|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2010 7:34:14 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, haven't you heard? Lots of clergy these days don't believe Jesus was the Son of God. Some do believe in God, or gods, but beyond a general belief, all is vagueness. And does it matter if we are all saved anyway? This cynical look at the records of Jesus by chrisitianity's preachers must be in your part of the world....I haven't found ONE preacher/pastor/minister/worker yet to say they didn't believe Jesus is who the bible says He is! Or is this the denial taking place due to fear of the Muslim world?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2010 7:55:44 GMT -5
Right now, in some countries such as England, Christianity is nearly a minority religion. I don't think Christianity will survive this century in the West.
Google the subject, it is quite immense.
I just did: in 2005 TWO THIRDS of the Church of England clergy did not believe in miracles. That counts Jesus out, doesn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2010 8:07:08 GMT -5
What the LWD amounts to is that no man can come to the Father except through the workers. You must have come across people who believe that? Actually we are told that we can only go through Jesus to come to the Father, so it looks like another wishful thinking invention trying to turn into fact Standard practice: a rich man "might" be able to enter the kingdom of heaven, but no one gets in except he hear the gospel from a worker. No one needs a tape recorded sermon to ascertain the existence of this doctrine, just check your Sunday am mtg and count the number of participants who are saved without coming through the workers.....then count the number of your neighbours who are saved without going through the workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2010 8:14:08 GMT -5
Actually, we don't too many neighbors. But in our nearest town there is now no longer a church AT ALL. Sunday mornings? Mowing lawns is common. Stalls, fetes, festivals, bike rides... that kind of thing. You can tell me these people are "saved" but it is my guess they wouldn't like to spend eternity singing the song of the lamb and being servants of God.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 15, 2010 9:11:25 GMT -5
Oh, sorry, haven't you heard? Lots of clergy these days don't believe Jesus was the Son of God. Some do believe in God, or gods, but beyond a general belief, all is vagueness. And does it matter if we are all saved anyway? This cynical look at the records of Jesus by chrisitianity's preachers must be in your part of the world....I haven't found ONE preacher/pastor/minister/worker yet to say they didn't believe Jesus is who the bible says He is! Oh puh-leeze! Either this statement is borne of very limited experience with other churches, or is very tongue-in-cheek. There are scores of clergy who do not believe in Christ; the hills are crawling with them; they are trundled out regularly. Wider reading might be in order if your view of Christendom is so tidy, Sharon. The Anglican Dean of Perth, Canon Shepherd writes articles in the paper about his strong doubts that Jesus was resurrected and the need for an updated gospel. He operates "Heretics Anonymous" - a group for people who have grown tired, essentially, of Christianity, and hold heretical views. It is a discussion forum, not a tool for evangelism. It was reported a few years back about David "Ananda" Hart, an Anglican priest who adopted the gods of Hinduism on a missionary journey there, and yet had his license to preach renewed by the Church of England. " Hinduism no barrier to job as priest in Church of England" - you can read it online: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article631958.ece. I could not find the pictures of David Hart bowing down before a Hindu idol, but they should be googleable. It was reported some time ago about an atheist Lutheran priest, Rev. Thorkild Grosboel, who is permitted to keep his job despite stating: There is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection." And who has not heard of Bishop Shelby Spong, who writes "Christianity must change or die", and denies the reality of the resurrection? To this list I could add many more less notable members of the clergy. Surely, Sharon, you are very, very naive!
|
|
|
Post by september on Apr 15, 2010 9:20:40 GMT -5
We believe that many people, in many ages and cultures, when there was (or is today) no Truth, can be found of God. Eeek! Don't tell Nathan that there was a time when Truth was not to be found. Haven't you read Nathan's endless assertions of WI's sister working for some yodelling Vaudois goatherds in Ireland and seeing a room being set up for Sunday morning meeting? Funnily enough, in Ireland some of the older workers claimed it the other way around: the early workers visited the Alpine region in Italy and stumbled across the "truth". And just because they haven't committed the story to paper yet, Nathan won't believe it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2010 9:27:48 GMT -5
So Nathan, By your post above: So to say no man comes to the Father except through the workers is incorrect. We know many people have professed in their hearts to follow Christ through the friends' testimonies, preachings, teachings before they attend or met the workers.Are you saying that an individual that has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior MUST at some time come in contact with the workers? How does that fit into their salvation? Do you think they will be saved because of their belief in Christ, or do you think that they MUST also attend gospel meetings and meet the workers? (Yeah I asked it twice as it is a simple yes or no I am looking for) Maybe I will ask it in an even simpler way. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MUST MEET THE WORKERS IN THE TRUTH FELLOWSHIP IN ORDER TO BE SAVED? Scott It would be really cool to get a yes or no answer to that question, and then you can expound on it with all your thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 15, 2010 9:33:47 GMT -5
This cynical look at the records of Jesus by chrisitianity's preachers must be in your part of the world....I haven't found ONE preacher/pastor/minister/worker yet to say they didn't believe Jesus is who the bible says He is! Oh puh-leeze! Either this statement is borne of very limited experience with other churches, or is very tongue-in-cheek. There are scores of clergy who do not believe in Christ; the hills are crawling with them; they are trundled out regularly. Wider reading might be in order if your view of Christendom is so tidy, Sharon. The Anglican Dean of Perth, Canon Shepherd writes articles in the paper about his strong doubts that Jesus was resurrected and the need for an updated gospel. He operates "Heretics Anonymous" - a group for people who have grown tired, essentially, of Christianity, and hold heretical views. It is a discussion forum, not a tool for evangelism. It was reported a few years back about David "Ananda" Hart, an Anglican priest who adopted the gods of Hinduism on a missionary journey there, and yet had his license to preach renewed by the Church of England. " Hinduism no barrier to job as priest in Church of England" - you can read it online: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article631958.ece. I could not find the pictures of David Hart bowing down before a Hindu idol, but they should be googleable. It was reported some time ago about an atheist Lutheran priest, Rev. Thorkild Grosboel, who is permitted to keep his job despite stating: There is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection." And who has not heard of Bishop Shelby Spong, who writes "Christianity must change or die", and denies the reality of the resurrection? To this list I could add many more less notable members of the clergy. Surely, Sharon, you are very, very naive! Absolutely 100% accurate. Many of the clergy of different denominations are saying these things. The difference between Jason and I though is that I think it's about time and a very postive step in the right direction. Just so you know, Jason, I respect your thoughts to the opposite. I recognize you don't view this as a positive step. I do though because I think we cannot continue too long in this world if we don't somehow become more tolerant of each other's religious beliefs. I would like more differences, but less divisions. I don't fear diversity, but I do fear the divisions that currently exist. The Middle East, while it is political in many ways, is a melting pot for dangerous divisions between Jews, Christians and Muslims. Politics can never be completely seperate from religious beliefs and doctrines because we live what we believe. That's my thoughts on it anyway. Others of course, will think differently, and that's okay. Just throwing mine out there as food for thought...
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 15, 2010 10:04:02 GMT -5
What the LWD amounts to is that no man can come to the Father except through the workers. You must have come across people who believe that? I have never heard this belief promoted either. The problem stems, I think, from people who get confused on issues of theology which, after all, can be quite complex. Ecclesiastical issues (those pertaining to the church) are quite different from salvific issues (those pertaining to salvation). Whilst I have heard throughout my nearly 20 years of professing that the Fellowship is the "only true way" and that other "worldly churches" are wrong and false (an ecclesiastical perspective), I never heard the conversant belief that people could only come to the Father through the Workers (a salvific matter). I agree that there are implications and undertones in all of this, because the term "fellowship" and "gospel" are often used interchangeably by the Friends. To "receive the gospel" is to enter the Fellowship; to enter the Fellowship is tantamount to receiving the gospel. But it would be a gross over-simplification to suggest that that is all there is to it, or worse, that the Workers teach the heresy that you cannot know God except through their works or mediation. The Workers, I believe, do teach Christianity, even if sometimes it is bogged down in secondary matters. They may not always do it perfectly; they may not preach our individual favoured doctrines. But they do, for the most part, preach Christ and him crucified, and the necessity to follow him. There is a robust doctrine of sanctification, which is to say, that once saved we must labour to be a holy people; even (as the great Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul writes) "pummeling our own bodies if necessary to bring that is pleasing to God" into them. That is the strength of the fellowship; the most attractive thing on offer: the promotion of how to live a Christ-filled life. This was very articulate. Thank you for posting. fs
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2010 10:40:46 GMT -5
The answer to your above question is NO..... but those who believed Christ through the friends will be brought in having fellowship with the workers, the gospel meetings, Sunday morning fellowship and others friends. So.... I guess that I will ask you again a bit differently. Do you believe that someone can believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior without EVER coming in contact with ANYONE affiliated with the truth fellowship and be saved? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 15, 2010 10:48:27 GMT -5
Eeek! Don't tell Nathan that there was a time when Truth was not to be found. Haven't you read Nathan's endless assertions of WI's sister working for some yodelling Vaudois goatherds in Ireland and seeing a room being set up for Sunday morning meeting? Funnily enough, in Ireland some of the older workers claimed it the other way around: the early workers visited the Alpine region in Italy and stumbled across the "truth". And just because they haven't committed the story to paper yet, Nathan won't believe it. ;D From what I've seen the story of Irvine's sister was first committed to paper in a Impartial Reporter article, the granddaddy of the counter advocacy. Why they did that I haven't a clue. Can anyone explain?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2010 10:52:41 GMT -5
The answer to your above question is NO..... but those who believed Christ through the friends will be brought in having fellowship with the workers, the gospel meetings, Sunday morning fellowship and others friends. So.... I guess that I will ask you again a bit differently. Do you believe that someone can believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior without EVER coming in contact with ANYONE affiliated with the truth fellowship and be saved? Scott ~~ My answer is Yes. God knows their hearts whether they are His or NOT. Jesus said, "MY SHEEP hear MY voice and they shall FOLLOW me and a stranger will they NOT follow but Flee from him because they do NOT recognize the voice of the strangers." (John 10)Thanks bro, To those that don't know you, they might feel that you are trying to say that an individual has to place their trust in the truth fellowship in order to be saved and have a true relationship with Christ. Through the years as I have gotten to 'know' you, I do realize that you understand that we must all place Jesus/God as the focal point in our lives as to where we need to direct our commitment to. I also know that you try to promote the truth fellowship, but acknowledge that those of us that attend church elsewhere have the same exact road to salvation. It is through Christ alone. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 15, 2010 11:35:03 GMT -5
All I know is the story of Irvine's sister was mentioned in a Impartial Reporter article published, I think, in 1910. So the story was around then, but I don't know why or in what form.
I've read quotes by Trimble (owner/publisher of the Impartial Reporter) where he states he would use the Impartial Reporter as counter advocacy if he felt so moved. That counter advocacy shows up in the flavor of what the Impartial Reporter published. This is not just my opinion, it was noted by wiki "Christian Convention" editors, editors who are not friends or workers. That article's flavor was so obviously counter advocacy, and nasty, that one editor questioned linking any Impartial Reporter articles to the "Christian Conventions" page. I suggested leaving it so readers could note the flavor, because those are the articles on which a majority of the subsequent counter advocacy is based. For instance, many opinionated generalizations made by counter advocates today are easily traced back to their roots in Trimble's counter advocacy. They are often repeated pretty much word for word, plagiarized if you will, it's pretty plain to see if one takes the time to carefully follow them back.
Cherie might have that article in word .doc format.
|
|
|
Post by september on Apr 15, 2010 12:13:15 GMT -5
From my recollection, I don't think the IR mentioned anything about exiled Alpine families in Ireland and obscure European Christian fellowships.
I've heard it said (just as SharonW has suggested) that the death of WI's sister caused him to examine his soul and seek salvation. His seeking led him to the Faith Mission and from there to Ireland where in time he met EC and others.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 15, 2010 12:36:18 GMT -5
One quote from the Impartial Reporter about Irvine's sister is this; "some say William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him".
What's interesting is the fact the Impartial Reporter published statements about Irvine's sister's involvement. Does any one know for sure where the story came from or exactly how "William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him"?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 15, 2010 12:46:28 GMT -5
One quote from the Impartial Reporter about Irvine's sister is this; "some say William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him". What's interesting is the fact the Impartial Reporter published statements about Irvine's sister's involvement. Does any one know for sure where the story came from or exactly how "William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him"? Well 1910 would certainly have been quite a number of years after her death. Didn't someone say she died in 1886?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2010 12:55:44 GMT -5
One quote from the Impartial Reporter about Irvine's sister is this; "some say William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him". What's interesting is the fact the Impartial Reporter published statements about Irvine's sister's involvement. Does any one know for sure where the story came from or exactly how "William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him"? I hafta laugh at all this murkiness concerning William Irvine, his sister, the little doggie and the alpine tail-dockers. Is there any doubt through all the information that is posted hither and yon that the truth fellowship cannot trace its roots back any farther than the late 1890's? For many of us exes (those that have been out for a long time for the most part) this is a non-issue anymore. I know that I (like many) was pretty pissed off when I found out I was lied to about the 'genealogy of the fellowship'. Yep, we were lied to. Yep, it was done on a regular basis. Yep, the vast majority of us exes feel that this was a deliberate lie. Now... there are many professing people that acknowledge that lie also. But they have moved past that stage and simply ignore those workers that try to preach that still. The sad part is that those 'system preachers' have lost a LOT of respect from those that figure 'if they are going to preach the system I don't even care to listen to anything they have to share'. So now you have people out there that look at speaking lists at conventions and special meetings, and based on that speaking list decide which meetings they are even going to attend. Of course this means that they will perhaps miss some good messages from other speakers in that meeting also...... As far as myself, I have: 1- moved on past the lie. So what? I'll continue to say I was lied to, but I no longer care. Not my church, not my lying minister that I have to listen to anymore (meaning those that do...) 2- could care less who started the truth fellowship. It isn't the same as when it started anyhow. It's just another denomination to me, and one that I grew up in. Like other denominations, it is changing, but at a different pace. Again... I don't go to church there but I have lots of relatives (and a whole bunch of brothers and sisters in Christ) that do attend that I love dearly. 3- YIPPEE!! we get to discuss these things and hash over and over whether Uncle Willie's little doggie played a significant role in bringing people to Christ.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2010 13:55:21 GMT -5
This cynical look at the records of Jesus by chrisitianity's preachers must be in your part of the world....I haven't found ONE preacher/pastor/minister/worker yet to say they didn't believe Jesus is who the bible says He is! Oh puh-leeze! Either this statement is borne of very limited experience with other churches, or is very tongue-in-cheek. There are scores of clergy who do not believe in Christ; the hills are crawling with them; they are trundled out regularly. Wider reading might be in order if your view of Christendom is so tidy, Sharon. The Anglican Dean of Perth, Canon Shepherd writes articles in the paper about his strong doubts that Jesus was resurrected and the need for an updated gospel. He operates "Heretics Anonymous" - a group for people who have grown tired, essentially, of Christianity, and hold heretical views. It is a discussion forum, not a tool for evangelism. It was reported a few years back about David "Ananda" Hart, an Anglican priest who adopted the gods of Hinduism on a missionary journey there, and yet had his license to preach renewed by the Church of England. " Hinduism no barrier to job as priest in Church of England" - you can read it online: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article631958.ece. I could not find the pictures of David Hart bowing down before a Hindu idol, but they should be googleable. It was reported some time ago about an atheist Lutheran priest, Rev. Thorkild Grosboel, who is permitted to keep his job despite stating: There is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection." And who has not heard of Bishop Shelby Spong, who writes "Christianity must change or die", and denies the reality of the resurrection? To this list I could add many more less notable members of the clergy. Surely, Sharon, you are very, very naive! Jason, I still say the cynical viewpoint you and Bert must be from your part of the world! And since you both are Aussies, I think that is right. However to be fair, my part of the US is the bible belt area and as far as I have read and heard and seen in this area IF there is any religiousness among Christians they believe the Bible...that said we are having an influx of those who do not confess Christianity at all! So I still stand by what I said...as to reading by the time I read that it may all change and I'm not against reading but have my plate full of keeping up with this corner of the world and since I do not intend to travel, visit, or do research or write journals about the subject regarding any other area....I thank you for your cynical post!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 15, 2010 13:58:04 GMT -5
Scott, Yes it's silly, and so seems "the lie" mantra - beating friends and workers with dead and dying horses. I wasn't lied to, many others weren't lied to either, and what roots you're talking about, spiritual or carnal? Religious counter advocates nearly always try to force discussion to what's carnal. No surprise, and might be why Jesus wondered if he would find faith when he returns to earth.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2010 14:01:52 GMT -5
One quote from the Impartial Reporter about Irvine's sister is this; "some say William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him". What's interesting is the fact the Impartial Reporter published statements about Irvine's sister's involvement. Does any one know for sure where the story came from or exactly how "William Irvine's sister was the means of spiritual life to him"? That would be an ambiguous quote of that Impartial Reporter...but I am almost certain that we can pretty well figure this out as the early, young death of WI's sister would cause some of her family to seek salvation.....I think that leaves it wide open as to what happens next and since it is known he confessed Christ before a denominational minister...that this was the result of his great grief over his young sister's death...this is a common reaction to death esp. in someone so young. And another apparent fact that says that the above is likely what happened is the fact that after the rush of success left WI, then he seemed to slip backward into the lifestyle that he'd known previously to some degree.....that in itself says that his fevered pitch of religiousness was due to the death of his very young sister and as his grief wore away, so did his fevered pitch for religiousity.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Apr 15, 2010 14:02:36 GMT -5
So was it William Irvine, his sister, the little doggie or the alpine tail-dockers who founded the F&W fellowship?.
And if it was any or either where are the rest of them?
Come on you guys, dig deeper. I am almost pursuaded!
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Apr 15, 2010 14:16:34 GMT -5
Jason, I still say the cynical viewpoint you and Bert must be from your part of the world! And since you both are Aussies, I think that is right. Sharon, don't be too hard on our Aussi mates. They are descended from convicts and often suffer from cranial over-heating when they don't where hats. Unbelieving Christians and Anglican Deans with 'progressive' viewpoints are not uncommon of course. Which is why the established churches are losing numbers dramatically. There are still plenty of bible-believing Christians where I come from.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 15, 2010 14:50:42 GMT -5
That would be an ambiguous quote of that Impartial Reporter...but I am almost certain that we can pretty well figure this out as the early, young death of WI's sister would cause some of her family to seek salvation.....I think that leaves it wide open as to what happens next and since it is known he confessed Christ before a denominational minister...that this was the result of his great grief over his young sister's death...this is a common reaction to death esp. in someone so young. And another apparent fact that says that the above is likely what happened is the fact that after the rush of success left WI, then he seemed to slip backward into the lifestyle that he'd known previously to some degree.....that in itself says that his fevered pitch of religiousness was due to the death of his very young sister and as his grief wore away, so did his fevered pitch for religiousity. That's pure speculation your part Sharon. You don't know for sure what Irvine's sister's story is, does anyone? One reason I wonder is we knew a lady who spoke of the friends and workers she met here in the US as the same as people she knew as a young girl in the late 1800s in a country Irvine and the early workers weren't in. Maybe Lloyd's right; [/img][/quote] Looks like William Irvine can't be the founder...It must of all got started on the shores of Galilee right thats what I am starting to think[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2010 15:20:17 GMT -5
Scott, Yes it's silly, and so seems "the lie" mantra - beating friends and workers with dead and dying horses. I wasn't lied to, many others weren't lied to either, and what roots you're talking about, spiritual or carnal? Religious counter advocates nearly always try to force discussion to what's carnal. No surprise, and might be why Jesus wondered if he would find faith when he returns to earth. Right Jesse. You knew at an early age that the truth fellowship was started up by a group of men that came over from Ireland. So in your case, no you weren't lied to. When you heard it preached that it went back to 'the shores of Galilee' and that the truth fellowship was 'the only true church' you took it to mean a spiritual linkage, and that the ol' stump theory was alive and well as far as the carnal side of the fellowship. When I heard it, it was very definitely being preached that there was an unbroken 'carnal' line right back to the original guys that were out fishing when Jesus called them. THAT is why I believed that it was the 'only true church'. After finding out that 'in a carnal sense' the truth fellowship can only be traced back to the late 1800's then all that teaching was null and void. It was a bald-faced lie that I had heard preached from the platform. Likewise it made the claim that it was the 'only true church' into a lie also. ALL Christians (and the churches they attend) can claim a direct SPIRITUAL link back to the shores of Galilee. All Christian denominations can claim that God 'raised up a man' to start their church. Is that a lie? To me, a church such as the one I attend that openly (and with a glad heart) shares how their church began, and lists its accomplishments in an open manner for all to see is an honest church. However.... If a church is embarrassed by its beginnings, or refuses to acknowledge its 'carnal' beginnings is being dishonest. I am NOT referring to the members that openly acknowledge that 'carnal' beginning such as yourself, but to the leaders of your church that do so. I sure wouldn't want to place my trust in a group that refuses to answer questions about their church, or pretends to misunderstand the questions being asked. Now.... You know that I have a great love for many in the truth fellowship and regard those folks as brothers and sisters in Christ. The same with many of the workers that I have met and corresponded with. However, those who do NOT acknowledge other Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ have removed themselves from fellowship with other members of the Church body (all Christians regardless of denomination) Kinda hard to see them as a brother or a sister when they think that you are headed for a lost eternity... Scott
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 15, 2010 17:56:54 GMT -5
I sure wouldn't want to place my trust in a group that refuses to answer questions about their church, or pretends to misunderstand the questions being asked. Scott, IMO God is the only one who will never let us down so I don't think it is ever a good idea to trust "a group," especially those that are made out of humans instead of buttercups. Most groups seem to have nice people and mean people and a lot of people in the middle. fs
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 15, 2010 18:36:02 GMT -5
If a church is embarrassed by its beginnings, or refuses to acknowledge its 'carnal' beginnings is being dishonest. I am NOT referring to the members that openly acknowledge that 'carnal' beginning such as yourself, but to the leaders of your church that do so. I sure wouldn't want to place my trust in a group that refuses to answer questions about their church, or pretends to misunderstand the questions being asked. Now.... You know that I have a great love for many in the truth fellowship and regard those folks as brothers and sisters in Christ. The same with many of the workers that I have met and corresponded with. However, those who do NOT acknowledge other Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ have removed themselves from fellowship with other members of the Church body (all Christians regardless of denomination). Well said Scott. I am non-sectarian and undenominational, meaning I try not to judge people according to denominational boundaries. I believe the children of God in every age are those who are led by the Spirit of God. I know people who have felt compelled to leave the fellowship (or avoid joining it in the first place) out of disgust for the unchristlike behavior of friends and workers. I know people who have attended mainstream churches and had a faith that would put many friends and workers to shame. I've seen too much fruit of the carnal nature within the fellowship (and too much evidence of the fruit of the Spirit outside of the fellowship) to believe that people can only come to the Father through the workers. So Scott, although I'm in the fellowship it seems we're not far apart in our views.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2010 19:09:47 GMT -5
Jason, I still say the cynical viewpoint you and Bert must be from your part of the world! And since you both are Aussies, I think that is right. Sharon, don't be too hard on our Aussi mates. They are descended from convicts and often suffer from cranial over-heating when they don't where hats. Unbelieving Christians and Anglican Deans with 'progressive' viewpoints are not uncommon of course. Which is why the established churches are losing numbers dramatically. There are still plenty of bible-believing Christians where I come from. Ok, I don't think of the Aussies as from convicts at all...I know that many Brits were sent to Aust. simply to get them out of the way and not due to anything they particularly did wrong. As to Jason, he is an exceptionally brilliant young man and he reads many things which probably have much historical facts...but what he does read is not always what is witnessed all over the world. That said, I realize that Christianity is taking a lot of strong wollops for many reasons in some areas...so far I'm blessed to be from an area of the US that often runs about 20 yrs behind what some of the more prolific and populated areas do esp. in regards to the turning of the tide in history! As to Bert? I'm not so certain about him...but found his comment kind of shocking.....
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 15, 2010 19:24:01 GMT -5
You misread me. Love can be the lowest common denominator in these things, but often it isn't God because there is no agreement on whether there is a God or not. And as for loving Jesus - many clergy will admit there might have been some original guy called Jesus, but beyond that... how do you love a dead Jew who may or may not have existed? Say What? Does your clergy believe that Bert, mine doesn't? After all, it was a worker that said, how can the blood of a dead man save.
|
|