law.
When it comes to the gospel, I do not wear it on my shoulder commanding these pagans that they must believe before I can work with them. This would seem to go to far. I am certain that they would turn on me as the swine/dogs do in the illustration.
This seems to be the same concept seen in Paul's letter. It would be casting pearls before swine to demand that the world be holy before we associate with it and it would be casting pearls before swine to ask the world to judge matters within the church.
quote:
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?
quote:
So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 11/6/2004 2:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Again, it would help if you could make this concrete Spen. How is it that you DO this in real life? How do you keep what is holy from the swine?
I am not sure if I understand this all clearly, but I will share what I think it means in real life. As I walk through life and attempt to share the gospel, there are some who are not open or "openly opposed." If they are openly opposed, instead of forcing the gospel (the redemptive life, death, and resurrection of Christ) upon them as a prerequisite for relationship, I simply establish a relationship based upon the "law" in some fashion. I mean by this that I have relationships with secular friends that "work" because they we don't maliciously exploit one another. I don't steal his wallet and he doesn't steal mine. This is not a realtionship built upon the gospel, but the law. I have the same relationship based upon law with the other citizens with which I live. My neighborhood , workplace, city, etc. functions because of the law and I have relationships within these structures and work together with pagans, homosexuals and other "dogs - according to the gospel" because of the structure provided by the law.
When it comes to the gospel, I do not wear it on my shoulder commanding these pagans that they must believe before I can work with them. This would seem to go to far. I am certain that they would turn on me as the swine/dogs do in the illustration.
This is interesting Spen. See, talking about concrete ways we walk out our beliefs is very helpful. Now that you shared how you do it I can say "oh, I agree with this part" and also "this isn't how I do it here." cool, eh?
For instance, in the above example, I would agree with you that we aren't to go further and force the gospel with someone who "openly opposes" Christ. This could do more harm than good. We can/should be in relationship with them, but unwelcomed open discussion regarding salvation doesn't have to be a part of that relationship.
However, (here's where we part) I do think we are called to BE Christ to others in every relationship. Christ stands at the door and knocks but doesn't force His way in. We mirror this in relationships to unbelievers by loving (always hoping) and being prepared to share Christ in words some day. I would disagree with the catagories of "law" relationships and non-law relationships. I also disagree with labeling people according to their sin (or better, sin "focus") for example: homosexuals, pagans, gluttons, greedy people etc. My sin/sin focus is no better than theirs. I stand side by side in each relationship (believer or not) because Christ died for all. The gospel is the gospel because it's good news for all...
Finally, I would say that the "law" relationship catagory is unbiblical in the way you describe it because to only be in relationship "like for like" (those secular people who don't "maliciously exploit one another") is pretty exclusive and certainly can't cover the people who DO exploit you - namely, your enemy.
I have to run now. THanks for responding. I hope this is helpful in some way.
Blessings and love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 11/6/2004 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:However, (here's where we part) I do think we are called to BE Christ to others in every relationship. Christ stands at the door and knocks but doesn't force His way in. We mirror this in relationships to unbelievers by loving (always hoping) and being prepared to share Christ in words some day. I would disagree with the catagories of "law" relationships and non-law relationships. I also disagree with labeling people according to their sin (or better, sin "focus") for example: homosexuals, pagans, gluttons, greedy people etc. My sin/sin focus is no better than theirs. I stand side by side in each relationship (believer or not) because Christ died for all. The gospel is the gospel because it's good news for all...
Spen: I do not believe that preaching the gospel and fulfilling the great commission is found in "being Christ to others in every relationship." As a falible and as yet unglorified human, this will never happen completely and somehow it implies that God's gospel cannot be successful until I am. I understand and agree that the law of God commands us to be Christlike to other Christians and the world. This is not the gospel, however, and isn't even central to its preaching.
Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;
All Christians will have a desire for increasing sanctification and we are commanded to conform to the image of Christ but this is not the gospel and the power of the gospel to bring salvation to the world is not dependent on imperfect and defective earthen vessels but on the message itself that they carry. What is core and central is the purity of the message. If the messenger rejects, refuses or resists the message that he is preaching, true salvation will still be offered to his listeners resulting in eternal life and the messenger will experience the second death promised in his message.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pdaviesoz
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 63
| Posted Yesterday 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | There are several issues here that need addressing:
1. What is a False Prophet? - None of us are without sin, and it is hypocritical to hold anyone to a higher standard of holiness. Having said that, we expect spiritual Fathers to walk in purity. Part of this has been dealt with by the admission of RJ, MB and JD that Paul Cain should have been held accountable within a local church where these issues could have been dealt with. "False Prophet" is used in scripture about one who directs others away from the Lord, not one who has fallen into sin.
2. "the gifts and callings of God are without repentance" - Just because Paul Cain was struggling with sin does not mean God wasn't using him to bless others. Part of the judgement is the assumption that God wouldn't use fallen vessels. NEWS FLASH - we're all fallen vessels. There are no degrees of sin! Jimmy Swaggart was a similar case. Arguably the most powerful man in the Western AOG movement, still powerfully ministering to others whilst in the grip of pornography and eventual prostitution.
3. Rightly stated, PC should not continue in ministry whilst continuing in unrepentant sin. Neither should he be publicly castigated and removed simply because sin was discovered, regardless of his position. The three overseerers tried to follow the Biblical mandate for restoration, and went public only when PC continued in sin.
4. Lessons for all of us - "he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall". The tragedy of this is that PC for years was a powerful voice against such practices. That Satan has been able to bring him so low speaks volumes about the rest of us - our prayer support, our own lack of revelation, and so on. Like Daniel, we need to repent on behalf of our fallen brother and seek the Lord to restore him. We all share at least part of the reponsibility for the pedestal we put him on and the assumptions we made about his humanity.
5. "Do unto others...". Whilst not in any way condoning sinful behaviour, we need to keep in mind how we would want to be treated if our own sin was exposed.
Blessings
Paul D (in Oz) | | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:53 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|