Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objecti
Posted by:
tpcwocattender
()
Date: May 09, 2009 03:54AM
Quote
Mville04Quote
tpcwocattenderQuote
Mville04
I guess I have a diferent perspective since I am on the outside of TPC.
I am wondering from those of you still attending the church, why are you going there?What I mean is, why do you chooe tpc to attend over any other church? What makes it so diferent for you?
My reasons for staying after I visited and why I am still there is first and foremost the people who make up TPC. After that I will supply the following list, in no particular order.
1. The worship (I am not a dancer but like that we allow those that are to do so)
2. The heart for being a good member of the community
3. The children’s/youth program
4. The unashamed way they proclaim Jesus Christ
5. Summer Jubilee
6. The heart of those who serve - they are truly an inspiration in self-sacrifice
7. Fan the Flame (though I have not been for some time due to childcare reasons)
8. The push for church unity - I love the pulpit swap
There are others that I think are more sub-points of the main ones I listed.
1. Other churches don't worship?
2. You can't have a good heart and be a good member of the community unless you are with TP?
3. No other churches have children programs?
4. Other churches don't proclaim Jesus Christ? Or does TP just do it better? (up for a lot of debate)
5. No other local churces are involved in Summer Jubilee?
6. You believe that those in other churches don't lend themselves to self sacrifice?
7. Fan the flame? I will give you that one but I don't see how that is needed in a walk with Jesus.
8. Church unity? When you can't even approach the head Pastor nor question him?
How many of the things you listed are from scripture? Fan the Flame? Summer Jubilee? Pulpit swap? How about a praise bowling league? Is that next? It really sounds to me that your reasons for staying are based on human needs rather than a spiritual one. If you are that concerned about your friends perhaps you should take them with you when you go. That would be a loving and caring thing to do in my opinion.
Mville04 - Someone asks a subjective question that I answer and you then attack that answer. Are you just looking to create conflict? It appears that is your purpose here, if I am wrong then I apologize. My statements were made from a personal perspective not as judgment toward all other churches. I did not declare that TPC was the only church where these attributes were present. I was asked simply "why do you attend Turning Point?" I answered them.
To interpret the answers that I made to the questions as lacking any spiritual depth is unfair and to be honest a cheap shot. To suggest that the structure of a church, the method in which creates fellowship among its congregation, the style of its worship or the quality of its programs is not part of the decision to attend or not attend a particular church is a bold statement. I have met no one who does not take those things into consideration. Each one of us has a unique priority in which we would rank the importance such things.
A church is in its nature created to meet the needs of the congregation. The author of Hebrews tells us not to forsake meeting with each other so we can encourage one another (Heb 10). We have created church as a means in which to fellowship, encourage, worship and teach the body of Christ corporately. It is not a tool for evangelism. Christ commands us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. Not, build a great church with cool stuff and they will come. The church is the bride of Christ and that is us, his people. You suggested that human need is my primary reason for attending TPC based on what I answered. That there is no spiritual connection between what I answered. I would disagree wholeheartedly. I would ask you to tell me which of those that I listed don't have spiritual impact in one form or fashion and why. I would also state that we do have 'human needs' and yes I believe the church can fulfill some of those needs. I have a deep need to fellowship with people and church gives me a place to do that. I have been created to worship my savior and by it being a fabric of who I am created to be I have a human need to worship. God has created us not to be served but to serve, it is a human need of mine to serve, and I can do that at church. I need to do all these things outside of church as well but to deny them while at church or to suggest that at church I am not satisfying my human needs is incorrect as well. How many times did the Apostle Paul say in one of his letters 'I long to be with you in person...'? Is that a need of the flesh or spirit? Does not the flesh desire that which will fulfill us spiritually? (Please don’t go down the road of sinful desires or needs, that is a gross distortion of my point)
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
WonderingNow
()
Date: May 09, 2009 04:32AM
Turning Point and SOMA teach this. Here's an apologist's view.
The Faulty Foundation of the Five-Fold Ministry
DF070
Christian Research Institute Statment
The Faulty Foundation of the Five-Fold Ministry
It has recently become popular to speak of "the five-fold ministry," a system of church government with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The neo-Pentecostal "Restoration" movement and its offshoot, "Kingdom now" teaching, claims that one of the things which God is "restoring" to the church is this five-fold ministry.
The sole proof text used to support this concept is Ephesians 4:11-13, which states that Christ gave "some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,....until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God." The word "until," it is argued, proves that the church today needs apostles and prophets as much as evangelists, pastors, and teachers.
However, it is the "building up" of the church (v.12) which must continue until the church is mature, not all five of the offices listed in verse 11. This is clear when the whole text is read as follows: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers; [these offices were given] to equip the saints for the work of service, [which work has as its goal] to build up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith...." The offices of apostle and prophet would naturally cease in the church once their role in "equipping the saints" was completed; that is, once the New Testament canon was completed.
Some have objected that there is no reason to bracket off the apostles and prophets from the other three offices listed in verse 11. However, in the very same epistle, Paul states that the church has "been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20) and that Christ's mystery concerning the church was "revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (3:5). These statements indicate that the role of apostles and prophets was fulfilled in the first century.
The New Testament is particularly clear about the temporary role of the apostles, since they were chosen to give eyewitness testimony of the risen Christ (Acts 1:21-26; 5:32; Luke 1:104; 1 Cor. 9:1). Paul indicated that he was the last person to see the risen Christ and receive an apostolic commission (1 Cor. 15:8). The epistles of 2 Peter and Jude, among the very last New Testament writings to be penned, exhort the readers to avoid false doctrines by recalling the teachings of the apostles (2 Pet.1:12-15; 2:1; 3:2, 14-16; Jude 3-4, 17). Peter and Jude did not say, "Listen to the apostles living today," but instead urged believers to "remember what the apostles said."
I am not arguing that only the Twelve and Paul were apostles. Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silas (1 Thess. 2:6; cf. 1:1), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7) all were apostles of Christ, and thus were no doubt among the more than 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). However, none of these persons was chosen as a successor to an earlier apostle (Matthias was Judas's replacement, not his successor, since Judas had forsaken his apostleship, Acts 1:21-26).
There are other senses in which the word "apostle" is used in the New Testament. Certain individuals, including Epaphroditus, were "apostles of the churches" (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). These "apostles" had no authority over the church; they were messengers sent by and subject to their churches. In this latter sense it would be perfectly legitimate to speak of church representatives as "apostles," were it not for the confusion which might result from such usage.
Therefore, in the usual biblical sense of the term, there are no apostles today. Nor are there any prophets in the usual sense, as they were part of the "foundation" laid in the first-century church. This is not to deny the continuing validity of the gift of "prophecy," since Paul does refer to prophesying as a basic activity in which all Christians are urged to participate to the extent God gifts them (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 11:4-5; 12:10; 13:2, 8-9; 14:1-6, 20-33; 1 Thess. 5:20), and in a general functional sense persons exercising this gift are even called "prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32,37). Yet Paul also speaks of specific persons who occupied an office of "prophet" which was second in authority only to apostle (1 Cor. 12:28-29). It is this office of "prophet," not all prophecy, which I am arguing passed away around the end of the first century.
Finally, some errors on this matter are worse than others. The loose use of the word "apostle" to refer to missionaries or church planters is not a serious error as long as this usage is sharply distinguished from the concept of an apostle who brings new doctrinal revelations and wields unquestionable authority. Nor is it a grievous error to interpret Ephesians 4:11 to refer to "apostles" in this sense of a church planter. The same would apply to those who hold that Ephesians 4:11 refers to the ongoing charismatic activity of prophesying. I do believe these interpretations are mistaken, but they are not in any way antagonistic to Christian faith.
On the other hand, to interpret Ephesians 4:11 as a call for a restoration of the office of apostle of Christ is not only a mistake in exegesis, it opens the door to heresy. To claim that the church today needs visions and revelations through modern apostles and prophets of Christ is to deny the sufficiency of the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16) and to place the church at the mercy of false apostles, the likes of whom the apostle Paul warned us about in no uncertain terms (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
The teachers of the "five-fold ministry," in seeking to "restore" a foundation which has never been moved, are actually laying a false foundation which will not support the building up of the body of Christ.
The Faulty Foundation of the Five-Fold Ministry
DF070
Christian Research Institute Statment
The Faulty Foundation of the Five-Fold Ministry
It has recently become popular to speak of "the five-fold ministry," a system of church government with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The neo-Pentecostal "Restoration" movement and its offshoot, "Kingdom now" teaching, claims that one of the things which God is "restoring" to the church is this five-fold ministry.
The sole proof text used to support this concept is Ephesians 4:11-13, which states that Christ gave "some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,....until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God." The word "until," it is argued, proves that the church today needs apostles and prophets as much as evangelists, pastors, and teachers.
However, it is the "building up" of the church (v.12) which must continue until the church is mature, not all five of the offices listed in verse 11. This is clear when the whole text is read as follows: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers; [these offices were given] to equip the saints for the work of service, [which work has as its goal] to build up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith...." The offices of apostle and prophet would naturally cease in the church once their role in "equipping the saints" was completed; that is, once the New Testament canon was completed.
Some have objected that there is no reason to bracket off the apostles and prophets from the other three offices listed in verse 11. However, in the very same epistle, Paul states that the church has "been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20) and that Christ's mystery concerning the church was "revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (3:5). These statements indicate that the role of apostles and prophets was fulfilled in the first century.
The New Testament is particularly clear about the temporary role of the apostles, since they were chosen to give eyewitness testimony of the risen Christ (Acts 1:21-26; 5:32; Luke 1:104; 1 Cor. 9:1). Paul indicated that he was the last person to see the risen Christ and receive an apostolic commission (1 Cor. 15:8). The epistles of 2 Peter and Jude, among the very last New Testament writings to be penned, exhort the readers to avoid false doctrines by recalling the teachings of the apostles (2 Pet.1:12-15; 2:1; 3:2, 14-16; Jude 3-4, 17). Peter and Jude did not say, "Listen to the apostles living today," but instead urged believers to "remember what the apostles said."
I am not arguing that only the Twelve and Paul were apostles. Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silas (1 Thess. 2:6; cf. 1:1), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7) all were apostles of Christ, and thus were no doubt among the more than 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). However, none of these persons was chosen as a successor to an earlier apostle (Matthias was Judas's replacement, not his successor, since Judas had forsaken his apostleship, Acts 1:21-26).
There are other senses in which the word "apostle" is used in the New Testament. Certain individuals, including Epaphroditus, were "apostles of the churches" (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). These "apostles" had no authority over the church; they were messengers sent by and subject to their churches. In this latter sense it would be perfectly legitimate to speak of church representatives as "apostles," were it not for the confusion which might result from such usage.
Therefore, in the usual biblical sense of the term, there are no apostles today. Nor are there any prophets in the usual sense, as they were part of the "foundation" laid in the first-century church. This is not to deny the continuing validity of the gift of "prophecy," since Paul does refer to prophesying as a basic activity in which all Christians are urged to participate to the extent God gifts them (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 11:4-5; 12:10; 13:2, 8-9; 14:1-6, 20-33; 1 Thess. 5:20), and in a general functional sense persons exercising this gift are even called "prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32,37). Yet Paul also speaks of specific persons who occupied an office of "prophet" which was second in authority only to apostle (1 Cor. 12:28-29). It is this office of "prophet," not all prophecy, which I am arguing passed away around the end of the first century.
Finally, some errors on this matter are worse than others. The loose use of the word "apostle" to refer to missionaries or church planters is not a serious error as long as this usage is sharply distinguished from the concept of an apostle who brings new doctrinal revelations and wields unquestionable authority. Nor is it a grievous error to interpret Ephesians 4:11 to refer to "apostles" in this sense of a church planter. The same would apply to those who hold that Ephesians 4:11 refers to the ongoing charismatic activity of prophesying. I do believe these interpretations are mistaken, but they are not in any way antagonistic to Christian faith.
On the other hand, to interpret Ephesians 4:11 as a call for a restoration of the office of apostle of Christ is not only a mistake in exegesis, it opens the door to heresy. To claim that the church today needs visions and revelations through modern apostles and prophets of Christ is to deny the sufficiency of the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16) and to place the church at the mercy of false apostles, the likes of whom the apostle Paul warned us about in no uncertain terms (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
The teachers of the "five-fold ministry," in seeking to "restore" a foundation which has never been moved, are actually laying a false foundation which will not support the building up of the body of Christ.
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
Daughter of Dorcas
()
Date: May 09, 2009 09:21PM
Annual financial audits of church finances which are provided to the body annually! What a novel concept. Reporting in real numbers of where the churches tithes, special offerings, and sacrificial offerings were spent. Real numbers of how money was shifted to fund everything but benevolence. An independent audit of how TPC's money was spent since the church moved to the junior high seems like a logical next step to the revised budget. What do others think?
Responsibilities of the church board
by Crown Financial Ministries
Although the authority and responsibilities of church boards are as diverse as the churches they serve, there are some responsibilities that should be consistent and typical for all church boards. These are establishing policy, financial reporting, compensation review, and budget approval.
Establishing policy
One of the primary functions of the church board, regardless of the denomination or size of the church, is the approval, revision, and implementation of church administrative and legislative policies.
These policies should be recorded in the board minutes at the first board meeting of each fiscal year. Any policy revisions or new policy adoptions should be recorded in the minutes of the board meeting in which the revision or new policy was adopted. Then they should be added to the existing policy guide within one week of the revision and/or adoption.
Financial reporting
The board of each church should authorize an independent annual audit, based on generally accepted auditing standards; and financial statements should be prepared, following generally accepted accounting principles.
The auditing firm should do the following.
* Have a thorough knowledge of current accounting standards and understand nonprofit organization and church finance.
* Routinely prepare value-added management letters for their audit clients.
* Help the church reduce its audit fee.
* Understand the individual church's accounting system.
After the audit has been completed and a financial report has been submitted, the board should review the audit and either adopt it or reject it, with explanations for the rejection.
If accepted, the audit report can be presented to the congregation. If rejected, the board should resubmit the audit with its explanations to the same auditing firm.
The board also should receive staff/department head-prepared monthly or quarterly financial statements that reflect all financial transactions, including income, of the department or ministry.
Compensation review
In most churches in America, the church board generally establishes the compensation package for the senior pastor. The pastor in turn sets the salary of all staff members.
An annual review of the senior pastor's compensation package is vital. The review should focus on all elements of compensation—taxable and nontaxable items, salary, benefits, expenses, allocations, housing and car allowances, retirement, bonuses, use of church property, and reimbursements. In addition, the board should use this time to review the pastor's performance, establish objectives, and set performance criteria.
At the first board meeting of each fiscal year, the entire detailed compensation package offered and accepted by the senior pastor should be entered into the board minutes.
Budget approval
Each department or ministry head should submit to the board for their approval a departmental or ministry budget for the coming fiscal year.
In larger churches these departmental budgets are submitted to a finance committee. From these various department budgets, a general organizational budget is developed and submitted to the board for their approval.
After approval, the budget is usually presented to the congregation for its approval.
The board controller or church treasurer is usually responsible for enforcing the budget, reporting, and presenting budgetary revisions as needed.
Conclusion
In some churches, the board is little more than a representative of the people to the pastor. In others, the board is the governing body in all areas of church business. Whether the church board is passive or active, it has responsibilities that are consistent and should be constant and noncompromising.
Responsibilities of the church board
by Crown Financial Ministries
Although the authority and responsibilities of church boards are as diverse as the churches they serve, there are some responsibilities that should be consistent and typical for all church boards. These are establishing policy, financial reporting, compensation review, and budget approval.
Establishing policy
One of the primary functions of the church board, regardless of the denomination or size of the church, is the approval, revision, and implementation of church administrative and legislative policies.
These policies should be recorded in the board minutes at the first board meeting of each fiscal year. Any policy revisions or new policy adoptions should be recorded in the minutes of the board meeting in which the revision or new policy was adopted. Then they should be added to the existing policy guide within one week of the revision and/or adoption.
Financial reporting
The board of each church should authorize an independent annual audit, based on generally accepted auditing standards; and financial statements should be prepared, following generally accepted accounting principles.
The auditing firm should do the following.
* Have a thorough knowledge of current accounting standards and understand nonprofit organization and church finance.
* Routinely prepare value-added management letters for their audit clients.
* Help the church reduce its audit fee.
* Understand the individual church's accounting system.
After the audit has been completed and a financial report has been submitted, the board should review the audit and either adopt it or reject it, with explanations for the rejection.
If accepted, the audit report can be presented to the congregation. If rejected, the board should resubmit the audit with its explanations to the same auditing firm.
The board also should receive staff/department head-prepared monthly or quarterly financial statements that reflect all financial transactions, including income, of the department or ministry.
Compensation review
In most churches in America, the church board generally establishes the compensation package for the senior pastor. The pastor in turn sets the salary of all staff members.
An annual review of the senior pastor's compensation package is vital. The review should focus on all elements of compensation—taxable and nontaxable items, salary, benefits, expenses, allocations, housing and car allowances, retirement, bonuses, use of church property, and reimbursements. In addition, the board should use this time to review the pastor's performance, establish objectives, and set performance criteria.
At the first board meeting of each fiscal year, the entire detailed compensation package offered and accepted by the senior pastor should be entered into the board minutes.
Budget approval
Each department or ministry head should submit to the board for their approval a departmental or ministry budget for the coming fiscal year.
In larger churches these departmental budgets are submitted to a finance committee. From these various department budgets, a general organizational budget is developed and submitted to the board for their approval.
After approval, the budget is usually presented to the congregation for its approval.
The board controller or church treasurer is usually responsible for enforcing the budget, reporting, and presenting budgetary revisions as needed.
Conclusion
In some churches, the board is little more than a representative of the people to the pastor. In others, the board is the governing body in all areas of church business. Whether the church board is passive or active, it has responsibilities that are consistent and should be constant and noncompromising.
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
Miki
()
Date: May 10, 2009 01:13PM
Now, now, let's just stick to the "truth"..... How "truth" hits nerves. Why? Maybe because of "wolves with sheeps clothing!"
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objecti
Posted by:
whatajoke
()
Date: May 10, 2009 01:50PM
Quote
tpcwocattenderQuote
Mville04Quote
tpcwocattenderQuote
Mville04
I guess I have a diferent perspective since I am on the outside of TPC.
I am wondering from those of you still attending the church, why are you going there?What I mean is, why do you chooe tpc to attend over any other church? What makes it so diferent for you?
My reasons for staying after I visited and why I am still there is first and foremost the people who make up TPC. After that I will supply the following list, in no particular order.
1. The worship (I am not a dancer but like that we allow those that are to do so)
2. The heart for being a good member of the community
3. The children’s/youth program
4. The unashamed way they proclaim Jesus Christ
5. Summer Jubilee
6. The heart of those who serve - they are truly an inspiration in self-sacrifice
7. Fan the Flame (though I have not been for some time due to childcare reasons)
8. The push for church unity - I love the pulpit swap
How many of the things you listed are from scripture? Fan the Flame? Summer Jubilee? Pulpit swap? How about a praise bowling league? Is that next? It really sounds to me that your reasons for staying are based on human needs rather than a spiritual one. If you are that concerned about your friends perhaps you should take them with you when you go. That would be a loving and caring thing to do in my opinion.
Mville04 - My statements were made from a personal perspective not as judgment toward all other churches. I did not declare that TPC was the only church where these attributes were present.
To interpret the answers that I made to the questions as lacking any spiritual depth is unfair and to be honest a cheap shot. To suggest that the structure of a church, the method in which creates fellowship among its congregation, the style of its worship or the quality of its programs is not part of the decision to attend or not attend a particular church is a bold statement. I have met no one who does not take those things into consideration. Each one of us has a unique priority in which we would rank the importance such things.
A church is in its nature created to meet the needs of the congregation. The author of Hebrews tells us not to forsake meeting with each other so we can encourage one another (Heb 10). We have created church as a means in which to fellowship, encourage, worship and teach the body of Christ corporately. It is not a tool for evangelism. Christ commands us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. Not, build a great church with cool stuff and they will come. The church is the bride of Christ and that is us, his people. You suggested that human need is my primary reason for attending TPC based on what I answered. That there is no spiritual connection between what I answered. I would disagree wholeheartedly. I would ask you to tell me which of those that I listed don't have spiritual impact in one form or fashion and why. I would also state that we do have 'human needs' and yes I believe the church can fulfill some of those needs. I have a deep need to fellowship with people and church gives me a place to do that. I have been created to worship my savior and by it being a fabric of who I am created to be I have a human need to worship. God has created us not to be served but to serve, it is a human need of mine to serve, and I can do that at church. I need to do all these things outside of church as well but to deny them while at church or to suggest that at church I am not satisfying my human needs is incorrect as well. How many times did the Apostle Paul say in one of his letters 'I long to be with you in person...'? Is that a need of the flesh or spirit? Does not the flesh desire that which will fulfill us spiritually? (Please don’t go down the road of sinful desires or needs, that is a gross distortion of my point)
I believe that Mvilles points are valid and I also agree with him regarding your post. In your responses to why you are going to TPC there is a very implied elitism regarding what TPC does and there is definately judgement on your part regarding how TPC does what they do. The unashamed way they proclaim Christ. Cmon what kind of statement is that. That is very judgemental. What is unashamed? Because they shout it. Because they break rules to do what they do? Because they manipulate young people? I am sorry but your answers are typical of the answers for most people that went to Radiant Life but it is a great big mirage and show you are watching at TPC. You are judging the heart of those that serve also. So anyway, I think Mvilles intentions are very good and it is good to have him on here because he has the furthest emotional investment in TPC or church as an institution like TPC. Your answer alone about the considerations in attending a church and your perspective show your lack of spiritual depth. I agree with Mville and am not afraid to say so. Most of the points you make have nothing to do with spiritual needs but have everything to do with human needs. Your reasons are fluff and pastry and not solid foundational reasons or truths for why you are staying at TPC and that is the point that Mvile is trying to show you. yes they are your honest reasons but he is trying to push you to think more deeply about why you are staying and measure up the reasons. Good Luck to you there and i wish the best for you but TPC seems to be headed the same way as RLC which has become and embarrassment and outcast in the community.
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objecti
Posted by:
Mville04
()
Date: May 10, 2009 02:09PM
Quote
tpcwocattenderQuote
Mville04Quote
tpcwocattenderQuote
Mville04
I guess I have a diferent perspective since I am on the outside of TPC.
I am wondering from those of you still attending the church, why are you going there?What I mean is, why do you chooe tpc to attend over any other church? What makes it so diferent for you?
My reasons for staying after I visited and why I am still there is first and foremost the people who make up TPC. After that I will supply the following list, in no particular order.
1. The worship (I am not a dancer but like that we allow those that are to do so)
2. The heart for being a good member of the community
3. The children’s/youth program
4. The unashamed way they proclaim Jesus Christ
5. Summer Jubilee
6. The heart of those who serve - they are truly an inspiration in self-sacrifice
7. Fan the Flame (though I have not been for some time due to childcare reasons)
8. The push for church unity - I love the pulpit swap
There are others that I think are more sub-points of the main ones I listed.
1. Other churches don't worship?
2. You can't have a good heart and be a good member of the community unless you are with TP?
3. No other churches have children programs?
4. Other churches don't proclaim Jesus Christ? Or does TP just do it better? (up for a lot of debate)
5. No other local churces are involved in Summer Jubilee?
6. You believe that those in other churches don't lend themselves to self sacrifice?
7. Fan the flame? I will give you that one but I don't see how that is needed in a walk with Jesus.
8. Church unity? When you can't even approach the head Pastor nor question him?
How many of the things you listed are from scripture? Fan the Flame? Summer Jubilee? Pulpit swap? How about a praise bowling league? Is that next? It really sounds to me that your reasons for staying are based on human needs rather than a spiritual one. If you are that concerned about your friends perhaps you should take them with you when you go. That would be a loving and caring thing to do in my opinion.
Mville04 - Someone asks a subjective question that I answer and you then attack that answer. Are you just looking to create conflict? It appears that is your purpose here, if I am wrong then I apologize. My statements were made from a personal perspective not as judgment toward all other churches. I did not declare that TPC was the only church where these attributes were present. I was asked simply "why do you attend Turning Point?" I answered them.
To interpret the answers that I made to the questions as lacking any spiritual depth is unfair and to be honest a cheap shot. To suggest that the structure of a church, the method in which creates fellowship among its congregation, the style of its worship or the quality of its programs is not part of the decision to attend or not attend a particular church is a bold statement. I have met no one who does not take those things into consideration. Each one of us has a unique priority in which we would rank the importance such things.
A church is in its nature created to meet the needs of the congregation. The author of Hebrews tells us not to forsake meeting with each other so we can encourage one another (Heb 10). We have created church as a means in which to fellowship, encourage, worship and teach the body of Christ corporately. It is not a tool for evangelism. Christ commands us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. Not, build a great church with cool stuff and they will come. The church is the bride of Christ and that is us, his people. You suggested that human need is my primary reason for attending TPC based on what I answered. That there is no spiritual connection between what I answered. I would disagree wholeheartedly. I would ask you to tell me which of those that I listed don't have spiritual impact in one form or fashion and why. I would also state that we do have 'human needs' and yes I believe the church can fulfill some of those needs. I have a deep need to fellowship with people and church gives me a place to do that. I have been created to worship my savior and by it being a fabric of who I am created to be I have a human need to worship. God has created us not to be served but to serve, it is a human need of mine to serve, and I can do that at church. I need to do all these things outside of church as well but to deny them while at church or to suggest that at church I am not satisfying my human needs is incorrect as well. How many times did the Apostle Paul say in one of his letters 'I long to be with you in person...'? Is that a need of the flesh or spirit? Does not the flesh desire that which will fulfill us spiritually? (Please don’t go down the road of sinful desires or needs, that is a gross distortion of my point)
No; I have not attacked you in any way. You are wrong. If I had given you a direct insult by calling you names or harassing you then, yes, that would have been. But I had not. I was giving an opinion about the answers you gave to my question and I chose to debate them. Debate is NOT an attack, it is an exchange of separate views or ideas. That is not and attack.
When you say "I was asked simply why do you attend Turning Point? I answered them." is not corect at all. If you read it again, I asked "What I mean is, why do you choose tpc to attend over any other church? What makes it so diferent for you?"
Also, I must respecfully disagree with tying in personal needs as a quantifier for a church when the spiritual and scriptural necessities are lax or abused as has been shown time and again with TP. This church has been proven over and over again and demostrated time and time again on this forum to be so. In my opinion, it is a dangerous church that does much harm. No one is questioning your choice or right to worship. I am questioning the validity for church and leadership as a basic denominator in a true spiritual relationship. Do you see the diference?
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
Daughter of Dorcas
()
Date: May 11, 2009 10:22PM
A debate is a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly or group involving opposing viewpoints. Debate is a healthy way to talk about matters that are important to a group with a common interest. There is a difference between debate and a personal attack. People should not think that because someone disagrees wtih their view that they are attacking them, they are just asking that you look at the question from another viewpoint that is not your own.
Daughter of Dorcas
Daughter of Dorcas
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
Brokenhearted
()
Date: May 11, 2009 11:55PM
Quote
Daughter of Dorcas
A debate is a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly or group involving opposing viewpoints. Debate is a healthy way to talk about matters that are important to a group with a common interest. There is a difference between debate and a personal attack. People should not think that because someone disagrees wtih their view that they are attacking them, they are just asking that you look at the question from another viewpoint that is not your own.
Daughter of Dorcas
YES, thank you DofD....I think that this is important for all of us to keep in mind. A differing pov is NOT a personal attack.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2009 11:56PM by Brokenhearted.
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
ostracizedone
()
Date: June 03, 2010 11:53PM
Re: Turning Point Church World Outreach Members-YOUR Questions/Objections
Posted by:
ostracizedone
()
Date: June 09, 2010 02:50AM
A LITTLE MATH
Total Posts Rick Ross Destructive Church Forum...11,396
Total Non Radiant Life Cult/TPWOC Posts...............5,565.....48.84%
Total Radiant Life Cult/Tony Cunningham Posts......2,989.....26.22%
Total TPWOC/Mike Villamor Posts...........................2,842....24.93%
Combine Total Percentage Of Posts On
Radiant Life Cult/Tony Cunningham and TPWOCult/ Mike Villamor.......51.16%
Over 51% of the total posts on an Cult Education Forum are attributed to the Satanic twistings of a Spiritual Father/Spritual Son team Tony Cunningham and Mike Villamor...............What does this leave to doubt?
Total Posts Rick Ross Destructive Church Forum...11,396
Total Non Radiant Life Cult/TPWOC Posts...............5,565.....48.84%
Total Radiant Life Cult/Tony Cunningham Posts......2,989.....26.22%
Total TPWOC/Mike Villamor Posts...........................2,842....24.93%
Combine Total Percentage Of Posts On
Radiant Life Cult/Tony Cunningham and TPWOCult/ Mike Villamor.......51.16%
Over 51% of the total posts on an Cult Education Forum are attributed to the Satanic twistings of a Spiritual Father/Spritual Son team Tony Cunningham and Mike Villamor...............What does this leave to doubt?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.