Brother Peter, it seems we are going around in circles in a "he said, she said" kind of way. Let me try to simplify the conversation by actually confirming what is being argued. And I don't agree with your last statement that I made it difficult for you to carry on the conversation. Brother, that is childish. I was directly countering your exact statements. If I misinterpreted something you said, just tell me. I will try to understand you better.
Original arguments aside, it seems our posts are now revolving around:
1. Whether you believe that the majority of deception in the church today is due to a failure to obey the supposed head covering ordinance.
2. Whether you believe that believers are unable to produce good fruit and be godly while having an eschatological view that differs from yours.
Those are the two points we seem to be going in circles over. I will try to address each one below.
Regarding issue number one. You wrote:
And you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
I guess I kind of just assumed that you believed this since it is the premise of Ellis' book, "Demons in the Church" and you began our interaction by countering my original reservations about this doctrine and defending the book. To me, if someone presents a doubt or argument AGAINST something and then someone presents a counter argument FOR something, then naturally one would assume that they believe what they are defending. It was based off of your own statements that I responded to you by saying that I felt it was absurd for you to suggest that the majority of the deception in the church could be due to failure of women to wear a head covering. This is Ellis' whole point in the book! A point you seem to be defending. You have repeated several times that the great eschatological deception happened around the time women stopped wearing head coverings. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from that statement? Are you not trying to prove a connection between failure to use head coverings and deception in the church?
So why are you trying to say now that you don't believe that? Do you or do you not agree with Ellis' doctrine regarding the head covering that he shares in the book? If you do agree, then you readily admit that Ellis is blaming the failure to wear the head covering for most of the deception in the church. You yourself are trying to connect eschatological deception in the church to the not wearing of the head covering! It appears to me that you in fact DO believe that this deception is because of the head covering issue. So what other conclusion am I to make other than you believe that the majority of deception in the church is due to a failure of women to wear the head covering? If I am drawing a wrong conclusion please correct this and then explain how you make the statements you have made while NOT believing this to be true.
Regarding issue number two:
This whole issue started from my original statement where I shared my reservations about the book and the doctrine of head coverings. From that original post I said:
It fails the reality test. There are many believers around the world, who bare fruit unto God, walk in righteousness and truth, are surrendered to him fully, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ above all, that do not wear head coverings.
You COUNTERED this statement. By countering a statement and presenting a "counter-argument", is it unreasonable to assume that you disagree with the original statement? Of course not.
You responded to my statement by saying:
Then why is it there is a thousand to one chance that the doctrine of the church you attend, necessarily precludes the flock from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet of the book of Revelation, without running afoul of church doctrine?
(I only allowed the one in a thousand for churches that have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever that is related to the book of Revelation)
Now, I may be wrong here. But my interpretation of that statement is that you are saying that since almost ALL (your whole point was that it is a MASSIVE deception) of the church believes in a false eschatology, they are therefore NOT bearing good fruit. Is this a correct understanding of your statement? If not please correct.
It seems to me you are trying to show that since there is so much deception regarding end-times theology, that my original statement is not true. In other words, according to you, it is not true that there are believer bearing good fruit, etc since the majority of the church is deceived in regard to eschatology. Again, am I misinterpreting that?
So, I then confronted you about this "assertion". I said:
Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc.
And what was your reply to that? You said:
Not an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught. But is truth really irrelevant?
Brother, again, I simply don't see how I can come to any other conclusion. You consistently countered my "good fruit" statement with statements of your own about his this was false.
Let's move on to the "ludicrous assertion" statements. I hope to show you that the way you responded to my statements always led one to believe your were countering it and defending your own, opposite belief. This is why I made the "ludicrous assertion" statement in the first place. Here is the statement I made:
But even still, I stand by that statement. Your "interpretation" of end time events and every little type and symbol means nothing in regards to your position in Christ. You are either in Christ or not. Eschatology need not apply.
It is obvious from the above statement that I am saying that a person's eschatology means nothing in regards to their position in Christ. Here would have been a great moment for you to say something like, "I agree!", or "I never said it that it did". But instead, you said the following:
Even as I just illustrated how a teenager that was deferring repentance, counting on judgment deferred for 7 years because of a pre-trib rapture doctrine, would be lost forever if he died in a car wreck today.
What other conclusion am I to draw brother! I make a plain and direct statement and you still attempted to affirm the opposite and counter my point! What am I supposed to think? Lol. There is no other conclusion to draw except that you disagree with my statements. So in other words, you disagree with what I said because you are countering the statement. What did I say? That a person's eschatology in no way affects their position in Christ. There is no other conclusion to draw except that maybe you are saying one thing and believing another. But why would I believe that? It is much more logical to believe you mean what you say. Thus why I drew the conclusions that I drew and interpreted your statements as I did.
You could have said at any time, "I do believe that people can bear good fruit despite not wearing a head covering", but you didn't. Which leads me to believe that you do not believe this to be true. I completely and totally disagree on the basis of what I have already said.
There are many believers around the world who are bearing glorious fruit unto God and testifying of Him that do not wear head coverings. There are many churches(people, not organizations) that do not practice this doctrine when they gather and yet their meetings are glorious. They exalt Christ above all, exhort one another, gifts flow as the spirit leads, and the Lord is glorified. So I stand by my statement that it doesn't pass the reality test. And the opposite is also true. There are churches that practice head coverings that are neck deep in legalism, hierarchy deception, clergy/laity divide deception, etc. Just doesn't seem to work like Ellis is suggesting.
