|
Post by John on Jan 16, 2019 7:45:06 GMT -5
I grew up attending a United Methodist Church, and later on a Pentecostal Holiness Church, both whose doctrinal foundation was built on the teachings of John Wesley, and I never attached this idea to him...
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.
I hear this tossed around a lot lately, with the name of Jesus Christ replacing charity, but never knew where it originated. What does "non-essential" mean? You can ignore this or that Biblical teaching and not go to hell? There are some things like that, but that doesn't make them non-essential in the sense of pleasing God and being profitable to you. Sometimes I feel we place too much confidence in people like John Wesley. He did play an important role, but we should not canonize his quotes, as God did not use him to write scripture.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 16, 2019 8:09:35 GMT -5
I want to address this idea a bit more in how I see it. An example of something you can ignore in God's Word and still get to heaven regards hair length. I can ignore the fact it is a shame for me to have long hair and grow it long and women can ignore the fact that it is a shame for them to have short hair, and they can cut their hair short. It is a shame, but not a sin unto death. Should I ignore the fact the passage exists and never preach on it? No! It is Holy Scripture. Should I toss people out of the church over it and turn them over to Satan? No. They are free to be contentious in this area, so in that sense, there is liberty. That is just one obvious example, but it is how I deal with all so-called "non-essentials" in the Bible. To me, it is like choosing to live on the edge, doing only the bare minimum necessary to be admitted into heaven.
|
|
|
Post by ladypeartree on Jan 16, 2019 8:45:22 GMT -5
We were taught that long hair is a vanity and had no choice but to cover every woman's head with a hat when we were at church as a sign of being humble whilst a man was to leave his head uncovered as a sign of submission to God. Believe me this caused a LOT of contention
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 16, 2019 9:15:48 GMT -5
We were taught that long hair is a vanity and had no choice but to cover every woman's head with a hat when we were at church as a sign of being humble whilst a man was to leave his head uncovered as a sign of submission to God. Believe me this caused a LOT of contention Like so many passages in scripture, people don't read them carefully enough, which leads to a misunderstanding. The long hair is the woman's covering. That is what the passage says. It is not a veil or a hat.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER FOR A COVERING. 1 Corinthians 11:15
Of course, the point is, this is not something that will effect your salvation, but we clearly know how God sees it. Long hair for a man is a shame and short hair on a woman is a shame. We don't put people out of the church over tis, but should teach it.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jan 16, 2019 9:24:50 GMT -5
We were taught that long hair is a vanity... I disagree. Long hair for women is not vanity.
I find beautiful women with long hair (within sane length).
And I feel uncomfortable with long hair, just as most women would feel uncomfortable with short hair.
It is just natural.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jan 16, 2019 9:44:56 GMT -5
To me, the quote applies more to doctrinal disagreements and personal convictions. I think of what Paul said about one man esteeming special days while another man treats all days the same. One man can tolerate dinner at a sinner’s house, while another man can’t. One eats meat while another abstains. Jesus even said some men can choose to be eunochs for the sake of the kingdom, and it was only for some to accept.
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jan 16, 2019 12:28:31 GMT -5
To me, the quote applies more to doctrinal disagreements and personal convictions. I think of what Paul said about one man esteeming special days while another man treats all days the same. One man can tolerate dinner at a sinner’s house, while another man can’t. One eats meat while another abstains. Jesus even said some men can choose to be eunochs for the sake of the kingdom, and it was only for some to accept. Just wanted us to all know something . THIS is used HUGE by that false unity group . HUGE . its how it begins . Just thought we should all know this . Let no man or woman let their guard down . We in the last days and temptation is roaring . Stead of focusing on this . Lets just keep pumping out sound doctrine .
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jan 16, 2019 12:30:07 GMT -5
We already have our unity . And that would be focused entirely on CHRIST , His sayings , sound doctrine . UNITY in that alone . Let none let that guard down one bit . The more we read that bible and share that holy doctrine , the far better of we remain and are ..
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jan 16, 2019 12:35:28 GMT -5
I grew up attending a United Methodist Church, and later on a Pentecostal Holiness Church, both whose doctrinal foundation was built on the teachings of John Wesley, and I never attached this idea to him...
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.
I hear this tossed around a lot lately, with the name of Jesus Christ replacing charity, but never knew where it originated. What does "non-essential" mean? You can ignore this or that Biblical teaching and not go to hell? There are some things like that, but that doesn't make them non-essential in the sense of pleasing God and being profitable to you. Sometimes I feel we place too much confidence in people like John Wesley. He did play an important role, but we should not canonize his quotes, as God did not use him to write scripture.
Their is a reason YOU HEARING it a lot lately , REMEMBER a false unity IS ABOUNDING . and they will make it seem like all is well , they never let the folks know what they are doing . I FLEE it . We already know we need to be of one mind , AND THAT MIND is the mind of CHRIST . we already know about meats , drinks and days . BUT you see , ITS HOW they start this . THEY begin it with things like this , BUT its not the goal nor the agenda . The goal and agenda is to get folks to lighten up and let down the guard , then more stuff starts pumping in and before you know it , you on this sensual love ride and no longer see scripture clearly , you see it through a wrong lens and worse it gets . I just seen this too much butero . THIS must be avoided at all costs . We here already have unity , BECAUSE our UNITY , our FOCUS IS on CHRIST , on sound doctrine and we do correct and so on . YOU hearing this a lot , BECAUSE its spell time , its delusion time . WE are nearer the end than ever we were .
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 16, 2019 12:43:04 GMT -5
To me, the quote applies more to doctrinal disagreements and personal convictions. I think of what Paul said about one man esteeming special days while another man treats all days the same. One man can tolerate dinner at a sinner’s house, while another man can’t. One eats meat while another abstains. Jesus even said some men can choose to be eunochs for the sake of the kingdom, and it was only for some to accept. Just wanted us to all know something . THIS is used HUGE by that false unity group . HUGE . its how it begins . Just thought we should all know this . Let no man or woman let their guard down . We in the last days and temptation is roaring . Stead of focusing on this . Lets just keep pumping out sound doctrine .
George uses it a lot, and I think it is part of his signature. Regardless of that, now I know where it came from, and it is not the Bible.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jan 16, 2019 12:49:37 GMT -5
Let’s remember that Wesley taught this at a different time in history when pethaps it was necessary. Remember his Methodist movement was outlawed by the church of England simply because he was catering to poor people. There was discrimination in the church back then which we don’t have now. It’s a shame that modern people are hijacking his quote for a different agenda.
It’s also a shame that they hijack the word love, so now we can’t teach on love. We can’t teach on peace or fellowship or kindness or charity without having to walk on eggshells.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 16, 2019 13:12:45 GMT -5
Let’s remember that Wesley taught this at a different time in history when pethaps it was necessary. Remember his Methodist movement was outlawed by the church of England simply because he was catering to poor people. There was discrimination in the church back then which we don’t have now. It’s a shame that modern people are hijacking his quote for a different agenda. It’s also a shame that they hijack the word love, so now we can’t teach on love. We can’t teach on peace or fellowship or kindness or charity without having to walk on eggshells. Those are excellent points. Also, the Methodist Church of today doesn't remotely resemble the "shouting Methodists" of the past. It used to be a good church.
|
|
|
Post by Guest123 on Jan 16, 2019 14:10:46 GMT -5
It's not entirely clear where this saying had its origin. There are a few theories. However, it came to be a heavily used concept in some protestant circles in the 18th century.
In the 15th century, a reformer named Jan Hus started criticizing the RCC and started laying the foundation for the protestant reformation. He was burned at the stake for his efforts. This was in the modern day location of the Czech republic. This started a movement away from the RCC that started to spread. Centuries later in the early 1700s, a group of Christians fleeing Catholic persecution from this region of Moravia fled to Germany and were given safe haven by Count Zinzendorf where they founded the town of Herrnhut. This was a place where Christians fleeing persecution from a variety of places started to flee to. There were Christians who spoke different languages, came from different protestant sects, and had a wide range of outlooks on things. Before long, differences and doctrinal schisms reached the point that threatened to tear this community apart. They had reached the point where a few leaders were arguing that the other was the antichrist. In this safe haven from the RCC and other persecution, they seriously started praying and seeking God for what He wanted to do there. God brought a peace, unity, and sense of purpose. It is out of that turmoil and reconciliation that a saying such as "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love" came to be used. This small community in Herrnhut ended up having an impact on the protestant reformation. They were among the first missionaries in many parts of the world. They started a 24/7 prayer meeting that went over a century. They influenced many other protestants. It was on a rough sea voyage to America where in the midst of a storm a terrified John Wesley noted the Moravians calmly singing and praying with a peace and assurance he hadn't known. Many directly attribute Wesley's conversion to them. After his conversion, Wesley spent some time with the Moravians and was influenced by their way of life. A web search for terms such as Jan Hus, Moravians, Herrnhut, Zinzendorf, Moravian missionaries, and the like will yield a number of links on this topic.
At some point, each of us needs to decide which Christian beliefs and practices are essential and non-negotiable and which are not. Put yourself in a situation where you and a small number of Christians are holed up in a cave in a mountain fleeing from persecution. What doctrinal disagreement would be serious enough that you would walk out and leave over? What disagreement would be serious enough that you would kick someone out over? This is not about getting out of the RCC or a one world church. The Christians in Herrnhut were there because they had remained true to Christ and had fled and left their homelands. This is about what disagreements with someone you hold to be a fellow believer would you walk out and leave over and which disagreements you should gracefully agree to disagree over. Those Christians in Herrnhut decided that having a life free to serve Christ and being able to live day in and day out in clear conscience with one another was worth more than winning most of the arguments that had been previously tearing that community apart.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jan 16, 2019 14:32:47 GMT -5
How quickly we have forgotten that there was a time when being the wrong denomination – – or having a Bible in English – – was enough to send you to prison.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 16, 2019 15:01:32 GMT -5
How quickly we have forgotten that there was a time when being the wrong denomination – – or having a Bible in English – – was enough to send you to prison. It could get you killed!
Excellent post Guest123! I believe in preaching the whole Bible, but I am not looking for reasons to disfellowship others. That is a last resort only over major things.
|
|