Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Glad you asked.

Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.

Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.

Drake

Yes, I agree, it is better. So what would be some fair guidelines. If you tried to fellowship and they refuse to hear you, at what point do you decide that they are the ones who are not willing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion?

One brother made phone calls, sent letters, sent them registered mail, etc. Nothing. So who is the one that is not willing to practice being governed by the cross?

We are not talking about petty grievances. We are talking about slandering brothers from the pulpit, libel, excommunicating saints, putting lascivious men in positions of authority in the ministry, etc.

When a leading elder, Ed Marks, refuses to "deal with" questions about his signature on a letter of apology to Phillip Lee 20 years later, who is the one who is refusing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion in submission to the cross of Christ?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I agree, it is better. So what would be some fair guidelines. If you tried to fellowship and they refuse to hear you, at what point do you decide that they are the ones who are not willing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion?

One brother made phone calls, sent letters, sent them registered mail, etc. Nothing. So who is the one that is not willing to practice being governed by the cross?

We are not talking about petty grievances. We are talking about slandering brothers from the pulpit, libel, excommunicating saints, putting lascivious men in positions of authority in the ministry, etc.

When a leading elder, Ed Marks, refuses to "deal with" questions about his signature on a letter of apology to Phillip Lee 20 years later, who is the one who is refusing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion in submission to the cross of Christ?

Thanks for your question ZNP. I'll give this some prayerful consideration before responding. Thanks for your patience.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for your question ZNP. I'll give this some prayerful consideration before responding. Thanks for your patience.

Drake

I have also given it prayerful consideration and think the word that if you know that anyone has anything against you then you need to be reconciled to them before you take the Lord's table. That seems like a good rule of thumb. Some take the Lord's table each week, others each month, but it seems to me that would be a reasonable time frame.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I agree, it is better. So what would be some fair guidelines. If you tried to fellowship and they refuse to hear you, at what point do you decide that they are the ones who are not willing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion?

One brother made phone calls, sent letters, sent them registered mail, etc. Nothing. So who is the one that is not willing to practice being governed by the cross?

We are not talking about petty grievances. We are talking about slandering brothers from the pulpit, libel, excommunicating saints, putting lascivious men in positions of authority in the ministry, etc.

When a leading elder, Ed Marks, refuses to "deal with" questions about his signature on a letter of apology to Phillip Lee 20 years later, who is the one who is refusing to fellowship in a coordinated fashion in submission to the cross of Christ?

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for your question ZNP. I'll give this some prayerful consideration before responding. Thanks for your patience.

Drake

Bringing this forward for Drake to reply to ZNP, as he promised.