quote:

ORIGINAL: TheodenKing

John:

Dude, I was a member of SG for 9 years....

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheodenKing

Ephesians 4_32:

I teach at a Mennonite school. Good folks. We agree to disagree on some soteriological points.

Ted

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheodenKing

John:

Dude, I was a member of SG for 9 years.

Yes, I post on SG Uncensored.

Your stereotypical reply about said blog is incorrect on a variety of fronts, but first:


1. My soteriology is solidly Reformed. If ya wanna know, I'm a 5-Pointer.

2. My eschatology leans either Amil or Historic Pre.

3. I have a BA in History, halfway towards a Master's, and I have some seminary-NOT "Pastor's College," BTW-training.

I can tell you this, IMO:

There is a fundamental flaw in SGM that I think is the reason you have so many hurt, ex-SG members. Yes, there a are a LOT of us out there. There are several in my own local area. Many of us have been "burned." Some of us have suffered heavy-handed "shepherding."

( My wife was told that the childhood sexual and emotional abuse she suffered was not "important, rather your response is," and, "You're better ff than you deserve." Dontcha love that couselling expertise? )<Sarcsam intended>

I think the flaw is quite obvious, and it underlies much of SGM:

I have repeated it over and over, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, on the SG Uncensored site:

It's SG's adoption of the neo-Pentecostal/charismatic "apostolic church government." I mean, after all, WHO can disagree with an apostle? It is "apostolic oversight."

Such oversight NO longer can exist, and can only lead, at some point, to sinful usurping of power. The last apostle, St. John, died c.a. AD 100. There have been none since, in spite of what some maintain. The governing exercised by SG is NOT “essentially reformed.” It flies in the face of Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabaptists. It is copied from the “charismatic” movement of the 60’s-70’s which maintained that the “sign gifts” had been somehow restored to the church in an outpouring described as a “Latter Day Rain.” One of those “sign gifts” was the gift of an apostle.

Attempts at “restoring” this “sign gift” as a part of “renewal” has lead to some tragic results, such as the “Shepherding Movement,” abuse of power within SGM, financial scandals/lack of accountability in prominent televangelistic ministries, etc.

It was NOT meant to be “restored.” God had a definite plan and purpose in His sovereignty, and in His plan for HIs elect church. That plan included apostles who laid the foundations. After the foundations were laid, the apostles were finished with their God-given mandates. I sincerely believe God, in His Providence and sovereignty, protected the apostolic office from hint of corruption, scandal, etc., so that He would establish His church firmly and strongly.

Because we are all sinners, the temptation to assume roles we should not and to don mantles we should not exist. When we we trespass, danger lurks. Absolute power in the hands of sinners corrupts absolutely. Thus, when CJ-or Brent-or ANYONE else assumes the role of an “apostle,” and attempts to govern a body of believers accordingly, danger lurks. Their intentions may be noble, especially at the start. But time inevitably shows us what the results will be.

There are many clear indications and hints in the Bible that the office of Apostle was temporary. Furthermore, church history, of which I am an avid fan, indicates the same.

In your words, Blah, blah, blah, and, "whatever."

I would suggest that issues with heavy-handed shepherding a la SGM is NOT merely "personal," but also DOCTRINAL.

Ted

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman
I appreciate your post. I had no idea this movement has re-instituted the office of Apostle. This clearly is anti-biblical. The only other church to do this, as far as I know, is LDS; and, of course, RCC, which teaches the office never ended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelman
I appreciate your post. I had no idea this movement has re-instituted the office of Apostle. This clearly is anti-biblical. The only other church to do this, as far as I know, is LDS; and, of course, RCC, which teaches the office never ended.

No, there are several protestant denominations that claim apostolic succession. Mostly pentecostal.

And for the record, I don't consider LDS worth mentioning, since it isn't Christian, only a perversion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pricelesspearl

I haven't had time lately to keep up with the thread...but if I could interrupt...and request prayer for my son, Sean.

The restaurant he works at was robbed and his manager was shot and killed in front of him. And there were other complicating circumstances I don't have time to go into. He is doing better, but still having a difficult time of things. I sure would appreciate prayer right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doveflight

Hi, Euty, so good to see you. Gosh dern I've missed you guys. How's Eddie, and Doug and John and Jimbo and PP and...............?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lmwal931

i believe that calvinism and arminianism is trying to put GOD in a box.

you can put man in a box. i believe in total depravity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheoJunkie

quote:

ORIGINAL: lmwal931

i believe that calvinism and arminianism is trying to put GOD in a box.

you can put man in a box. i believe in total depravity.

Is that the only box you are in? Or do you believe in anything beyond that?

Consider these facts:
1) God is who God is. God is not other than who He is.
2) God is how God is. God is not other than how He is.
3) God does not change. God is eternally the same.

Translation: God IS IN a box. He was not put in a box... but rather, he is in a box defined by his own nature. He cannot be other than how he is. He defines his own box... and it is a huge box... but it is a box.

Therefore, it is wrong to put God in a box of your own making... but it is not wrong to describe the box that God is actually in.

Further, consider these facts:
4) The bible is inspired by God
5) The bible is the portion of God's "box" that He has chosen to reveal to us.

Therefore, if you describe God as he has revealed himself in the Bible to be... then you are not "putting God in a box", but describing him in truth.

If God has told us that he cannot lie, then it is not "boxing him in" to believe that he cannot lie.

If God says "I do it this way"... then by God (literally), that is the only way he does it. Whatever "it" is.

If God has told us that he saves by grace through faith and this not of yourselves... then by God, that is the way it is, and it is not "boxing him in" to affirm this.