|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*****First Affirmative Constructive*****
In religious groups that are claiming they are Christians, many are claiming that they are the true church. Some say all are false churches, there's no true church. Some say all are true churches, there are no false churches. But the truth is this: not all are false, not all are true; there are false churches, and there is a true church. How can we know that this church is the true church? Does it have characteristics? The Bible teaches that there is a true church and it has characteristics.
What are the characteristics of the true church?
1) Has a right name
The right name of the true church is the one that teaches who is the owner of the church.
Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." In this verse, Christ said, "my church."
John 17:9, "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours." The church also belongs to God.
Therefore, the right name of the true church is Church of Christ or Church of God. The church is not a property of anyone. It is Christ's and God's property.
Why Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ 4th Watch? The name of the true church is Church of Christ, but what kind of Church of Christ? There are many so called "Churches of Christ"nowadays. It is a necessity to distinguish the true church. Hence the words Pentecostal and Missionary and 4th Watch. Pentecostal means having the attributes of the early church. Missionary is the modern English word for sent one. 4th Watch is the last watch in the parable of Christ in Mark 13:35, which is the end time, or our present time.
2) Built and headed by apostles
1 Corinthians 3:10 , "By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds."
1 Corinthians 12:28, "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
3) Has right doctrines and teachings
The right doctrines and teachings of the true church are apostolic doctrines and teachings.
Acts 2:42, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."
2 John 1:9-10, "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him."
4) Holy
1 Corinthians 1:2, "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours:"
1 Peter 1:15-16, "But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."
These are the characteristics of the true church, according to the Bible. And the Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ 4th Watch has all these attributes. It stands firm to these.
Negate that the true church has a right name.
Negate that the true church is built and headed by apostles.
Negate that the true church has right doctrines and teachings.
Negate that the true church is holy.
*****END OF First Affirmative Constructive*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, first, before I go over your first set of arguments, I have to explain something that is important for you and everyone reading this to understand. We're debating whether or not the PMCC 4th Watch is the true church according to the Bible, and/or whether it is a cult of Christianity...There is a small problem here though that somewhat affects this debate...and that is that I really don't care whether the PMCC 4th Watch is the true church according to the Bible, or whether it is a cult of Christianity.
Like most Christians, you seem to be under the false impression that the Bible is the definitive factor of whether a church is true or not, and/or a cult. This would not be a correct impression to have.
Even if you were right in all of your arguments, that your church was the true church according to the Bible, I do not consider it a true church according to reality. This is because the Bible itself is not true, but a book of fiction. If you are basing a church off of something that isn't true, then while it might be true according to a work of fiction, it still won't be a true church just from the fact that the source it is based on is not true to begin with.
Consider this: Groups of persons who are devoted fans of "Lord of the Rings" form churches based on the teachings of Gandalf and Frodo. Each group claims to build their church based on the true teachings as told in the story books. But each group claims to believe in different things and then before you know it, all the churches are debating each other as to which church is the real true church. Or, suppose persons did this with Harry Potter...
Would it really matter which of these churches is the true church? Of course not. This is because all of these churches, no matter how faithful they stay to the original teachings of the novels, it matters not because the churches are all based on fiction. The Bible is also a work of fiction, and therefore, no matter how faithful a church is to the teachings of the Bible, they're all based on fiction, and therefore, there can be no true church if it is based on the Bible.
Also, I am apparently supposed to argue that the PMCC 4th Watch is a cult of Christianity, but while this might be true, I believe it to be a cult in general, not just according to Christianity. I only bring this up because many Christians believe that cults are churches which are either not Christian or are not Biblically based, and I got that impression from you too. But this is not the case. So even if your church was shown to not be a cult according to Christianity, it would still be a cult. However, when you say "a cult of Christianity", you might just be referring to the fact that we are debating a church as to whether or not it is cultic, which happens to also be Christian. If that's the case, then there is no issue here.
So in conclusion to that, even if the PMCC 4th Watch is a true church according to the Bible, and is not a cult according to Christianity, I can still argue that it is not a true church and is still a cult. However, I mentioned it's only a small problem because we can still continue the debate, because even knowing this, I still do not believe that your church is true according to the Bible, and that it is cultic, even within Christianity.
Okay, with that out of the way, I will now negate your arguments. I will state here that there are no true churches at all, whether or not they are in accordance with the Bible. Your church, the PMCC 4th Watch, is not the true church. We already know it is not a true church because we know that the source that it is based on, the Bible, is not true. But we also know that the church is not the true church based on the Bible because it does not abide by the teachings of the Bible. This is actually a very good thing, because any organization that is based completely off the Bible would be an extremely immoral and evil organization, but it would still show that your church is not a true church based completely on the Bible. In addition to that, I must say that the arguments you provided are very weak and do practically nothing to show that your church does in fact abide by the Bible. They sound like nothing more than desperate attempts to rationalize a bond that you have with the church that you wish not to sever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Has a right name
Your first argument is probably your weakest. You are putting way too much strength into the name of an organization to determine its "truth". You cannot base the trueness of any organization based on what its name is. It doesn't matter what you call it, an organization is defined by its actions, not what it is called. Of course, having an appropriate name helps to convey the real message about the organization, but the name does nothing to actually determine what the organization is and does.
Consider this: You really wanted a shirt for your birthday, and on your birthday, you were given a present consisting of a box with a label on top that says "shoes", yet when you open it up, there is a shirt inside instead...just what you wanted. Did the label on the box do anything to change what was really inside? Once you opened the box and got your shirt, did it matter that the label said "shoes"? Did that label affect what was really there? No. According to your logic, the only possible item that should have been in that box was a pair of shoes. But you know that that's just ridiculous. The world doesn't work that way.
Of course, we wouldn't want any organization, especially a true church, to have any deceptive names, but consider this instead: You are in need of some nails for some home repair you are doing. You go out to buy some and you pass a hardware store with the name "Hammers and Paints". It's a catchy title that helps the owner get more business. In actuality, the store sells a lot more than just hammers and paints, but is a huge store that sells many items related to tools and painting. The store definitely has a large choice of nails that you can buy. But according to your logic, it's not a "true" store that sells nails because it's not in the name. That doesn't make any sense.
On that note, even if it is true that "Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ" adheres to the Bible, there are plenty of other words that also adheres to the Bible but which are not a part of this name. I could point out to you that baptism is a characteristic of Christianity, and is even a requirement in your own church, yet baptism is not a part of your church's name. So does that mean you are no longer the true church because of that? Further more, there are many churches with names that adhere to the Bible, like "Baptist Church of Christ". Does that mean they're true churches?
I will now also point out to you that your church's very own name violates the reasoning you used about names to show that you are a true church. While "Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ" might fit well with the Bible, "4th Watch" does not. The 4th Watch as the name for the end time is an unbiblical concept. The fourth watch refers to the fourth period of time that divides the days, used when soldiers would be on guard. No where does it state that the end time is a distinct period of time and/or that it is to be known as the 4th Watch.
We have been trying to ask 4th Watchers where they got this for their name, and all we ever see in the Bible that mentions this is where they are talking about the time periods for the days. In the verse you provided, Jesus is stating that you will not know the time of day when he will return, that is all. It says nothing about time being divided into four periods and that the last period, the end time, will be called the 4th Watch.
From what we have seen, when Arsenio Ferriol invented his religion, he used "4th Watch" in a metaphorical sense, using the fourth watch of the day to signify a fourth watch in time, which is the end time. While there is certainly nothing wrong about doing this, as metaphors can create clever and effective language, it violates the reason you have given that shows the PMCC 4th Watch is a true church, as it does not adhere to the Bible.
Because 4th Watchers are so unwilling or unable to talk about their church, we were never able to get an answer out of them about this issue of the 4th Watch. Therefore, we tried to figure it out on our own, and using the 4th Watch as a metaphor is the only idea that we have which explains why Arsenio used this in the name. If we are incorrect, please correct us. Let us know exactly where in the Bible it divides time into four periods and calls the last period, the end time, the "4th Watch".
The only way your reasoning would work regarding the name of the church, is if the Bible specifically stated that any church must consist of a certain name. Such as, if somewhere in the Bible it stated that a church built for Christ must have the word "Pentecostal" in it, then you would be correct. Please show me these verses. But if the Bible really did say this, that would be just another ridiculous verse added to the many ridiculous verses already in there.
In any case, none of the verses that you showed me say that a church must have certain words in it. I agree that Christ is the true owner of the church, but I fail to see where he says that his churches must have his name as part of their name. I know that if I ever open up any businesses, I'm not going to necessarily put my name in them. Like, "Joe's Pizza", or "Furniture Made by Joe", or "The Charity of Joe for Homeless Kids". There's certainly nothing wrong with doing that, but it's not exactly a requirement.
And all that is why your first point does nothing to help your argument that the PMCC 4th Watch is the true church.
2) Built and headed by apostles
Your second argument is also weak. A true Biblical church does not need apostles. We did have one 4th Watcher that we were able to talk to regarding this issue and we asked where in the Bible it stated that the true church needs an apostle. We also found another verse on one of the 4th Watch's websites – yet none of these verses, including the ones you are providing, state any such thing.
The only things that the majority of these verses do is imply that a good teacher is helpful in understanding the holy scriptures and how to be a follower of Christ. They do not say that a teacher is necessary and they do not say that a teacher needs to be an apostle or anyone sent by God. They also do not say that a church needs to have an apostle.
Besides, even if you were to somehow convince me that a true church needs an apostle, you're church would still not be a Biblically true church because you don't have one. If a true church needs an apostle, then you need to go get one. Arsenio Ferriol is not an apostle. Stating that a true church needs an apostle does not mean that the person who claims to be an apostle is in fact what they say they are. Any fool can come along and make this claim. They do it all the time. In fact, the Philippines seems like a breeding ground for cult leaders including false prophets, apostles, gods, and angels. But just because they claim to be an apostle, does not make them so. Arsenio hopes you ignore this connection, and instead simply believe that you need an apostle, and that he is your apostle.
But with that said, I do agree that a great teacher is necessary for the majority of persons who wish to learn the real truth of the Bible in its entirety. How would one learn without a sufficient teacher? The Bible is so cryptic, so complex, so confusing, and so contradictory, that it's extremely difficult to learn on your own, especially if you already lack the proper education to begin with.
The fact is, while we agree that a teacher is needed for the majority of persons who wish to learn the Bible, such teachers need to be qualified to actually teach. Arsenio is not qualified to teach the Bible, especially as the "sole authority" on that subject, which he claims he is. He does not have the proper education to teach the Bible. He does not know the original three languages that the Bible used, and he has little knowledge of the science and history that goes into the understanding of the truth behind it. He has never been properly tested by other teachers, scientists, and historians on his knowledge of the Bible, and he has no signs or evidence to indicate that any of his knowledge was given to him by God.
But again, nowhere in the Bible does it state that a church needs to have an apostle...unless of course I'm incorrect, but any 4th Watcher has yet to show me the Bible verse that says this. Like what Christians do with many verses of the Bible, Arsenio and his members take Biblical verses and stretch their meaning, extending it to mean different things according to what they desire them to mean.
So in conclusion to this point, not only do the scriptures not teach that a true church needs an apostle, but also that even if they did, your church does not have an apostle, so your church wouldn't be true.
3) Has right doctrines and teachings
Ah yes, every church loves to make this claim – that they have the "right" teachings and are of course the true church. It's no surprise that the PMCC 4th Watch would make the same claims about their own church. There's a million churches out there that all claim to be the one true church. The 4th Watch is no different. But I am telling you that your church is far from following the teachings of the Bible the way that the Bible instructs. There are many examples, but I'll just go over a few here.
I want to say first though that following the Bible usually increases the immorality of an organization. This is because the great majority of the Bible consists of immoral teachings. It is also full of incorrect teachings. Because of this, I am actually very happy that you do not follow the Bible completely. I wouldn't want you to. Still, it shows that your church does not follow the Bible the way you claim it does.
We already talked about the 4th Watch name and concept, and your non-qualified apostle, being unbiblical features, so those are two teachings right away that are not in adherence to the Bible. So what else?
Well, your church does not kill homosexuals, you do not kill disobedient children, you do not kill women who don't yell out for help while they're being raped, you do not force women to marry their rapists, you do not kill persons of other religions, and you do not kill atheists. All these things, the Bible commands that you do.
Now, I realize that these are all Old Testament commands, and I am aware of your church's teaching that Jesus abolished these laws, but while this is true to a certain extent, I don't believe that your church leaders actually believe this. I believe it is just an excuse to not have to follow these laws anymore, because you know that they are wrong and that civilization would not allow you to follow them. You would be arrested, jailed, even executed if you were to follow those laws today. The fact is, your church does what every church out there does, and that is you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. Again, that's actually a good thing, but you cannot claim to follow the Bible 100% and then only follow a few portions of it.
And I can back that claim up with the fact that there are New Testament rules that you do not abide by either. Take for instance your treatment of females in your church. While your organization still does not treat females entirely equally, they are treated mostly well, and far better than the way the Bible clearly instructs the way that they are to be treated.
Take for instance 1 Timothy 2:11-12:
|
|
|
|
|
1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
|
|
|
|
|
You certainly don't follow that one, considering that there are female pastors in your group, and the fact that the 4th Watch has a huge reputation for being the center for female gossip...definitely non-silent.
Here's another example of how you don't follow the teachings of the Bible, and this one doesn't matter where in the Bible it's found. The Bible teaches a flat earth, yet you guys teach that it teaches a sphere. I'm glad you guys acknowledge that the Earth is a sphere, but you are misleading persons when you tell them that the Bible teaches this, when it clearly teaches that the earth is flat.
And here's one more for you. In the Bible, Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Yet the 4th Watch church is packed with the largest number of gossipers, backstabbers, homophobes, and all-around haters that I have ever personally known.
However, as far as negating the idea that the true church needs to have the right teachings and doctrines, I won't negate that because I agree. A Biblical church should follow the Bible. A fundamentalist church should follow the Bible 100%. But of course I'm saying that your church, the PMCC 4th Watch, which claims to be a fundamentalist church, does not follow the Bible anywhere close to what it says.
4) Holy
As for the true church needing to be holy, perhaps that's true, but considering what I have shown you about your church in this one rebuttal, the PMCC 4th Watch church is anything but holy.
So in conclusion to this rebuttal, a true church does not need to have all of the characteristics you mentioned, and the Pentecostal Missionary Church of Christ (4th Watch) does not even consist of those characteristics.
THE END
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 1: During the moment in Acts chapter 1 when Christ was asked by his early apostles, according to Acts 1:7, "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power," what things were not revealed to the early apostles?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, the main point of asking these questions is to get clarification from the opposing sides' views and/or to initiate some interactivity. But here it sounds like you're quizzing me. I do not know what things were not revealed to the early apostles, but why wouldn't you just state what they are instead of asking me first?
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 2: What verse(s) in the Bible state(s) that the church is named after to persons other than Christ and God (as its owners)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that there are any verses in the Bible which state that the church is named after any persons besides Jesus and God. I highly doubt there are any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 3: You said that:
A true Biblical church does not need apostles.
If I can read in the Bible that apostles are the foundation of the church, will you admit that you are WRONG?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
Yes. If the verse you read does not confirm this, will you admit that you are wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 5: You said that we do not follow 1 Timothy 2:11-12 because we have female pastors. If I can prove to you that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 pertains to wife and husband relationship of members, and not as prohibition of females to become pastors, will you admit that you are WRONG?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but then of course you'd have to explain why you still don't follow that teaching. While it is true that your religion does teach that men are to be head of the household, you still have wives speaking in church and teaching their husbands about God. So either way, you are still being unbiblical...which is GOOD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, the main point of asking these questions is to get clarification from the opposing sides' views and/or to initiate some interactivity. But here it sounds like you're quizzing me. I do not know what things were not revealed to the early apostles, but why wouldn't you just state what they are instead of asking me first?
|
|
|
|
|
The question is, according to the verse Acts 1:7. Plain and simple.
QUESTION 1: During the moment in Acts chapter 1 when Christ was asked by his early apostles, according to Acts 1:7, "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power," what things were not revealed to the early apostles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that there are any verses in the Bible which state that the church is named after any persons besides Jesus and God. I highly doubt there are any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can only find verses which state that the church is named after Christ and God. Which means the true church should not be named after any other persons. Some or many churches are named to different persons, e.g. St. John the Baptist Church. If the church's name is incorrect, then the church is automatically false, because it is not Biblical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I can read in the Bible that apostles are the foundation of the church, will you admit that you are WRONG?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ephesians 2:20 (CEV)
You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I can read a verse that teachers of faith and truth should be apostles, will you admit that you are WRONG?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. If the verse you read does not confirm this, will you admit that you are wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Timothy 2:7
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 5: You said that we do not follow 1 Timothy 2:11-12 because we have female pastors. If I can prove to you that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 pertains to wife and husband relationship of members, and not as prohibition of females to become pastors, will you admit that you are WRONG?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but then of course you'd have to explain why you still don't follow that teaching. While it is true that your religion does teach that men are to be head of the household, you still have wives speaking in church and teaching their husbands about God. So either way, you are still being unbiblical...which is GOOD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The context is in verse 13: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Eve is the wife of Adam. Wives should submit themselves to their husbands because the husband is the head of the wife. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not prohibit females to become pastors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 1: During the moment in Acts chapter 1 when Christ was asked by his early apostles, according to Acts 1:7, "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power," what things were not revealed to the early apostles?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you going to ask a question here, or are you going to address the answer I already gave you? One of those would be nice. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 2: What verse(s) in the Bible state(s) that the church is named after to persons other than Christ and God (as its owners)
We can only find verses which state that the church is named after Christ and God. Which means the true church should not be named after any other persons. Some or many churches are named to different persons, e.g. St. John the Baptist Church. If the church's name is incorrect, then the church is automatically false, because it is not Biblical."
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that there are probably only verses which state that the church is named and/or belongs to Jesus and God, and not to other persons. However, this fact does little to show that one, a true Biblical church has to have "Christ" in its name...Two, that your church has a right name...And three, that the name of a church matters at all as far as how Biblical or "true" it is.
You're using bad logic here. The Bible does not specifically state what rules you need to follow for the name when creating a church. You see only churches in the Bible with Jesus' and God's names, and while this might suggest or point to the conclusion that a church must have such names in it's name, that is not what the facts actually conclude. If I told you that I had five dogs, and four of their names were "Stinky", "Blinky", "Dinky", and "Inky", you might reasonably believe that the fifth dog's name is probably going to rhyme with the other four names. But unless I tell you that's the case, you cannot know for sure. Just because you have several churches with Jesus or God as part of the name in the Bible, as long as the Bible does not say that this has to be the case, you cannot know if the Bible intended for a church to always have such a name.
Because the Bible does not specify as to what name a church should have, it is impossible to say whether or not your church has a right name. At most, church's names can be deceptive, but that's not the same thing. And most importantly, as I said before, it doesn't matter what the name is, as all that really matters is what the church teaches.
Okay, first of all, like the 4th Watch in general, you were very selective in the Bible version you chose to prove your claim. As the scientific and rational world knows, there are thousands of different versions of the Bible, each with different languages, different styles, different languages and styles of different cultures, kiddie versions, and several more. None of the translations are even close to accurately presenting the original meanings of the Biblical scriptures. This is just one of the MANY reasons why you cannot rely on the Bible for any "true" information. Further more, even if we knew the original languages used for the Bible, our culture would be too different to accurately understand what was trying to be said. Doing so would take scientists, historians, and language experts...all of which your church leader is not. Because of all that, it is no wonder that you do not have sufficient knowledge to know what's "true" according to the Bible.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, that verse is stated very differently in other versions of the English Bible. You used the CEV version, which is a bit unusual as I've never heard a 4th Watcher use that Bible before, but in any case, this version does indeed seem to suggest that apostles are the foundation of the church. However, I looked through quite a few different Bible versions and none of them repeat this translation. They all say something different that means a different thing. Here are a few of the ones I looked at:
All of these versions do not say that the church is like a building with apostles as the foundation. They suggest instead that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles. These are two completely different meanings. The version that you use does suggest that a true church needs apostles, but every other version I've read does not. In case you don't understand, saying that the church is like a building with the apostles as the foundation does seem to suggest that an apostle is the foundation of the church, and therefore would reasonably suggest that an apostle is needed in the church today. But saying that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles is suggesting that the church is built upon the foundation already set forth by the apostles through their teachings, not that they are the foundation themselves, and therefore, they are not needed for the church today...as the foundation is already there.
I also happen to know, once being a member of your church, that the PMCC 4th Watch's preferred English Bible is the NIV, which is used almost exclusively to teach. It is only sometimes that pastors will use a different Bible, most often when they want to teach something that the other version does not teach. In other words, just like with what you did with this verse, they pick and choose. How convenient it is for you guys to teach something that's not in your Bible, but when called out on it, you simply find a Bible that does have it and say, "This Bible says it, so it's okay.".
But that is not the only thing I can say about this verse. Even if we were to find out that the true translation is what your original verse from the CEV version says, there is still a bit of unclarity in concluding that the foundation of the church is the apostles themselves, and not their teachings which established the church. I think that it's reasonable to believe that this might also be a possibility...that when saying the apostle is the foundation, that the Bible actually means it is the teachings established by the apostles, and not the apostles themselves. And even if that wasn't true, and that the Bible does in fact mean that the actual apostles are the foundation, I still think it's a bit of a leap to conclude that a living apostle is absolutely needed today. The only way to verify any of this is to show me a verse which specifically states that a living apostle is needed for any true church.
And here's one more thing; I noticed that the verses also say that the foundation is associated not only with apostles, but apostles and prophets. This means that if the foundation of the church is apostles and prophets, while you have your apostle in your church, where is the prophet? There is none. Jonathon Ferriol has said several times that there are no prophets today, because God only used prophets in the Old Testament. Taking this into consideration, your verse only does more to show that your church is not true.
Now, just because an apostle is not necessary, that does not mean that a church can't have one. But it means that it is possible for other churches to be true and not have an apostle...just like it is possible for a true church to have a name other than Jesus' or God's. This is good news for you though, so you shouldn't complain. After all, your church, the 4th Watch, does not actually have an apostle.
You implied to me that you would provide a verse that would show that teachers of the faith should be apostles, but you did not do that. This verse only does what I said before. It implies that a good teacher is helpful in understanding the holy scriptures and how to be a follower of Christ. It does not say that a teacher is necessary and it does not say that a teacher needs to be an apostle or anyone sent by God.
I believe you are trying to say that because the teacher in this verse is an apostle, and because he speaks the truth and doesn't lie, that all teachers must then be apostles and that an apostle is necessary to head a church. But it doesn't say that. Further more, there can be other teachers out there who were not sent by God but yet also do not lie and they speak the truth.
Now, since I've shown that you are incorrect, will you admit that you are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 5: You said that we do not follow 1 Timothy 2:11-12 because we have female pastors. If I can prove to you that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 pertains to wife and husband relationship of members, and not as prohibition of females to become pastors, will you admit that you are WRONG?
The context is in verse 13: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Eve is the wife of Adam. Wives should submit themselves to their husbands because the husband is the head of the wife. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not prohibit females to become pastors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This verse clearly states that women are to learn in silence and to not teach or to have authority over men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This verse clearly states that women are to be quiet in church, and they are not allowed to talk, and that if they wish to learn something, they must ask their husbands.
These two verses are very clear. Women are not allowed to speak in church, they are not allowed to teach men, they are not allowed to request to learn something without asking their husbands, and they are not allowed to have authority over a man. The 4th Watch church violates every one of these very clear Biblical rules...especially the part about them remaining silent in the church. The 4th Watch churches are of the greatest female gossip centers in the world. In addition to this, it is very common in your church to ordain and use woman pastors. Further more, they do not only ask their husbands for religious education, and roles within the 4th Watch church clearly places women in authority over men.
In order to allow women to do these things, you either have to ignore these verses or pretend that they mean something else. Your church obviously pretends that they mean something else. You prove this by attempting to alter the truth of the verses by making up facts. For instance, you implied to me that verse 13 after 1 Timothy 2:11-12 would show that these commands would only pertain to women in relationships with their husbands. First of all, that doesn't cover the part about women not being able to speak in churches, which in the 4th Watch, they clearly do. But despite that, the 13th verse does absolutely nothing to verify your claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nowhere does it even suggest that the commands which came previously are to be applied only to the wives of their husbands. If the verses were pertaining to wives only, then they should have mentioned that, but they did not. Further more, the mere fact that Adam and Eve were husband and wife in no way suggests that the speaker of these commands was applying them only to wives. When I read that 13th verse, to me, the speaker is clearly only using Adam and Eve as an excuse to suppress the women, through the fact that Adam was created first, and since Eve was second, so too was she to be treated as a second class citizen.
The problem with your explanation is that you are trying to make a connection that isn't there. The truth is clear; The PMCC 4th Watch does not practice these Biblical commands, and therefore is not a true church according to the Bible. I know Arsenio and Jonathon will never change this practice because it will be less profitable for their business, but the fact remains that the church is unbiblical in this regard...but again, that's a very good thing. Women are not second class citizens and shouldn't be treated as such.
END
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 3 of 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
