KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Jewelry prohibition - a KB heresy!!

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 07549 :  Jewelry prohibition - a KB heresy!!

After a long absence, I happened to look at the KB website and I see yet another article on the ‘doctrine of Jewelry.’ Since this is a Galatian type heresy among the KB I am compelled to post one of my previous articles. Those have read this in the past would see this as redundant but those who haven’t read could see this ungodly heresy exposed to some level.

 

How did the Jewelry prohibition crept into KB community?

 

 

I initiated this new thread with a broader vision of dealing with the origin of this prohibition and how it had been affecting our vision and effort in evangelism. Many people sincerely believe this prohibition was one key area of separation Christians so badly needed in this world. During the course of this thread we may deal with such issues. This teaching of prohibition still causes division, discord, misinterpretation of the Bible, dishonesty by sneaking out and wearing them outside, ineffective evangelism, misunderstanding of the gospel, Galatian heresy etc. This made the KB convention speakers act disingenuously since hardly anyone believes it is a legitimate prohibition, but are afraid to speak out fearing they may lose the speaking opportunities. I have had personal discussions with few such speakers, and they plainly admitted to me that they are afraid to say that it is unbiblical fearing repercussions.

 

Some people genuinely believe this teaching had done great things among the KB. Also they believe that this has helped much with Christian testimony in general. I beg to differ. Whenever there is anything unbiblical, it will invariably damage the intended purpose of the gospel and other teachings of the Bible. We have no right to add anything to the Bible. With this imposition KB had done it and are reaping the damaging effects of it and we would continue reaping it until we eradicate this erroneous teaching.

 

 

The origin of Jewelry prohibition.

 

Unlike most KB believe, this was not initiated by KVS.  KV Simon was the pioneer teacher who initiated the NT teachings among the KB in the latter part of the 19th Century and continued in to the 1900s. But none of his writings contained this teaching. It seems to be true that KVS went along with it, without discouraging the practice as unbiblical.

 

As I have mentioned in another article that the people who initiated this were Justus Joseph [or Yousthus Joseph, also known as Viduwan Kutty Achen – I will refer him as VK for easier reading] and his brothers. VK’s brothers were not as genuine believers as VK was by assessing some of their later decisions which I will explain later.  Yet they were able to bring a revival movement in Kerala [then known as Travencore, I believe] and many people from the denominational background came to know the Lord. But VK and followers did not teach or insist on the believer’s baptism. But they taught the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. This era is popularly known as a period of revival because of a change in the outlook and lifestyle that began sweeping across Travencore along with the message of salvation.

 

During these revival meetings many women started breaking off their ‘Thalies’ [gold wedding symbol, usually hung on golden chain or even a string] and other gold ornaments and left at the feet of VK. It is possible that the money raised by selling the gold was used towards the cost of travel, food etc. VK and his brothers [one brother was Yakoob Bothakar [= teacher or Guru] and the other I cannot recall, all wore the maroon colored ‘saintly attire’ copied from the Hindu saints.

 

Many men started wearing the same type of clothing as these ‘Bothakers’. These Bothakers were all vegetarians even before they got converted form the Brahmin Hindu background. They kept the same dietary routine and started teaching that eating meat is against the Biblical teachings. Many Syrian Christians believed it and started becoming vegetarians. My grandmother, who died in 1967 at the age of 101, shared with me how she became a vegetarian in one of those meetings, and she remained as a vegetarian until death. In fact she developed a real aversion towards meat and we had to hide any meat product from her. She started getting sick to her stomach if she found out that there is meat in the house. She gave up all her Jewelry and left with a large hole in each of her earlobes. There is a write-up about our grandmother in T A Kurien’s memoir of his mother [Njaan Enganee Marakkum – How can I forget?] and he and I had the same grandmother.

 

Along with forsaking the Jewelry many people started wearing the saintly maroon outfit and became vegetarians in Travencore. Moothampackal Kochukunju Upadeshi [a well known hymn writer and preacher, a contemporary of KVS] wore the similar clothing until death. KVS also remained as a vegetarian all his latter years as part of his simple lifestyle.

 

Some of them felt they should be vegetarians because they argued that Apostle Paul became a vegetarian and forsook meat based on 1 Cor 8:13, “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” An elderly man I talked to some years ago attributed to this verse and said this was the reason KVS remained as a vegetarian. But none of KVS writings ever mentioned such thing. I believe it was part of his simple lifestyle and KVS, in my knowledge, would not make such rudimentary error in interpreting that verse.  

 

As years went by, people started looking into the scriptures and found no support for the special clothing or dietary restrictions. But they were able to come up with isolated verses they thought could support the Jewelry prohibition and held on to that teaching. Needless to say, they were all verses taken out of context and the product of misinterpretations.

 

Out of the major three traditional changes that took place in Travencore the Jewelry prohibition [abstinence] continued on. KVS and many of his contemporaries felt it is indeed a good tradition and there is nothing inherently wrong and they felt that it would remain as a symbol of simplicity. Because the traditional ‘Minnu or Thaalies’’ had a sign of pagan god or goddess, the believers were asked not to wear anything carrying such symbols of foreign deities.   

 

Something that started out as a symbol of simplicity in KVS eyes became the norm and the norm became a ‘biblical mandate’. Many people started misinterpreting verses so that they can support this stand. Soon KB’s focus became converting people to a ‘Jewelry-less’ group and lost its zeal for the real gospel. The true gospel is that a sinner, no matter how he was and is when confessed of sins, can find forgiveness in Jesus Christ and once he/ she accepts the Lord as the Savior, that person instantly becomes a child of God. That message of salvation was swept under by this Jewelry prohibition message and many among the KB, even today fail to understand the clear gospel.

 

While growing up as a teenager in a Christian KB family and attending local KB assembly, I was totally clueless of how to be saved. I prayed to God to save me at  least 100 times. I felt I have to forsake this and that and act like so and so to be accepted by the Lord. The message of the gospel was trampled under this unbiblical Jewelry prohibition. Also, not having any jewelry became the ‘sure sign’ of salvation and the readiness for baptism; something that Bible does not support.

 

 

I believe this unbiblical prohibition was nurtured among the KB by Satan to destroy the real focus and he indeed was successful. Even today many people are denied the Lord’s Supper and baptism in the name of Jewelry. Many people look down upon others who wear Jewelry, as though the real sign of perfection is the removal of Jewelry. They teach the new believers that some day when they become mature, they would see the need for the removal of jewelry. Who else, but Satan would promote such unbiblical teachings among God’s people by misguiding naïve, yet sincere believers?

 

Adverse effects on evangelism.

 

Many evangelists who migrated to other states from Kerala carried with them this unbiblical prohibition on Jewelry. In total honesty and simplicity in their mind, they silently communicated a message of abstinence to the local people. Locals who were traditionally considering Jewelry as part of their lifestyle and a means of acceptance and norm, were confronted with a message of unnecessary abstinence in the name of Jesus Christ. This ‘weird appearance’ became an obvious deterrent to the locals and many of them ‘wrote this gospel off’ as strange and unprofitable. Instead of presenting the gospel just as it is given in the Bible, we started adding unbiblical prohibition and packaged it strangely and unappealing.

 

Col 1:23-29, we see the trademarks of Paul’s ministerial goals. We failed to display such focus in our efforts. Our intentions were sincere and lofty, but generally our approach was wrong. There are some exceptions and there were some with greater visions and they stepped out of the box and made impact in the lives of many. Oftentimes we built walls between the ‘non-Jewelry’ and the ‘Jewelry’ Christians. Except few evangelists, others remained as ‘Malayalees’ among the locals, displaying the strange unbiblical tradition and silently communicated that this is what genuine Christianity is all about.

 

Some of our men and women walked around with constant frown and sadness on their face, as though this is the Christian trait. Yet they were giving out ‘gospel = good news’ to the lost! Unless we are happy, why should others hear our news about ‘happiness’? We stayed separated [verpadu] from locals, thinking we can spread the gospel with the remote control and the real separation means staying away from the sinners. We failed to see how our Lord was when He was on this earth. This strange unbiblical prohibition gave us the weirdest appearance among the people, yet as one sister pointed out elsewhere ‘our women walked around in expensive saris and hairdos and travelled in the most expense automobiles – like a decorated Christmas trees.’ Thank you sister; that indeed was an accurate description!

 

What had happened to VK and Youomayam?

 

VK and his disciples preached the gospel with great enthusiasm. VK’s songs became very popular all across Travencore. Who could resist the song ‘Shuthippin Shuthippin Yesu Devane?’ and such 70 some profound songs? Even though they did not teach believer’s baptism to my knowledge, they were very much high on visions, prophecies and emotional outbursts similar to many of today’s charismatic groups.

 

Satan found a perfect opportunity in undermining the noble efforts, by giving a very strange vision to two of VK’s disciples. One of them was ‘Koodarappally Thomman’ and the other one I cannot recall the name. These two men supposedly saw a vision of the Lord’s return and a special revelation that the Lord would return in six years from the day of this vision. Based on what they have testified, they both had this vision at the exact time, as they fell asleep in their respective homes. In the vision each were instructed to start immediately from their homes and walk towards VK’s home. In the dream, they were told that they would meet each other at ‘Kannetty Paalam” [a particular bridge] and were told that the other person would greet with a special greeting [a code] and that would be a further affirmation to the vision.

 

Based on their testimonies all these things happened precisely as they have experienced in the dream. They met at Kannety Paalam and together they reached VK’s house well after midnight. They shared the dream with VK and also how the Lord gave additional visions to support their original vision. VK and his other disciples were convinced that the Lord would indeed return on October 2, 1881; preciously six years after the initial vision. Revival meetings along with placing Jewelry at the feet of ‘Bodhakars’, wearing ‘Kaashaaya vesham = maroon attire’ and forsaking all non-vegetarian food, swept across the land.

 

Nothing of any significance happened on October 2, 1881 and VK was greatly troubled in his soul. He went to a nearby place on a hill and started praying and singing a new song. The very famous song; ‘Kaantha Thamassa Enthahoo’ came out of his lamenting heart. Days went by, and followers all were getting puzzled. VK’s brothers counseled VK to go along with a made-up story that the Lord indeed returned, but returned invisibly and took residence in VK. His brothers coerced him to go along with it thinking that would save them from further embarrassment. Being a sincere man of God, VK felt remorse and stopped preaching and composing anymore songs. He became a recluse and within few years passed away.

 

His brothers continued with this story of deception. I don’t know if they truly believed that the Lord indeed could have returned as they have claimed. I think it was just deception and not sheer ignorance. Also they insisted on abstinence from meat products and Jewelry and wearing maroon attire. Such insistence gives the appearance of cultic movement, and is the reason for me qualifying them as a cult. I am not being dogmatic here, whether they are a cult or not.  

 

There are some families near Trivandrum and Venmony [near Thiruvalla] that I know were/ are practicing this faith. Although the numbers were steadily decreasing they are still around. They do not insist on the maroon attire and I am not sure of their dietary restrictions. They are still strict about Jewelry prohibition.

 

I sought the help of my Father-in-law who is now with the Lord, whose father and grandfather were part of ‘Yoyoumayam’ for a period of time to get the most accurate account available to me. Up until my discussion with my Father-in-law few days ago, I had only sketchy information regarding ‘Youyomayam’, which I had from multiple sources in the past, including my Father who passed away some years ago.

 

If there are any factual errors, they are accidental and are because of the lack of written accounts. I was careful to be factual in depicting with what I learned form others without being too carried away by emotions. [Kristeeya Gaana Rachayithaakal by P. T. Kuruvilla, Chemmankary, page 58 supports the removal of Jewelry and placing them at the feet of VK.]

 

Let me quote some comments by a contributor on keralabrethren.net forum [Varghese] on this subject. His comments are worth listening to.

 

“More than ornaments, I believe the focus should be on ornamentation. How can we live a Christ-filled simple Christian life with our hope set on eternal things? Does our life speak forth the imminent return of the Lord? On the other hand, do our possessions (mansions, cars etc) on earth silently testify to firm ties to this earth for good? Are we focused more on eternal things than fleeting things on the earth?

When we focus too much on mere ornaments, we miss the whole picture. Our beauty must not be a mere external adornment but far more what is shown forth from inside. 1 Peter 3:3-4 is one passage that some prohibition advocates use for their defense. I believe this verse speaks to us on what our focus must be, rather than outright prohibition. When believers wear ornaments (as in most parts of the world) and still can truly show forth their inner beauty in Christ, it is sad that our cultural viewpoints prevent us from seeing beyond their ornaments and appreciate their inner beauty!” End of quotes.

I am not leading a ‘crusade’ against this prohibition. But I sincerely believe it sends out a wrong message. It makes the lives of many sincere sisters living hell, by hurling guilt upon them. It sends a mixed message; faith plus Jewelry removal – at least to be baptized and to take part of the Lord’s Supper. We need to get out of this unbiblical yoke that is placed upon us! Share the gospel as it is taught in the Bible. Let others see the Lord Jesus Christ in us – our talk, walk, work, church.  

There is a website www.biblestudycentre.net [my older brother T John Mathew] and you may find more reading materials there with the real meaning of salvation. If you know how to read Malayalam I do have a recent write up from my brother [PDF] reminding us how we should ignore such unbiblical teachings and focus on the greater responsibility of preaching and teaching the gospel message just as it is given to us.

You may request that or this article or both, from me ‘tomj3162000@yahoo.com

Tom J

Post by : tomj  View Profile    since : 8 Apr 2014


Reply by : guide   View Profile   Since : 8 Apr 2014 8:53:13 PM Close

Romans 8:35

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ayyopavam   View Profile   Since : 24 Apr 2014 10:52:32 PM Close

Dera Bro. Tom J.. verry happy to read the post. which helps me lot. in some part you are saying VK and some part saying KV  . hop both are same..?  Thank bro for such a wonderfull post.  may god bless you more and more.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ayyopavam   View Profile   Since : 24 Apr 2014 10:55:40 PM Close

 We need to get out of this unbiblical yoke that is placed upon us!//  Yes bro  we are carrying some unbiblical yoke , Becouse of these yoke we are loosing lot of souls aswell.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 1:24:28 AM Close

Dear Ayyopavam, 

VK stands for Vidwan Kutty or Youstus Jospeh 

KVS stands for K V Simon who taught the New Testament principles to the early Brethren [Verpadu] movement. He stayed focused on the clear word of God till the end. 

I am not sure if I mixed these two names by mistake. [If I did I missed it]

VK, became the leader of a 'cult' whereas KVS established many in the New Testament principles. It is interesting to note that none of the Western Brethren leaders or the local leaders taught the Jewelry prohibition at their initiative, but Satan thru the teachings of a cult leader misled a host of God fearing generation and shackled them to this Galatian heresy of adding man made principles to the simple truths of the gospel. 

Time and time again I had seen the same thing happening in the Brethren churches where they insist on the removal of Jewelry to get baptized or to take part in the Lord’s Supper. Thank you for sharing your concerns.

Tom Johns

  

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 9:38:28 AM Close

Dear 'ayyopavam',

What do you mean by your statement '...we are loosing lot of souls aswell'?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 2:59:07 PM Close

we are loosing lot of souls aswell = our evangelistic efforts  have become ineffective; this man-made rule is hindering people coming to the Lord. This is how I read it. 

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 4:27:53 PM Close

This may be further explained with Predestination perspective.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 4:38:37 PM Close

K J, Go ahead and explain in another thread. 

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 4:58:51 PM Close

No Sir, it is my asking you to explain FURTHER (with Predestination perspective) what you have said in your previous post, particularly 'How man made rules hinder people coming to the Lord'. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 5:03:36 PM Close

K.J, The Holy Spirit explained it further in the Bible. How can I improve upon it, except bask in its sweetness?

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 5:12:39 PM Close

Sir, I am  looking for you elaborating ONLY what you have written that follows my first post, not what the Holy Spirit explained.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2014 8:26:54 PM Close

Dear 'kristianjude,' a.k.a. 'kristine,'

Your question is an effort to deviate the subject from 'jewery prohibition' to 'predestination.'  You should start a new thread, if you want to get into a discussion on 'predestination.'

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2014 11:47:16 AM Close

To the question I asked 'ayyopavam', Mr. Tom has made some comments. A part of his comment says 'this man-made rule is hindering people coming to the Lord'. Now, I seek an explanation from Mr. Tom for his statement in line with the Predestination doctrine he preaches. I have no intention to discuss 'Predestination', but would like to know how Mr. Tom explains his above statement in accordance with his Predestination doctrine. Explaining in this thread or in a new thread is his own discretion. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2014 4:30:21 PM Close

If one is predestined, no 'man made' rule will hinder him coming to the Lord. If one is not coming to the Lord because of any hindrance he faces, it means that he is not predestined by God?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : guide   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2014 5:19:05 PM Close

I think, as stated by kj, tomj cannot sustantiate his statement (we are loosing lot of souls aswell = our evangelistic efforts have become ineffective; this man-made rule is hindering people coming to the Lord). Even a man made rule or anything in this world cannot not stop one to come to the Lord if he is predestinated (as taught by tomj).If your "evangelical effors have become ineffective". it is high time to verfy your work in the light of the Word of God.

There are references in the word of God, for a true child of God, that there are better things to adorn them with than with perishable things like gold or ornaments.

The Bible does not either instruct/teach one to wear ornaments to make one more attractable to the world.

[PLEASE remember brother, the brethren preach the Gospel througout the world and many are saved: PRAISE BE TO GOD (none who preach do not speak about these kind of matters when they preach the Gospel).. If any of these new believers could not obey the Lord in the waters of baptism, worship God and enjoy the fellowship, due to such "man made rules" - in your terms, then they are accountable to God].

Please do not encourage people to go after these kind of issues (negative thoughts) and mislead them lest they fall.

Lu.17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ayyopavam   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2014 10:03:18 PM Close

സഹോദരന്‍ ക്രിസ്ത്യന്‍ ജഡ്..  ഞാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞ  കാര്യം ഞാന്‍ പലപോലും നേരില്‍ കണ്ടു അനുഭവിച്ചതാണ്. ഈ വജനപ്രകാരം അല്ലാത്ത ആഭരണ വിരോധം എന്റെ സ്നേഹിതരയിടുള്ള പലരുടെയും.വിസ്വസജീവിതതിലെകുള്ള പ്രവേശനത്തില്‍( നമുടെ സഭയോട് ചേര്‍ന്ന്  ) തടസമായി ഭവിക്കുന്നു.പലരും നമ്മുടെ സഭയോട് ചേര്‍ന്ന് പോകുവാന്‍ ആഗ്രഹികുംപോള്‍ തന്നെ നമ്മുടെ ഇടയിലെ വജനപ്രകരമല്ലാത്ത ഈ ആഭരണ വിഷയം കടന്നു വരികയും അവര്‍ പിന്മാറി പോകുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നത് വിഷമത്തോടെ കണ്ടു നില്‍ക്കണ്ടാതായി വന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2014 10:04:51 PM Close

Guide, 

You wrote - 

"Please do not encourage people to go after these kind of issues (negative thoughts) and mislead them lest they fall."

Are you finding fault with me for pointing out that the Kerala Brethren are preaching a 'different gospel' than what the Apostles taught? I will start a new thread explaining how some of our Kerala Brethren became heretics? 

Tom J

 

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ayyopavam   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2014 10:16:20 PM Close

നമ്മുടെ സഹോദരന്മാര്‍ പരസ്യഗോകതിലോ... ഒന്നും പറയാത്ത ഈ ആഭരണ വിരോട കാര്യം ഒരു വ്യക്തി രേക്ഷിക്കപെട്ടു സഭയോട് ചേര്‍ന് വരന്‍ തുടങ്ങുമ്പോള്‍ അവരോടു അവരുടെ ആഭരണം മട്ടന്‍ പറയുന്നത് ന്യായമായ കാര്യമാണോ..? ഇനി അത് അത്യാവശ്യമാണെങ്കില്‍ വരോട് സുവിശേഷം പറയുമ്പോള്‍ തന്നെ ഏകാര്യവും ഒര്പിക്കണ്ടാതല്ലേ...? അല്ലാതെ  രേക്ഷിക്കപെട്ടു അവരുടെ കൂടുകരെയും കുടുംപകരെയും എല്ലാം സഭയോട് ചേരുന്നു വന്ന അവരെ പിന്നെ ഇക്കാര്യം പറഞ്ഞു അവരുടെ ജീവിതത്തെ ഒരു ആഴത്തിലേക് തള്ളി ഇടുന്ന പ്രവണത അല്ലെ നമ്മള്‍ കനികുന്നത്.? നമ്മുടെ ഇടയിലെ പലരെ എനികര്യം ഇന്നും അവരുടെ തറവാട്ടിലെ കല്യാണം...അങ്ങനെ ഓക്കേ കാര്യങ്ങളില്‍ പങ്ങേടുപിക്കാതെ മാറ്റി നിര്തുനതും.അതിനു തടസമായി നില്കുന്നതാകട്ടെ ഈ ആഭരണം ഇല്ല എന്നതും. ഒരു കമ്മലോ മലയോ ഇല്ലാതെ അവരുടെ മകള്‍ അവരുടെ മറ്റു ബന്ധുക്കള്‍ എല്ലാം കൂടി വരുന്ന സ്ഥലത്ത് ഇങ്ങനെ കാണുന്നത് അവര്‍ക് ഒരു വിഷമം ആയിട്ടയിരിക്കാം എന്ന് ഞാന്‍ അനുമന്കുന്നു. അവരുടെ മനോഭാവതിലെ കുഴപ്പം ആയിരിക്കാം..എങ്കിലും അതില്‍ നമ്മളും ഒരു ഭാഗവക്കകുകയല്ലേ....ഈ അനാവശ്യമായ അഭാരനവിരോദം കൊണ്ട്..?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : guide   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2014 7:42:49 AM Close

We need to follow the Apotles' model of preaching of the gospel found in the book of Acts for evangelization. The best example is that of Apostle Peter as seen in Acts chapter 2 (here the gospel was preached to 'all the house of Israel').

Those who preach the gospel knowing (led by the Holy Spirit) to whom they are speaking to (the context).None who share the gospel would generally speak about doctrinal or prophetical subjects including predestination and other matters of day today conduct of a Chrisitian. The rest of the spiritual truth are gained through reading of the Word of God and studying and through teaching. Above all it will given to them to that seek the will of God in them.

If there were no doctrinal or ideological differences among believers there wouldn't have been these many divisions in Christianity.

When the early brethren of Kerala became followers of Jesus our Lord, they (many) left all their wealth and riches (as many were denied their inheritances) and began their Christian life as poor/foolish men in the sight of this world. IT WAS THEN EASY FOR THEM TO GIVE UP THEIR ORNAMENTS (GOLD) TOO.

If we cannot set this as example let us not be a stumbling block to those find it as one of godliness.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2014 5:02:33 AM Close

Quote from Reply by : guide  Since : 27 Apr 2014 07:42:49:-

“When the early brethren of Kerala became followers of Jesus our Lord, they (many) left all their wealth and riches (as many were denied their inheritances) and began their Christian life as poor/foolish men in the sight of this world. IT WAS THEN EASY FOR THEM TO GIVE UP THEIR ORNAMENTS (GOLD) TOO.” End Quote

I heard this repeatedly that KB ancients left “all their wealth and riches”.  I am curious about this and request verifiable proof for this statement.

  1. Who left what?

  2. Since when KB stopped this “wealth & riches leaving practice” and NOT continuing their lives as poor/foolish men?

  3. How were they holding their wealth & riches – in what form?

  4. Who got the wealth and riches left (abandoned) by KB ancients?

  5. In the case of real estate, what action and documentation was done while abandoning them?

  6. What did the KB ancients do with their ornaments?

    Denial of inheritances –

  1. What was the legal position on Christian inheritance (succession) rights?

  2. In matters of succession, what was the practice followed by Christians in the princely states of Travancore & Cochin where Viojithar movement started and during the time of KB ancients?

    The native Christians of Travancore and Cochin followed the Hindu law in matters of succession. Christian women, whether married or not, were excluded from inheritance, even if they had no brothers. Thus, the parent's property passed over to males belonging to a very remote degree of consanguinity and even in the transverse line. This is evident from the decrees of the Synod of Diamper, 1599. The Synod by its 20th decree, declared this mode of succession to be contrary to natural equity and wholly unlawful and decreed that the property must be equally distributed among sons and daughters (courtesy: Sebastian Champappilly)

  3. Could anyone deny someone’s legal rights? Did anyone deny?

  4. Was it the case that:

    1. the new religious faith and practices embraced by the KB ancients evoked bitter animosity in the minds of their Parents and Relatives and

    2. that KB ancient’s new found knowledge was practiced offensively, without charity; and not as instructed in the below passage by James?

       

      James 3:13-18

      Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

      But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

      I consider the statement that KB ancients left “all their wealth and riches” unsubstantiated and untrue until conclusive, verifiable proof is advanced.

      PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2014 3:52:06 PM Close

Dear readers, 

A revised article is now published in a blog from the Middle East - here is the link. Thank you Godly for your interest. 

http://www.godlyjohn.com/2014/04/how-did-jewelry-prohibition-creep-into.html

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : guide   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2014 8:00:48 PM Close

PTV may find out for himself the answers using his investigative expertise.

The charity of the writer is evidenced through his words

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 29 Apr 2014 9:57:05 AM Close

In my investigation, to the best of my knowledge, NO “KB ancient” (expression borrowed from a No-Ornament KB Evangelist) had lost or gave up his self acquired wealth and riches because of godliness or Religious Denominational Affiliation.

Further, I haven’t seen reliable statistics on the composition of KB ancients classified on the basis of their religious affiliation and conviction into:

  1. Those who had been unlawfully denied a share in ancestral property on partition or settlement because of their KB affiliation
  2. Those who voluntarily gave up rightful share in ancestral wealth and riches because of their faith based determination to be poor and foolish.
  3. Those who were unlawfully denied a share in ancestral property on death of intestate parents because of KB affiliation.               

The attitude and conduct of some of the Christians during Paul’s time compelled him to write the passages in 2 Corinthians 10:12-15, 18; 11:18-21; 10:5-6 etc.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : guide   View Profile   Since : 29 Apr 2014 10:13:11 PM Close

PTV seems to have miscontrued my posting of 27 Apr 2014 7:42:49 AM (4th para.) Please revisit my posting.

[Prior to making my remarks on this subject I wish to make my stand very clear on both sides. The Bible does not teach to wear ornaments and the Bible does not prohibit wearing it. but the Bible says  "1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

Ac 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?].

The early believers were cast away (sent out) from their homes and they didn't have any thing to live on. This is happening around the world even today to many new believers from other denominations and religions (not just the KB Brethren)

Mt 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
[LET ALONE GOLD OR ORNAMENTS]

Mt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

(If one cannot forsake mean things such as ornaments compared to the greater things mentioned in the abolve verses, what kind of Christians are we?)
 


 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 30 Apr 2014 5:58:25 AM Close

Discussing the topic of Ornaments is a peculiar experience. It’s like watching soccer where the Goal Keepers run around with the goal post. There is no fixity for anything; keeps on shifting positions.

Those arguing against ornaments and demands (directly or indirectly) to forsake them aver that (these are quotes):

  1. “Bible does not prohibit wearing”

  2. “There is no scriptural basis for prohibiting ornaments”

  3. “It is an issue of personal response based on one’s own conviction”

  4. “Abstention is a personal choice”

  5. “In my study I have found no explicit or direct commandment in the Scripture to the effect of, ‘thou shall not wear’”

  6. “Forcing anyone to remove ornaments is unchristian”

    The above quotes are from KB Teachers. They admit that the issue created around ornaments doesn’t have Biblical support.

    Therefore, the effort gets shifted to finding some justification for ornament prohibition. The Minimum Program is to somehow prohibit it. For this the most widely used arguments seek “accommodation” for the weak; and noises heard most often are:

  1. Conscience of weak brothers

  2. Christians stumbling on ornaments worn by others.

  3. Simplicity in appearance is when you are without ornaments.

  4. Identification mark of separation

    These are the most dishonest propositions, to my mind.

    Are the No-Ornament insisters and its administrators weak? Not at all; they are the most powerful. They gang up, conspire, waylay and ambush. Without qualms they pretend to love you when in reality they harbour bitter animosity towards you. There are instances where they waited for years to pounce on someone; and it was admitted by one of the Elders of a Church I know. I am speaking from experience; and to my conviction they are neither innocent nor godly; their consciences are not weak but corrupt. Have you ever seen anyone of them stumbling on account of those wearing ornaments?

    Who considers KB without ornaments as simple? Are they really simple? In certain areas no ornament may help others to identify people as belonging to a particular religious sect. The long, peculiarly shaped beard is an identification mark of a Muslim Mullah; the tonsured head and saffron clothe are identification marks of a Hindu Monk. There are many such identification marks – Hijab of Muslim Woman; Turban of Sikh Male; Long white Dress of Christian Priests; Juba of Pentecostal Pastors etc.

    From Mt 19:29,  I don’t know whether a new group of hyper KB would emerge demanding members to forsake houses, brethren, sisters, father, mother, wife, children, lands, etc.

    In this context I would like to know how KB would approach marriage in view of what Apostle Paul did. Apostle Paul was unmarried and admonished fellow believers to imitate him in the matter of marriage. Categorically he stated that:

     “- - - - a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided” (1 Cori 7:33-34)

    My doubts are:

  1. Is it right for KB to be concerned about the affairs of this world”  v.33

  2. Are not their interests divided? What is their priority? To please the LORD or to please their wives? V. 33 & 34.

  3. How should KB be living? Should they not be living like those that do not have wives? 1 Cori 7:29

    Coming to abstentions:

    Anyone can give up his legitimate right for usage of anything. On his own, he can abstain from anything like meat diet, marriage, ornaments, foreign employment, migration to other countries, readymade designer garments, hair dyes, wigs, perfumes & cosmetics, entertainments, modern gadgets, wealth beyond certain value ceiling, etc.

    But none has scriptural authority to supervise or administer this. No one can order a believer to:

  1.  Stop using what GOD has not prohibited; or

  2. Abandon or forsake something GOD has not instructed to abandon or forsake.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : guide   View Profile   Since : 30 Apr 2014 4:47:03 PM Close

PTVs bitterness of the heart is understandable.

Galatians 5:

 V:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
 V:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
 V:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
 V:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
 V:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

All glory and honour be to God.
 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2014 2:13:38 PM Close

Dear beracah/PTV

The following is a quote from your post on 29 Apr 2014 9:57:05 AM

‘In my investigation, to the best of my knowledge, NO “KB ancient” (expression borrowed from a No-Ornament KB Evangelist) had lost or gave up his self acquired wealth and riches because of godliness or Religious Denominational Affiliation.’

Can you be forthright and truthful in naming this ‘No-Ornament KB Evangelist’ and where he made this expression?

This is important because

a) Otherwise the veracity of your assertion ‘In my investigation, to the best of my knowledge’ too must be suspected

b) Otherwise it will be like playing the game of soccer without goalposts.

Abraham Daniel Thomas

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2014 2:46:07 PM Close

'to the best of my knowledge' means the investigation was not thorough.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2014 5:41:26 AM Close

Br. Abraham Daniel Thomas (ADT) posed a question to me and the question is:

Can you be forthright and truthful in naming this ‘No-Ornament KB Evangelist’ and where he made this expression?

Appendages to the question are my ability or willingness to be “forthright and truthful”.

Further, ADT has stated that “naming” is important because the veracity of my assertions depend on this naming.

These are my observations:

  1. By this ADT may be asserting that “None of the No-Ornament KB Evangelists” had made this expression – KB ancient.

    As he is not Omniscient, I dismiss this.

  2. ADT knows the person who made the expression but that person:

    1. Is Not an Evangelist

    2. Is an Evangelist; but not a KB Evangelist

    3. Is a KB Evangelist; but not a No-Ornament KB Evangelist.

      If the above is the case, I am mistaken. Seek confirmation from ADT.

  3. I don’t know, but it seems to me that ADT is suspecting that the person from whom I borrowed this expression “KB ancient” is ADT himself.

    If this is so, ADT has to clarify why he feels so.

    The expression in question was taken from an essay on Ornaments received by e-mail on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2014 7:07:44 AM Close

To beracah/PTV

Instead of proving the veracity of your own statement, you have ventured into making new observations based on assumptions such as ‘By this ADT may be asserting’,     ‘If the above is the case’,    ‘I don’t know, but it seems to me that ADT is suspecting’.   Where is the goal post????.

The least you may do is to quote the relevant paragraph/sentence of the ‘essay on Ornaments’ which you claim to have ‘received by e-mail on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM.’

 

Abraham Daniel Thomas

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2014 7:17:11 AM Close

The essay makes mention of the teachings and practices on abstention from ornaments followed by KB Forefathers.

I quote herein below the relevant portion:

Quote:

“Let us not sit in judgment of the ancients on the pretext of being Scriptural. Commending or condemning the ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue.” End quote

The ancients mentioned twice above in the quoted passage are KB ancients as gather from the context.

See also posting  Since : 31 Jan 2012 02:47:37 on the below thread:

http://keralabrethren.net/boardkb/view.asp?id=2148&forum=General

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2014 8:27:45 AM Close

Dear ADT,

Hope you got the answer; proof for the veracity of my statement, that I borrowed the “KB ancients” expression from a No Ornament KB Evangelist. Also hope you have seen the goal posts in their proper place!!!!

I shall make it explicit for you:

I borrowed this expression “KB ancients” from the writings of you, “Abraham Daniel Thomas”. 

In the passage quoted above you wrote twice about “ancients”. From the context I understood it as referring to the Forefathers of verpadu (Separatist) movement in Central Travancore – i.e about KB ancients!!!! 

What remains is to gather proof whether ADT is a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” or NOT. I am not interested; because it doesn’t matter to me.

Thanks, PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2014 10:32:07 AM Close

Dear PTV,

It is true that I did write about ‘ancients’, but nowhere in that article did I ever write “KB ancients”. Therefore your claim of borrowing the expression “KB ancients” from that article is false and misrepresentation of facts. This being the case your ‘investigation’ must be termed as faulty and your ‘the best of my knowledge’ highly prejudiced. If you cannot investigate the contents of an ‘essay’ that is within your reach correctly, why should anyone trust your investigation into the history?

You wrote, ”From the context I understood it as referring to the Forefathers of verpadu (Separatist) movement in Central Travancore – i.e about KB ancients!!!!” 

On what basis have you arrived at/ what context forced you to such an understanding? Did you find even a single reference to ‘KB’ in that ‘essay’?

You wrote, ‘What remains is to gather proof whether ADT is a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” or NOT. I am not interested; because it doesn’t matter to me.’

Yes, you need to be interested and it should matter to you because since you have named me as a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” it is your responsibility to provide evidence which authorizes you to such name calling. You need to be accountable for what you write.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2014 11:18:43 AM Close

The basis on which I arrived at the conclusion that you were referring to KB forefathers as “ancients” -

You, ADT, e-mailed that essay to me in the context of correspondences I had with few other known KB regarding Ornament issue among KB. Nothing else could be construed from that context than to consider the expression “ancients” to mean KB ancients. I believed and I still believe you were referring to KB forefathers as “ancients”. Or else, tell me about whom were you referring to?

Below given is a quote from your essay. About whom are you referring in the below passage?

Quote:

When one side attributes the ‘ornament wearing’ practice to pagan culture by citing history, the other side too  cites history to attribute ‘abstention from ornaments’ to pagan or cultic culture. If one insists on accusing abstention from ornaments  to be an adoption from pagan or cultic culture, then he/she will have to do some explaining about the origin of the practice of  wearing of ornaments in the church. End Quote. 

About your identity:

You visited one of the families related to me who came to KB from denominational Christian background to persuade them to remove their ornaments but could not convince them from Scriptures about the KB practice of abstention or KB rule of prohibition. What else can I conclude about you than as a No-Ornament KB Evangelist? I considered you and continue to consider you as a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” because of these. If you are not one, you can clarify.

Thanks, PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 8 May 2014 5:42:40 AM Close

To  PTV

1.    You wrote

‘The basis on which I arrived at the conclusion that you were referring to KB forefathers as “ancients” –‘…………

You have now admitted that ‘KB ancients’ was not an expression you borrowed from me, but your own conclusion.

Therefore your claim that “KB ancient” is an expression borrowed from a No-Ornament KB Evangelist” is proven to be false. You did not borrow it; you interpreted it based on your prejudice and predicament.

2.    You wrote,

‘You, ADT, e-mailed that essay to me in the context of correspondences I had with few other known KB regarding Ornament issue among KB.’

I did not e-mail that essay specifically to you, it was sent to the group after I received many mails from that group.

3.    You quoted from the essay

You have conveniently omitted the relevant section when quoting from the essay. Therefore please allow me to quote the relevant passage

“When one side attributes the ‘ornament wearing’ practice to pagan culture by citing history, the other side too  cites history to attribute ‘abstention from ornaments’ to pagan or cultic culture. If one insists on accusing abstention from ornaments  to be an adoption from pagan or cultic culture, then he/she will have to do some explaining about the origin of the practice of  wearing of ornaments in the church.  Did it all begin by an explicit commandment of God, ‘thou shall wear’? Was it the result of an adherence to one or many scriptural principles?  Was it a practice imitated from the life of Jesus, His Apostles or the early church? And where did the wedding ring come from? On what mandate or obligation and for what significance have saints adopted it? My point is, we arrive at the truth not by debate or investigation but by looking at the revelation.

Moreover, the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated, it cannot be truthfully ascertained especially when we are far removed from them in time. We may ascertain certain facts such as what happened, when it happened etc. But ‘why it happened’ can only be speculated.  We may be sincere in our study of the historical data, but none of us are absolutely unbiased or objective. Our presuppositions, predispositions and the contemporary culture will influence both the selection and interpretation of the historical data. In any case, the Bible tells us not to judge in such cases as we have no access into the ‘hidden things’ and into ‘the counsels of the hearts’. “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.” 1 Corinthians 4: 5. Let us not sit in judgment of the ancients on the pretext of being Scriptural. Commending or condemning the ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue.” 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 8 May 2014 5:44:22 AM Close

contd

Dear PTV

1.    About my identity:

First you wrote, ‘What remains is to gather proof whether ADT is a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” or NOT.

Therefore you had no proof whatsoever at the time of branding me.  

And now you write,

‘You visited one of the families related to me who came to KB from denominational Christian background to persuade them to remove their ornaments but could not convince them from Scriptures about the KB practice of abstention or KB rule of prohibition”

My visit was not ‘to persuade them to remove their ornaments’. I was there in the context of a looming division/split in that assembly, and I did persuade not only the family I visited but my relative too to do whatever that was Scripturally warranted, to unite and not to cause division. That I was there to persuade them to remove their ornaments is only another of your conclusions and interpretation of an event, prejudiced as before.

2.    You wrote,

“I considered you and continue to consider you as a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” because of these. If you are not one, you can clarify.”

What you consider is of no merit or interest to me. But if you want to brand me or identify me publicly with any group, you must substantiate it with verifiable proof. And I dare you to provide even a single one.

 

3.    You demanded

“If you are not one, you can clarify.”

Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

You brand me as someone I am not; and you have no facts to substantiate that; and now you have the audacity to ask me to clarify!

You have misrepresented my writing and my identity, and you ask me to clarify?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 8 May 2014 11:56:33 AM Close

How forthright and truthful are the statements, assertions, inferences and observations made by ADT?

While discussing about ornament issue and practices followed by KB forefathers, referring to them ADT used the expression “ancients”

It was not about Catholics or Jacobites or Muslims or Hindus. It was about KB.

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

Again I repeat:

If it was not about KB Ancients, let ADT clarify who was he referring to?

The below passage is from an e-mail I have sent to him on Feb 9, 2012:

Quote:”So far KB had been arguing against ornaments citing its purported pagan origin; as idols and associated with idol worship, etc. Since KB cahoots with SDA / Pagans on “ornament ban”; and when the SDA element in the “No Ornament” teaching and practice was exposed causing discomfiture; a different approach is adopted by changing tracks. This change is quite natural and to be expected; and a clever withdrawal from the old arena for opening up a new defensive front on back foot.

Abey has given up the age old standard arguments of KB for No Ornament and instead makes an emotional appeal. He attempts to put few questions into the mouths of those who would look at the whole issue through the lens he provides. If anyone chooses to look at ornaments from Biblical perspective than what Abey presents, his whole effort would be exposed as advocacy for ornament ban borrowed by “KB ancients” from the heathen and heretics” End Quote

I used “KB ancients” in the e-mail copying “ancients” from him and conveying to him my understanding that his usage was about KB and not about the pre-historic men or about the Neanderthals. He didn’t object to it. I don’t need to lean on ADT for saying what I am convinced of saying. Frankly, I like that expression, “ancients”, and I appreciate ADT for that.

Still, the question remains: Who was ADT referring to by “ancients”?

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

Again ADT wrote of  “the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated”

Which is this community he was talking about?

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

Well, at the end of the paragraph he wrote:

 “Let us not sit in judgment of the ancients on the pretext of being Scriptural. Commending or condemning the ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue.” 

Here again he talks of a “community” “following a particular practice” as the “ancients”. If he is truthful and forthright, let him clarify, which is that community; what is that particular practice; and who the ancients are??

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

About your Identity:-

What remains is to gather proof whether ADT is a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” or NOT.

It seems you understood from this as if I have started looking for proof now, after you asked those difficult questions to me. That proof gathering was for you and for this Forum as part of this ongoing discussion. I knew it long back and I haven’t shared all the proof I have with me. I don’t have to gather anything anew.

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

Regarding your visit to my relatives:-

You said:

“My visit was not ‘to persuade them to remove their ornaments’” 

My relatives were not in any way involved in any move for splitting or dividing. They quietly accepted whatever was meted out to them. They were accepted into fellowship more than 10 years ago with ornaments; they continued all these years with ornaments. Even now they continue with ornaments. Suddenly what happened? Why you have to visit them with your relative; though you are not a member of their assembly and not spiritually involved with them anyways?

Their Assembly made “new policy” on ornaments and I remember one of your questions to me by e-mail about “yes Ornament KB” & “No Ornament KB” and “different sets of KB’s”. With all these visits, writings and actions, you still want me to believe that you are not a “NO Ornament KB Evangelist”.

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

I have not misrepresented your writings or your identity. What was it that you were writing to me and what was it that you were doing with my people? What would an independent reader and observer conclude about you?

If ADT is forthright and truthful; and if he takes responsibility for what he said and did; and if he is accountable for his writings, the e-mails he had sent to me and not to any group; let him speak the truth and withdraw his wrong remarks.

Thanks, PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2014 1:01:29 PM Close

To PTV

You wrote

‘While discussing about ornament issue and practices followed by KB forefathers, referring to them ADT used the expression “ancients”

It was not about Catholics or Jacobites or Muslims or Hindus. It was about KB.

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?’

 

My response 

1.    You have once again agreed that the expression I used in my writing was ‘ancients’, and not ‘KB ancients’. Hence your claim of borrowing the expression “KB ancients” from me is once again proven as false.

2.    That I was referring to KB forefathers remains your private interpretation and conclusion as I have not even once referred to ‘KB’ in that article, to whomever that abbreviation may fit.

3.    Has it ever crossed your mind that the ‘forefathers’ you are referring to would have probably objected to you for branding them as ‘KB forefathers’?

Therefore thank you for not asking me, but no thanks for not asking yourself.

 

You wrote,

Again I repeat:     

If it was not about KB Ancients, let ADT clarify who was he referring to?

 

My response,

The immediate context of the article was ‘the folly of trying to prove something as wrong merely on the basis of one’s inquiry into the history of its origin’. I was not referring to any particular community, as I began the paragraph thus, “Moreover, the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated, it cannot be truthfully ascertained especially when we are far removed from them in time.” Therefore it can refer to the ancients of ‘any community’. I do not have the time or patience to educate you on how to study an argumentative writing.  

Even if I were to refer to the saints whom God used to start a particular revival in Kerala, I wouldn’t dare to brand them as “KB forefathers” or “KB ancients” as it is both unscriptural and forbidden. See, I have not branded you either.

contd......

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2014 1:04:37 PM Close

....contd

To PTV

You wrote

I used “KB ancients” in the e-mail copying “ancients” from him and conveying to him my understanding that his usage was about KB and not about the pre-historic men or about the Neanderthals. He didn’t object to it.

 

My response

1.    At last you have confessed that it was you who first used “KB ancients” on Feb 9, 2012, prefixing KB to the “ancients” I used in my article which was published on January 31, 2012

2.    Moreover you now confirm that when you used “KB ancients” you were conveying your understanding of my usage, and not my usage.

3.    Your claim that you used it to convey to me your understanding of the usage “ancients’ baffles me. I failed to see it then and do not see it now.

4.    Why should I object to your expression “KB ancients” as you are free to add anything to the word ‘ancients’; it is not copyrighted. Btw, there are many other things about you and your writings I did not object to, does that make you and your writings right? What kind of logic is that?

 

You wrote,

Frankly, I like that expression, “ancients”,

My response

At last some frankness!

 

You wrote,

Again ADT wrote of  “the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated”

Which is this community he was talking about?

But I won’t ask you: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

My response,

‘Any’ can mean ‘every’ or ‘all without specification’.

You need not ask me, please check the dictionary.

 

You wrote

“About your Identity:-

What remains is to gather proof whether ADT is a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” or NOT.

It seems you understood from this as if I have started looking for proof now, after you asked those difficult questions to me. That proof gathering was for you and for this Forum as part of this ongoing discussion. I knew it long back and I haven’t shared all the proof I have with me. I don’t have to gather anything anew.”

My response,

1.    Are you serious? Are you really saying that you wrote it for me to gather proof to find out what I am or am not? This is hilarious!

2.    Or is it threatening ‘I haven’t shared all the proof I have with me’? Please spare me the shivers and this forum the labor of gathering, and share the proof of my identity that you claim that you have with you.

contd ....

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2014 1:19:34 PM Close

…contd

To PTV

You wrote,

“Regarding your visit to my relatives:-

You said:

“My visit was not ‘to persuade them to remove their ornaments’” 

My relatives were not in any way involved in any move for splitting or dividing. They quietly accepted whatever was meted out to them. They were accepted into fellowship more than 10 years ago with ornaments; they continued all these years with ornaments. Even now they continue with ornaments. Suddenly what happened? Why you have to visit them with your relative; though you are not a member of their assembly and not spiritually involved with them anyways?

Their Assembly made “new policy” on ornaments and I remember one of your questions to me by e-mail about “yes Ornament KB” & “No Ornament KB” and “different sets of KB’s”. With all these visits, writings and actions, you still want me to believe that you are not a “NO Ornament KB Evangelist”.

 

My response,

1.    I refrain myself from making any further remarks about the particular assembly, and I refuse to make any comment about your relatives too. I believe it is uncalled for and improper.

2.    I do not owe you an explanation as to why I had to visit them, especially since the family and the assembly welcomed it.

3.    Are all the readers, of this website, members of your assembly and are you spiritually involved with all of them in any way? Just using your criteria and wondering!

 

You wrote

“I have not misrepresented your writings or your identity.”

 

My response

You DID misrepresent my writings and my identity. Anyway, it is of no consequence to me. I was only trying to point out your error as I believe it is of consequence to you.

 

You wrote

“What was it that you were writing to me….”

 

My response

None of my writings were ever concerned with ‘KB’ or any other sects; they were all meant for the edification of the Assembly of God. In fact, you yourself have confessed here that I have asked you whether there are different sets of KB. You wrote, ‘and I remember one of your questions to me by e-mail about “yes Ornament KB” & “No Ornament KB” and “different sets of KB’s”.  

 

You wrote

‘…..and what was it that you were doing with my people?”

 

My response

Your people? I believe, if they are God’s people, they are my people too.

‘My people’ ‘your people’, it is from such attitudes and expressions the root of bitterness springs up.

 

You wrote

“What would an independent reader and observer conclude about you?”

 

My response

I think that is something you will have to deal with from now on. And live with, if you do not correct.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2014 1:21:28 PM Close

...contd

To PTV

You wrote

“If ADT is forthright and truthful; and if he takes responsibility for what he said and did; and if he is accountable for his writings, the e-mails he had sent to me and not to any group;”

 

My response

I do not know whether you added ‘and not to any group’ to mislead the readers or not. Anyway, please allow me to clarify.

I did not ever say that ‘I did not send any e-mails to you’. What I said was that the ‘essay on ornaments’ was sent to the group, and not to you specifically. I started getting e-mails from the group (initially it was forwarded to me) from January, 3, 2012. After receiving many mails, on Jan 31, 2012 I attached the article I had written and sent it by e-mail with this salutation ‘dear brethren, for your prayerful consideration’. It was sent to the group from which I was receiving these mails and not to you specifically.

It was only after you addressed me personally in your response to my mail, that I started writing to you.

 

You wrote

“let him speak the truth and withdraw his wrong remarks.”

 

My response

‘Speak the truth’ -  I have

‘Withdraw wrong remarks’ - By all means I will, if I am convicted of making any wrong remarks. In fact, I am judging myself in the presence of God to see if my remarks, although right, are in any way harsh. It was after much prayer that I first responded in this thread, because I was not sure as to how it will edify the readers. But I was led clearly to point out the error, and I did. Thank you for your responses.

 

Finally,

When you wrote,

What remains is to gather proof whether ADT is a “No Ornament KB Evangelist” or NOT.

I understood it as you are yet to have any proof. But you corrected my understanding of your writing by saying

‘It seems you understood from this as if I have started looking for proof now, after you asked those difficult questions to me. That proof gathering was for you and for this Forum as part of this ongoing discussion.’

If you say that this is what you meant, how can/why should I argue? Who else is better qualified to say what you meant other than you yourself? Now, should I embark on a futile exercise of trying to prove that ‘what I understood’ is ‘what you meant’ or should I accept your explanation as I have?

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7: 12

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2014 1:54:16 PM Close

Branding of ADT -

Quote: “You brand me as someone I am not; and you have no facts to substantiate that; and now you have the audacity to ask me to clarify!” End Quote

From the direct personal dealings I had in the past with ADT; from the correspondences I had with him; from the essay he sent to me and the postings he made on this Forum; from the details of his talk with my relatives; in short, from his words and deeds, I have come to the conclusion that:

ADT is a No Ornament KB Evangelist

ADT had sent to me an essay titled “Why can’t I wear ornaments? TO Why should I wear ornaments?”.

The opening sentence of the essay is quoted below:

Quote 1: “Although this issue has been discussed in various forums at different times, it continues to remain a contentious issue among the brethren causing much confusion and even division in some churches.” End quote.

Further, in the second page of his essay he wrote the following:

Quote 2: There seems to be more confusion in the way brethren try to arrive at the truth in matters such as this. End Quote

In the second page of his essay he wrote:

Quote 3: Moreover, the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated, it cannot be truthfully ascertained especially when we are far removed from them in time. End Quote

At the end of the same paragraph from where quote 3 is taken he wrote:

Quote 4: “Let us not sit in judgment of the ancients on the pretext of being Scriptural. Commending or condemning the ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue.” End quote

He started off mentioning about “Ornament wearing” as a continuing contentious “issue” among “the brethren” causing division in “some churches”.

He thus began to write on “Ornament wearing issue” among the “brethren” and their “churches” in the 1st quote above.

In the 2nd quote above ADT expresses his opinion on the way “brethren” try to arrive at the truth about matters related to outward appearance.

In the 3rd quote he speaks of “community”; of “following a particular practice” and of timing of it all from ours as “when we are far removed from them in time”.

In the 4th quote he calls those from the “community” “following a particular practice” on timeline “when we are far removed from them” as “ancients”

Well, in his posting Since : 7 May 2014 10:32:07, ADT quizzed:

“On what basis have you arrived at/ what context forced you to such an understanding? Did you find even a single reference to ‘KB’ in that ‘essay’?”

My questions to ADT -

Referring to the 4 quotes above from your essay:

  1. Who are the “brethren”?;

  2. Which are those “some churches”?;

  3. Which is the “community”?

  4. What are those “particular practices”?

  5. Who are they from whom “we are far removed in time”?

  6. Who are the “ancients”?

    From my investigation, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

    I took his usage of “brethren” and “churches” as KB and KB churches. The “particular practice” he mentioned, I took as “abstention from ornaments”. I understood the “ancients” he mentioned from whom “we are far removed in time” as KB Forefathers. The context warrants these conclusions only.

    Therefore I concluded:

  1. Without prefixing “K” to “brethren” ADT was talking about the same group of people I refer to as KB.

  2. Without prefixing “KB” to “ancients” ADT was talking about “KB Forefathers”; from which I borrowed the expression “KB Ancients”

     Tell me, what else shall anyone gather from your writings quoted above?

    But I won’t ask ADT: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

    In addition to his “essay” and his personal visit and talk with my relatives; I have had direct personal e-mail communications with ADT on this subject and I have all those communications with me.  I have arrived at my conclusions from those documents, mails and interactions.

    I have written enough and provided sufficient material to substantiate the following:

  1. ADT as the source of the expression “KB Ancients” and

  2. Proof to identify ADT  as a “No Ornament KB Evangelist”

    He stormed in asking me to name the person from whom I borrowed the expression “KB ancients”. He seems to claim that his usage of “ancients” was not about KB. He then talked about my accountability for referring to him or calling him or branding him as “No ornament KB Evangelist”; although all along he was arguing with me for abstention from ornaments!!!                                                                                                                    

    But I won’t ask ADT: Are you devoid of all reasoning and propriety?

    From my experience with ADT, he doesn’t have respect for truth and wrote a lot to somehow escape from the inescapable conclusions from his own words and deeds. It is now for the forum to evaluate how truthful and forthright ADT is in his averments.

    If ADT is forthright and truthful; and if he takes responsibility for what he said and did; and if he is accountable for his writings, the e-mails he had sent to me and not to any group; let him humble himself; and let him speak the truth and withdraw his false averments.

    Thanks, PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:07:44 PM Close

To PTV

You wrote,

Quote

“From the direct personal dealings I had in the past with ADT; from the correspondences I had with him; from the essay he sent to me and the postings he made on this Forum; from the details of his talk with my relatives; in short, from his words and deeds, I have come to the conclusion that: ADT is a No Ornament KB Evangelist”

Unquote

To which I respond

1.    What ‘direct personal dealings’ did you ever have with me other than the ‘correspondence’ you had with me that led you to the conclusion? (Remember, you have made a distinction between ‘direct personal dealings and ‘the correspondence.) I do not know whether you wrote this to mislead the readers or not. Anyway, let me clarify; I have had no other ‘direct personal dealings with you’ other than through correspondence through e-mails and postings in this forum.

 

2.    Can you provide even a single evidence from my correspondence to you which led you to the conclusion. I am unable to publish the direct correspondence I had with you through email without your permission. But you have my permission to do that. Alternatively I will, if you permit.

contd...

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:10:46 PM Close

...contd

1.    Here are two  quotes from the essay that you are referring to

Quote

   An honest introspection with the above questions in view will surely transform our question from ‘why can’t I wear’ to ‘why should I wear’.

 But, such a change of perspective and obedience must be out of conviction, not by force or lure. Matter such as this is for self evaluation, not for judging others because  the principles from which these applications are made must be applied to other spheres of life such as the adorning of our houses (interior and exterior), adorning of  ourselves with expensive apparels and accessories, beautifying of marriage functions  etc.. The resources God has given to each of us do differ in its diversity and quantity, because the tasks assigned to us are different. Therefore we cannot sit in judgment of others by drawing a line according to our measure. For example, a person may   condemn another for owning more than one house while another may judge this person for having a 3 bedroom house. Therefore let us examine ourselves by these principles and not judge others.

Unquote

Quote

          Since the obedience of the word of God in issues such as ‘wearing of ornaments’  should be a personal response based on one’s own conviction, it cannot be made a criteria for one’s eligibility to be baptized or one’s worthiness to partake in the Lord’s supper. In any case no explicit or implicit teaching even suggests such a          prerequisite. Btw, I am yet to find a scriptural basis for the contemporary practice of  banning a member from the Lord’s Supper alone. The church can excommunicate a   member in certain cases (cf. 1 Corinthians 5: 11; Titus 3: 10; Matthew 18: 15- 17),  but in such cases he/she must be excluded even from eating an ordinary meal with the rest of the church. I am unaware of any Scriptural ground on which a member may be banned from the Lord’s Supper alone.

Unquote

I did argue in the essay about the needlessness and impropriety of wearing ornaments, but please tell me as to how these writings helped you in your conclusions about me.

As for the talks with your relatives’, I have already explained I refuse to dwell any further into it as it is improper and uncalled for.

contd....

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:20:37 PM Close

....contd

You wrote,

Quote

ADT had sent to me an essay titled Why can’t I wear ornaments? TO Why should I wear ornaments?

Unquote

To which I write,

I repeat again, it was not sent to you specifically, I had sent it to the group from which I was receiving mails. You received it because your Id was in the list.

 

You wrote, after making 4 quotes,

Quote

 “He thus began to write on “Ornament wearing issue” among the “brethren” and their “churches” in the 1st quote above.

In the 2nd quote above ADT expresses his opinion on the way “brethren” try to arrive at the truth about matters related to outward appearance.

In the 3rd quote he speaks of “community”; of “following a particular practice” and of timing of it all from ours as “when we are far removed from them in time”.

In the 4th quote he calls those from the “community” “following a particular practice” on timeline “when we are far removed from them” as “ancients”

Unquote

To which I respond

1.    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word ‘brethren’. On what basis have you concluded that I was referring to the ‘KB’ or even ‘Brethren’. I cannot help it if you have a prejudiced and narrow understanding of a word. Will you also brand the disciples of Jesus as ‘JB’ (Jerusalem Brethren)?  cf. Matthew 28: 10

 

2.    What provoked you to change ‘some churches’ in the essay to ‘their churches’?

This is what I wrote in the essay

‘Although this issue has been discussed in various forums at different times, it continues to remain a contentious issue among the brethren causing much confusion and even division in some churches.’

Wasn’t it to force your preconceived ideas and to justify your false proclamations?

3. Again, you have subtly omitted ‘any’ from ‘any community’ and replaced it with ‘the’ to make it appear that I was referring to a specific community

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:22:06 PM Close

...contd to PTV

You wrote

Quote

Well, in his posting Since : 7 May 2014 10:32:07, ADT quizzed:

“On what basis have you arrived at/ what context forced you to such an understanding? Did you find even a single reference to ‘KB’ in that ‘essay’?”

My questions to ADT -

Referring to the 4 quotes above from your essay:

1.    Who are the “brethren”?;

2.    Which are those “some churches”?;

3.    Which is the “community”?

4.    What are those “particular practices”?

5.    Who are they from whom “we are far removed in time”?

6.    Who are the “ancients”?

Unquote                     

My answers

1.    Please refer to Matthew 28: 10

2.    You have no right to demand or to know what I had deemed as improper to disclose. If I were to name them I would have done that in the essay. I hope you will not ask me to explain what ‘church’ is!

3.    That I referred to any specific community is your interpretation, not mine. I wrote ‘any community’.

4.    I believe that you have asked this to clarify what I wrote in the essay

‘Moreover, the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated, it cannot be truthfully ascertained especially when we are far removed from them in time.’

Don’t you see that it can be any particular practice of any community?

5   Ancients of any community

6. I have answered this before

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:26:48 PM Close

To PTV

contd....

You wrote

Quote

From my investigation, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

I took his usage of “brethren” and “churches” as KB and KB churches. The “particular practice” he mentioned, I took as “abstention from ornaments”. I understood the “ancients” he mentioned from whom “we are far removed in time” as KB Forefathers. The context warrants these conclusions only.

Therefore I concluded:

1.    Without prefixing “K” to “brethren” ADT was talking about the same group of people I refer to as KB.

2.    Without prefixing “KB” to “ancients” ADT was talking about “KB Forefathers”; from which I borrowed the expression “KB Ancients”

Unquote

To which I respond

You began your writing with “From my investigation, to the best of my knowledge and belief:” and ended with “Therefore I concluded:” And you continue to claim that you borrowed the expression “KB Ancients”?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:29:03 PM Close

To PTV

...contd

You wrote

Quote

“I have had direct personal e-mail communications with ADT on this subject and I have all those communications with me.  I have arrived at my conclusions from those documents, mails and interactions.”

Unquote

To which I respond

1.    I ask again, can you provide even a single evidence from my correspondence/ direct personal e-mail communications to you which led you to the conclusion. I am unable to publish the correspondence I had with you through email without your permission. But you have my permission to do that. Alternatively I can, if you permit

 

2.    The following is a quote from the letter I had sent to your mail ID and to the rest of the 14 e-mail IDs in the group on Thursday, February, 2102, and I am cutting and pasting it in italics

Quoting from my mail to you       

            You wrote

            Please remember, 1 Cri 7:1 & 8 Apostle Paul specifically mentioned that:

v It is good for a man not to marry.

v It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

            My question is: Why No ornament KB are ignoring this advise and marrying?

          To which I write,

I have already responded by detailing how we need to comprehend the teaching of 1 Corinthians chapter 7. With regard to your question, ‘Why No ornament KB are ignoring this advise and marrying?’, I do not know who these         ‘No ornament KB’ are, if you know them, you should pose this question to them. I am not one of them. I am not their spokesman. If you direct the questions to me, God willing, I shall respond.

You wrote

            In this context, I repeat:

1.   What must an observer conclude about the marriages among “No Ornament” KBs?

2.   Why “No ornament” KBs are not training their members to acquire self control like Paul to stay unmarried?

3.   Why “No Ornament” KBs are not as vehement for “No Marriage” as they are for “No Ornament” in view of 1 Cori 7 verses 1 & 8?

To which I write,

‘in this context I repeat’, - You should take the wider context, and not one passage context. If you do not do that it is you who will have some explaining to do, to the observer.

          Again, I do not know who the ‘No ornament KBs’ are and therefore am not competent enough to explain their position. Btw, are there ‘Yes ornament KB’ too? And how many sets of   KB are there? Elsewhere in your mail you had mentioned ‘different sets of KB’.

Quote ended

 

You cannot claim to have not received this letter or have not gone through its content, because a) you have confessed that you have all those correspondences with you b) You have already quoted from the last paragraph, of the above quoted passages, in this thread.

Now, please tell me

1.    How did this correspondence contributed to the conclusions you arrived at?

2.    On what ground or authority did you brand me as a ‘No Ornament KB Evangelist” in spite of the following clear statements I made about my stand?

          ‘I do not know who these ‘No ornament KB’ are’, ‘I am not one of them.’, ‘ I   am not their spokesman’, ‘Again, I do not know who the ‘No ornament KBs’   are and therefore am not competent enough to explain their position’?

3.    If you deemed my statements to be false, why then did you not object to it then? I am asking this because, according to you, ‘if not objected it shall be deemed as correct.’

Your insistence on calling me cannot be out of ignorance, what it is- I have no permission to judge, and I do not. Cf. 1 Corinthians 4: 5

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 12:31:32 PM Close

To PTV

..contd

You wrote,

Quote

I have written enough and provided sufficient material to substantiate the following:

1.    ADT as the source of the expression “KB Ancients” and

2.    Proof to identify ADT  as a “No Ornament KB Evangelist”

Unquote

To which I respond

1.    If this is the way you substantiate anything, I have no further comments.

2.    Have you deemed it as enough and sufficient because you have no further evidence? What happened to all the proof you claim to have with you. Didn’t you write in this thread that you haven’t shared all the proof?

 

You wrote

Quote

From my experience with ADT, he doesn’t have respect for truth and wrote a lot to somehow escape from the inescapable conclusions from his own words and deeds. It is now for the forum to evaluate how truthful and forthright ADT is in his averments.

If ADT is forthright and truthful; and if he takes responsibility for what he said and did; and if he is accountable for his writings, the e-mails he had sent to me and not to any group; let him humble himself; and let him speak the truth and withdraw his false averments.

Unquote

 

To which I respond

By the grace of God, I am able to not to respond to your above comments just as I was able to respond to the rest of your comments and remarks. I only pray that God, in His grace, will grant you a contrite and humble heart. And this prayer is not just for you, I pray this for me too.

Thank you for all the responses and goodbye

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 2:12:06 PM Close

I hereby permit ADT to publish all my e-mails with him.

The issues dealt with and proofs shared through these postings are on:

  1. Source of the expression “KB Ancients” &

  2. Identity of ADT as “No Ornament KB Evangelist”

    Some of ADT’s responses must be commented upon:

    Quote: Your people? I believe, if they are God’s people, they are my people too”. End Quote

    People I mentioned as “My People” are my relatives. They didn’t invite you to their home seeking spiritual help for dealing with Ornament issue or any other issue. They received you when you went there with your relative; that gesture shall not be mistaken as welcoming you. They tolerated your visit. Their Assembly also didn’t inform them of deputing you with their approval for dealing with any issue.

    To the best of my knowledge, you were not authorized by their Assembly to visit them as it is improbable, considering the party who accompanied you. Again please note: My relatives are not your people the way they are mine by family relationship.

    About the “any community” ADT clarified:

    ‘Any’ can mean ‘every’ or ‘all without specification’.

Thus, according to ADT, he was talking about every community or all communities which includes KB also. If that is the case, the ancients he referred are from every community including KB community also; signifying the ancients he mentioned includes KB Ancients as well.

But, ADT is claiming that he was talking about

  • particular practices followed by every community and

  • those who sit in judgment of the ancients of those communities on the pretext of being Scriptural.

    According to ADT, Commending or condemning those ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue. And ADT expects me to believe this and accept as the cardinal truth!!!

To a discerning mind it is crystal clear that the “any community” he mentioned is not all the various religious / political / social/ literary, etc communities in the World. Because ADT admitted:  “Commending or condemning the ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue.”

ADT’s endeavour is to find a “Scriptural solution to the issue”
ADT admitted that his endeavour is to find a “Scriptural solution to the issue”. Issue is ornament related. I don’t believe anyone is attempting to find a “Scriptural solution for the ornament issue among non-Christian communities or among Denominational Christians. If the “any Community following a particular practice” means all communities, as stated by ADT, he is not fit to deal with this issue. He has landed up in this messy situation because of his untrue denial.

I am not surprised at your gutturals because when people refuse to face the facts and deal with their words and deeds honestly, they will come up with the rhetoric you have come up with for escaping from accountability. It is not godliness or the mind of Christ that motivates and drives such in their reactions and vengeful behavior towards believers who don’t agree with them on abstention practice steeped in unchristian traditions. It is bullying as someone wrote on this Forum on another thread.

What do I mean by KB:

By “KB” I mean the group of protestant believers in Kerala known as B/brethren or Verpadukar (Separatists) whom you referred in your essay as “brethren”.

ADT tries to pretend ignorance of different sets of KB’s.  Below given is a quote from ADT’s essay:

“When one side attributes the ‘ornament wearing’ practice to pagan culture by citing history, the other side too  cites history to attribute ‘abstention from ornaments’ to pagan or cultic culture.”

ADT wrote of “one side” and the “other side” who attribute “ornament wearing” and “abstention from ornaments” to pagan or cultic culture. Thus he wrote of different sides or different sets among “saints” (ADT speaks of “saints” who adopted either ornament wearing or its abstention). Yet he pretends he is unaware of different sets among KB…. 

Below quote posted by ADT on this thread on12 May 2014 12:29:03 is from an email sent to me on  Feb 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM. 

Quote: Again, I do not know who the ‘No ornament KBs’ are and therefore am not competent enough to explain their position. Btw, are there ‘Yes ornament KB’ too? And how many sets of   KB are there? Elsewhere in your mail you had mentioned ‘different sets of KB’. End Quote

I tried to enlighten ADT on the existence of different sets of KB’s in the same church (this is the church of his relative who accompanied him to my relatives) in a mail sent in reply on Fri 10 Feb 2012 - 2:24 PM.

Quote: On any given occasion there would be 2 main sets and 4 sub sets of KBs in that Assembly:

Main Sets:

  1. Those with ornaments

  2. Those without ornaments.

    Sub sets:

  1. Those wearing ornaments with approval, who can continue to wear in future and after them their future generations also.

  2. Visitors with ornaments

  3. Those not wearing ornaments and who would be discouraged to wear in future and after them their descendants also would be discouraged from wearing.

  4. Visitors without ornaments. End Quote

    Classification of believers in fellowship into these groups (sets) was done by the said Assembly through a document. I have a copy of the document with me.

    Ignoring these facts, ADT wrote on this Forum:

    Quote: None of my writings were ever concerned with ‘KB’ or any other sects; they were all meant for the edification of the Assembly of God. In fact, you yourself have confessed here that I have asked you whether there are different sets of KB”. End Quote  

    ADT says: he is not a No Ornament KB Evangelist. But his writings portray a totally different picture about him. His words and deeds are contradictory to his claim about himself. 

    For whom is ornament wearing a continuing contentious issue?”

    It is only for the No Ornament KB; SDA’s, Pentecostals etc and ADT argues for them and with them. For me and my relatives ornaments were or are not an issue until it was made into an issue by No Ornament KB.

    Below given are few ADT questions from the essay sent to me. These questions are coming from “No Ornament” presupposition which constrains me to consider him as a No Ornament KB Evangelist. ADT’s communications reveals his being, who he is, and from what he communicated to me I could see him only as someone arguing for No ornaments and thus, for me, he is a No Ornament KB Evangelist.

    I shall face and answer the questions ADT asked in his essay:

  1. Do I, being a child of God, need to wear ornaments?

    Certainly Yes, I have to and must wear those ornaments God, my Father, likes me to wear. When the Lord adorns a believer with ornaments, he/she must accept and submit to it.

  2. Can I, being a steward, spend money on ornaments?

    Of course, I can spend the money the Lord had given me / gives me as my inheritance for purposes including ornaments; He allocates and approves it and I have His blessing for it.

  3. Should I, as minister of God, wear ornaments?

    Most certainly yes, as my Master is the King of Glory, and His majesty is beyond anybody’s comprehension, it is perfectly alright for me to wear ornaments.

  4. How can I being a member of the body of Christ, wear ornaments?

    Because the body of Christ, the bride must be beautifully dressed for her husband.

    The Essayist speaks of imitating the LORD and His disciples in the matter of ornaments.

  1. Where in the Bible it is revealed that the LORD and His disciples didn’t wear ornaments? It is somebody’s assumption from their predisposition!!.

  2. Gold was presented to Lord Jesus by the wise men and the Spirit of God inspired the writers to mention it; evidencing that it was a commendable offering and not disliked by God.

  3. The risen Lord when appeared to Apostle John on Patmos was wearing a golden sash around his chest.

  4. The Elders in Revelation who were in the presence of the Risen LORD wore golden crowns.

  5. The LORD is unchangeable; what is wrong is wrong at all times, in all the ages. The God of Eternity will not associate with something questionable at any time.

  6. The OT Tabernacle / Temple was made, beautified and decorated with gold and golden articles at the command of the Lord himself.

    Christian testimony is maintained or a believer’s life is not lived by submitting to the lists of do’s, don’ts and questionnaires prepared by the followers of traditions and practices of ancients.

    The love, tolerance, allowance, forbearance and caring are not entirely reserved to be shown to those insisting on abstention. Where is the love for those wearing ornaments, who are not convinced, form all these biased, subjective arguments arising from presuppositions, predispositions and traditions of ancients? Intermittently they also admit of the unavailability of scriptural mandate to insist on abstentions!!!

    Again I repeat:

    If ADT is forthright and truthful; and if he takes responsibility for what he said and did; and if he is accountable for his writings, the e-mails he had sent to me and not to any group; let him humble himself; and let him speak the truth and withdraw his false averments.

    PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2014 4:30:53 PM Close

ADT sir, so you believe it is unscriptural for a believer to wear ornaments?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rein   View Profile   Since : 23 May 2014 9:51:55 AM Close

വെളിപ്പാട് പുസ്തകത്തിൽ യേശുക്രിസ്തു മുക്കുപണ്ടം അണിഞ്ഞു നിൽക്കുന്നതായി പറയുന്നു. കൊല്ലം സുപ്രീം ഗോൾഡ് ആയിരിക്കാം. അല്ലാതെ വേറെ വഴിയില്ല. ഈ പരീശന്മാർ എല്ലാക്കാലവും എല്ലായിടത്തും ഉണ്ട്. യേശുക്രിസ്തു സ്വർണ്ണം ധരിച്ചതു കൊണ്ട് യേശുവിന്റെ വിശുദ്ധി നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു എന്നു ഈ പരീശന്മാർ പറഞ്ഞാലും അത്ഭുതപ്പെടരുത്

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : joyboy   View Profile   Since : 27 May 2014 4:14:22 PM Close

english please.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top