Pastor Defies State Orders...

[Cow Poke]

I'm really curious, Jim.

Why is it so important for you to "win this battle"? Is it something personal? (You seem to keep going back to that)

There are a number of scriptures that are routinely taken out of context and used for purposes for which they were not intended.
This is one of those - and one of the more misused.

The context includes

• who was speaking - Jesus, the cornerstone of the Church
• to whom was He speaking - a mostly Jewish audience
• the setting/background - Jesus teaching the disciples on the unity of the Church, and restoring a brother
• what the original audience would have understood - given the references to the Deut. principle of "2 or 3 witnesses"
• Jesus "sealing the deal" by stating He's "in" with the 2 or 3 witnesses

As happens too often, you ignore the evidences I provide, and just keep repeating "it's obvious", along with your own opinion.

Why?

[Cow Poke]

I disagree.

No doubt about that!

My response was the reality that in this time we can find other ways to meet together other than large elaborate gatherings in a church building - and God will be there with us as we do it.

And I'm good with that - you just yanked a verse out of context to back that up.

You've misunderstood and misconstrued nearly every aspect of what I said.

No, I think you're just so dalgurn stubborn you can't admit you were wrong.

And saying that Christ will be there in our midst when we meet together, wherever and however, is not a misuse of scripture. It is stating one of the most fundamental truths of scripture.

And there are plenty of verses to back that up -- this one ain't that.

Again, do you deny that when two or more of us meet together to pray, or worship, or study the word of God that He is there?

I can just imagine you pounding on the table angrily demanding an answer.

Jim, I've answered this over and over and over and over again..... There are PLENTY of verses to indicate that Jesus is with is, that He'll never forsake us....

and it didn't even say "two or more" --- it says "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them". In order to misapply this verse, you have to change the "two or three" to "two or more". That was consistent all through this paragraph, based on the Deut law.

If you don't deny that, then your claim I've misused scripture is nothing more than personal acrimony.

No - I have given you solid reasoning, quotes from others, good biblically sound sources.....

I have no personal acrimony for you, Jim. Quite honestly, I feel sorry that you seem to be such an unhappy, tortured, angry individual.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm really curious, Jim.

Why is it so important for you to "win this battle"? Is it something personal? (You seem to keep going back to that)

There are a number of scriptures that are routinely taken out of context and used for purposes for which they were not intended.
This is one of those - and one of the more misused.

The context includes

• who was speaking - Jesus, the cornerstone of the Church
• to whom was He speaking - a mostly Jewish audience
• the setting/background - Jesus teaching the disciples on the unity of the Church, and restoring a brother
• what the original audience would have understood - given the references to the Deut. principle of "2 or 3 witnesses"
• Jesus "sealing the deal" by stating He's "in" with the 2 or 3 witnesses

As happens too often, you ignore the evidences I provide, and just keep repeating "it's obvious", along with your own opinion.

Why?

Why is it so important to you CP? I'm just responding to your pedantic and legalistic attacks on my original statement. In fact, I'm simply overwhelmed with how legalistic and pedandic you and mossross are being. What I see is that this entire discussion highlights the very worst of what an overly legalistic approach to scripture produces in the world. And while I wish better for both you and her, there is nothing good that can come from continuing this any further.

[Cow Poke]

Why is it so important to you CP?

Scripture is important, Jim. And rightly dividing the Word is crucial.

I'm just responding to your pedantic and legalistic attacks on my original statement.

You mean my calling out of your misuse of Scripture.

In fact, I'm simply overwhelmed with how legalistic and pedandic you and mossross are being.

So, why do you care? Why do you allow me (us) so much power over you?

What I see is that this entire discussion highlights the very worst of what an overly legalistic approach to scripture produces in the world. And while I wish better for both you and her, there is nothing good that can come from continuing this any further.

Given your past history, this means you're not done arguing it yet.

[mossrose]

IMG_1341.JPG

[oxmixmudd]

Epilogue:

The hostility of CP and Mossross's attack on my use of Matthew 18:20 as an encouragement to be able to trust that in this time of pandemic where we can't always meet as we once did Christ is still there with us was bewildering to me. Why were they so concerned that this verse never be applied in any other context than church discipline even though it is a concise statement of a reality taught over and over in scripture? Not only that, it has been regularly used exactly as I used it since my early Christian faith in conservative and moderate environments since I was very young.

But I had a hunch what might have driven some of it. And they are not necessarily bad drivers themselves. There is the general concern that verses be used consistent with their original context and not just bantered about randomly. I do not fault them for that, that is a good thing and a necessary consideration in interpreting or using scripture.

But what my hunch was, and what I believe was born out by research, is that the overly rigid focus on not using this verse in any context other than church discipline is a development in recent conservative thought that stems from what is a gross misuse of the 3 verses (18-20) by what is effectively a heresy that emerged from within the charasmatic movement in the late '70's through the early 2000's, typically promoted by popular TV and radio personalities like Jim Baker of the PTL club, Jimmy Swaggart - but subsequently disgraced, and 'faith and healing' types such as Ken Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and others. And that is the 'name it/claim it' brand of faith that says that we can expect that God will give us anything we ask for arbitrarily just by asking. The more extreme forms of this type of teaching became the basis for a great deal of financial abuses like massive mansions and private jets purchased by certain Chrisitan TV personalities, and also has tended to create a great deal of condemnation of those that have sickness but 'not enough faith' to appropriate supernatural healing of that sickness (one public example is that of Joni Eereckson Tada, a quadraplegic that is an incredible artist using her mouth to hold the brush or pen - she in the early stages after her accident was urged to pray for healing and then later told she just didn't 'have enough faith' when she was not made well https://www.greatbigcanvas.com/view/...waAtQaEALw_wcB)

In THAT context, vs 20 serves as a supporting element, but is not the primary thrust.

Source: Matthew 18:19-20

18“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”"

© Copyright Original Source

19-20 used together are the core of the argument. 18 is also misused out of context in a similar way to support the same idea. But the general idea of this heresy is, again, to say you can pretty much ask for anything you want and God will do it. And I think what has happened over time is the conservative circles have gravitated to a much more rigid approach to this passage as part of protecting against that most severe misapplication of this text. That emphasis on this text has, I believe, provoked the misplaced attack on my use of the text, which is, in fact, in context with the whole of scripture.

The point of this post is not to debate further this is, nor do I expect to change the position of those so offended by how I used vs 20, but this just to place their (and others) hostility to my use of the verse in a broader recent historical context. I expect they will continue to defend their attack on my use of the verse. But there may be others reading that will appreciate the broader context of why the use of 20 outside any context other than church discipline might have provoked such an overbearing and caustic response.

The link below addresses this specific misapplication of this text:

http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=634

[mossrose]

Grace Church is live.

[NorrinRadd]

I will gladly take this opportunity to find a relatively rare moment of agreement with ox.

I think I only commented once in the debate on the Matt. 18 reference. Frankly, I did not think it was worth flogging. But yes, I initially became aware of the misuse of that passage when I was departing from Word-Faith circles over 25 years ago. (In Word-Faith, the Bible is sometimes sort of a grimoire. In this case, this is one of several different kinds of prayer, each with its own special rules. This one is the "Prayer of Agreement." It only "works" if all the people praying really do "agree.")

Even beyond Word-Faith, people commonly misuse the passage. It's not necessarily a huge deal, except that people generally have a tendency to treat Scripture as a collection of isolated verses, with no concern about context.

[Cow Poke]

Epilogue:

The hostility of CP and Mossross's attack....

Your PERCEPTION of an "attack". Just more or your persecution complex, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

....The point of this post is not to debate further this is, nor do I expect to change the position of those so offended ....

Sheeeesh, Jim, what's with you? Nobody was "offended", let alone "So offended" --- you just used a commonly misused scripture to answer Rogue's statement. That's where this all started.

I believe you were wrong, but I don't hate you, i have no desire to attack you, I have ZERO feelings of hostility toward you.

Quite honestly, I pity you --- you are an incredibly angry unbalanced individual who can't seem to have a disagreement without perceiving some kind of hostility or personal attack, and it really really gets old.

I truly feel sorry for you, because you seem to be, of all men, most miserable.

[Stoic]

Now you need to translate that for me.

City of the Droopy Angels

...or something like that...

[mossrose]

City of the Droopy Angels

...or something like that...

I think he used it as "fallen". But, I suppose, depending on how tired one is, "droopy" might also work.

[Stoic]

I see it as a learning opportunity.

[oxmixmudd]

Sheeeesh, Jim, what's with you? Nobody was "offended", let alone "So offended" --- you just used a commonly misused scripture to answer Rogue's statement. That's where this all started.

I believe you were wrong, but I don't hate you, i have no desire to attack you, I have ZERO feelings of hostility toward you.

Quite honestly, I pity you --- you are an incredibly angry unbalanced individual who can't seem to have a disagreement without perceiving some kind of hostility or personal attack, and it really really gets old.

I truly feel sorry for you, because you seem to be, of all men, most miserable.

Truly sad cp. Again only ad hom, again no content. So full of hate you must hide the content of the post. So full of hate you have no good thing to say. I'll pray for you CP, lest such hatred truly consume you.

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/17/892250597/covid-19-surge-has-some-church-leaders-re-thinking-whether-to-reopen

The drive to reopen churches around the country appears to be losing momentum as a result of the surge of COVID-19 cases.

Pastor surveys by the Barna Group have found that the share of churches reporting a return to in-person worship fell from 56% in June to 49% in the most recent survey. The Barna surveys, reported by Christianity Today, also showed that 5% of pastors now say their churches will not resume in-person worship until 2021.

A previous Barna survey found 0% of pastors expecting their churches to remain shuttered for the rest of this year.

Among the churches planning to suspend in-person worship for all of 2020 are the six locations of North Point Ministries in the Atlanta area. In pre-coronavirus times, more than 30,000 people worshipped across the North Point churches each weekend.

Andy Stanley, the founding North Point pastor, announced in May that his churches would reopen on Aug. 9, but in a video message sent to his congregants this week, Stanley said those plans had to change.

"We've decided to suspend adult worship services for the remainder of the year," Stanley said in a sober tone of voice. He cited the "uptick" in the number of coronavirus cases in the Atlanta area.

"Consequently, we cannot guarantee your safety," Stanley said.

"Even if we did reopen," Stanley said, "we certainly would not be able to create a quality adult or children's worship experience with social distancing protocols in place."

Some prominent megachurch leaders, however, do not intend to follow Stanley's example.

"I'm not buying the gloom and doom," said Jack Graham, senior pastor at Prestonwood Baptist in Plano, Texas, and a prominent evangelical supporter of President Trump.

"Starting school, opening churches and growing America's economy is in motion," Graham tweeted Thursday. "Positivity beats politics every time."

Collin County, where Graham's church is located, as of this week had reported nearly 5,000 novel coronavirus cases, a 20% increase over the previous week's total.

© Copyright Original Source