 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 A Vast Chasm between being a Continuationist and believing every report is of God |
Old Time Country Preacher |
I am a continuationist! I absolutely believe that miracles, healings, gifts of the Spirit, mighty moves of God, etc. are legitimate manifestations for contemporary times.
There is a vast chasm, however, in being a continuationist and believing that every report is indeed from God.
I do not embrace:
1. The wild, weird and wacky manifestations of much of modern charismania.
2. A great deal of the healing revivals of the 40's, 50's & 60's (e.g., Branham, et al).
3. Much of what airs on Christian television stations (e.g., TBN, DayStar, etc.).
4. Every report I hear of healing, miracles, moves of God, etc. If they are genuine they will be substantiated.
5. Columns 1 and 4 of Dake's Annotated Bible.
6. Any of the key doctrines or luminaries of word of faith teaching. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/31/18 10:27 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
FLRon |
I am in 100% total agreement with everything you stated.
_________________
“Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 787
4/1/18 9:13 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| FLRon wrote: | | I am in 100% total agreement with everything you stated. |
Unbiased exegetes will be in agreement as well, Ron. Some will never deviate from their indoctrination and propaganda. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/2/18 11:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: A Vast Chasm between being a Continuationist and believing every report is of God |
Aaron Scott |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | I am a continuationist! I absolutely believe that miracles, healings, gifts of the Spirit, mighty moves of God, etc. are legitimate manifestations for contemporary times.
There is a vast chasm, however, in being a continuationist and believing that every report is indeed from God.
I do not embrace:
1. The wild, weird and wacky manifestations of much of modern charismania.
2. A great deal of the healing revivals of the 40's, 50's & 60's (e.g., Branham, et al).
3. Much of what airs on Christian television stations (e.g., TBN, DayStar, etc.).
4. Every report I hear of healing, miracles, moves of God, etc. If they are genuine they will be substantiated.
5. Columns 1 and 4 of Dake's Annotated Bible.
6. Any of the key doctrines or luminaries of word of faith teaching. |
The problem, OTCP, is not that you (rightly) reject extremes. It is that you also pretty much disbelieve ANY sort of healing or miracle that comes from a WOF ministry.
I don't agree with snake-handling. Yet I have NO DOUBT that healings, miracles, salvations, baptisms of the Holy Ghost, and so forth take place in such services.
To ME, you seem to think that if it smacks of the kind of Pentecostalism that the Church of God exhibited in the 60s and 70s, it's foolishness. You seem to delight in pointing out how foolish some of these folks appear, even though they may have a great heart toward God (e.g., your regular posting of the "Soddy Daisy Prophet" in order to either humiliate him or degrade old-fashioned Pentecostals).
If you are a continuationist (that's a new word for me), you are of a very specific branch of it called...MAYBE-ISM. That is, God MAY heal you, but probably not. The thing to me is this: If we don't think that God heals significantly more than what would be considered that statistical probability of coincidence, then that's really--no matter what you call it--cessationism.
And if that's the case, we need to all just get on board and agree that God doesn't do it like He used to. And maybe that's WHY He doesn't do it like He used to? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
4/2/18 12:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: A Vast Chasm between being a Continuationist and believing every report is of God |
Old Time Country Preacher |
I've answered within the body of your post in bold text.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The problem, OTCP, is not that you (rightly) reject extremes. I do rightly reject extremes
It is that you also pretty much disbelieve ANY sort of healing or miracle that comes from a WOF ministry. In all fairness, this isn't true. I do believe that folk could touch God in a WOF service and be ministered to, even healed. That of course in no way validates the WOF minister/ministry.
I don't agree with snake-handling. Yet I have NO DOUBT that healings, miracles, salvations, baptisms of the Holy Ghost, and so forth take place in such services. Perhaps some verification would help here, quotes cited and documented.
To ME, you seem to think that if it smacks of the kind of Pentecostalism that the Church of God exhibited in the 60s and 70s, it's foolishness. This is not true at all,, Aaron, not at all.
You seem to delight in pointing out how foolish some of these folks appear, even though they may have a great heart toward God (e.g., your regular posting of the "Soddy Daisy Prophet" in order to either humiliate him or degrade old-fashioned Pentecostals). The SDP could indeed have possessed a heart of gold, a hunger for Christ and a desire for truth. But you must admit, in our lifetime, few speeches on the GC floor have been more humorous. That is what I've posted about.
If you are a continuationist (that's a new word for me), you are of a very specific branch of it called...MAYBE-ISM. That is, God MAY heal you, but probably not. A much better descriptive for my specific branch is Will-ism. That is, God may indeed heal, and he may not. It all depends on his perfect will in a given scenario.
The thing to me is this: If we don't think that God heals significantly more than what would be considered that statistical probability of coincidence, then that's really--no matter what you call it--cessationism. Not true, cessationism teaches that it never happens. We know it does happen.
And if that's the case, we need to all just get on board and agree that God doesn't do it like He used to. And maybe that's WHY He doesn't do it like He used to? I believe you are confusing "like He used to" with reality. God has never changed. What he did in any generation he can do today. Many folk talk about what God used to do, when what they mean is accepting every unsubstantiated report of healing and the miraculous. So it aint that God aint doin as much today, folk have matured in their journey and are now demanding verification of all that's heard in order to discern the spirits |
|
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/3/18 12:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: A Vast Chasm between being a Continuationist and believing every report is of God |
Aaron Scott |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | [b]I've answered within the body of your post in bold text.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The problem, OTCP, is not that you (rightly) reject extremes. I do rightly reject extremes
It is that you also pretty much disbelieve ANY sort of healing or miracle that comes from a WOF ministry. In all fairness, this isn't true. I do believe that folk could touch God in a WOF service and be ministered to, even healed. That of course in no way validates the WOF minister/ministry.
I don't agree with snake-handling. Yet I have NO DOUBT that healings, miracles, salvations, baptisms of the Holy Ghost, and so forth take place in such services. Perhaps some verification would help here, quotes cited and documented.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe a person can be SAVED in a snake-handling church? If so, then all the rest follows, would it not? That is, if God will save someone there, why would He not also heal someone there?
We don't have any verification of the Apostles' miracles either, yet we believe. I'm not saying that verification isn't of any value. It is. But, again, if you believe God will save, sanctify, and fill with the Holy Ghost those who go to a snake-handling church, we have no reason to suspect that He wouldn't also do these other things, right?
In a nutshell, if, on principle, you believe that God will save in such a church, then we have no real reason to doubt that He would work miracles. Now, given, if someone is going on about gold-fillings and angel glitter, etc., yes, there's nothing wrong with wanting evidence. But if we accept the first premise (i.e., that God will save a person through the efforts of such a church), then we cannot wholesale reject any miracles that are done there.
To ME, you seem to think that if it smacks of the kind of Pentecostalism that the Church of God exhibited in the 60s and 70s, it's foolishness. This is not true at all,, Aaron, not at all.
Yeah, it kind of is.
I think this was you, but if not, let me know. Do you remember someone posting some overweight, old-fashioned Pentecostal woman who sang with all her heart in a style that many of us would know from the 70s, etc. It was posted in MOCKERY, and yet she seemed for all the world to be trying to glorify God. Was that you? If so, on what ground did you do that?
You seem to delight in pointing out how foolish some of these folks appear, even though they may have a great heart toward God (e.g., your regular posting of the "Soddy Daisy Prophet" in order to either humiliate him or degrade old-fashioned Pentecostals). The SDP could indeed have possessed a heart of gold, a hunger for Christ and a desire for truth. But you must admit, in our lifetime, few speeches on the GC floor have been more humorous. That is what I've posted about.
To me, it wasn't funny. It was cringe-worthy. To see a man who no doubt had spend a lifetime trying to serve the Lord, but who was of a time and era when the sort of speech he made would have not been utterly out of place, was sorrowful to me.
Let me give you an example.... My father, who has been a man of God every day of my life, in public and in private, still will often use the word "colored" to speak of a black man or woman. He means nothing at all by it, but it is clearly a term that is outdated and, for some, somewhat demeaning. Yes, our church had a number of black folks in it, and they loved him dearly. Why? Because they knew he loved them, and was speaking with no ill-intent, and was influenced by his own upbringing in rural Birchwood, Tennessee.
I wouldn't doubt that the man from Soddy Daisy came of age in a time--and was imprinted by it--when the sort of comments he made would not have been considered inappropriate, for the most part. He had not evolved with the times, so to speak.
There will likely come a day when someone will rise on the General Assembly floor and say, "Homosexuality is a sin," and it may draw laughter, too, seeing as this person is so out of step with what we may one day become.
No, it wasn't funny. And if it was funny the first time, it wasn't funny when you posted it again and again as a way of humiliating the man.
If you are a continuationist (that's a new word for me), you are of a very specific branch of it called...MAYBE-ISM. That is, God MAY heal you, but probably not. A much better descriptive for my specific branch is Will-ism. That is, God may indeed heal, and he may not. It all depends on his perfect will in a given scenario.
The it is "will-ism, but probably not-ism."
The thing to me is this: If we don't think that God heals significantly more than what would be considered that statistical probability of coincidence, then that's really--no matter what you call it--cessationism. Not true, cessationism teaches that it never happens. We know it does happen.
No, cessationism does not necessarily believe that God, in His sovereignty, would never heal someone.
Consider that if that were so, they would not even bother praying for the sick...or the lost, I imagine.
Cessationism can take the approach that there are no gifts of the Spirit that we can rely upon. Only if God, in His mercy and sovereignty, decides to heal/touch, will that happen.
And if that's the case, we need to all just get on board and agree that God doesn't do it like He used to. And maybe that's WHY He doesn't do it like He used to? I believe you are confusing "like He used to" with reality. God has never changed. What he did in any generation he can do today. Many folk talk about what God used to do, when what they mean is accepting every unsubstantiated report of healing and the miraculous. So it aint that God aint doin as much today, folk have matured in their journey and are now demanding verification of all that's heard in order to discern the spirits |
|
[/b]
Well, if you go back in Bible history, you find that everyone who came to Jesus seemed to go away healed.
Nowadays, if 2 our of 100 receive a clearly divine healing, we'd start a revival.
So, either GOD CHANGED...or we did. Or maybe there's only so many miracles He can do at once, but back then, the church being much smaller, miracles were more prevalent?
But here's the thing: Instead of you accepting that WE have changed (i.e., we don't have the requisite faith like those saints of old had), you claim that God is not willing to heal (which would seem to point out that God HAS changed, since He seemed so much more willing back in the day).
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
4/3/18 11:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: A Vast Chasm between being a Continuationist and believing every report is of God |
Dave Dorsey |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Now, given, if someone is going on about gold-fillings and angel glitter, etc., yes, there's nothing wrong with wanting evidence. But if we accept the first premise (i.e., that God will save a person through the efforts of such a church), then we cannot wholesale reject any miracles that are done there. |
So you acknowledge there's nothing wrong with asking for evidence, so long as you get to define the conditions under which that's okay.
I'm not sure why it would be OK to ask for evidence from a church that claims gold dust/etc, but not one that preaches false doctrine*. I would be much more apt to believe God graciously worked a miracle in the former rather than in the latter.
* Just to be clear - this is NOT a reference to Kevin Wallace or RTTN. Hopefully that would go without saying, but I wanted to be crystal clear since it was a healing at his church that sparked the latest round of discussion. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
4/3/18 11:33 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
You know - what I don't get is Aaron saying only 2 out of 100 get healed nowadays compared to the 70s.
Yet regularly - folks that would have died in the 70s - go home from heart attacks, strokes, AIDS, Hodgkins, colon cancer, premature babies, etc... and Aaron gives no credit to God for it happening.
He says God is only healing 2 out of 100!?!?!?!?!?!
COG folk all over the world prayed for these miracles to happen in the 70s - and when God answers those prayers - and they happen all the time - Aaron discounts them as nothing. Just because they don't happen where Aaron think they should take place - he feels they don't occur at all.
Very sad.
Perhaps he needs to heed Colossians 4:2 - that during prayer - look for the miracles that DO happen - and thank God for them. They are all around us.
Col 4:2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving. KJV
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
4/3/18 11:43 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
Great point, NBF. We tend to be so focused on single cases that we overlook the overwhelming grace that floods over us in this day and age.
Historically, the infant mortality rate was 50%. One in two children born alive, but dead before their first birthday. Today in the United States it is 0.6%. You could repeat this exercise for an almost limitless number of statistics concerning health, crime, etc.
It doesn't always feel like it -- because a global, worldwide media connects us to individual tragedies like never before -- but there has never been a better, safer, healthier time to be alive in all the history of the world. God is very, very good. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
4/3/18 11:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Dave and NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
NBF, I was talking of Church of God worship and dress styles of the 70s, not healings. For healings, I was comparing it to what was seen in the time of the apostles.
There are reasons for being doubtful of things, but hear me out....
Strike one is that we almost can’t help doubting those things that are outside of our range of experience. I have never prayed for anyone to have their leg grow out to become equal with the other one. That makes such things suspect for us.
Strike two is that some “miracles†seem more akin to a magic trick. That is, it can be virtually duplicated via devious means. But if someone is healed even though it is KNOWN that they have never walked a day in their life, that is the sort of event that goes beyond a gimmick or trick (which is not to say that someone can’t CLAIM they have never walked a day in their life, etc.)
Striker three is that we can feel that if we accept miracles from people/churches whose doctrine is dubious, then we are giving weight to their claims. For instance, if a Buddhist were casting out devils, we almost certainly would not accept it (and rightfully so, I believe). The problem is that we don’t want to accept such things even from CHRISTIANS…if they don’t believe it pretty much like we do. Consider if a Mormon claimed such things. Or a Catholic. Or an apostolic (not that any of us would doubt that one, but still…).
Strike four: The Holy Spirit. And this is the most important strike of all. There are simply things in this world that, no matter the provenance or pedigree, something isn’t right! THIS is the one that matters the most. And it is the one that I seek to go by most of all. There may be some overlap between this one and the other items, but if we are doubting because something isn’t right in our spirit about it, I have a great deal of respect for that. Even if I think you are wrong, I can respect that you are doing this because you honestly feel that something isn’t right.
But if our default is always doubt, we likely wind up missing some good things from the Lord.
Consider this: If there were a church in the United States where seemingly HUNDREDS of miracles were supposedly taking place, I hate to admit it, but I think I would be skeptical. But I am afraid that skepticism would arise from me being doubtful that God still works like that. Isn’t that a shame that anyone could feel that way? And yet, we have gotten so accustomed to NOT seeing miracles…that we are suspicious if someone sees too many of them!
What a shame (and I speak this to MY shame). No wonder we don’t see the miracles that were once reported in the Church of God! Our default setting it…to find fault. To identify this and that and the other reasons why it is hyperbole or trickery.
I have determined for myself that I am going to do my best to believe that God not only CAN heal, but WILL heal. And that if we can truly pray in faith, He will heal every single time. And if not every single them, then every other time. I, I, I take the blame for not praying the prayer of faith. I am not going to act like God is somehow LESS willing to heal than He was in the Bible…or at the beginning of the Pentecostal movement. No, if someone doesn’t get healed, it MIGHT be that they do not have sufficient faith. It is far more likely that I don’t have sufficient faith. But it is NOT AT ALL LIKELY, I contend, that God has changed His mind about healing.
If He has changed His mind on such things, then we need, I think, to reevaluate preaching divine healing. Because if what we have to offer is no different (or only a little different) from what would happen randomly anyway, then we need to adjust our faith…or our doctrine.
As for me, I am determined to try, try, try to believe that God CAN AND WILL heal every single person. I almost never get to that point. But I believe it is how the early Church operated. And if we want to see what they saw, we will have to believe like they believed. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
4/3/18 3:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Dave and NBF... |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | I am determined to try, try, try to believe that God CAN AND WILL heal every single person. I almost never get to that point. But I believe it is how the early Church operated. And if we want to see what they saw, we will have to believe like they believed. |
Why did Paul leave Trophimus sick at Miletus?
Why were hundreds, if not thousands, fed to lions, burned alive, etc.?
Why does the last part of Hebrews 11 deal with believers who endured unthinkable agony?
Yes, the early church believed God COULD heal/deliver every single person, but they knew that God DID NOT do so in this life. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/3/18 3:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: A Vast Chasm between being a Continuationist and believing every report is of God |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | [b]I've answered within the body of your post in bold text.
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The problem, OTCP, is not that you (rightly) reject extremes. I do rightly reject extremes
It is that you also pretty much disbelieve ANY sort of healing or miracle that comes from a WOF ministry. In all fairness, this isn't true. I do believe that folk could touch God in a WOF service and be ministered to, even healed. That of course in no way validates the WOF minister/ministry.
I don't agree with snake-handling. Yet I have NO DOUBT that healings, miracles, salvations, baptisms of the Holy Ghost, and so forth take place in such services. Perhaps some verification would help here, quotes cited and documented.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe a person can be SAVED in a snake-handling church? If so, then all the rest follows, would it not? That is, if God will save someone there, why would He not also heal someone there?
[color=darkblue]If God can save a person in a beer joint, then yes, he could save a feller in a snake-handlin church. An yep, ifn God could heal someone in a crackhouse, yep, he could heal someone in a snake-handlin church.
We don't have any verification of the Apostles' miracles either, yet we believe. I'm not saying that verification isn't of any value. It is. But, again, if you believe God will save, sanctify, and fill with the Holy Ghost those who go to a snake-handling church, we have no reason to suspect that He wouldn't also do these other things, right?
God can do anything. Being saved an healed in a crackhouse don't mean God condones the crackhouse.
In a nutshell, if, on principle, you believe that God will save in such a church, then we have no real reason to doubt that He would work miracles. Now, given, if someone is going on about gold-fillings and angel glitter, etc., yes, there's nothing wrong with wanting evidence. But if we accept the first premise (i.e., that God will save a person through the efforts of such a church), then we cannot wholesale reject any miracles that are done there.
[/color]
I know of not one person who is wholesale rejecting genuine miracles.
To ME, you seem to think that if it smacks of the kind of Pentecostalism that the Church of God exhibited in the 60s and 70s, it's foolishness. This is not true at all,, Aaron, not at all.
Yeah, it kind of is.
I think this was you, but if not, let me know. Do you remember someone posting some overweight, old-fashioned Pentecostal woman who sang with all her heart in a style that many of us would know from the 70s, etc. It was posted in MOCKERY, and yet she seemed for all the world to be trying to glorify God. Was that you? If so, on what ground did you do that?
If you're talkin bout the video clip of the deal lady singin real fast an playin at little set a hand cymbals, yep, I posted it. But it wasn't cause she was overweight, old-fashioned or sung in a 70's style. It was cause she was playin em little hand cymbals 90 miles a hour. I woulda posted the same thing if you had been doin it Aaron.
You seem to delight in pointing out how foolish some of these folks appear, even though they may have a great heart toward God (e.g., your regular posting of the "Soddy Daisy Prophet" in order to either humiliate him or degrade old-fashioned Pentecostals). The SDP could indeed have possessed a heart of gold, a hunger for Christ and a desire for truth. But you must admit, in our lifetime, few speeches on the GC floor have been more humorous. That is what I've posted about.
To me, it wasn't funny. It was cringe-worthy. To see a man who no doubt had spend a lifetime trying to serve the Lord, but who was of a time and era when the sort of speech he made would have not been utterly out of place, was sorrowful to me.
My posting of the SDP was not to degrade old-fashioned Pentecostals. I posted the video because of one thing, the response of the people in the audience and the moderator when the SDP said he stopped and bought his wife new underwear for the assembly. If you don't think that's funny, I respect that. I think it is hilarious.
Let me give you an example.... My father, who has been a man of God every day of my life, in public and in private, still will often use the word "colored" to speak of a black man or woman. He means nothing at all by it, but it is clearly a term that is outdated and, for some, somewhat demeaning. Yes, our church had a number of black folks in it, and they loved him dearly. Why? Because they knew he loved them, and was speaking with no ill-intent, and was influenced by his own upbringing in rural Birchwood, Tennessee.
I wouldn't doubt that the man from Soddy Daisy came of age in a time--and was imprinted by it--when the sort of comments he made would not have been considered inappropriate, for the most part. He had not evolved with the times, so to speak.
There will likely come a day when someone will rise on the General Assembly floor and say, "Homosexuality is a sin," and it may draw laughter, too, seeing as this person is so out of step with what we may one day become.
Apples/Oranges. A Vast Chasm between underwear and homosexuality.
No, it wasn't funny. And if it was funny the first time, it wasn't funny when you posted it again and again as a way of humiliating the man. [/color]
If you are a continuationist (that's a new word for me), you are of a very specific branch of it called...MAYBE-ISM. That is, God MAY heal you, but probably not. A much better descriptive for my specific branch is Will-ism. That is, God may indeed heal, and he may not. It all depends on his perfect will in a given scenario.
The it is "will-ism, but probably not-ism."
Doesn't warrant a response.
The thing to me is this: If we don't think that God heals significantly more than what would be considered that statistical probability of coincidence, then that's really--no matter what you call it--cessationism. Not true, cessationism teaches that it never happens. We know it does happen.
No, cessationism does not necessarily believe that God, in His sovereignty, would never heal someone.
Consider that if that were so, they would not even bother praying for the sick...or the lost, I imagine.
Cessationism can take the approach that there are no gifts of the Spirit that we can rely upon. Only if God, in His mercy and sovereignty, decides to heal/touch, will that happen.
And if that's the case, we need to all just get on board and agree that God doesn't do it like He used to. And maybe that's WHY He doesn't do it like He used to? I believe you are confusing "like He used to" with reality. God has never changed. What he did in any generation he can do today. Many folk talk about what God used to do, when what they mean is accepting every unsubstantiated report of healing and the miraculous. So it aint that God aint doin as much today, folk have matured in their journey and are now demanding verification of all that's heard in order to discern the spirits |
|
[/b]
Well, if you go back in Bible history, you find that everyone who came to Jesus seemed to go away healed.
Nowadays, if 2 our of 100 receive a clearly divine healing, we'd start a revival.
So, either GOD CHANGED...or we did. Or maybe there's only so many miracles He can do at once, but back then, the church being much smaller, miracles were more prevalent?
But here's the thing: Instead of you accepting that WE have changed (i.e., we don't have the requisite faith like those saints of old had), you claim that God is not willing to heal (which would seem to point out that God HAS changed, since He seemed so much more willing back in the day).
|
God has never changed. In terms of methodology His interaction/engagement has changed at times. John, in his Gospel, clearly states that the reason Jesus did the signs/miracles was so that people might believe he was indeed the Christ and have eternal life. The primary purpose of miracles, signs, wonders, healings is not human alleviation, it is for the glory of God. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/3/18 3:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| My impression has been that the SDP video is generally offensive to women ministers, is hilarious to egalitarian male ministers, and an embarrassment to those who basically agree with the SDP’s dim view of women in ministry leadership. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
4/3/18 4:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Quiet Wyatt...Nope. |
Aaron Scott |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | My impression has been that the SDP video is generally offensive to women ministers, is hilarious to egalitarian male ministers, and an embarrassment to those who basically agree with the SDP’s dim view of women in ministry leadership. |
Dude, I was embarrassed for the guy who got up at the last General Assembly (I think it was that one) and went on about how the Wisdom was personified as feminine, etc. I obviously don't agree that that has ANY weight in the argument...but I still felt badly that he was coming from that angle.
No, what I felt bad about when it comes to the Soddy Daisy fellow was that he no doubt felt humiliated at some point (I don't think he even caught on for a while). I don't want people to be humiliated (which may be why I can hardly stand reality TV).
Certainly, I am against women in the highest levels of church leadership. But I do not at all take the stance of "There, there, little lady--leave it all up to those of us who have brains" and the such like. I KNOW women are extraordinarily intelligent. And when it comes to executing, they are often a cut above the men. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
4/3/18 5:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| I have watched the SDP clip numerous times. I never have seen anything which would indicate that he was the least bit embarrassed, much less, humiliated by what he said or bothered by how the crowd reacted. The distinct impression I have always gotten from his demeanor in the clip was that he didn’t care one bit how he came across or what anybody else may have thought of him or his words that day. His total confidence that he was right, combined with his arrogant patronization of his wife (and all other women), were a huge part of what made the whole thing so hilarious. In his mind, he was unequivocally and forthrightly standing up for what was right, period. What was there for him to be the least bit embarrassed about? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
4/3/18 8:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I have watched the SDP clip numerous times. I never have seen anything which would indicate that he was the least bit embarrassed, much less, humiliated by what he said or bothered by how the crowd reacted. ... What was there for him to be the least bit embarrassed about? |
The only thing embarrassing is Aaron's use of the SDP incident to suggest that OTCP was/is somehow demeaning/mocking him for:
1. Being from Soddy Daisy, TN
2. Being old-fashioned Pentecostal
3. Being 70's-ish in his hairstyle/dress/worldview
None of which is true!
I've posted the video several times over the past few years because his comments per undergarments on the floor of the General Council of the COG, streaming live for the world to see. I have never suggested he didn't love God, have a heart for God, love souls, etc. Apart from the guys comments about his wife and her undergarments, his statements regarding women were crude, inappropriate and demeaning. He was neither ashamed or embarrassed regarding what he said, when he walked away from the mic, he even motion with his hand--a downward motion--that seemed to say, it you don't like what I've said you're all wrong. There was not a thing funny about any of that; rather, it was embarrassing as a COG minister for such comments to stream live to the world to hear. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/3/18 10:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| I’ve personally known guys just like the SDP. The absurdity of it all is what made the whole thing hilarious to me. Then again, I always found Aunt Esther on “Sanford & Son†laugh out loud funny too. In the GA clip, the SDP is basically the Hillbilly version of Aunt Esther to me. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
4/3/18 10:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I’ve personally known guys just like the SDP. The absurdity of it all is what made the whole thing hilarious to me. |
Excellent choice of words, Wyatt. This is exactly what makes the SDP video so hilarious to me personally--the absurdity of it all. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/4/18 1:10 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Guys - of course he wasn't embarrassed on the video. That has nothing to do with it now.
We're talking about later - after he was roundly made sport of by supposedly Christian ministers.
That's what I have a problem with.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
4/4/18 6:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | Guys - of course he wasn't embarrassed on the video. That has nothing to do with it now.
We're talking about later - after he was roundly made sport of by supposedly Christian ministers.
That's what I have a problem with. |
Do you have a problem with all the ladies sitting in that chamber and watched live streaming, and their feelings, demeaned as being the lowest of the low in prison, an their undergarments spoken of as though they were an object and not a person, having half the value of a man, not worthy to sit and smoke ceegars with the menfolk? |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
4/4/18 8:39 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
