Cletus
Senior Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by Cletus on Feb 17, 2021 12:51:45 GMT -5
I am not familiar with that church or what they say on baptisms and i am not sure what Jesus only means. I have however quit a church for what they taught, so to answer your question yes. yes i would.
God can still use a church with false doctrine to grow someone. He did me. and he invited me to that church. said He would love to have me. Sometimes He puts us in stuff thats less desirable but we most often do not understand why until later or maybe not ever, at least not yet. so i dont think we should push someone away because they go to a church we know have false doctrine. if they try to push it down your throat and you cant co-exist and have a clear conscious... its time to separate yourself. but look close at what i just said... how they live is whats not acceptable not just the teaching. what we do, and what we dont do matters. Jesus said to love our enemies and pray for those who use us. who spite us. even thought Jesus said that, The Book also says can two walk together if they are not agreed? well... whats agreed? do we need to agree on every single thing to love them? no. we just need to behave a certain way.
should doctrine separate us? i think thats a fine line there. and what can we tolerate? i dont like going to a baptist church because they dont like gifts/ praying in tongues and i have to whisper in tongues... And The Spirit does take over my mouth sometimes and it just comes out. why should i be quiet because you are offended? do i worship God to please them?... but also why do i have to shun them? we can still pray and study the word, we can break bread... but not if i have to hold back my worship of my God. I will not worship on someone elses terms. negative on that. in fact the other day at church we was singing a song and what cha know... Holy Ghost started singing out my mouth... tempo matched the song... was beautiful... and even if you didnt get an interpretation there was enough said to know it was praise if all you do speak is english. several that speak in tongues... i could feel them behind me and to the side of me pause and check me out. I wasnt trying to be loud or "show off" but if that happened in a baptist church i would have been walked to the door before the song was over. that does keep me from going to a baptist church.
my thing is this. if they are in Christ they are our brother. thats family. but back to how we live... we will know them by their fruits. and a big part of this is... how we live. You and i. personally. does our doctrine tell us to separate ourselves from them? does their doctrine get in between us and God?
The doctrinal issues I have with the UPC is that they believe you are not saved till you have been baptized by emersion in the name of Jesus Christ. The baptism I had would not be acceptable with them because it was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They are not Trinitarian. They believe Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as the Son. They also believe that until you are baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, you are not fully saved. Those are the doctrinal issues that make it hard for me to deal with that church, even though I like the services and the people. Doctrine is very important to me, so hearing false messages, even if the church is good otherwise and the people are saved, is difficult for me to deal with. I would have a hard time with the OSAS doctrine being preached. Of course, you just said a lot of people there believe that way, not that this is the doctrine of the church. If the church is split on something like that, and it is not something they preach, that is not the same thing that I am describing.
Nobody will ever agree on every single point. I would not expect that anyplace. It is when the differences are on major doctrinal issues it is hard to deal with. For me, the things I mentioned, as well as something like OSAS, would be hard to go along with if it was pushed by the leadership. In your case, you said they do not push the doctrine on you, but just think it is strange you do not hold to it. If that remains the case, and there is no strife, I can understand how you can get by okay. It is just that in most places I have been, they are very aggressive in pushing OSAS if that is what they believe. If you never were persuaded to believe as they do, I wonder if they would continue to be nice about it? That is the question I would have. Are they trying to slowly win you over to their beliefs?
I suspected what i was describing was not exactly what you were describing... and thats why i mentioned it. for a contrast. the contrast is to show the difference. i think i could still fellowship with people in that church you speak on but i would not agree to those teachings even to their face and if they took issue i would have to gracefully bow out. their teachings stems back to what i said in a previous post... basically they are judging you and/or state of salvation if they take issue with an individual... if they tell you you dont pray in tongues your not saved... yeah ok, show me that in the bible. theres folks saved that aint baptized by fire. and the water baptism thing... let me just get to the point and skip my opinion here... i can think of one scripture to back that up... but thats taking it to far, not using ALL scripture to build foundation of if doctrine be true and proved by God's Word. their knowledge is limited. thus their doctrine is. and in many ways that is not freedom... but bondage. its a golden calf. it causes division. thats not of God.
at my church they do try to get me to believe osas... but they also listen to what i say, and when i mention the warnings, the scriptures... especially about the provocation... they dont got nothing to say no more. they never try to argue over it. but they know they cant as scripture says what it does. its almost like they begin to realize there is a hole in their belief. that means they love truth. they end up coming to terms with it... not me. the pastor and i are good friends and i used to work for him. we have had many debates... he instructs me to keep the peace. i think he is right. we should do all we can to stay away from division in the body as scripture says hand cant say to the foot i have no need of you... but if the other party wont cooperate based upon Gods Word... what can you do? they are not aggressive over it either.
|
|
|
Post by 4hizglory37 on Feb 17, 2021 14:14:15 GMT -5
To lighten the mood a bit.... don't mean to crash your discussion but I think we all need a good laugh.
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 17, 2021 19:28:07 GMT -5
It really comes down to whether the Apostles like Paul had real authority over those churches he wrote to, like the head of a group, similar to a denomination, or if Paul was just respected and followed because they recognized truth. I suppose it is something we could delve into further. Not being anti-denomination per say, I have never really objected to the idea of a covering, but at the same time, I recognize that Jesus Christ is above any man. It could make for an interesting study, Paul's real position in regard to the churches of his day. Good grief how do people make this stuff so complicated? It's no wonder we can't get past milk in the church when this is what we're debating 2,000 years later. There is this anti-denominational argument going around, and those who support denominations will sometimes point to Paul's authority over a group of churches, while others question if he really had real authority over them. I agree that this is nothing anyone should be arguing over, and me and Giller are not arguing at all. If someone has a question about anything in the Bible, if they are sincere, and not just trying to be funny or sarcastic, I am happy to discuss it with them.
As far as the "covering" thing goes, when you have someone you are accountable to for your conduct, to me, that is a type of covering. In denominational churches, the headquarters acts as a covering for the churches in their organization. That is where all of this comes in, and over the years, I have heard people argue this point. Do not forget that the RCC claims Peter was the first Pope, and if someone is going to make that ridiculous claim, I do not see this question as any more absurd. People try to use the Bible for all kind of things and they will pervert the scriptures to do it.
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 17, 2021 19:58:36 GMT -5
It looks like the ice and snow is going to hit North Carolina tonight. They are expecting a winter storm at my house. Hopefully the power will not go down. I am still on the road, and tried to get far enough south to avoid the icy roads in the morning, but where I was able to get to, it is borderline. I think it will be mostly heavy rain here. The weather has been interesting lately to say the least. I hope that Frienduff is doing alright.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 18, 2021 9:46:22 GMT -5
Good grief how do people make this stuff so complicated? It's no wonder we can't get past milk in the church when this is what we're debating 2,000 years later. There is this anti-denominational argument going around, and those who support denominations will sometimes point to Paul's authority over a group of churches, while others question if he really had real authority over them. I agree that this is nothing anyone should be arguing over, and me and Giller are not arguing at all. If someone has a question about anything in the Bible, if they are sincere, and not just trying to be funny or sarcastic, I am happy to discuss it with them.
As far as the "covering" thing goes, when you have someone you are accountable to for your conduct, to me, that is a type of covering. In denominational churches, the headquarters acts as a covering for the churches in their organization. That is where all of this comes in, and over the years, I have heard people argue this point. Do not forget that the RCC claims Peter was the first Pope, and if someone is going to make that ridiculous claim, I do not see this question as any more absurd. People try to use the Bible for all kind of things and they will pervert the scriptures to do it.
Well God is good, and I am glad at least we were able to discuss it, but concerning the covering thing, can you prove it by scripture that a man can be covered by another man, because in the end we have to go by what the scriptures say. We need to examine at times what we defend, and understand what we are defending at times, and compare with scriptures. Now the bible does say this: 1Pe 5:5 (5) Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. There is a type of subjection towards leaders, and towards one another, but I see nothing about a church being someone's covering and so on, just want to be honest with what the word of God says, and I like it when people show biblical proof of things, then you know it fits with the mind of Christ. That is my concern.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 18, 2021 9:55:56 GMT -5
I know that the bible says things like this:
Act 24:16 (16) And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.
We will offend men, if we stand on the truth, but Paul is more meaning not give offence towards man, in a wrong way, to were we are not being a good example.
We always should want to be a good testimony.
And what I am trying to stir up here, is a biblical answer, by the bible, about this covering doctrine.
And when did this doctrine start anyways? And why?
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 18, 2021 10:05:34 GMT -5
1Co 11:3 (3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Of course the ultimate head is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and that is the role of the husband in a home, is to be the head of the home.
That is his role.
Things like this sure is in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by watchful on Feb 18, 2021 10:41:02 GMT -5
I’m learning that we need to be careful because we have all learned concepts that aren’t really in the bible, but are constructs of our curious and busy natural mind, and I am guilty as charged.
For example, it finally dawned on me that the concept of free will isn’t actually a term or concept found in the bible, and that’s why arguing about that is kind of a wild goose chase….it leads us off track. We need to bring all our thoughts captive to the word of God and not go beyond what is written.
The concept of being accountable to someone isn’t actually in the bible either, as relating to the church body. This is not easy to get hold of, but the Lord is not asking anyone to hold anyone else accountable to them, since the bible says leadership in the church is not to exercise authority upon others like the heathen do. In other words authority in the church is spiritual, not carnal like one has a boss at work or a higher rank in the military who gives you orders. The church is not to be a carnal organization like that….like the example of the RCC and papacy was brought up. We are to be a spiritual Body…..submissive of leadership, as unto the Lord in obedience to HIM. Our accountability is to the Lord. It is not for church leadership to intimidate or manipulate or force people into that….on the contrary, who would be great among you must be servant of all. God’s ways are not man’s ways, not the ways of flesh and this world.
Here is something the bible says about covering though: Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin
(Happens that I have meditated a lot on that and surrounding scriptures a lot in recent years, so that’s why I’m familiar with it.)
So Jesus is our covering, and by His Spirit. Whatever covering there is needs to be in spirit, not a carnal fleshly thing. But I believe there is more to this, except I don’t’ have the words for it yet. In marriage a man covers his wife with his garment, and this is a picture of Christ and the church. It speaks of protection and hiddeness since she is under his authority and since he has authority he is responsible for her welfare. We have the wrong idea of spiritual authority sometimes, or maybe we only look at one side of it. It’s not about subjugating and ordering people around, it’s something deeper that is for their good. He who receives a righteous man receives a righteous man’s reward, and he who receives a prophet in my name receives a prophet’s reward, comes to mind with this. Anyway, that part is still a work in progress for me, but hope the rest might be helpful with this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 18, 2021 11:01:07 GMT -5
I am looking into this "spiritual covering doctrine", and its roots.
And here is a bit of information on it:
(http://www.burningpointministries.com/spiritual-covering-and-authority)
(...The Shepherding Movement
A powerful movement that redefined much of the charismatic movement came into being around 1970. It is known as the Shepherding Movement. This movement began when four anointed teachers came together in a 'covenant relationship.' These men were Don Basham, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, and Charles Simpson. Later, in 1975, they were joined by Ern Baxter. Teachings such as spiritual coverings, submission, and covenant relationships became widespread because of this movement. Much of what was taught, was spread like seed into the minds and hearts of young believers growing up spiritually during that time period. It was then passed on to the next generation of believers without them even knowing it came from the Shepherding Movement. Many leaders in ministry today have taken doctrine into their hearts that came straight from the shepherding movement and they don't even realize it.
The article's intent is not to discredit or dishonor the five teachers mentioned above. They each had powerful teaching ministries and were mightily used by God. I am sure that much good fruit came from their ministries. The intent of this article is to examine some of the errors and overemphasis in their teaching so at we will learn from their mistakes, and not follow down the same path. The Bible openly talks about the errors of those who went before us, for our own instruction.
Spiritual Coverings
'Spiritual coverings' have become a huge doctrine in the body of Christ. Many times leaders do not even teach on this doctrine, it is simply mentioned as a matter-of-fact. Therefore many in the church grow up spiritually, accepting this doctrine as Biblical truth. But where is this doctrine taught in the Bible? Where do the apostles talk about this doctrine in the letters to the churches? When does Jesus teach it in the gospels? I don't know, because I have not found it....)
This is just an exert of this article, that seems to show the root of this spiritual covering doctrine, and I do not know much about the shepherding movement, or these preachers, and I do not know if I would agree with every point that they say in this full article, but they do mention interesting points.
Here are some of them:
(http://www.burningpointministries.com/spiritual-covering-and-authority)
(...Charles Simpson wrote an article in 1972 in "New Wine" magazine titled 'Covering of the Lord.' It focused on the covering or protection provided by submitting oneself to God's delegated authority in the church (among other things). Don Basham stated in 'True and False Prophets' that "submission to spiritual authority provides the greatest spiritual protection anywhere available for Christian ministers and teachers." The movement taught that submission to a shepherd provided spiritual covering by being in right relationship to God's delegated authority in the church. This may sound really good, but where is this taught in the Bible? Surely apostolic doctrine would address such an important issue as this, so that there would not be any confusion in the church?...
The first century apostolic church did not teach submission to man like the 21 century church in America teaches it. They taught submission to Christ. The first century church did not teach that leaders can provide a spiritual covering, because they understood that the Lord is the one who covers man. “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High Shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” (Psalms 91:1 NKJV).
The word 'secret place' in the Hebrew means to cover, covering, hiding place, or protection. The Hebrew word for 'shadow' also means defense. So he who dwells under the covering of the Most High shall abide under the defense of the Almighty. The scripture does not tell us to dwell under the covering of man, but rather God....
...Covering and Deception
The current church has made an argument that states, "Being under a man's spiritual covering will protect you from deception." Actually the opposite is true as we will see. In the context of deception being released through antichrist spirits, John states: “These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (I John 2:26-27 NKJV)
John states, by the Holy Spirit, that believers do not need another man to protect them from men who are trying to deceive. The believer does not need the protection or teaching of men to stay free from deception, because the anointing from God abides in the believer. The anointing teaches the believer all things concerning the truth and keeps the believer from the lies of men. However, when a believer is submitted to a man as their spiritual covering, deception can spread much easier. This is very evident in denominations. If the leaders of a denomination do not believe that Jesus currently heals people, then you will find that most believers sitting under their spiritual covering follow their belief system of deception. The same is true about the doctrine of God's judgment. I have witnessed whole movements in the charismatic church reject New Testament scriptures of God's judgment. Then as other leaders and believers come under the movement's covering, they follow suit into the same deceptive doctrine....)
Now I personally believe that the bible has given us leaders, so to feed the flock, and they are to look out for the flock, but nowhere does it say they were given us for a spiritual covering, protection.
The Lord is our protection, so if we use man as our protection, and that leader eventually teaches false doctrine, then how good will their protection be? Not really good right?
And it is in a form of protection, that this doctrine seems to have come to being.
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Feb 18, 2021 11:16:04 GMT -5
I think its safe to say all of the members here who came from "the other forum" share the same appeal for sound doctrine you describe. i dont think anyone is trying to say its not important, for sure i am not. but way back before this forum began and we was over there i spoke on this topic over there saying how you couldnt find much instruction for spiritual living anymore. This is something i have been seeing for a good long while now but until i read PG's words i couldnt put it to words. I have written several times why i quit going to a prosperity church and because of the cessasionist view i dont enjoy attending baptist churches. i really do think because of doctrines being off its why we dont have as much guidance by our church leaders. at least partly anyway.
i can pick apart many things about pretty much any church i do not agree with doctrinaly. there are quite a few believers at the church i go to now that are osas. they think me odd because i dont believe in osas... but they still love me as themselves. now i point to sound doctrine: 1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. even though these people believe in something that can not keep them, in what they do they fulfill the law. this church i go to now because of the people there i have had to ask myself... whats more important? now dig it... I aint saying these people try to lead others astray like they do on some forums and churches because when i tell them i dont believe in osas they are surprised... we talk about it... but we still talk, not debate or argue, and there is love and mercy. there is no plotting behind your back... as you are well versed in from some.
my point here is simple. due to doctrine... if we get hung up on that we make a mountain out of a molehill and we dont DO (judged by words and actions) what God has told us to. even if we are right in doctrine, but they aint doing you wrong without cause like say to promote their indoctrination station of falsehoods i do not think we are in the right to not love them, and if if they are God still said love them. The Book dont say doctrine is the greatest... but that love is. Apart of Love is action, something we do. when we read Pauls epistles we clearly read His love. A great example is concerning Onesimus. or when he departed from Ephesus.
now, to bring balance to all that i have said... here is this verse(one of my favs) out of the books you mentioned: 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. just like faith without works is dead... doctrine without living right is also dead. and if we flip that coin over... you cant live right without sound doctrine. And i do want you to know... especially in all that we have endured together, and counciled each other on... in no way shape fashion or form am i saying doctrine is not important. but there is some stuff missing in the body today.
I agree with you that people can be off in believing things like osas and still be saved. I also could go to church with people that believe in osas. We have some members here, though inactive members, that believe in osas. So long as they are not argumentative about it, even though it is against our SOF, I never asked them to leave. Most of the time, it is osas believers that cannot tolerate anyone that disagrees with them, not the other way around.
Still, I would imagine there are things you would say are so important, the doctrine would matter? I am not necessarily speaking of salvation issues, but just serious errors. As I said, I could attend a UPC Church if not for false doctrine regarding baptism and the fact they are Jesus only. They seem like very good people, they believe in holy living, and they have a very good worship service and believe in the gifts of the Spirit.
I have struggled with this doctrine issue before. If the church is good, and the people seem to be real Christians, should doctrine separate us? If you were in my place, and you liked a church, but the problems with doctrine were over things like I described, would that be enough to keep you from going there?
Two things we must always have in remembrance . Yes there are some things that some might not agree upon . Like pre , mid , post trib , things like osas . However Osas must be pointed out big time . And we must always speak truth . I mean if one man believes he cannot eat meat , its not like i am gonna cease fellowship . I would , however , if that same man were condemining all who did eat meat , Would rebuke that man . And when it comes to OSAS , we must do always point to sound bible doctrine . Always remind that it is by grace alone ye have been saved , But remind with the same words paul and peter did as well , whose words came right FROM JESUS . When an osas man or woman comes to try and sway anyone or make anyone feel condemned , saying things like you are not trusting in JESUS REMIND THEM . REMIND THEM . IT IS THEY who are not trusting in JESUS . IT is they who are trusting in an acroynm of men . SEE if we really trust in JESUS , the one WHO saved us , WHY Do we not trust and take HIM at HIS Words . AND HE warns about if a man continues not in HIM being cast out . PAUL reminded the church of this . IN a few places . So did peter . Look at jude . HE warned if angels kept not their first estate, LOOK what happened to them . WE do realize why JUDE said this . CAUSE If we do not continue in the true gospel of JESUS , IN HIS sayings , Our end aint GOOD at all . SO we must remind folks , WHO ya GONNA TRUST IN , men , or JESUS , men of todays theologies or the apostels own doctrine . ITS DANGEROUS , i warn us all its deadly to stray from the pattern . FOR the only pattern that works , IS THE ONE JESUS SET , IT IS the ONE that the apostels would later teach and keep . WE MUST do the same and do it continously . Always stirring one another up by way of remembrance , by the truth recorded IN THAT BIBLE .
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Feb 18, 2021 11:24:18 GMT -5
my thing is this. if they are in Christ they are our brother. thats family. but back to how we live... we will know them by their fruits. and a big part of this is... how we live. You and i. personally. does our doctrine tell us to separate ourselves from them? does their doctrine get in between us and God?
This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't enjoy debating doctrine. Paul mentions this several times in his letters, about people judging each other over meats and sabbaths and how it causes real damage in the Body. People who like to argue will always find something to argue about, and when we start doing that with the Bible, we're skating on thin ice. When both sides of a doctrinal issue think their doctrine is the most important thing, they're more likely to argue about it. All Satan has to do is make you *think* some pet doctrine is a matter of salvation, and you'll easily begin to evangelize all the Christians who disagree. Many osas people are so militant about it because they're convinced that those who "work" for salvation aren't saved. Worse yet are those who say you'll only get "the real gospel" in their denomination. Yes there are some central truths of the gospel that we must be willing to divide over. But by and large, looking at everything church people argue about, I suspect most of our arguments are not as important as we imagine. It would be far simplier if we just simply kept it real simple . I keep it very simple . IF JESUS said it , DO IT . IF the apostels said it , do it . Learn that pattern well . And if one does they shall be able to build up others that will do the same thing . The problem began when folks started changing things . And once the pattern begins to be changed , its a recipe for only more leaven and destruction . This could have been so simple . Everything written is recorded for us , for our well being . We got all we need , THE SPIRIT and that bible . Here is another reminder paul left . MARK those who cause divisions , , mark and avoid them . Would you like to know what i left out of that quoate . Here let me rewrite it . MARK those who cause divisions , CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE YE HAVE LEARNED , mark and avoid . Paul was all about UNITY , he just knew that any unity that would start to omit TRUTHS to have that said unity , WAS A TOTAL DEATH SENTENCE . It is . Let us just learn the bible well . The SPIRIT is our guide and it will give us the understanding we need to understand what we read . AKA what IT INSPIRED . And let those who are well trained in those bibles , be doing all to remind all of the sound doctrine in those bibles . WE must . Be encouraged . And let all lambs test what anyone says . Let us be fast to correct error and always pointing to JESUS , all HIS teachings and do so continously .
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Feb 18, 2021 11:29:05 GMT -5
Good grief how do people make this stuff so complicated? It's no wonder we can't get past milk in the church when this is what we're debating 2,000 years later. There is this anti-denominational argument going around, and those who support denominations will sometimes point to Paul's authority over a group of churches, while others question if he really had real authority over them. I agree that this is nothing anyone should be arguing over, and me and Giller are not arguing at all. If someone has a question about anything in the Bible, if they are sincere, and not just trying to be funny or sarcastic, I am happy to discuss it with them.
As far as the "covering" thing goes, when you have someone you are accountable to for your conduct, to me, that is a type of covering. In denominational churches, the headquarters acts as a covering for the churches in their organization. That is where all of this comes in, and over the years, I have heard people argue this point. Do not forget that the RCC claims Peter was the first Pope, and if someone is going to make that ridiculous claim, I do not see this question as any more absurd. People try to use the Bible for all kind of things and they will pervert the scriptures to do it.
Then let us remember two things . First we are , if we love them , to do all to point them to the original pattern Set by JESUS , the one which the apostels would also later keep . Now , if i see a baptist , i dont automatically assume , OH they are of satan and dont know GOD . BUT i would remind them , Paul said it , Do not let there be divisions amongst you . And all these denominations in large contain some messed up teachings . Plus why would we call ourselves anything but christains . Why call yourself a baptist , why call one self pentecostal . These in small part is already dividing . And as i said , some of those teachings contain some messed up things . Sure they have some truth . But lambs dont settle for some truth . ITS biblical truth , its that pattern . SO what i would do is simply get folks back into lots of bible reading . Believe me , if they are a lamb GOD will clear it up . If not they will harden their heart and fight against it . But either way we must stick to the pattern in that bible . teaching that and reminding all to do and do likewise .
|
|
|
Post by watchful on Feb 18, 2021 11:30:16 GMT -5
I am looking into this " spiritual covering doctrine", and its roots. And here is a bit of information on it: (http://www.burningpointministries.com/spiritual-covering-and-authority)(...The Shepherding Movement
A powerful movement that redefined much of the charismatic movement came into being around 1970. It is known as the Shepherding Movement. This movement began when four anointed teachers came together in a 'covenant relationship.' These men were Don Basham, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, and Charles Simpson. Later, in 1975, they were joined by Ern Baxter. Teachings such as spiritual coverings, submission, and covenant relationships became widespread because of this movement. Much of what was taught, was spread like seed into the minds and hearts of young believers growing up spiritually during that time period. It was then passed on to the next generation of believers without them even knowing it came from the Shepherding Movement. Many leaders in ministry today have taken doctrine into their hearts that came straight from the shepherding movement and they don't even realize it. The article's intent is not to discredit or dishonor the five teachers mentioned above. They each had powerful teaching ministries and were mightily used by God. I am sure that much good fruit came from their ministries. The intent of this article is to examine some of the errors and overemphasis in their teaching so at we will learn from their mistakes, and not follow down the same path. The Bible openly talks about the errors of those who went before us, for our own instruction. Spiritual Coverings
'Spiritual coverings' have become a huge doctrine in the body of Christ. Many times leaders do not even teach on this doctrine, it is simply mentioned as a matter-of-fact. Therefore many in the church grow up spiritually, accepting this doctrine as Biblical truth. But where is this doctrine taught in the Bible? Where do the apostles talk about this doctrine in the letters to the churches? When does Jesus teach it in the gospels? I don't know, because I have not found it....) This is just an exert of this article, that seems to show the root of this spiritual covering doctrine, and I do not know much about the shepherding movement, or these preachers, and I do not know if I would agree with every point that they say in this full article, but they do mention interesting points.Here are some of them: (http://www.burningpointministries.com/spiritual-covering-and-authority)(...Charles Simpson wrote an article in 1972 in "New Wine" magazine titled 'Covering of the Lord.' It focused on the covering or protection provided by submitting oneself to God's delegated authority in the church (among other things). Don Basham stated in 'True and False Prophets' that "submission to spiritual authority provides the greatest spiritual protection anywhere available for Christian ministers and teachers." The movement taught that submission to a shepherd provided spiritual covering by being in right relationship to God's delegated authority in the church. This may sound really good, but where is this taught in the Bible? Surely apostolic doctrine would address such an important issue as this, so that there would not be any confusion in the church?...The first century apostolic church did not teach submission to man like the 21 century church in America teaches it. They taught submission to Christ. The first century church did not teach that leaders can provide a spiritual covering, because they understood that the Lord is the one who covers man. “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High Shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” (Psalms 91:1 NKJV).The word 'secret place' in the Hebrew means to cover, covering, hiding place, or protection. The Hebrew word for 'shadow' also means defense. So he who dwells under the covering of the Most High shall abide under the defense of the Almighty. The scripture does not tell us to dwell under the covering of man, but rather God.......Covering and Deception
The current church has made an argument that states, "Being under a man's spiritual covering will protect you from deception." Actually the opposite is true as we will see. In the context of deception being released through antichrist spirits, John states: “These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (I John 2:26-27 NKJV)
John states, by the Holy Spirit, that believers do not need another man to protect them from men who are trying to deceive. The believer does not need the protection or teaching of men to stay free from deception, because the anointing from God abides in the believer. The anointing teaches the believer all things concerning the truth and keeps the believer from the lies of men. However, when a believer is submitted to a man as their spiritual covering, deception can spread much easier. This is very evident in denominations. If the leaders of a denomination do not believe that Jesus currently heals people, then you will find that most believers sitting under their spiritual covering follow their belief system of deception. The same is true about the doctrine of God's judgment. I have witnessed whole movements in the charismatic church reject New Testament scriptures of God's judgment. Then as other leaders and believers come under the movement's covering, they follow suit into the same deceptive doctrine....) Now I personally believe that the bible has given us leaders, so to feed the flock, and they are to look out for the flock, but nowhere does it say they were given us for a spiritual covering, protection.
The Lord is our protection, so if we use man as our protection, and that leader eventually teaches false doctrine, then how good will their protection be? Not really good right?
And it is in a form of protection, that this doctrine seems to have come to being.
Haven't fully understood the concept of covering yet. Amen, the Lord is our protection and covering and shepherd and keeper of our souls. I am sure of this though, that people often make far too much of simple bible truths....flesh gets hold of things and runs away with it, they write books and hold conferences and start denominations when they try to make it into something bigger than it is.....and it all gets set in the cement of the carnal mind. When those things happen we can be sure the devil is not using it for anyone's good.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Feb 18, 2021 11:40:02 GMT -5
Yes of course there are people saved in denominational circles, but that does not mean denominations are of God, we do not see Paul and the apostles forming denominations, and they are suppose to be our examples.
My protection is not men, nor a denomination, but the Lord, for it is faith in God which moves the mighty mountain, and the just are to live by faith, forget man's pattern, stick to the bible.
Psa 91:1 (1) He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
|
|
|
Post by watchful on Feb 18, 2021 11:44:49 GMT -5
There is this anti-denominational argument going around, and those who support denominations will sometimes point to Paul's authority over a group of churches, while others question if he really had real authority over them. I agree that this is nothing anyone should be arguing over, and me and Giller are not arguing at all. If someone has a question about anything in the Bible, if they are sincere, and not just trying to be funny or sarcastic, I am happy to discuss it with them.
As far as the "covering" thing goes, when you have someone you are accountable to for your conduct, to me, that is a type of covering. In denominational churches, the headquarters acts as a covering for the churches in their organization. That is where all of this comes in, and over the years, I have heard people argue this point. Do not forget that the RCC claims Peter was the first Pope, and if someone is going to make that ridiculous claim, I do not see this question as any more absurd. People try to use the Bible for all kind of things and they will pervert the scriptures to do it.
Then let us remember two things . First we are , if we love them , to do all to point them to the original pattern Set by JESUS , the one which the apostels would also later keep . Now , if i see a baptist , i dont automatically assume , OH they are of satan and dont know GOD . BUT i would remind them , Paul said it , Do not let there be divisions amongst you . And all these denominations in large contain some messed up teachings . Plus why would we call ourselves anything but christains . Why call yourself a baptist , why call one self pentecostal . These in small part is already dividing . And as i said , some of those teachings contain some messed up things . Sure they have some truth . But lambs dont settle for some truth . ITS biblical truth , its that pattern . SO what i would do is simply get folks back into lots of bible reading . Believe me , if they are a lamb GOD will clear it up . If not they will harden their heart and fight against it . But either way we must stick to the pattern in that bible . teaching that and reminding all to do and do likewise . Amen brother. It seems that unity happens as each one grows and matures in Christ, until then there will always be a measure of disagreement. It's an ongoing battle that will be won over time as we grow up into the Head, and of course ultimately won at His return. Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
|
|