View Single Post
Old 08-28-2008, 01:01 PM   #7
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,401

Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
John Ingall's had a number of "problems." One was that he was a shepherd, placing people before programs. That's bad. Next, he had a conscience that bothered him about things happening around him. Another bad. He also should have trusted "the ministry," instead of reading the Bible directly. Doubly bad. He also was a well respected brother, who had ministered to many. He began to place truths as answers to places where the saints only had questions. People began to listen to him. Bad, bad, triple bad.

He needed to be silenced. That is what quarantine is all about. Silencing critiques. It must also be coupled with slanders or else it will not be effective. Call him "ambitious." That sounds pretty bad. Call him "rebellious." Throw in some Bible stories about Ham and Korah. That will spook the saints for sure.
Ohio, according to the teaching of deputy authority John would be considered to be a deputy authority. What about those insubordination to John and his fellow elders? Wouldn't they be the rebellious ones? For they were opposing the deputy authority? Question for consideration, what is the basis for rebellion?

Please follow Samuel's word to Saul in 1 Samuel.

I Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as inequity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath rejected thee from being king.

Terry is offline   Reply With Quote