Poll: Modesty

[GoodGirl]

Yes!
And then just an hour ago I was sad we were out of Doritos because I wanted a really good haystack!

[RZehr]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

Well Rochester has had a split, and now there is another church in Western Washington. I don't remember where it is. Maybe 45 minutes away from Rochester church? The ones who left and are starting the new church are affiliating with Western Conservative Mennonite Fellowship.

[GoodGirl]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

Well Rochester has had a split, and now there is another church in Western Washington. I don't remember where it is. Maybe 45 minutes away from Rochester church? The ones who left and are starting the new church are affiliating with Western Conservative Mennonite Fellowship.

I know… I wish we would’ve stayed.

[RZehr]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

Well Rochester has had a split, and now there is another church in Western Washington. I don't remember where it is. Maybe 45 minutes away from Rochester church? The ones who left and are starting the new church are affiliating with Western Conservative Mennonite Fellowship.

I know… I wish we would’ve stayed.

For the split?

[Neto]

I hesitated on #6.

6. Some ideas and values in life can be arrived at intuitively or by observation, and the Bible does not need to specifically address it, in order for the thing to be true or good. (However, we should not make such conclusions equal with the teaching we find in the Bible.)

What does it mean to hold to a teaching, but not put it on par with teaching of Scripture? Does this mean that it is to be represented as:
a.) a secondary doctrine?
b.) an application of a Biblical principle, either by direct application at the primary level, or as a secondary application?
c.) an item in the congregation's guidelines?
d.) an appeal from the pulpit, or in private conversation?

These are good questions. I do not think we should establish as doctrine, something that the Bible does not say, nor something that could be interpreted different ways in the New Testament.
For example, the NT talks about God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in various places. I think we should stop right there.
I was once part of a church whose doctrinal statement said, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit". I suggested that we change this to be what the New Testament says. They agreed and it was changed. The underlined is going beyond what the NT says. I don't have a problem with people believing the underlined, but I don't think it should be held at the same level as what the NT says.

When it comes to practical applications of NT principles and commands, I have no problem with a group of Christians agreeing together how they are going to put a teaching into practice. As long as they don't withhold communion, the holy kiss, and the right hand of fellowship from those who have a different application. And as long as they don't all agree to do something that God does not want them to do.
This is very different from a group of people agreeing that certain NT principles or commands are not for our day.

If the common expression "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and conduct" is true, then how does this mesh with the idea of adding things which we feel are 'valid inferences"?

If everyone in a group is focused on obeying the teachings of the NT that are painfully easy to understand, this will take care of most disagreements. It is the things that are harder to understand that cause the most disagreements.

I guess I would need to hear what you think of when you say "valid inferences".

Regarding the Nature or Identity of the Holy Spirit:
I have had misgivings about claiming the doctrine of the trinity since Bible college days - not from what they taught, but from my own study. (I wrote a paper about this doctrine for Theology I class, must have been a Junior level course, so that's the era I will date my doubts back to.) But since then, or at least commonly on here, I have used the word 'deity' to describe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But recently I was questioned here on something of that sort I had said, and it reminded me that while one would 'expect' Jesus to have said this at some point, He is never recorded as speaking of the Holy Spirit in the same manner as He does of the Father - specifically that He never says "I and the Holy Spirit are one", or 'I in Him and He in Me' in reference to the Holy Spirit, as He repeatedly says of the Father.

I would like to discuss the nature and identity of the Holy Spirit, but want to do a read-through of the entire Scripture with this question in mind before I would say too much about it. All I can say now is that I think there is some significant difference. I know that the early "Church Councils" got together over questions similar to this, but since they went beyond the Scripture to come up with the Doctrine of the Trinity before they dealt specifically with the nature of the Holy Spirit, I don't put any real stock in what they said.

Also, for such a discussion here, I would ask all participants to, for the sake of that particular discussion, "assume" that the Doctrine of the Trinity is "in question", and thus to be set aside in the discussion. That is, I would want participants to avoid any arguments in its favor in that thread. If readers cannot do that - cannot assume that it may be false for the sake of the discussion, then I would ask them to not participate. (Not because I have determined it to be false, but that I have determined it to be extra-Biblical. I would just want to avoid the 'noise' or distraction of that question, in order to concentrate on a discussion about the Nature of the Holy Spirit without that added conflict.)

Regarding "Valid Inferences":
I purposely left that vague, because I intended to convey the "fuzzy" nature of doctrines or beliefs which cannot be clearly supported from Scripture. Specifically, I am referring to beliefs that get into "Systematic Theologies", and are presented on equal ground with clearly Biblical doctrine. The stuff they add to "fill in the gaps" with human logic, so that it all "makes sense". I prefer to leave the gaps - the mysteries.

I don't have a problem with people making applications based on Biblical doctrine, even secondary or tertiary ones.
An Example: Jer 29:11
"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares YHWH, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

The primary application of this text is to the Jewish people, in captivity, in that time and place.
The secondary application could be said to be for all Jews, everywhere, and in every era of history.
One can also make an application that God has this same attitude and intention for ALL of His people, whether Jews or non-Jews, throughout all time. (This would be a tertiary application. It goes almost fully out of the context in which He uttered these words. However, other Scripture shows that He has this same concern for others as well. But it should certainly NOT be taken as a promise of favor toward any political entity.)

I doubt if I've really answered your basic question, so maybe I should have just said that I intended it as a vague reference.

[GoodGirl]

Well Rochester has had a split, and now there is another church in Western Washington. I don't remember where it is. Maybe 45 minutes away from Rochester church? The ones who left and are starting the new church are affiliating with Western Conservative Mennonite Fellowship.

I know… I wish we would’ve stayed.

For the split?

Ha! No, just stay living where we loved, where my family is… and (in a good way) to also have more church options.

[Ernie]

For those of you who voted earlier today, I had a moderator add Josh's statement as #10. If you agree with that statement, you can mark accordingly and "submit" your vote again.

[Josh]

In case anyone finds this funny, we would see the Rochester Mennonite women shopping, and could not for the life of us figure out why they had Doritos & Mt Dew in their carts.

We thought they had a better system or something.

Oddly enough, back in eastern PA it is my understanding Eastern would frown upon freely buying sodas like that.

When I associated with ex-Eastern youth (who were now Pilgrim or Hope), they would gather to play volleyball and would be quite pleased to haul in a cooler full of different kinds of sodas.

[Josh]

No, that would’ve been interesting.

We were in western Washington State, way out in the woods.

Well Rochester has had a split, and now there is another church in Western Washington. I don't remember where it is. Maybe 45 minutes away from Rochester church? The ones who left and are starting the new church are affiliating with Western Conservative Mennonite Fellowship.

Back in the day, Rochester seemed to have some of the most open minded Eastern people I’ve ever met… they also seemed to put up with some of the whackiest seekers I’ve ever heard of.

[GoodGirl]

Mmm… my family & friends might have been the wackies.