|
Post by Josh Parsley on Nov 19, 2007 19:00:39 GMT -5
Dan, Micah has said plainly that he has just come to this conclusion on this particular doctrine. You don't know what Micah thought or didn't think when he was around Ruben.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 19, 2007 19:09:57 GMT -5
Dan, Micah has said, as plain as possible that he has just come to this conclusion on this particular doctrine. You don't know what Micah thought or didn't think when he was around Ruben. Actually, Micah indicated he had held this doctrine while assocaiating with Ruben; just as you accused me of not making things right with Ruben *see above* here you accuse me of speaking too quickly on Micah's own word (would you like me to post Micah's statement indicating he held to this doctrine while in association with Ruben and others?). Brother, before you rebuke others, at least know what your'e talking about and be sure to read what others write before responding. Brother, if you have an issue with me, take it to me in PM and I'll try to address it; as for the issue at hand, why not let Micah respond himself? Dan
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Nov 19, 2007 19:24:32 GMT -5
Dan, Micah has said, as plain as possible that he has just come to this conclusion on this particular doctrine. You don't know what Micah thought or didn't think when he was around Ruben. Actually, Micah indicated he had held this doctrine while assocaiating with Ruben; just as you accused me of not making things right with Ruben *see above* here you accuse me of speaking too quickly on Micah's own word (would you like me to post Micah's statement indicating he held to this doctrine while in association with Ruben and others?). Brother, before you rebuke others, at least know what your'e talking about and be sure to read what others write before responding. Dan Ok, here is my evidence for you. You still don't know how settled he was on the doctrine at the time. I am still also in the process of learning more of this subject. I posted what I understood so I could see other sides and perhaps be proved wrong. Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me otherwise. This is my conviction and the way I understand it. I have not condoned anyone in this situation. Unless attending the SOAPA conference is considered condoning it. If that is the case, then that would be where it could be said I condoned it. However, I have not launched an all out attack on this subject because I am still in the process of investigating it and am not sure of how to handle all the ramifications. Remember I am from a charismatic background, saw much of my Christian walk I constantly saw people divorce and remarry. I went along with alot of it and just thought it was ok because the people were not "saved" when they were divorce from their first spouse. However, after examining the Bible on this subject I cannot go along with that any longer with a good conscience. It has been difficult for me to deal with the truth of this issue since I really appreciate and like alot of these guys. Nevertheless, I cannot condone it with a good conscience. I am not sure one can even be saved while living in a double marriage situation. According to the Bible it is living in a state of adultery.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Nov 19, 2007 19:25:38 GMT -5
No, I didn't. I said that I wasn't aware that you did. See above. I've deleted that post since someone asked me to take out most of it, but you have quoted it so you can see what I said.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Nov 19, 2007 19:30:53 GMT -5
No need to. I'm done with this thread. I don't even agree with Micah on this topic, but I don't like the way you are railing on him.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 19, 2007 19:33:25 GMT -5
Brother Josh, I don;t liek the way you're railing in this thread; you have a perception of my railing, so you do the same in return? Brother, this is foolish.... let Micah respond himself; I'm sure he's not afraid to address this issue as he has been doing.
Rather than take some underlined examples from the entirety of statements, whcih is bad interpretive skills (do you do this with Scripture?) let's take the whole of the statements.
Let me use your method and I'll show you how foolish such interpretive skills are... I'll use his same statements to show the "flip side":
"According to the Bible it is living in a state of adultery"
"This is my conviction and the way I understand it. "
"It has been difficult for me to deal with the truth of this issue since I really appreciate and like alot of these guys. Nevertheless, I cannot condone it with a good conscience."
You see, Josh, taking one liners from statements can "prove anything".
Again, if you have an issue with me, please take it to PM and let Micah respond to the conversation or not; I was not originally addressing you and it seems apparent you're bent on proving me wrong (whcih is certainly ok)... but please take it to PM, brother and allow Micah to respond to this issue on his own; he's an adult and I'm sure you understand my posts on this issue have nothing to do with you.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 19, 2007 21:10:48 GMT -5
unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by Brother. Ross on Nov 19, 2007 22:46:37 GMT -5
Micah, the issue here is that you're on campus preaching that men much be saved and that God commands all men everywhere to repent. Have you gone to Ruben's face prior to these posts...to Britt's face etc etc and told them they were hell bound sinners? You say I bring in dividiveness, and yet in your secret thoughts you were never united with Ruben nor other remarried persons; you rubbed shoulders with them, befriended them etc etc and yet you, in your mind, call them children of the devil, as you have clearly stated they are not Born Again. What the issue is here is that you're now compelled to actually follow your convictions openly and without hypocrisy, which you previously did not do. What you preach on Campus should be the same as you preach to Ruben, myself and all remarried men. Please don't claim I'm being divisive, Brother, when in reality you don't even consider those individuals Born Again and yet would never publically call them to repent as you do with students on campus. Dan Dan, What is the issue here you have with Brother Micah, is it that what he believes the Bible teaches about remarriage, does not match up with yours? I would ask you to agree to disagree, but it appears you want this gossip and arguing to continue. Dan you seem like the referee in the middle making sure the fight goes on.. Do you get pleasure from attacking Brother Micah, if not just let this issue rest.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 19, 2007 23:00:32 GMT -5
This is really stupid. Dan, your posts are disturbing. I understand the point you are trying to make about how Micah should be consistent in his stance, if he has come to a solid and undeniable belief in that stance (I definitely understand his reluctance to prematurely act on a stance that is debatable, because this issue has such deep implications/ramifications). But you seem to think you can read his thoughts. And I cannot help but feel a sort of antagonism coming from your posts... and almost a patronizing or facetious "The Lord bless you today" at the end.
This is, of course, a feeling, and not 100% valid. But I suggest you take a step back, and as objectively as you can, examine your posts and those of others here, and make sure you are doing this in the right spirit. You have demonstrated a tendency to rashly (with a sort of foolish zeal, perhaps) declare what you believe to be right, as if it is 100% fact, and then retract it later once someone has pointed out your error. This has happened more than a few times since I've been at this forum and it looks like this is another example. Please check your motives.
By the way, Josh was not "railing". It seems pretty disingenuous to try to turn his own criticisms back on him, in spite of the obvious difference in tone between your posts and his.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 20, 2007 16:42:14 GMT -5
Thank you Josh for posting what you did.
I believe everyone reading this post (except Dan of course) understands exactly what I am saying and where I am coming from. My previous posts posted by Josh indicate that.
I have spoken to Ruben about the post and he knows how I believe. I do not need to say anymore than that.
|
|
|
Post by veritas77 on Jan 27, 2011 19:44:49 GMT -5
Jesse Morrell, please explain your stand/non posting on REMARRIAGE issues.... you openly speak against HOMOS and do not address sin within the camp.
Your preaching is great, but may need some fine tuning concerning gospel truth.
I would LOVVVVVVVE to have a go to recommendation for people I talk with. So, am hoping you desire full soundness in correct doctrine.
Will wait for a reply. VERITAS77
|
|
|
Post by caymen on Mar 13, 2011 21:10:23 GMT -5
Divorce is allowed. Remarriage is not. Remarriage = sin
|
|
|
Post by curritodelacruz on Jul 27, 2011 14:42:39 GMT -5
You all think your sh.it don;t stink. You are all pompus dipsh.its. Bye.
|
|