Results 41 - 60 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Philippians 2:12 - Fear and trembling | Heb 10:25 | Ancient | 127404 | ||
Brother/Sister, My opinion on what is clearly being presented by you as a predestination argument is that God called everyone. Whoever believes on Jesus will not perish but have everlasting life. I choose not to argue this topic. Let me just say that if predestination is a factual case in scripture, then it is up to us to bring the truth to everyone, lest they miss their predestined calling. Since we don't know who is predestined and who is not, we must assume that everyone we meet is of the predestined persuasion, and we would be remiss in our duties to God to not do his stated will to preach the Gospel in all the world and make disciples of all men. Love to you, Ancient |
||||||
42 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 126992 | ||
Country Girl, I am in agreement with you. As opposed to the Old Testament being a valid covenant, the New Testament scripture clearly states time and again that we are not under the Law (Law of Moses/Old Covenant). Do we all continue to go to school once we've received the sought after degree? The Law, by comparison, was the professor of Righteousness and Redeption 101. Christ came and gave us our degree. [Galatians 3:24-25] Now we are professors of Perfection and Purity 201. Use math as an example of how the law works and where it falls into our current usage. In practical life, we take basic math, moved up to advanced math, and eventually undertake the difficult tasks of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. While learning basic math, we struggle to grasp the concepts. We are young, and our minds have trouble wrapping around the idea. In time, though, we learn what our teachers were trying to impart. When our studies lead us as far as trigonometry and calculus, we still use basic math! But basic math is not a thing we think about. It is something that is deeply ingrained, and something we just understand. Half the time I don't even think about why 12 plus 12 is 24 anymore. It just is. I understand why it is, but could no more explain it to a child than I could explain the complexities of why the sky is blue. I just understand it and apply it to the practical application of calculus. It is the calculus I am trying to understand instead of the basic math, in other words. Basic math still has its place, but it is not something I need to focus on in light of the far superior methods of higher calculation. The irony of the Law and the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is that it all worked in the reverse order of my above example. It started with calculus and ended with basic math. We had laws for everything under the sun, including not muzzling the ox, not tripping the blind, not going back for every grape, etc. There were also variables, like "just in case" sacrifices for those that think they "might" have sinned. Defining the full extent of the law was in all ways an impossible task. This is the reason we all failed, just as a first grader would have failed at calculus. Then came Jesus, the amazing mathematician, who looked at the whole thing, knew the pattern inherently, and said, "you know what people, this calculation, when fully solved, equates to 1 plus 1 equals 2." The equation of the Law, represented by the Old Covenant, is equivelent to 1 plus 1 equals 2. Love God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength plus Love your neighbor as yourself equals the fulfillment of the Law which is the solution to the equation. Now that we have been reduced to basic math, we no longer need to fear error. In all the equations of life, 1 plus 1 is going to equal 2. "This person is doing this to me. What is the solution? I will look to God and love this person as myself, and this is the correct solution to my problem." "Is this thing I am inclined to do a sin? Since I don't know, let me break out my equation breaker. Does this thing go against loving God? Does this thing go against loving my neighbor? Okay then ... Love plus Love equals fulfilled. Problem solved." The Old Testament, in short, has not really gone away, but it is no longer relevent. We couldn't grasp the lessons of the complicated math, so we were given the simple solution to summarize it. Now that we have the answer, this solution is all encompassing, and we have no real need to go back to complicated math, except as a matter of higher learning to better understand the simple but absolute solution to the complicated equation. All scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:16-17] If you put yourself back under the law (i.e. try to solve the equation yourself instead of accepting the simple solution given), you are doomed to failure. They couldn't figure out the solution, and neither can we. Jesus gave us the solution, so let us trust in his math skills. These are my casual thoughts on the subject. If you wish deeper discussion, I'll gladly oblige. There is a great deal more I can say to further support this scriptural truth. Love to you sister, Ancient |
||||||
43 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127093 | ||
Country Girl wrote: "The true authority in this dispensation as blessed by God Himself was given to His Son as stated in Matt 28:18. Thus, the whole NT is epitimized with the Supreme Perfect Example and High Priest of our Lord. Only His Words and those of His appointed representatives should be heeded, and NOT those of the OT prophets including Moses himself. Don't get me wrong, those men in the OT were good men. They tried their best but they didn't have 3 and half years of living and being with the Savior like the Apostles did. Those OT prophets didn't have the benefit and full empowerment of the Holy Spirit with Its Gift of Salvation in Its Full and Powerful measure." Fantastic Country Girl. That was an impressive and powerful statement. I am blessed to have read it. Ancient |
||||||
44 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127098 | ||
In relation to Sunday worship, I would like to add my two cents as well, Lord willing that I should be of profit to someone else. The scriptures tell us in Romans, "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." It is also written in Colossians, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a holy day or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Paul tells us in Romans that there is no command we have that is not summed up by the statement, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Going to church, while certainly a fine thing, is not a commandment. Hebrews 10:25 is often considered a commandment: "not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some ..." I find, however, that the preceeding verse adheres to Paul's teaching, and puts the statement into perspective: "and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." The early church, as recorded in the writings of Pliny the Younger, met on the first day of the week before dawn. The earliest church, according to Acts 2:46, met every day in the temple, not just on Sunday. When all is said and done, going to church is little more than a "work of the flesh" and is of no profit for righteousness. As it is written in Galatians, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." To summarize what I am saying: We are not commanded to go to church. Let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind. The one that does not esteem one day above another, God will make him stand, and we should not judge another's servant, for no man should be your judged regarding Sabbaths, or other related holy days. Those that choose to go to church, you do a fine thing. Those that choose not to go to church, it would be better if you did, but it is not required. If you are weak, you could use the instruction. If you are strong, you could instruct others. So either way it is a good thing, and we don't want to forsake the assembling of ourselves because it is our opportunity to provoke one another to love. What day you go is not relevent. It's the spirit behind it; that you are going because you want to, wish to help others, wish to be an active member of a congregation, etc. Love and blessings, Ancient |
||||||
45 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127119 | ||
Country Girl, Remember sister, I'm not contradicting you. I think going to church is a good thing. I'm just cognizant of the fact that making it a commandment when it isn't a commandment creates an occasion of sin and stumbling for those that believe it to be a commandment and for one reason or another are unable to keep it. [Romans 7:9-11 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the law; for I would not have known about coveting if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the law sin was dead. I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me."] By all means ... let us go to church. But let us always remember WHY we go to church. It is not because we are commanded to, as you pointed out that no such passage exists, but because we want to. Those that don't want to go ... they don't have their heart in it anyway. So their worship would be false. Always remember that the commandment of the New Testament is to Love one another as he loved us. All others amount to this, are derived from this, and cannot exist or function without this. Blessing to you sister, Ancient |
||||||
46 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127138 | ||
EdB, I disagree with your interpretation of this passage, but thank you for responding with your input. I gave it fair consideration, but do not see a commandment there so much as I see advice. We'll have to agree to disagree. With love, Ancient |
||||||
47 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127141 | ||
Steve, Thank you so much for responding. I considered your statement, and I think that this passage you are citing, while you are likely correct in your estimation, is not conclusive. I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine. For example: Does Acts 20:7 say that they did not meet on the second day of the week? Or the third? Or the fourth? Does Acts 20:7 say that they only met on that day of the week? Is it possible they met on the other days as well, but we are not informed here because it is not immediately relevent to the story being told? Is it also possible they met the other days, since we are lacking an address of the issue in this passage, and especially in comparison with Acts 2:46? Is it possible that they were at the tail end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, seeing that Paul and some of the others had gone ahead of the rest of the group, and the group that stayed behind didn't leave Phillipi until after said holiday? Could it be that the first day of the week was the last convocation of the holiday? The holiday lasts from the 14th through the 21st [Exodus 12:18]. It starts at evening on the 14th, and it ends at evening on the 21st. If the holiday started on a Sunday at evening, that would have it ending on a Sunday at evening. Could this be why they were gathered? We know from 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 that a door was opened up for Paul to preach the Gospel in Troas. But we know also from 2 Timothy 4:13-17 that in Troas, Alexander the coppersmith vigorously opposed his teaching, and everyone deserted Paul. So what kind of disciples were these men in Acts 20:7? We're talking about the same place. Are we talking about the same time? Is this the same occurrence? Did these "disiciples" we're wont to take example from the same "disciples" that abandoned Paul? It is my opinion that Acts 20:7 is a weak example, and I find it by no means a conclusive example as to the regular habits of the disciples. Acts 2:46 is a better and far more defined example of the habits of the disciples in my opinion. Now, I do agree that they met on Sundays, but as you will note in my previous posts, the veracity behind this is stated by Pliny the Younger, who said that the Christians met on the first day of the week before sunrise. These are the words of a historian that plainly recorded the event and was specific about it. In short, I don't disagree that Sunday was the day they met, only that Acts 20:7 is a weak example that can be argued. I would also point out from my previous posts, that I am of the opinion that when or where we meet is not relevent. They did what they did for whatever reason they did it. I find that "They did this, so we must do this," is an inferior teaching to, "They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives." Thanks for your response. I wasn't hasty in responding. I've had this debate with someone before over Acts 20:7. I don't think it's a discussion worth having. And to those that are misunderstanding my posts, let me say one more time that I am an advocate of going to church. While I don't believe it is commanded, only advised for the sake of upholding one another, I still think it is a good thing, and I definitely would recommend anyone not currently attending to attend. Thank you again, Ancient |
||||||
48 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127142 | ||
Steve, I believe she is trying to say that those who [were] worshipping according to the law, worshipped according to the law, and in full form. Those who [were] worshipping without the law, worshipped according to the method and manner prior to the existence of the written law. Ancient |
||||||
49 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127171 | ||
EdB, I wanted to be nice about this subject, but I feel that you are insulting me now. The answer to your question is yes. I would gladly stand before God and tell him that the commandment of Jesus Christ was to love one another, so that all men will know that we are his disciples. Going to church, while a good and worthwhile thing, is not a commandment. You say that it is. I disagree with you. I do not disagree in order to suit a lifestyle. I disagree because it is not a commandment. Further, you are putting words in my mouth. I have stated clearly in all of my posts on this subject that I am an advocate for going to church. I think a person should. I think, however, that they should go because they want to, not because they have to. And as far as these commandments go, let us look at what the commandments are: A lawful person keeps the law. A lawless person does not keep the law. The law is comprised of 700-some-odd commandments according to a preacher I once spoke to. I really believe this is where it gets complicated for most people. With that many commandments, and each equating to murder if you violate it, how can we ever live up to it? We can't. That is why we had to die to the law [Romans 7:4-6 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were by the law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.], under the law, that we might be freed from the law and the sin that it occasions [Romans 7:7-11 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.]. That's why we are not under the law anymore in the sense of 700-some-odd commandments. Because none of us were able to live up to it in our former lives without Christ, we had to die to be free. In baptism, we go down in imitation of the death of Christ, and come up in the newness of life. When we accept Christ, we die, but because he died to be the propitiation for our sins, we don't pay the ultimate penalty of spiritual death. Instead, we are resurrected with him to live a new life, and this new life is not subject to the laws of the flesh. It is subject to the law of the Spirit, which is the intent that drives the law. [Romans 6:4-7 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.] So what then? If we are dead to the law, and no longer subject to it, how then can we keep what is not there? Shall we kill since we are not subject to the commandments of the law? Certainly not. We are slaves to do righteousness (slaves to do the right thing). Shall we steal because we are not subject to the commandments of the law? Certainly not. Again, we are slaves to do the right thing. While some maintain the idea that there is no law at all, I would point out that we are to keep the "law of Christ." [Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.] There is still a law that must be kept. Again, [Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.] (Emphasis at this point on the existence of the "Law of Christ"). Continued ... |
||||||
50 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127173 | ||
EdB, (Continued from previous post. Please read everything in context ...) To understand what the law is, how to live up to it, what the laws are, how to remember them, and how to keep the law in general, let us look at Christ's definitions of the law. [Matthew 7:12 In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.] In this passage, he is saying plainly that the Golden Rule is the point of the Law and the Prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself is what it means. [Matthew 22:36-40 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And He said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.] In this passage, Jesus states clearly and indisputably that the Law and the Prophets are all derived from, have their roots in, or are directly related to: Love God, and Love your neighbor. A thing that is dependent upon something else is [contingent upon that thing, subordinate to that thing, and unable to exist or function satisfactorily without the aid or use of that thing. 'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'] Based upon these two definitions given by Jesus himself, the Law and the Prophets cannot exist or function without love. They have no application in the absense of love (contingent). They are subordinate to love (Belong to an inferior class, subject to the authority or control of the greater). And do to others as you would have them do to you summarizes them. Jesus then states later [John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.] Then again [John 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.] and yet again [John 15:17 This I command you, that you love one another.]. Jesus is trying to make a point here. There are no riddles or parables, no hidden meanings ... He is giving them a command, and as though they might forget it, he says it two more times to drive the point home. So in other words, Jesus is saying that if you do to others as you would have them do to you, you are keeping the law, because this is what the law was designed to accomplish. Now, what about the teachings of the Apostles? Did they adhere to the same principle Jesus taught? Again, he taught that love is where the law comes from, love is the master the law serves, love is the contingency upon which it has its existence, and love is the summarization of the law, then gave them the new commandment to love one another. Is love really enough to keep the law? Let's look at some of the epistles. [Romans 13:8-10 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.] Let us see also [James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighor as yourself," you are doing well.] [1st John 2:10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.] [Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."] Fulfill: 1. To bring into actuality; to effect. 2. To carry out. 3. To measure up to; satisfy. 4. To go to the end of; finish or complete. Continued ... |
||||||
51 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127174 | ||
EdB, (Continued from previous post. Please read both of the previous posts to get full context of this one ...) According to even these few pieces of scripture, it is clearly evident that loving your neighbor as yourself does the following: It completes, measures up to, carries out, and satisfies the Law, causes you to walk in the light, takes away any cause for stumbling, and you do well by keeping the law in this way. Additionally, it should be noted [1 Tim 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.] To summarize: Love is where the law comes from. Love is the master the law serves. Love is the contingency upon which it has its existence. Love summarizes the law. Love is the commandment given to the Apostles. Love completes the law, measures up to the law, carries out the law, and satisfies the law. Love causes you to walk in the light. Love takes away any cause for stumbling in you. You do well by keeping the law by means of love. The goal of their instruction was love. Some people gloss over the word love. For whatever reason, they see it and miss it at the same time. Love is not a byproduct of being righteous and keeping the law. The law is a byproduct of man's inherent desire to hate. Love is primary, not secondary. So keeping the law is done by loving your neighbor as yourself. If you do this thing, you will not stumble. Transgressing the law, by contextual definition, would be to fail to love your neighbor as yourself. Going to church, except it be for the purpose of brotherly love, which it sometimes can in fact be, is not a commandment by the standard of the New Testament. If my absence causes someone to be hurt, then I am wrong and should be attending, but I am hurting no one, I can worship God right here in the comfort of my home. Now, back to my original post ... I disagree with you. I don't want to discuss this. Thank you. Ancient |
||||||
52 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127197 | ||
Steve, If those without the Law of Moses could not have been worshipping the One True God, then please explain the king of Salem: [Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the prist of the most high God.] Such a person, after whose order Christ would be: [Psalm 110:4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.] Ancient |
||||||
53 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127206 | ||
Dear Steve, Let me open by saying that you are being insulting, condescending, accusatory, opinionated, and otherwise rude. Based on your response and the lack of reasonable answers, it is apparent to me that you did not take any time to consider what I said or why. I disagreed with your comment about Acts 20:7, demonstrated why I disagreed with it, and otherwise agreed with you that Sunday was the day of worship according to historical evidence. Taking my statements, putting words in my mouth through your lack of consideration, and demeaning me, is not the way you are going to pursuade me. You stated: "Based on your post, you are simply unteachable." I am unteachable because I refuted what you said, used scripture to substantiate it, and offered an alternative while agreeing with you? It seems to me that I am not the one unteachable here. Your one-liner statement, followed by a rash rebuke to credible statements, has all the stink of pride. You criticized me for saying: "I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine," and turned right around and said, "So can I." What, exactly, is your point? If holes can be punched in it, then it is not a valid passage upon which to base a doctrine. Build upon a rock, not upon the sand. What you are holding to is flawed, and not because of the point, but because of your choice of scripture reference. There are better ones available. You said: "you were on a tangent based on slim evidence--one verse (Acts 2:46)." Need I point out to you that you were basing your point on the same slim evidence--one verse (Acts 20:7)? Do you not know that this makes you a hypocrite? The wisdom that is from God is without hypocrisy [James 3:17]. Your criticism was unbecoming. You said: "2 Timothy was written well after this--a minimum of a year and more likely several years." What credible evidence do you base this on? There are 28 chapters to the book of Acts. The events in Troas were in chapter 20. That's awfully close to the end. Paul is taken into custody in Acts 21:27, and from there ends up in Rome. You said: "Also, if you want to be believed, answer more questions than you ask." What questions, exactly, did you ask that I needed to answer? The whole of your post was: "You mentioned Acts 2:46, but might I point you to Acts 20:7 where the practice became meeting on the first day of the week." So you pointed me there, and I demonstrated that "this passage you are citing, while you are likely correct in your estimation, is not conclusive." I agreed with you that you were right, but found the reference lacking, and proceeded to demonstrate. What, exactly, is the problem here? Now, you said: "Do you have the same disregard for other Scriptures like:" I never disregarded any scripture. I feel that Acts 2:42-47 is a better example for the subject. I did not disregard Acts 20:7, but acknowledged the more definitive passage. Your statement is downright rude. I resent it. In no way was I trying to say that "believing" or "repenting" or "being baptized" was to be ignored. These things are plain statements, and I personally believe, have repented, and have been baptized. As for 'They did this, so we must do this,' is an inferior teaching to, 'They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives.' We are not meant to be robots. They did the things they did for a reason. If we don't understand what that reason is, we can't apply the principle to other parts of our lives. To simply emulate what they did is ignorant when the opportunity is there for us to learn an even greater principle than simple mimicry. I hope I have properly addressed your statements to your satisfaction. If you feel the need to rebuke me again, I recommend you pray first, think second, and respond last. I have no desire to be in strife with you or anyone else. Ancient |
||||||
54 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127207 | ||
Hank, you have been good to me, so don't take anything personal that I might say. I've answered a number of posts today, and most recently got insulted by two different people over trivial matters. I'm in a temper, but know that it is not directed at you. I am going to reiterate for what seems like the hundredth time: "I am an advocate for going to church. I think it is a good thing. I think that the weak can be strengthened, exhorted, upheld, educated, and find comfort and fellowship. I think that the strong can be the ones to strengthen, exhort, uphold, educate, and give the comfort and fellowship." Did everyone hear me this time? I've posted this statement in every post related to this topic, starting with the first one. My issue is in calling it a command. Righteousness is to do the right thing. The right thing to me may not be the right thing to do for you. If you need church, and I don't, then so be it. (Please refer back to my statement). The doctrine of Christ is: Believe in Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead, and love one another as He gave us commandment. The law of Christ is: Love one another, and believe in me. Failing to love is true transgression of the Law of Christ. If I choose not to go to church, I am not hurting anyone. I find no reason to conclude that "go to church" is a commandment. Are we not the church? Are we not the building itself, we the members of the body of Christ? [Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.] Further, what is an assembling? Did Jesus not say that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them? [Matthew 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.] At what point does a coming together of two or three suddenly become inadequate? I have a Bible study at my house on Thursday nights. There are some young Christians that come. I am quite delighted in their progress. They have not yet found a church they feel comfortable in (and many, I'm certain, have encountered this as well), but in our gathering of five or six, they are more provoked to love and good deeds than I've seen out of most Christians coming straight out of church. When I go to church, it's because I want to, but I find the place of meeting and the size of the congregation completely irrelevant. The idea is, don't go it alone. If you come together, whether by two or by two hundred, you can provoke one another. This is a fact. I have seen it with my own eyes in practical application. As for it being a work of the flesh, let me ask you: Who has done right? The man that goes to church every week, appears righteous to all those around him, then goes to work on Monday and cheats his customers? Or the man that misses church, thinks on God all day every day, loves his neighbor as himself, and in all ways actively practices righteousness? I can tell you plainly that these two people are real people, and this is the way they behave. Who has done right in the eyes of God? Going to church, for some people, is a crutch. They think going to church makes them righteous, but in all other ways outside those walls, they act like Godless, loveless heathens. Christ is our righteousness, not going to church. You either practice the doctrine of Christ, or you do not practice the doctrine of Christ. Going to church has nothing to do with that. The worst Christians I've ever met are the ones that attend weekly. The most sincere Christians I've ever met are the ones that never go at all. To close, I'll say one more time: I am an advocate of going to church. It is a good thing, and all should take advantage of the fellowship, instruction, and exhortation. Ancient |
||||||
55 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127211 | ||
You know EdB, you are trying my patience. I did not say, "Just do anything we want, live any way we want, and say anything we want." Did you even read my posts? You are putting words in my mouth, and nothing I posted even remotely suggested such a thing. I insist that you reread them and take time to carefully and fairly evaluate the information. As far as "All you need is love," this is absolutely correct. I substantiated this fact with three pages of post, carefully thought out, and backed up with plain scripture that requires no interpretation. What you are mistaking me for saying is that we should just say we are loving each other, and otherwise do what we want. This is not what I said. I said that we should love in deed and in truth. Romans 12:1 does not defy what I said. If you read verses 2-21, which defines "presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God," it conforms completely to the practice of brotherly love. Neither does 1 Peter 1:15-16 defy what I have said. Being "holy" in your conduct is to keep the commandment of Christ (i.e. Love each other as I have loved you). Such a person will not steal, murder, adulterate, bear false witness, or violate any other commandment. Now let me address this other statement: "No I think we are called to follow more than just love although everything is encompassed in love." This is absolutely ambiguous. "We have to follow more than love, but everything is encompassed in love." If everything is encompassed in love, then what, pray tell, do we need to follow that is more than love? In your hasty attempt to refute me, you are contradicting yourself. Now, this statement: "Oh yes I know that is just advice not an admonishment of the truth. I can see why you don’t want to discuss this. It exposes the roots of your theology." You are just being rude. THIS is why I didn't want to discuss this with you. I prefer to plant seed in fertile ground, not dash it against a wall. I want you to know that I spent hours trying to give you a sound response, scripturally sound, and complete in explanation. As far as I can tell, you read it, got the point (as you have demonstrated with your condescending John Lennon example), verified the truth of it (although everything is encompassed in love) because you would have to defy plain scripture to deny it. Then you dismissed it all with a wave of the hand because I can't possibly be right, even though you can't refute what I said without contradicting plain scripture, which is evident, else you wouldn't have contradicted yourself. Now, as a matter of scriptural truth, I challenge you to provide at least one other clear scriptural statement regarding going to church. You and I are in disagreement about the interpretation of Hebrews 10:25. I say it is an exhortation to do this thing that we may provoke one another to love and good works. You say it is a commandment to go to church. My interpretation adheres to the doctrine of Christ, and that being love one another as he loved us. Your interpretation puts us under the law and revives sin. We will not agree on this passage. Since a matter is established by two or three witnesses (for the sake of space, I'll leave out the quotes, but will happily provide them if you require), I ask that you provide another witness to this command. I can provide as many as twenty witnesses to verify that love is all that is required. If your "command" is credible, show me. Show me, and I will listen, acknowledge, adhere, and admit you are right. Ancient |
||||||
56 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127212 | ||
EdB, You wrote: "Sir that is not my interpretation but rather the interpretation of the church for nearly 2000 years. It is called orthodox Christianity." Let me remind you, in case you have forgotten, that "orthodox" Christianity over the course of the last 2000 years is also responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, The Papacy, Confessionals, Indulgences, and many other horrible things. Just because they taught it doesn't mean they taught the right thing. Orthodox Christianity has murdered, stolen, molested, raped, falsely accused, tortured, and enslaved. If not for Martin Luther standing in defiance to the Roman Catholic Church, you wouldn't have the spiritual opportunities you have today. Sometimes you have to question what has been taught. The Spirit is our guide, not orthodoxy. For all of orthodox Christiany in our modern day, I can tell you that in 100 sermons, if love is taught twice it is a lot. Why is that, do you suppose, if orthodox Christianity has it right in all respects? God is Love. God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end. By this standard, Love is the beginning and ending of all things. Why is it so absent in so many churches? Why, when it is not only the commandment of Christ, but the greatest commandment period, is it taught so infrequently? Now Ed, you have written to me four times, and you have directly and deliberately insulted me four times. This statement: "All I can say is thanks after I ripped that page out of my Bible as mere advice it is getting lighter." just was not necessary. Is this what YOU learn when you go to church? Do you learn to insult your brothers in Christ? The Bible teaches us to be meek, and to esteem everyone as greater than ourselves. I will be honest, you are making it difficult for me to be nice. It's all I can do not to lose my temper. Your pride and arrogance is quickly becoming a stumbling block to me. Stop. Ancient |
||||||
57 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127248 | ||
Country Girl, Thank you for replying. I always appreciate your input, as it is ever mild and spoken with a certain humility. I recognize the three principles you are speaking of. The terms, as I was taught them, are Direct Command, Apostolic Example, and Necessary Inferrence. Personally, I don't know of any precedent for establishing commands after these three principles. The commandments of Christ were to believe in him and love one another. Direct command is going to fall within the bounds of brotherly love. Apostolic example is going to be understood by brothery love, and emulated in the specific example as well as other aspects of life if you understand the underlying motive of the example. Necessary inference, or implied command, is a matter of personal interpretation. Someone thinks they see an implied command, and suddenly it is one. I find that this particular method of determining the things we need to do is dangerous, and has the inherent capacity to put us back under the law. I find that the precedent is quite soundly established through scripture that commandments are both made and comprehended by brotherly love, and no other way. If a commandment recognized by a person falls outside the bounds of this parameter, it is a commandment of men, and not a commandment of Christ. If you have not already done so, please read posts: 127171, 127173, 127174. These explain my position on this matter in much greater detail. I do not believe church is a necessary thing for worshipping God, however much I advocate going to church. I do not see it as a commandment. If it is not commanded, then it is not a commandment, and though it may sound like a stubborn point of view, so long as it is not stated to be a commandment, I will not treat it as a commandment. It is a matter of liberty that we can choose to go or not. I have personally made the choice to go, but I recognize also that I am not to judge someone else regarding holy days or sabbaths. [Col 2:16] Until someone can produce a direct and absolute commandment that says we "must" go to church, I will hold to the position that it is not required. I'm sorry that we do not agree on this. I truly wish for the sake of harmony that I could agree with you, but I cannot wrap my mind or heart around the idea of a commandment that is not a commandment being taught as a commandment in order to be a potential stumbling block to another by being a commandment that will someday occasion and revive sin by means of the commandment and kill a person spiritually. This is how I feel about it, and it is not likely to change. Not because I'm stubborn or unreachable, but because I see this circumstance in a different way. Thanks again for your input Country Girl. It is always appreciated, though I do not agree with you on this particular topic. Ancient |
||||||
58 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127250 | ||
EdB ... You see this: "I know it is Old Testament and you have that ripped out of your Bible since we are free of it." Because of this sort of nonsense, I will not address one letter of your response, nor read the rest of what you wrote, nor look up anything you quoted. I have asked you repeatedly to stop being rude and insulting. Since you can't respect that and show a hint of meekness, your efforts are wasted. Try me again without the insults, mockery, and condescending remarks. You might get somewhere. Good day. Ancient |
||||||
59 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127255 | ||
EdB, You asked: "Was the church responsible for Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, The Papacy, Confessionals, Indulgences, and many other horrible thing as you put it or was it corrupt men that acted in the name of the church?" The answer is yes, the church was responsible. The orthodox views of the time declared Jews heretics and no longer worthy of human rights or life. The orthodox views of the time declared the Muslims heathens and no longer worthy of human rights or life. Christian orthodox views of the time declared people with moles, strange or reclusive behavior, or of a different point of view to be no longer worthy of human rights or life. The orthodox Christian views of the time determined a heirarchy in the church that created a situation conducive to being a respector of persons. The orthodox Christian views of the time declared that the Pope had to forgive sins, and that dirty rotten sinners ought to pay indulgences in order to get that forgiveness. The orthodox Christian views of the time declared that people needed to confess sins to a man, because they did not have access to God directly. Whether or not man's corruption did it, it all came from a poor interpretation of scripture, and the orthodox views of the time were responsible for justifying the actions. If those in control had followed the true doctrine of brotherly love, the witch trials wouldn't have happened, the Crusades wouldn't have happened, indulgences wouldn't have happened, the Inquisition wouldn't have happened. Cortez slaughtered the Aztecs because they didn't convert to Chritianity. And this, of course, because they didn't speak his language and had no idea what he was saying. Now this: "Love without restraint quickly runs amuck." Perhaps the kind of love you know runs amuck. The love of Christ is described in 1 Corinthians 13, and such does not run amuck. Love never fails according to what the Bible says. You wrote: "You talk about my pride my arrogance. It is not me standing outside of orthodoxy saying your all wrong! I know the correct answer! And if you follow me I will lead you to the truth!" Ed, if you don't recognize your arrogant attitude by this, your very own statement, then I don't know what else to say. If you don't recognize your pride in not considering anything I've said, disregarding the absolute values of scripture as I have presented to you, then I don' tknow what else to say. Call me names if you please. I'm pretty much done talking to you. This is a one-sided debate. I didn't come to you, you came to me. What this all boils down to is this: I think that it is not a commandment to go to church. You think it is. You have been attacking me. I have been defending against you. You want me to bend to your opinion, and because I do not, based upon a sound arguement and established precedent that you choose to ignore, you choose to insult me and call me names. So I'll tell you what. I'll give you what your pride demands: Ohhh, EdB, you're so absolutely right. How could I have ever been so misled as to believe that Christ set us free from law and tradition to establish love as the new doctrine. I am so terribly grateful that you have shown me the truth by giving me the commandment contrary to the precedent of Christ. Now that I have the commandment, the sin, taking occasion by the commandment, can work in me all manner of transgression. Again, I am thankful, for I was alive without the law, but now that you gave me the commandment, sin has revived and killed me. I was sooooo wrong to believe in righteousness by Christ and to let no man be my judge in regard to holy days or sabbaths. Truly, I thought righteousness was by faith, but now you've shown me better, that I can have all the benefits of being fallen from grace by standing on my own righteousness through works. This was sarcastic, but quite how I see it. You want to be right and to have me admit you are right. This thing is not going to happen if I disagree with you, and for good reasons at that. So, let me ask you one more time ... please stop insulting me and trying to force your opinion on me. I didn't want to talk about this with you because we are not going to agree. And it all comes down to the passage in Hebrews, of which we have differed interpretations based on one understanding or another. I'm sorry, but you will not convince me that such a passage that is clearly an exhortation to me is the commandment that it clearly is to you. Understand? Ancient |
||||||
60 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127258 | ||
Go away EdB. You are harrassing me. Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |