﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title>PreacherNorm.Net: Recent Comments</title>
	<updated>2008-11-22T00:11:31Z</updated>
	<id>http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/comments/atom.aspx</id>
	<link rel="self" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/comments/atom.aspx" />
	<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net" />
	<generator uri="http://app.onlinequickblog.com/" version="2.0">Quick Blogcast</generator>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Upcoming Rapture Debate</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2008/03/26/upcoming-rapture-debate.aspx#comment-1255719" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-08-05:1255719</id>
		<author>
			<name>Norm Fields</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-08-05T11:10:34Z</updated>
		<published>2008-08-05T11:10:34Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[No, I never could get him to finalize any definite plans. I guess he changed his mind.]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Upcoming Rapture Debate</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2008/03/26/upcoming-rapture-debate.aspx#comment-1255631" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-08-05:1255631</id>
		<author>
			<name>Jon</name>
			<uri>http://www.myspace.com/jz0125</uri>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-08-05T11:09:24Z</updated>
		<published>2008-08-05T10:39:53Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[Hey norm.  Maybe I missed it somewhere but was there ever a debate on the rapture between you two?  If so I would love to hear it.  Thanks<br> <br>Jon<br>2 Cor 5:7]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Doctrinal Statement</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2006/12/02/doctrinal-statement.aspx#comment-922290" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-03-26:922290</id>
		<author>
			<name>Norm Fields</name>
			<uri>http://preachernorm.net</uri>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-03-26T23:05:03Z</updated>
		<published>2008-03-26T22:59:42Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[I received an email requesting my view on the elder reevaluation question. I am posting my response here and I pray that my response is in harmony with God's word.<br> <br> <blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">I haven't answered about the elder reaffirmation question in the doctrinal statement, however, I am happy to do so. </blockquote> <blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"> <br> </blockquote> <blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">I'm sure you would agree that the New Testament gives us all the information we need for how to conduct ourselves as members of the Lord's church. That being the case, we should expect to find in Scripture where it says how to deal with ineffective and/or disqualified elders. Not surprisingly, such instructions are found in the same book that tells the qualification of elders (1 Tim. 5:19, 20). <br> <br>I find nowhere in Scripture that would indicate that elders should be reevaluated by popular vote of the congregation. If there are two or three witnesses as to why a particular elder is ineffective or disqualified let them make their case and let the other elders and/or men, with the evangelist, determine if the charge is valid or not. The very next verse (1 Tim. 5:21) warns of partiality in applying the doctrine. To remove an innocent and godly elder from his office simply due to partiality, including the whims of jelly-backed brethren, would be a very frightening thing to face at the judgment seat! <br> <br>I listened to a recording of the proposal of a popular teacher in the brotherhood to institute an elder reevaluation program and I kept thinking that surely someone in the meeting would point out that the Bible tells us how to deal with this issue  - and popular vote isn't it! Sadly, no one did. After hearing, and reading, his arguments for the validity of such a plan I still find no Scriptural authority for having the congregation to vote on whether or not an elder should be removed. Such a plan strips any authority away from those who must be able to rule in the congregations for the spiritual protection of their flocks (Heb. 13:17). With the elder reevaluation plan, if the elders take a stand on an issue that the majority of the congregation doesn't like, well, they can just vote them out and vote others in that will do what they want. Surely, this is not what Christ intended for the front line defenders of the faith! (cf. Titus 1:9-11).<br> </blockquote>]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on An Open Invitation To Debate The Rapture</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2008/03/21/an-open-invitation-to-debate-the-rapture.aspx#comment-910942" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-03-21:910942</id>
		<author>
			<name>joe</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-03-21T22:37:00Z</updated>
		<published>2008-03-21T22:37:00Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[boring]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Some Revealing Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2007/12/20/some-revealing-comments.aspx#comment-881082" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-03-08:881082</id>
		<author>
			<name>Greg Rains</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-03-09T07:38:20Z</updated>
		<published>2008-03-08T22:01:43Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[It is great to see a member of the church using the technology to spread the gospel.<br> <br>Keep up the good work.]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Update On The Work – July 25, 2007</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2007/07/25/update-on-the-work--july-25-2007.aspx#comment-848229" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-02-22:848229</id>
		<author>
			<name>Norm Fields</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-02-22T13:09:24Z</updated>
		<published>2008-02-22T13:09:24Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[The term, "anti," means "against." It is applied to those congregations that bind matters of judgment as doctrine. We must all be united in the doctrine. However, every congregation has the liberty to make autonomous decisions in the realm of judgment and no other other congregation has the authority to condemn those decisions. For example, if a congregation makes the decision to take the Lord's Supper from a single container then that is their right. However, they do not have the right to condemn another congregation for making the decision to take the Lord's Supper from multiple containers. The matter of doctrine, wherein must be unity, is that the Lord's Supper is to be taken every first day of the week. The matter of judgment is the container in which it is to be taken. Likewise, a congregation may make the autonomous decision to use the building for sharing a common meal. No other congregation has the right to condemn them for their decision because they are not doing anything unscriptural by having a meal together. In same way, a congregation may decide that they are not going to use the building for sharing a common meal. That is their right. However, when one tells the other that they are wrong because they have not made the same decision on the issue. So, basically, the term "anti" is applied to those congregations that make it a practice to bind matters of judgment as matters of doctrine. The problem with Axton is compounded because their preacher, James Cole, not only binds matters of judgment (i.e. he believes our practice of eating a common in our building and our willingness to help unbelievers out of the church treasury to be sinful) but then says he is willing to overlook our practice of things he considers to be sinful. If he thinks we are guilty of unscriptural conduct and is willing to have fellowship with us anyway then what would he say about having fellowship with denominations? He could not say that he does not have fellowship with them because they engage in unscriptural conduct because he believes we engage in unscriptural conduct but is willing to have fellowship with us. With this kind of approach to fellowship, even without the "anti" issues involved, we (the Danville church of Christ) would still have a problem that would have to be overcome before we could be in fellowship with them. I do pray that we can have unity but that unity will have to be in a mutual respect and obedience to the word of God (Jn. 17:20, 21).]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Update On The Work – July 25, 2007</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2007/07/25/update-on-the-work--july-25-2007.aspx#comment-840593" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-02-20:840593</id>
		<author>
			<name>Elizabeth</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-02-20T00:13:59Z</updated>
		<published>2008-02-20T00:13:59Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[Still looking forward to your reply.]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Update On The Work – July 25, 2007</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2007/07/25/update-on-the-work--july-25-2007.aspx#comment-835566" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-02-17:835566</id>
		<author>
			<name>Elizabeth</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-02-17T16:55:41Z</updated>
		<published>2008-02-17T16:50:50Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[Thank you for your timely answer. I am still not exactly sure what "anti" in this case really means. I may be just naive, but it seems that these are such small differences, for one Church of Christ to be at odds with another Church of Christ.<br>Looking forward to your reply.]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Update On The Work – July 25, 2007</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2007/07/25/update-on-the-work--july-25-2007.aspx#comment-832702" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-02-15:832702</id>
		<author>
			<name>Norm Fields</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-02-15T17:14:16Z</updated>
		<published>2008-02-15T17:14:16Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[The Axton Church of Christ is an "Anti" congregation. I met with James Cole, the preacher at Axton, to discuss some of the traditional "Anti" issues with him. He believes it is unscriptural for the congregation to share a common meal in the church building. He believes it is unscriptural to help those who are not Christians out of the church treasury. We also discussed some other issues. I made the statement that as far as eating in the building and, to some extent, the way the treasury is used are really autonomous issues. He agreed that they are autonomous issues but at the same time says any congregation that has meals in the church building or helps alien sinners out of the treasury is unscriptural. Clearly, he is confused over what is and what is not an autonomous issue. If it is "unscriptural" then it is not a matter of autonomy, it is a matter of being sound in the doctrine. So I expressed to him that a greater concern for me is that he would be willing to be in fellowship with a congregation which he believed to be unscriptural. That is, he says that because we (Danville) eat meals in the building and have no problem helping aliens out of the treasury then we are unsound, however, he is perfectly fine having fellowship with us. Now that really is unscriptural (Eph. 5:11; et. al.). <div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>It has become apparent to me, from what others have said they heard from James Cole, that he said one thing to me and something else to others. Members at Axton have expressed a desire to have a meeting between the two preachers, myself and James Cole. I have expressed my willingness and desire to have such a meeting yet James Cole has not responded, though he told me over six months ago that he would be getting back to me. Since we have our Bible class on Tuesday nights we, the men at Danville, even offered to go to Axton on a Wednesday night for their regularly scheduled meeting to address our differences. We were asked no to do that. I can say with all sincerity that Danville has made every effort at unity but Axton (viz. James Cole &amp; Dough Allen) has made no effort at all. Until such time as we can "lay to rest" the differences between us, the Danville congregation will not support or in any way extend fellowship to the Axton congregation. Any of the members at Axton that wish to come and visit Danville and discuss this with me further would be most welcome to do so.</div>]]></content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Update On The Work – July 25, 2007</title>
		<link rel="alternate" href="http://pnblog.preachernorm.net/2007/07/25/update-on-the-work--july-25-2007.aspx#comment-831444" />
		<id>tag:pnblog.preachernorm.net,2008-02-15:831444</id>
		<author>
			<name>Elizabeth</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2008-02-15T04:05:36Z</updated>
		<published>2008-02-15T04:05:36Z</published>
		<content type="html"><![CDATA[What is the reason the The Danville Church of Christ is not in agreement with the Axton Church of Christ, and does not "associate" with those members?]]></content>
	</entry>
</feed>