Your perspective?

[one love]

Really? I don't think so. I think what y'all believe is in everyone being united in your interpretation and understanding of one faith. And by "not so many doctrines," what is meant is "conform to our doctrine."

Thinking and knowing are two different things as you know. I believe in conforming to the word of God. Which could be said about any church organization. What ever they teach could be taken in the same context.
Not my understanding but what the word of God say's and being guided and lead by the spirit of God. By all means I have no problem to agree to disagree

The irony is, ONE LOVE, that your blinders prevent you from seeing that "I feel we will be united together" only has meaning for you if it requires all others to abandon their beliefs and adopt yours.

Well Im not wearing blinders Brother and I do not feel the way you are implying . I thought we were the judgemental ones Are you not implying here that I need to conform to your way, or otherwise im wearing blinders? Yes I feel we all need to come under true bible doctrine, which does not mean do this or dont do that, simply the entire truth. The misnomer of denominationlism just proves how confused the entire kingdom of God is. Some feel you can not pray with anyone if they are not lutheran. Others feel praying to the saints is ok, also placing Mary as a divine being. Others feel there is no trinity. Others feel there is a trinity but surely speaking in toungues are of the devil. Some feel once saved always saved. Others feel they are predestined to go to heaven and the rest were created for the purpose of going to hell. Nothing but extreme confusion in over 40 thousand different chruchs. SO this is why sound doctrine and government lead by the spirit of God is vital. This is why I do believe he "will gather together in one all things" As you and I know some of these teachings are an abomination to the LORD. Everything in the bible shows and references why unity is so important. You say you have to conform to our ways, I say we all need to conform to the Bible.
I dont claim we have all the answers by any means. Keep in mind other religions say christians are wrong because we say Jesus is the only way to heaven and they have to conform to us or they are going to hell.

No? Then here's a challenge for you: leave your church and join mine in the interest of promoting being united together. The entire concept of dividing from others in the name of uniting defies logic.

No I say God will unite us together. I will stop there on the rest of that statement.

Here's the deal -- I have been where you are, believed the way you believe, and have made the same arguments you are making... I'd like to think I made them as concisely as you. I have the advantage of seeing your point from the outside looking in, and I promise that when you finally see that the emporor has no clothes, will not say "I told you so."

Based on this statement you dont know how many churches I have been to in my life. I also do extensive studies on every denomination that Im aware of. When you preached this way and were in the cogop were the holy ghost filled services real or fake. Was the Lord moving then or just now? Just curious. Notice I could say the same. I have been on both sides and could very well feel the change was wrong and if you were able to see that how different you would feel.

Likewise. And I only engage you in discussion because you seem reasonably intelligent and polite, and a cut above some of the mindless robots I have encountered now and then. There's hope for you.

wow a complement and a pot shot at the same tim. LOL
So I have hope if I conform to your way correct
Sorry I could not help myself, Im kidding.I enjoy this I am willing to discuss as much as anyone wants. My only objective is to not do it in a wrong spirit. I feel that we must be edifying even upon disagreeing. Now there is no doubt there are things I hear preached in TCOG that I absolutely disagree with. Many take thoughts out of context and run with them. Then say the chruch teaches this way, which ends up resulting in people saying TCOG believe this or that. But in many cases we dont, just nobody repromands them as much as they should.
Thank you again may God bless you

[Pastor Gary]

From those of us who have heard those positions parroted our entire lives, spent decades saying almost word-for-word what you have said here, and now realize how embarrassed we are...

enjoy the kool-aid.

[Mister Ed]

Thank you for your kindness PG!

¡de nada!

Try to understand we believe in everyone being united in one faith. Not so many different doctrines.

Really? I don't think so. I think what y'all believe is in everyone being united in your interpretation and understanding of one faith. And by "not so many doctrines," what is meant is "conform to our doctrine."

The irony is, ONE LOVE, that your blinders prevent you from seeing that "I feel we will be united together" only has meaning for you if it requires all others to abandon their beliefs and adopt yours. No? Then here's a challenge for you: leave your church and join mine in the interest of promoting being united together. The entire concept of dividing from others in the name of uniting defies logic.

I often say we dont exlude we are inclusive because we feel that all chrstians will walk in one mind and one accord just as the day of pentecost.

Have you ever read "1984" by Orwell? What a perfect example of newspeak.

Here's the deal -- I have been where you are, believed the way you believe, and have made the same arguments you are making... I'd like to think I made them as concisely as you. I have the advantage of seeing your point from the outside looking in, and I promise that when you finally see that the emporor has no clothes, will not say "I told you so."

I am really enjoying get to know many of you.

Likewise. And I only engage you in discussion because you seem reasonably intelligent and polite, and a cut above some of the mindless robots I have encountered now and then. There's hope for you.

Well said pastor Gary; and others of us could say the same. I respect one love’s mind set that he feels that he must uphold the mission of his church affiliation, but what I don’t understand is his believing that he can re-indoctrinate those who once accepted what he believes as truth and then realized it is not.

If I were color blind and someone told me that red is green and I had confidence in that person to only tell me the truth, I would believe him. But if I later was able to see for myself and learned the difference, there is no way I would ever again believe that red is green.

That is what happened to me concerning the COGOP. I was indoctrinated and joined as a young teenager, believing those teaching me would never tell me anything but the truth. What I didn’t know was that they also had been unknowingly indoctrinated falsely and believed in what they were teaching was truth concerning the doctrine of being the exclusive church and bride; just as one-love believes he is teaching the truth. It is obvious he doesn’t realize that that doctrine is the mainstay of all cults.

I left when I came to that realization and at a time when the COGOP didn’t wish one God-speed when he left “the church”. We were banished to a life without hope of eternal life unless we returned, apologized, and repented for bringing a reproach on the church by leaving. (Only, then, would we be able to be saved. - Not through the blood of Jesus, but through “the church”).

And before someone says that was never taught by the COGOP I want to say that I sat in a class in BTC and was told by a general official who was the instructor, “when a person is turned out of the church, they are turned over to the Devil, even if they are turned out under false charges”.

I just want to add that I was a member for over 30 years and a minister for most of that time. When I left with my wife and children we had no ill feelings toward anyone, and still don’t. I still have family there and many close friends. Even though I was able to listen to the preaching and no longer be persuaded by it, I could not allow my children to be continually indoctrinated to a point where I would not be able to counteract it. And to speak a word against any ruling of the assembly at that time was to “speak against God”; (according to the church).

[TW]

one love,
If I may. When I first came to this board I ask a question in the Doctrine Forum that no one was able to answer. Now I pose that question to you because you have stated:

With that said belive we will all see eye to eye once again. So by that we do believe in the exclusive Bride of christ and all christians will be united together into that one fold.

The question is, what verse in the Bible states that any church will be the “Bride of Christ?”


Your brother in Christ,
TW

[one love]

one love,
If I may. When I first came to this board I ask a question in the Doctrine Forum that no one was able to answer. Now I pose that question to you because you have stated:

With that said belive we will all see eye to eye once again. So by that we do believe in the exclusive Bride of christ and all christians will be united together into that one fold.

The question is, what verse in the Bible states that any church will be the “Bride of Christ?”


Your brother in Christ,
TW

That is such easy question but I will refrain at this point and move to another topic Maybe later

[TW]

one love,
If I may. When I first came to this board I asked a question in the Doctrine Forum that no one was able to answer. Now I pose that question to you because you have stated:

With that said belive we will all see eye to eye once again. So by that we do believe in the exclusive Bride of christ and all christians will be united together into that one fold.

The question is, what verse in the Bible states that any church will be the “Bride of Christ?”


Your brother in Christ,
TW

That is such easy question but I will refrain at this point and move to another topic Maybe later

If it such an easy question, then why do you not give an answer. Could it be that there is no verse? Could it be that in order to claim to be "the Bride of Christ" you must take a number of unrelated verses that compare Jesus to a bridegroom and compare the "church" to a bride, blend them together, use a large amount of imagination and a very liberal and skewed interpretation of scripture to arrive at that concept?

The fact is, there is no verse that identifies any church, or even the Church, as "the Bride Of Christ." The only place in the Bible that identifies a bride for Jesus is:

Rev. 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Rev. 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

In verse 9, the angel states that he will show John the bride, in verse 10 the bride is revealed to be the new Jerusalem. Now, before you raise the objection that this is the bride of the "Lamb," and not the "Christ," let me remind you that they are "one in the same." They are both "titles" that are applied to Jesus. This is the only place in the Bible that clearly identifies the bride, all other references in the Bible to a "bride" are comparative.


Your brother in Christ,
TW

[one love]

one love,
If I may. When I first came to this board I asked a question in the Doctrine Forum that no one was able to answer. Now I pose that question to you because you have stated:

With that said belive we will all see eye to eye once again. So by that we do believe in the exclusive Bride of christ and all christians will be united together into that one fold.

The question is, what verse in the Bible states that any church will be the “Bride of Christ?”


Your brother in Christ,
TW

That is such easy question but I will refrain at this point and move to another topic Maybe later

If it such an easy question, then why do you not give an answer. Could it be that there is no verse? Could it be that in order to claim to be "the Bride of Christ" you must take a number of unrelated verses that compare Jesus to a bridegroom and compare the "church" to a bride, blend them together, use a large amount of imagination and a very liberal and skewed interpretation of scripture to arrive at that concept?

The fact is, there is no verse that identifies any church, or even the Church, as "the Bride Of Christ." The only place in the Bible that identifies a bride for Jesus is:

Rev. 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Rev. 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

In verse 9, the angel states that he will show John the bride, in verse 10 the bride is revealed to be the new Jerusalem. Now, before you raise the objection that this is the bride of the "Lamb," and not the "Christ," let me remind you that they are "one in the same." They are both "titles" that are applied to Jesus. This is the only place in the Bible that clearly identifies the bride, all other references in the Bible to a "bride" are comparative.


Your brother in Christ,
TW

yeah that is it you got me Have you been reading any of these post. Everytime I am asked a question it is then assumed I am either trying to indoctrinate you, or "kool aid" so just because you feel this way I will respond later right now my head hurts
Thank you

I have edited this so you dont feel I am running from this question. I will give a base to begin and finish it later, so forgive me for it not being complete.

Before perfecting his church all must be gathered into the “one fold”
John 11:52

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
KJV


Ps 50:4-5

4 He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.

5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
KJV

Isa 54:7

7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
KJV

Eph 1:10

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV

For his people to be gathered into one fold there must be a fold for them to go to.

[Pastor Gary]

Everytime I am asked a question it is then assumed I am either trying to indoctrinate you, or "kool aid"...

That's because, friend, as we have all tried to gently suggest that we all know your doctrinal views as well or better than you do, and you have been coming across as "preachy" in the last series of posts. You may think you are simply stating your beliefs, but, since most of us have deep roots in the same theology you now espouse, and have rejected many of those old views now, you seem to be trying to convince us, in the same way we are trying to convince you.

This board is populated by more than a few people who came here just like you, and through these dialogs changed their minds. I know that you could never allow yourself to admit to any cracks in the foundation, but -- I promise you -- one day all these people's remarks to you will be remembered as turning points on your journey into freedom.

I recall the people who challenged me on my firmly-held beliefs in the One Fold message, and other things -- prohibition of wedding rings, etc. -- and how angry with them I was at the time. I KNEW I had the truth, and that they must be wrong! Looking back, with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I see how God orchestrated placing them in my path to intercept me.

The Koolaid references are mine, and I use them any time you post something that is so obviously a regurgitation of the party line that it borders on swallowing the poison along with the koolaid.

If I, if we, didn't think you were worth it, we wouldn't waste our time responding at all.

[one love]

Everytime I am asked a question it is then assumed I am either trying to indoctrinate you, or "kool aid"...

That's because, friend, as we have all tried to gently suggest that we all know your doctrinal views as well or better than you do, and you have been coming across as "preachy" in the last series of posts. You may think you are simply stating your beliefs, but, since most of us have deep roots in the same theology you now espouse, and have rejected many of those old views now, you seem to be trying to convince us, in the same way we are trying to convince you.

This board is populated by more than a few people who came here just like you, and through these dialogs changed their minds. I know that you could never allow yourself to admit to any cracks in the foundation, but -- I promise you -- one day all these people's remarks to you will be remembered as turning points on your journey into freedom.

I recall the people who challenged me on my firmly-held beliefs in the One Fold message, and other things -- prohibition of wedding rings, etc. -- and how angry with them I was at the time. I KNEW I had the truth, and that they must be wrong! Looking back, with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I see how God orchestrated placing them in my path to intercept me.

The Koolaid references are mine, and I use them any time you post something that is so obviously a regurgitation of the party line that it borders on swallowing the poison along with the koolaid.

If I, if we, didn't think you were worth it, we wouldn't waste our time responding at all.

Preachy no, defensive yes. Why because you all are coming across very agressive. You cant ask me something then say im preaching because of my response. I could respond the same and say where I feel you have flawed but I have not done so. SO basically it lies like this friend I can be challenged but if I respond in any way that would dictate former practices of COGOP Im being preachy. Yet all the preaching of how im blinded, coheresed and etc. are just fine. That is a double standard and to be frank I dont appreciate it. I have been very humble here and never chose these topics I responded to a thread I did not create and was challenged. So my only answer is to not respond to any subject relative to these issues. To me that is very unfair but It is ok. I would choose as I said to end these topics. I have been accused of trying to indoctrinate when all I did was defend my beliefs. I havent critisized you or Paul or anyone else for there beliefs. But I am a open target. I apologize for any misunderstanding fire away i will stand back on these topics and partake only in other discussions. Again im sorry fr responding to these at all.

[TW]

one love,
I'm sorry that you are having migraines, I know how dibilitating they can be.

When you get to feeling better please respond to my question. I know that you said that you were establishing a base and you would finish later. However the base that you are establishing is for the "One Fold" doctrine, not the "Bride of Christ" concept. That in itself makes it appear that you are trying to duck the question.

one love wrote:

Have you been reading any of these post. Everytime I am asked a question it is then assumed I am either trying to indoctrinate you, or "kool aid" so just because you feel this way I will respond later right now my head hurts
Thank you

Yes, I have read every post. No, I am not assuming that you are trying to indoctrinate me, I'm trying to get you to answer my simple question.


TW

[one love]

one love,
I'm sorry that you are having migraines, I know how dibilitating they can be.

When you get to feeling better please respond to my question. I know that you said that you were establishing a base and you would finish later. However the base that you are establishing is for the "One Fold" doctrine, not the "Bride of Christ" concept. That in itself makes it appear that you are trying to duck the question.

one love wrote:

Have you been reading any of these post. Everytime I am asked a question it is then assumed I am either trying to indoctrinate you, or "kool aid" so just because you feel this way I will respond later right now my head hurts
Thank you

Yes, I have read every post. No, I am not assuming that you are trying to indoctrinate me, I'm trying to get you to answer my simple question.


TW

Thank you for understanding. The one fold is the base of the answer. We believe that christ established his church, not different organizations. That church was the bride. I will continue this please be patient I promise im not ducking this by any means. I tried to post a couple times here and a long one on utr and it just kicked this migraine right back. I have severe spinal injuries that cause me to have severe pain and migraines that can last weeks. Thank you again.

[Gerald Creasy]

The one fold is the base of the answer. We believe that christ established his church, not different organizations. That church was the bride.

How is TCOG NOT a different organization than the church that first operated shortly after the death and ressurrection of Christ?

[ichthus]

As an outsider, this whole idea of continuing the exclusive church as a SPLIT-OFF makes no sense to me. Isn't this Theocracy idea supposed to be God leading thru unanimity? Or at least a majority? If not, any handful of people can pull out at any time when they disagree with something and say "we are continuing on with the church, it's not a new group". In fact that's just what has happened to the very church that did that in the 90s! Now Nabors pulls his few and says "WE are continuing as the church!!" Whose to say which is right and which is wrong and based on WHAT? IF the EXCLUSIVE church doctrine is true, and its the group founded in 1886 that is the true church or 1907 or whatever, then it will always be THAT group that will continue to be the True Church whatever decision they make or whatever they vote in as a group becuase the gates of hell can not prevail against the church. If it subdivides 2, 3, 4 or 7 times, the little tiny group that leaves the main group that GOD Himself chose CANNOT be that same group! It is not the original group! The splinters are not and cannot be the original group. The COG made changes before there were ever splits and that did not make them no longer the original group. No changes can ever make it NOT be the original group. It still is what it is.

It is the same with the Roman Catholic Church! They believe they are the One True Church established by Jesus. There have been Archbishops like Lefevre that didn't like changes like the mass being no longer in latin. He and a handful of ultra conservative men pulled out and declared that they are now the real Catholic church and the rest is all apostate because it changed. That is just dumb! The original Roman Catholic Church will always be the Roman Catholic Church no matter how many start something new that is conservative like in years past, that still doesn't make them the Roman Catholic Church.

So, if the exclusive church thing were true, and the true group was one called "COG" and rediscovered 100 years ago in the mountains of TN, the real true group would have to be the COG elders because no one leader or group of pastors is the original group just because they say so and pull out. It has to be the whole group that is the real group and not some dissenters from the original church's assembly decisions, nominations, or actions.

[one love]

As an outsider, this whole idea of continuing the exclusive church as a SPLIT-OFF makes no sense to me. Isn't this Theocracy idea supposed to be God leading thru unanimity? Or at least a majority? If not, any handful of people can pull out at any time when they disagree with something and say "we are continuing on with the church, it's not a new group". In fact that's just what has happened to the very church that did that in the 90s! Now Nabors pulls his few and says "WE are continuing as the church!!" Whose to say which is right and which is wrong and based on WHAT? IF the EXCLUSIVE church doctrine is true, and its the group founded in 1886 that is the true church or 1907 or whatever, then it will always be THAT group that will continue to be the True Church whatever decision they make or whatever they vote in as a group becuase the gates of hell can not prevail against the church. If it subdivides 2, 3, 4 or 7 times, the little tiny group that leaves the main group that GOD Himself chose CANNOT be that same group! It is not the original group! The splinters are not and cannot be the original group. The COG made changes before there were ever splits and that did not make them no longer the original group. No changes can ever make it NOT be the original group. It still is what it is.

It is the same with the Roman Catholic Church! They believe they are the One True Church established by Jesus. There have been Archbishops like Lefevre that didn't like changes like the mass being no longer in latin. He and a handful of ultra conservative men pulled out and declared that they are now the real Catholic church and the rest is all apostate because it changed. That is just dumb! The original Roman Catholic Church will always be the Roman Catholic Church no matter how many start something new that is conservative like in years past, that still doesn't make them the Roman Catholic Church.

So, if the exclusive church thing were true, and the true group was one called "COG" and rediscovered 100 years ago in the mountains of TN, the real true group would have to be the COG elders because no one leader or group of pastors is the original group just because they say so and pull out. It has to be the whole group that is the real group and not some dissenters from the original church's assembly decisions, nominations, or actions.

No unanimous only just as in the book of acts. That is theocray -God ruled-

[Brian]

As an outsider, this whole idea of continuing the exclusive church as a SPLIT-OFF makes no sense to me. Isn't this Theocracy idea supposed to be God leading thru unanimity? Or at least a majority? If not, any handful of people can pull out at any time when they disagree with something and say "we are continuing on with the church, it's not a new group". In fact that's just what has happened to the very church that did that in the 90s! Now Nabors pulls his few and says "WE are continuing as the church!!" Whose to say which is right and which is wrong and based on WHAT? IF the EXCLUSIVE church doctrine is true, and its the group founded in 1886 that is the true church or 1907 or whatever, then it will always be THAT group that will continue to be the True Church whatever decision they make or whatever they vote in as a group becuase the gates of hell can not prevail against the church. If it subdivides 2, 3, 4 or 7 times, the little tiny group that leaves the main group that GOD Himself chose CANNOT be that same group! It is not the original group! The splinters are not and cannot be the original group. The COG made changes before there were ever splits and that did not make them no longer the original group. No changes can ever make it NOT be the original group. It still is what it is.

It is the same with the Roman Catholic Church! They believe they are the One True Church established by Jesus. There have been Archbishops like Lefevre that didn't like changes like the mass being no longer in latin. He and a handful of ultra conservative men pulled out and declared that they are now the real Catholic church and the rest is all apostate because it changed. That is just dumb! The original Roman Catholic Church will always be the Roman Catholic Church no matter how many start something new that is conservative like in years past, that still doesn't make them the Roman Catholic Church.

So, if the exclusive church thing were true, and the true group was one called "COG" and rediscovered 100 years ago in the mountains of TN, the real true group would have to be the COG elders because no one leader or group of pastors is the original group just because they say so and pull out. It has to be the whole group that is the real group and not some dissenters from the original church's assembly decisions, nominations, or actions.

The problem is, that people who hold to the Exclusive Church doctrine (TCOG and other "splinter groups") believe it is completely possible JUST AS you have described it to be immpossible. If my understanding is correct they believe that there will be a "remnant" who believe and are called out. So to say that its just a handfull of dissenters (or faithful, take your pick) to pull out and carry on the "true church" is falling in line with exactly how they believe God is working things out.

I personally think its kind of a slap in the face to every other believer in the world who gives there hearts and lives to the Living God throught he sacrifices of our Lord Jesus. Its not an insinuation, its an outright statement of fact that they believe they have "held to the truth and remained faithful". BY DEFAULT they are implying that anyone who is not yet in there groups have not yet come to the knowledge of the truth. And even worse, those who WERE part of what they call the "true church" has LEFT THEOCRACY and are now walking according to the flesh in derect OPPOSITION to the leading of the Holy Spirit! If that isnt a slap in the face then I dont know what is.