|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 29, 2014 17:24:30 GMT -5
What Hat, are you not thinking about "works" instead of the grace and mercy which Jesus bought for mankind? I believe you are. These people you're speaking about WILL face the righteous Judge, their deeds will be recorded in the book of deeds....however their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life UNTIL they "BELIEVE in Jesus Christ"! Now whether God grants them life eternal as their reward for living a clean and humanely righteous life is up to Him entirely, for there are NO precepts or concepts written in the bible about that. The "eternal life" concept/doctrine/precept is clearly stated in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life." The "should" there being a condition also that is determined by the righteous Judge! Also, we have to remember that Jesus went into the depth of Hades or hell or the grave and preached the gospel of salvation there....Is it possible that those whom he released fromt he bonds of death, are not ordained by Jesus to preach the gospel to such as you are speaking about and again I noticed that Ross brings a condition up that brings more doubt about self righteous lifing folks gaining eternal life simply because they do not know who Jesus Christ is...... My opinion is this: I feel that God in all His truth and mercy and grace...will hold out eternal life to persons we would have thought ourselves that would perish by the second death.....however, we have NO way of knowing how the righteous JUdge is going to hand out rewards for those who are due rewards for their deeds, now are we? To be sure of our eternal salvation though, we are taught within the NT that believing on Jesus Christ gives us that confidence in eternal salvation! JMT Anything that we think about how God will judge is at best a guess. Still we need to have some idea of that in order to conduct our lives, and also in terms of how we evangelize. If you truthfully thought that those who lose out are going to eternal damnation, then really, the only rational response is to get out there with a placard telling people they are condemned to a lost eternity. Or get them to convert at gunpoint. Anything you can do at all. But people don't do that, so I don't think most people actually take the "eternal Hell" idea all that seriously. Possibly, a few do. I agree with you that we can't earn our way into heaven through works. It's somehow difficult to say anything about works at all without some people translating that into "against grace". The f&w are accused of a works-based salvation all the time, but they are not preaching a works-based salvation, as your example illustrates. They do have an issue with legalism and works within the group though. A number of churches, even ones that are big on grace doctrine, become judgemental, and you tend to go from judgementalism to legalism and emphasis on works, when you think about it. The final thought is the idea "that you must believe in Jesus Christ". On that point, I'm much less certain than you are. I do reject the entire concept of eternal life versus eternal damnation. I don't read the Bible with those optics and it has never gotten me into trouble yet. I think it's a doctrine built on 'sand' that ignores the fundamentals of a loving God who sacrificed his Son for all mankind. I do believe in the concepts of reward, justice and retribution which are in the hands of God. I think the way most Christians think about it, is "received wisdom". That is, any Christian will tell you just about exactly the same thing in terms of doctrine. They don't 'own' the belief because when you own a belief you can think and speak about it creatively. (Some orthodox Christians can think outside the box, but quite a few of them really want a ready-made formula which they find comforting.) It seems to me when we reject the doctrine of God's only begotten Son, we do something to that "hope" that his sacrifice gives anyone.....then we either put God into debt with works OR we have to accept the God of "Esau have I hated, and Jacob have I loved." This type of doctrine really fits the early old testament beginning days when man begin to interact with God on some minor level....like in the first books of the OT! As you've said and as we read in Romans a bit about "Presdestination" we can't hardly not get into the God of "Esau have I hated and Jacob have I loved." That was the simpler doctrine of the early days on earth, so it seems, and perhaps it will come to use when the children of Israel are eventually judged.....as we read there is a remnant, but the numbers we read of in Revs. makes that remnant a pretty low number! Jesus told the woman at the well that salvation was of the Jews....that's something that I'm still working on, esp. in the light of this remnant! I can only interpret that to mean that Jesus was of the Jews and salvation was planned because of the Jews not obeying, not worshipping God and loving God as He so wanted to be loved! In Malachi we read the why of this phenomenon....the CoI were giving blemished sacrifices, the animals and fruits of their labor that they didn't want to keep or sell for profit....this was a disappointment for God because that is not the way the law of Moses was set up.....the firstborn and the best and the unblemished was God's. I used to think these sacrifices were just wasted , but no, these sacrifices was what fed the priests and their families! month to month!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 1, 2014 19:26:44 GMT -5
Anything that we think about how God will judge is at best a guess. Still we need to have some idea of that in order to conduct our lives, and also in terms of how we evangelize. If you truthfully thought that those who lose out are going to eternal damnation, then really, the only rational response is to get out there with a placard telling people they are condemned to a lost eternity. Or get them to convert at gunpoint. Anything you can do at all. But people don't do that, so I don't think most people actually take the "eternal Hell" idea all that seriously. Possibly, a few do. I agree with you that we can't earn our way into heaven through works. It's somehow difficult to say anything about works at all without some people translating that into "against grace". The f&w are accused of a works-based salvation all the time, but they are not preaching a works-based salvation, as your example illustrates. They do have an issue with legalism and works within the group though. A number of churches, even ones that are big on grace doctrine, become judgemental, and you tend to go from judgementalism to legalism and emphasis on works, when you think about it. The final thought is the idea "that you must believe in Jesus Christ". On that point, I'm much less certain than you are. I do reject the entire concept of eternal life versus eternal damnation. I don't read the Bible with those optics and it has never gotten me into trouble yet. I think it's a doctrine built on 'sand' that ignores the fundamentals of a loving God who sacrificed his Son for all mankind. I do believe in the concepts of reward, justice and retribution which are in the hands of God. I think the way most Christians think about it, is "received wisdom". That is, any Christian will tell you just about exactly the same thing in terms of doctrine. They don't 'own' the belief because when you own a belief you can think and speak about it creatively. (Some orthodox Christians can think outside the box, but quite a few of them really want a ready-made formula which they find comforting.) It seems to me when we reject the doctrine of God's only begotten Son, we do something to that "hope" that his sacrifice gives anyone.....then we either put God into debt with works OR we have to accept the God of "Esau have I hated, and Jacob have I loved." This type of doctrine really fits the early old testament beginning days when man begin to interact with God on some minor level....like in the first books of the OT! As you've said and as we read in Romans a bit about "Presdestination" we can't hardly not get into the God of "Esau have I hated and Jacob have I loved." That was the simpler doctrine of the early days on earth, so it seems, and perhaps it will come to use when the children of Israel are eventually judged.....as we read there is a remnant, but the numbers we read of in Revs. makes that remnant a pretty low number! Jesus told the woman at the well that salvation was of the Jews....that's something that I'm still working on, esp. in the light of this remnant! I can only interpret that to mean that Jesus was of the Jews and salvation was planned because of the Jews not obeying, not worshipping God and loving God as He so wanted to be loved! In Malachi we read the why of this phenomenon....the CoI were giving blemished sacrifices, the animals and fruits of their labor that they didn't want to keep or sell for profit....this was a disappointment for God because that is not the way the law of Moses was set up.....the firstborn and the best and the unblemished was God's. I used to think these sacrifices were just wasted , but no, these sacrifices was what fed the priests and their families! month to month! And I don't reject the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. I reject only those people who think it's only for them. Jesus came to save all mankind, not just a select few.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Sept 2, 2014 0:05:56 GMT -5
what hat your quote "Jesus came to save all mankind, not just a select few."
are you referring to universalism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 3:37:51 GMT -5
It seems to me when we reject the doctrine of God's only begotten Son, we do something to that "hope" that his sacrifice gives anyone.....then we either put God into debt with works OR we have to accept the God of "Esau have I hated, and Jacob have I loved." This type of doctrine really fits the early old testament beginning days when man begin to interact with God on some minor level....like in the first books of the OT! As you've said and as we read in Romans a bit about "Presdestination" we can't hardly not get into the God of "Esau have I hated and Jacob have I loved." That was the simpler doctrine of the early days on earth, so it seems, and perhaps it will come to use when the children of Israel are eventually judged.....as we read there is a remnant, but the numbers we read of in Revs. makes that remnant a pretty low number! Jesus told the woman at the well that salvation was of the Jews....that's something that I'm still working on, esp. in the light of this remnant! I can only interpret that to mean that Jesus was of the Jews and salvation was planned because of the Jews not obeying, not worshipping God and loving God as He so wanted to be loved! In Malachi we read the why of this phenomenon....the CoI were giving blemished sacrifices, the animals and fruits of their labor that they didn't want to keep or sell for profit....this was a disappointment for God because that is not the way the law of Moses was set up.....the firstborn and the best and the unblemished was God's. I used to think these sacrifices were just wasted , but no, these sacrifices was what fed the priests and their families! month to month! And I don't reject the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. I reject only those people who think it's only for them. Jesus came to save all mankind, not just a select few. just the select few He has chosen
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 2, 2014 3:54:30 GMT -5
Heard an amusing quote : arrogance clothed as righteousness
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 2, 2014 5:34:10 GMT -5
what hat your quote "Jesus came to save all mankind, not just a select few." are you referring to universalism? It's just a verse in the Bible. Let's just say that the restrictions most Christians place on who is saved, and who not, make no sense. The essence of Christian theology is one that has been mainly fabricated through the course of history as an unconscious process of social ordering and objectively constructing the individual to suit the religion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 2, 2014 9:18:03 GMT -5
Heard an amusing quote : arrogance clothed as righteousness That cuts both ways. The high priests surely thought Jesus was arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 2, 2014 9:37:48 GMT -5
Good question. First of all, neither one of us really knows how God will judge in every situation. But I do think that what makes sense to us in love, would make sense to God, in love. And how we think about different situations affects our decisions about evangelism and so on, so it is worth thinking and talking about. Second, I believe that God moves in many ways, so the way I approach the issue of service versus the workers approach versus a 'direct aid' approach; all work to the glory and purpose of God. That is, God will use our efforts in his service, and in mysterious ways; so I think we would both agree to that. The important thing is that we work to what we think God wants, but God's Will is going to be done regardless of what we decide as individuals. With that out of the way, there's a few situations we can think about. 1. A person who was abused as a child in an established church, whatever denomination it was, either sexually, physically or emotionally. I believe it is too much to expect that person to be receptive to the Gospel. Basically, the messengers have corrupted or destroyed the message. While I don't have any general answers in this case, I think it's absurd to think that God will expect that person to be receptive to the Gospel of Jesus as taught by the church. This is why I like the doctrine of restoration; which indicates we do have a chance beyond lifetime. 2. A person who was not raised in a Christian home, and more and more this is the majority of our society, are not going to rise above the barriers of skepticism because of the way Jesus is taught, and because of the things that Christians say and believe. They may reject Christianity because of the perceived stance on abortion, euthenasia, homosexuality; positions which are read as doctrinaire, unloving and inflexible. They may also reject Christianity because they see the dangers of literalism, an anti-science agenda, a strong conservative political agenda, an adherence to superstition (e.g. young Earth theory), all beliefs that pollute or are at best, are completely irrelevant to the Gospel message. Unfortunately, to people who more and more have never heard the Gospel, the church appears to lead with rigid doctrine, instead of with the Gospel. How will God judge that in the end? I think he'll treat individuals in that context similarly to the way he'd treat cultures that never had opportunity to hear the Gospel. 3. A person raised in a Christian home who believes and rejects. This person is vulnerable to God's judgement. I would argue though that it is because a life committed to righteousness and a life committed to Christ are synonymous in their mind. That is, they have rejected righteousness when they reject Christ. They live a dissipated life style in full knowledge and understanding that Christ wanted more. Now, we all are in that position to an extent. But both you and I struggle with pleasing God, and through God's grace and Christ's sacrifice, we know God will receive us. (And besides all that, I'm a universalist, so 'eternal Hell' is not a worry for me. But the disfavour of God is a concern, or rather, the favour of God is a thing to be greatly desired ... now and after life is over.) 4. An atheist. I believe the standard of judgement I described in point 3, works for the atheist. An atheist has decided to reject the message of the church, but I don't believe they are *necessarily* beyond the language and message of the Gospel. I believe the message of the Gospel is from God's heart to peoples' hearts. It does not matter so much how you define God or if you define him at all. I should have responded earlier.... God clearly wants to save everyone and desires that no-one would reject Him.....but some do for various reasons. It seems that those who reject Him will not be in relationship with Him eternally. However, God thankfully determines that and I think that our concept of who will be "first" and who will be "last" is pretty flawed. We are told in Scripture that the first will be last and vice versa. Churches generally have not done a good good over the years of clearly preaching the gospel - hence the number of break-away groups and new start-ups, including the 2x2's that have emerged. Man has an inherent desire to control others and religion has been regularly used to do this. The 2x2's, in my opinion, cast aside a lot they didn't like about other churches but added in much more stuff of their own. Church in a biblical sense is the body of Christians - I place little emphasis on the church as the institution, unless the institution happens to line up with the Bible, which it does sometimes. In my experience, there is generally greater likelihood that a local church (which may be affiliated with other churches) is more likely to line up with Scripture than something which is a large institution. For human reasons, the goals/objectives of a large institution often end up clashing with the simplicity and straightforward message of the Gospel. I do believe though that our God is incredibly personal and relational - within Himself (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and with His creation. In the OT this was evidenced by Him positioning Himself in the middle of the COI, being constantly with them etc and in the NT by Jesus coming to live with us, die and be raised again. In our age, we have the Holy Spirit living within us. Like the thief on the cross, I think we need to acknowledge who God is, his sovereignty over us,our need of Him, our love for Him and trust in His promises. How this transpires in each person will be slightly different but God, via his Holy Spirit today will point out our need to change and He will change us....and if we live in a society where we have His word he will point us to Jesus as our Saviour. Even if I didn't know the Bible or didn't have the opportunity to read it in my language, I believe that God, via his HS will point us to Himself as our King and Saviour, will show us why we need Him and will change us. Some people may not end up having fellowship with other Christians (even though this is obviously helpful) because of their isolation or circumstances but they will still be in relationship with Him. As an aside, before we left the 2x2's we asked the senior workers what you need to do to be saved. There were many steps and a lot of it revolved around the workers. It was reassuring to hear their answer - that by leaving the group we were removing the traditions and commandments of men and seeking a simpler, more rewarding relationship with God and those who love Him. Most people don't reject God, but they may well reject your definition or idea of God. There is a crucial difference, and unfortunately, most preachers and evangelists don't see it. Even Paul was upset with the Galatians for listening to those who had 'another' Gospel, by which he meant the preaching of Peter and James, or at best, those in league with Peter and James. Was Paul right to consider them 'accursed'? I like what you wrote about our knowledge of God being personal and relational, and that saves us as individuals from the various social structures and instincts that might lead us in another direction. What I mean is that while I agree that some of the workers have gotten some things wrong, they are essentially still conduits of the Gospel message. Unfortunately in religion, and in all churches, a lot of nonsense gets in the way of a personal relationship with God. I do think it's good that you've gotten to a place that works a lot better for you, than what you did have among the friends, and that would be true for me also. Saying this makes me a little sad that it couldn't be otherwise; the bottom line is that for many of us ex-s, we didn't have the liberty in Christ that we should have, among the friends. There's just too many things you can't say. Now, in my case, I do find a similar stifling atmosphere in many of the churches I have visited; fortunately, my wife and I have found a number of Christian individuals who mutually support and encourage each other in our various struggles.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 2, 2014 9:47:15 GMT -5
It seems to me when we reject the doctrine of God's only begotten Son, we do something to that "hope" that his sacrifice gives anyone.....then we either put God into debt with works OR we have to accept the God of "Esau have I hated, and Jacob have I loved." This type of doctrine really fits the early old testament beginning days when man begin to interact with God on some minor level....like in the first books of the OT! As you've said and as we read in Romans a bit about "Presdestination" we can't hardly not get into the God of "Esau have I hated and Jacob have I loved." That was the simpler doctrine of the early days on earth, so it seems, and perhaps it will come to use when the children of Israel are eventually judged.....as we read there is a remnant, but the numbers we read of in Revs. makes that remnant a pretty low number! Jesus told the woman at the well that salvation was of the Jews....that's something that I'm still working on, esp. in the light of this remnant! I can only interpret that to mean that Jesus was of the Jews and salvation was planned because of the Jews not obeying, not worshipping God and loving God as He so wanted to be loved! In Malachi we read the why of this phenomenon....the CoI were giving blemished sacrifices, the animals and fruits of their labor that they didn't want to keep or sell for profit....this was a disappointment for God because that is not the way the law of Moses was set up.....the firstborn and the best and the unblemished was God's. I used to think these sacrifices were just wasted , but no, these sacrifices was what fed the priests and their families! month to month! And I don't reject the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. I reject only those people who think it's only for them. Jesus came to save all mankind, not just a select few. I'm glad! A couple of months ago when my cousin pass away, his widow and I were standing by his coffin just after they'd gotten him ready...she was looking down on him and lamenting that he had not gone to church or done anything to show his professon of faith....she was fretting pretty bad. For some reason I asked her if she'd remembered what I'd told her a few days before...she said she probably didn't...so I said, "Sue remember what John 3:16 says: 'That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth on him should not perish." She replied, "But Sharon, Jerry believed in Jesus Christ." The words that came to me and I spoke were and this after a short pause...."Okay! Let's just leave it at that!" She moved away from the casket in a very calm manner and said, "Yes, let's just leave it at that!" Now I've always worried somewhat over the phrase being "SHOULD NOT" perish......we know that the bible tells us that even the demons know who Jesus is.....so that "should not" says to me that in all likelihood that again when we rest on John 3:16 that indicates that that person will face judgment in order to know if eternal life is their's or not...whereas those who not only know and believe in Jesus Christ are willingly trying to do all that Jesus told his Apostles...Just as Jesus said such to his Apostles! And you and I both have wondered, since Jesus' death will never be in vain, if that because he descended into the depths of Hades or the grave and preached the gospel there IF perhaps he also ordained some of those he delivered from their captivity in the grave to preach the gospel to anyone who comes into the depths of Hades or the grave....doesn't sound impossible and we know that with God anything is possible. Now another thing I've noticed is that the bible says in some places that Jesus died for "all" mankind, but then in corresponding scripture in another chapter, verse it says he died for many...etc So again, mankind will never understand God's business in full, eh?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 2, 2014 13:36:37 GMT -5
Even Paul was upset with the Galatians for listening to those who had 'another' Gospel, by which he meant the preaching of Peter and James, or at best, those in league with Peter and James.
Can you give me scripture for that?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 2, 2014 16:23:22 GMT -5
Even Paul was upset with the Galatians for listening to those who had 'another' Gospel, by which he meant the preaching of Peter and James, or at best, those in league with Peter and James. Can you give me scripture for that? Galatian 1:6-7 "6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Galatians 2:11-16 "11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 3, 2014 9:53:21 GMT -5
And I don't reject the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. I reject only those people who think it's only for them. Jesus came to save all mankind, not just a select few. I'm glad! A couple of months ago when my cousin pass away, his widow and I were standing by his coffin just after they'd gotten him ready...she was looking down on him and lamenting that he had not gone to church or done anything to show his professon of faith....she was fretting pretty bad. For some reason I asked her if she'd remembered what I'd told her a few days before...she said she probably didn't...so I said, "Sue remember what John 3:16 says: 'That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth on him should not perish." She replied, "But Sharon, Jerry believed in Jesus Christ." The words that came to me and I spoke were and this after a short pause...."Okay! Let's just leave it at that!" She moved away from the casket in a very calm manner and said, "Yes, let's just leave it at that!" Now I've always worried somewhat over the phrase being "SHOULD NOT" perish......we know that the bible tells us that even the demons know who Jesus is.....so that "should not" says to me that in all likelihood that again when we rest on John 3:16 that indicates that that person will face judgment in order to know if eternal life is their's or not...whereas those who not only know and believe in Jesus Christ are willingly trying to do all that Jesus told his Apostles...Just as Jesus said such to his Apostles! And you and I both have wondered, since Jesus' death will never be in vain, if that because he descended into the depths of Hades or the grave and preached the gospel there IF perhaps he also ordained some of those he delivered from their captivity in the grave to preach the gospel to anyone who comes into the depths of Hades or the grave....doesn't sound impossible and we know that with God anything is possible. Now another thing I've noticed is that the bible says in some places that Jesus died for "all" mankind, but then in corresponding scripture in another chapter, verse it says he died for many...etc So again, mankind will never understand God's business in full, eh? No we will never know, so it's important to resist theology that makes highly specific and unverifiable claims. (I mean that can't be verified against Scripture.) Unfortunately, specific and tentative claims about "eternal Hell" mean that some people suffer thinking their loved relatives are lost to eternal torment. And that's why it's important to undermine such claims.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 3, 2014 10:10:01 GMT -5
Even Paul was upset with the Galatians for listening to those who had 'another' Gospel, by which he meant the preaching of Peter and James, or at best, those in league with Peter and James. Can you give me scripture for that? Thanks to STR for doing the heavy lifting on that one. I would add that I don't think for a minute that Paul actually thought Peter and James had a 'false' Gospel. But he was upset about them reverting to the Jewish practices with which they were familiar. And they were even coaching some of the Gentiles into Jewish laws and rules, which should have been laid aside in Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 3, 2014 13:04:12 GMT -5
I'm glad! A couple of months ago when my cousin pass away, his widow and I were standing by his coffin just after they'd gotten him ready...she was looking down on him and lamenting that he had not gone to church or done anything to show his professon of faith....she was fretting pretty bad. For some reason I asked her if she'd remembered what I'd told her a few days before...she said she probably didn't...so I said, "Sue remember what John 3:16 says: 'That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth on him should not perish." She replied, "But Sharon, Jerry believed in Jesus Christ." The words that came to me and I spoke were and this after a short pause...."Okay! Let's just leave it at that!" She moved away from the casket in a very calm manner and said, "Yes, let's just leave it at that!" Now I've always worried somewhat over the phrase being "SHOULD NOT" perish......we know that the bible tells us that even the demons know who Jesus is.....so that "should not" says to me that in all likelihood that again when we rest on John 3:16 that indicates that that person will face judgment in order to know if eternal life is their's or not...whereas those who not only know and believe in Jesus Christ are willingly trying to do all that Jesus told his Apostles...Just as Jesus said such to his Apostles! And you and I both have wondered, since Jesus' death will never be in vain, if that because he descended into the depths of Hades or the grave and preached the gospel there IF perhaps he also ordained some of those he delivered from their captivity in the grave to preach the gospel to anyone who comes into the depths of Hades or the grave....doesn't sound impossible and we know that with God anything is possible. Now another thing I've noticed is that the bible says in some places that Jesus died for "all" mankind, but then in corresponding scripture in another chapter, verse it says he died for many...etc So again, mankind will never understand God's business in full, eh? No we will never know, so it's important to resist theology that makes highly specific and unverifiable claims. (I mean that can't be verified against Scripture.) Unfortunately, specific and tentative claims about "eternal Hell" mean that some people suffer thinking their loved relatives are lost to eternal torment. And that's why it's important to undermine such claims. The bible doesn't go into detail how long the resurrected people are going to live...now I'm thinking about those not of the first resurrection...they have to live UNTIL judgment Day....and when we read all that goes on before that day we can assume, I think, that there will be some space of time for those resurrected as well as those not converted yet will have a "second chance"....I thinkwe can almost be sure of that because of the second chance that Jesus gave to the Children of Israel BEFORE he sent his Apostles on out to the Samaritans and Gentiles......But there will Be some of those of the second death that the danger of it will be their portion, otherwords there would be NO need for having a second death! IMO Same way with last chances...those are all from a loving Saviour, having lived on the earth and understands the many ins and outs living on earth brings one! Plus we're going to have to have enough people from the second resurrection that will gather under the rulers to fight against those who will be attacking the children of God' rights of redemption, etc,
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 3, 2014 13:54:03 GMT -5
No we will never know, so it's important to resist theology that makes highly specific and unverifiable claims. (I mean that can't be verified against Scripture.) Unfortunately, specific and tentative claims about "eternal Hell" mean that some people suffer thinking their loved relatives are lost to eternal torment. And that's why it's important to undermine such claims. The bible doesn't go into detail how long the resurrected people are going to live...now I'm thinking about those not of the first resurrection...they have to live UNTIL judgment Day....and when we read all that goes on before that day we can assume, I think, that there will be some space of time for those resurrected as well as those not converted yet will have a "second chance"....I thinkwe can almost be sure of that because of the second chance that Jesus gave to the Children of Israel BEFORE he sent his Apostles on out to the Samaritans and Gentiles......But there will Be some of those of the second death that the danger of it will be their portion, otherwords there would be NO need for having a second death! IMO Same way with last chances...those are all from a loving Saviour, having lived on the earth and understands the many ins and outs living on earth brings one! Plus we're going to have to have enough people from the second resurrection that will gather under the rulers to fight against those who will be attacking the children of God' rights of redemption, etc, My eyes almost glaze over reading this. It's not you, but I'm so uninterested in the details of what is going to happen. Last night I was conversing with someone who laid out for me the pre-Millenial, post-Millenial and different beliefs about the Second Coming. I believe that there will be Jesus on God's right hand, a Judgement, an eternal life in Heaven, no more tears or sorrows, and any aspects of justice not taken care of on this side will be taken care of by God. That's all I think we need to know about the after-life; the rest is conjecture, because even the Bible scholars do not agree .. . that is, the ones who care. And as I've stated often enough, while I believe punishment is part of the judgement, I don't believe anyone will suffer eternal torment in Hell, other than Satan and his angels, and maybe not even them.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 3, 2014 14:30:15 GMT -5
Even Paul was upset with the Galatians for listening to those who had 'another' Gospel, by which he meant the preaching of Peter and James, or at best, those in league with Peter and James. Can you give me scripture for that? Thanks to STR for doing the heavy lifting on that one. I would add that I don't think for a minute that Paul actually thought Peter and James had a 'false' Gospel. But he was upset about them reverting to the Jewish practices with which they were familiar. And they were even coaching some of the Gentiles into Jewish laws and rules, which should have been laid aside in Jesus Christ. Do you really think that after Paul said this about Peter and other apostles in Chpt 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
that he would then say about those other apostles in Chpt 3: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? I think it was those bewitching preachers he referred to throughout the letter, not to other apostles. JMO
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 3, 2014 19:10:05 GMT -5
Thanks to STR for doing the heavy lifting on that one. I would add that I don't think for a minute that Paul actually thought Peter and James had a 'false' Gospel. But he was upset about them reverting to the Jewish practices with which they were familiar. And they were even coaching some of the Gentiles into Jewish laws and rules, which should have been laid aside in Jesus Christ. Do you really think that after Paul said this about Peter and other apostles in Chpt 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
that he would then say about those other apostles in Chpt 3: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? I think it was those bewitching preachers he referred to throughout the letter, not to other apostles. JMO First, there clearly are not two issues with the Galatians. There is only one, and that is the issue of circumcision and Jewish manners and customs. Peter was preaching to the "circumcised" and Paul to the "uncircumcised", but when Peter went to Antioch he held himself aloof from the Gentiles fearing the "circumcised", that is, his own followers. These were former Jews who brought their former ways with them into the circle of believers. So, Paul had very harsh words for Peter, saying "I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.". When Paul open his letter with warnings about "a different Gospel" in verse 1:6 the keeping of the Jewish law and customs is what he is referencing. But I agree he does not say "false Gospel" which was my bad. Although, as I stated, I never believed that Peter or James were preaching a false Gospel, or a different Gospel. What Paul actually says is "another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Still quite harsh words. When Paul says in Galatians 3:1 "who has bewitched you" he's asking a rhetorical question. I don't think he has anyone specific in mind here. The problem Paul was dealing with was widespread. Peter went along with it, it's clear, but probably unwittingly. He was the leader of the Jewish Christians, mainly in Jerusalem, so he certainly wouldn't be telling them to be circumcised as they already were, and he probably didn't worry about the Jewish customs they kept. But when the Jews, (and remember there were Jewish Christians in Galatia, and every city in Asia Minor and Greece), sought to force their ways on the Gentile Christians, Paul had to take a stand, and Peter was no help. Quite a few interesting observations can be made from this. 1) The church has been in conflict from the beginning. 2) Church leaders don't always agree, and often disagree. 3) Church leaders, preachers and workers are just ordinary people who have a special calling. God's Will will be done, but often in a round-about way because he has such poor instruments as us to work with. Another interesting footnote is that this is one of the first books written in the New Testament before the Gospels, actually. It definitely has a "real time" feel to it.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 6, 2014 11:08:55 GMT -5
Do you really think that after Paul said this about Peter and other apostles in Chpt 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
that he would then say about those other apostles in Chpt 3: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? I think it was those bewitching preachers he referred to throughout the letter, not to other apostles. JMO First, there clearly are not two issues with the Galatians. There is only one, and that is the issue of circumcision and Jewish manners and customs. Peter was preaching to the "circumcised" and Paul to the "uncircumcised", but when Peter went to Antioch he held himself aloof from the Gentiles fearing the "circumcised", that is, his own followers. These were former Jews who brought their former ways with them into the circle of believers. So, Paul had very harsh words for Peter, saying "I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.". When Paul open his letter with warnings about "a different Gospel" in verse 1:6 the keeping of the Jewish law and customs is what he is referencing. But I agree he does not say "false Gospel" which was my bad. Although, as I stated, I never believed that Peter or James were preaching a false Gospel, or a different Gospel. What Paul actually says is "another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Still quite harsh words. When Paul says in Galatians 3:1 "who has bewitched you" he's asking a rhetorical question. I don't think he has anyone specific in mind here. The problem Paul was dealing with was widespread. Peter went along with it, it's clear, but probably unwittingly. He was the leader of the Jewish Christians, mainly in Jerusalem, so he certainly wouldn't be telling them to be circumcised as they already were, and he probably didn't worry about the Jewish customs they kept. But when the Jews, (and remember there were Jewish Christians in Galatia, and every city in Asia Minor and Greece), sought to force their ways on the Gentile Christians, Paul had to take a stand, and Peter was no help. Quite a few interesting observations can be made from this. 1) The church has been in conflict from the beginning. 2) Church leaders don't always agree, and often disagree. 3) Church leaders, preachers and workers are just ordinary people who have a special calling. God's Will will be done, but often in a round-about way because he has such poor instruments as us to work with. Another interesting footnote is that this is one of the first books written in the New Testament before the Gospels, actually. It definitely has a "real time" feel to it. I have seen that Peter has been like some of the rest of us throughout the recording of the NT...he often picked his foot up and inserted it in his mouth! This was something that Paul didn't appreciate. There was enough contentions between them and the believing Jews that Paul had to go to Jerusalem to the "other brethren" mainly the other Apostles besides Peter and this is where the issue was settled and that was that the Gentile converts were not to be troubled with Jewish law and customs for those Jewish converts were trying to laden the Gentile converts with burdens they themselves were not able to bear.....no one had any more knowledge about Jewish law and custom then Paul....but he was given his apostleship out of time as he so said....he was called out of his fervor for persecuting those who were failing to follow Jewish custom, his fervor for that scriptural knowledge was what God saw He could use.....so thus Paul was called out of his "learnedness" into the simple gospel of Jesus Christ by Jesus himself. But Peter again was the first who had preached to a Gentile and made Gentile converts...so perhaps Peter felt himself one up on Paul and Peter was still servant to the Old law and thus the gospel Peter preached was still tied to the old law...though that was not illegal for Christ said that all would be filled in that old law, but Peter had failed to understand that Jesus was that fulfillment! Peter was into a legalistic type of Christian conversion, so it seemed and this was the type of gospel Paul was speaking against...against teaching those burdens of legalism that came with the Old law, etc. Much like we see in religions like the 2x2s, Pentecostal, Mormonisms, Amish, etc When the outward appearance and behaviours become the gospel instead of the newness of life through our SAviour's death and resurrection! Like we've accused others of having a gospel plus thing going!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 6, 2014 13:17:16 GMT -5
First, there clearly are not two issues with the Galatians. There is only one, and that is the issue of circumcision and Jewish manners and customs. Peter was preaching to the "circumcised" and Paul to the "uncircumcised", but when Peter went to Antioch he held himself aloof from the Gentiles fearing the "circumcised", that is, his own followers. These were former Jews who brought their former ways with them into the circle of believers. So, Paul had very harsh words for Peter, saying "I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.". When Paul open his letter with warnings about "a different Gospel" in verse 1:6 the keeping of the Jewish law and customs is what he is referencing. But I agree he does not say "false Gospel" which was my bad. Although, as I stated, I never believed that Peter or James were preaching a false Gospel, or a different Gospel. What Paul actually says is "another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." Still quite harsh words. When Paul says in Galatians 3:1 "who has bewitched you" he's asking a rhetorical question. I don't think he has anyone specific in mind here. The problem Paul was dealing with was widespread. Peter went along with it, it's clear, but probably unwittingly. He was the leader of the Jewish Christians, mainly in Jerusalem, so he certainly wouldn't be telling them to be circumcised as they already were, and he probably didn't worry about the Jewish customs they kept. But when the Jews, (and remember there were Jewish Christians in Galatia, and every city in Asia Minor and Greece), sought to force their ways on the Gentile Christians, Paul had to take a stand, and Peter was no help. Quite a few interesting observations can be made from this. 1) The church has been in conflict from the beginning. 2) Church leaders don't always agree, and often disagree. 3) Church leaders, preachers and workers are just ordinary people who have a special calling. God's Will will be done, but often in a round-about way because he has such poor instruments as us to work with. Another interesting footnote is that this is one of the first books written in the New Testament before the Gospels, actually. It definitely has a "real time" feel to it. I have seen that Peter has been like some of the rest of us throughout the recording of the NT...he often picked his foot up and inserted it in his mouth! This was something that Paul didn't appreciate. There was enough contentions between them and the believing Jews that Paul had to go to Jerusalem to the "other brethren" mainly the other Apostles besides Peter and this is where the issue was settled and that was that the Gentile converts were not to be troubled with Jewish law and customs for those Jewish converts were trying to laden the Gentile converts with burdens they themselves were not able to bear.....no one had any more knowledge about Jewish law and custom then Paul....but he was given his apostleship out of time as he so said....he was called out of his fervor for persecuting those who were failing to follow Jewish custom, his fervor for that scriptural knowledge was what God saw He could use.....so thus Paul was called out of his "learnedness" into the simple gospel of Jesus Christ by Jesus himself. But Peter again was the first who had preached to a Gentile and made Gentile converts...so perhaps Peter felt himself one up on Paul and Peter was still servant to the Old law and thus the gospel Peter preached was still tied to the old law...though that was not illegal for Christ said that all would be filled in that old law, but Peter had failed to understand that Jesus was that fulfillment! Peter was into a legalistic type of Christian conversion, so it seemed and this was the type of gospel Paul was speaking against...against teaching those burdens of legalism that came with the Old law, etc. Much like we see in religions like the 2x2s, Pentecostal, Mormonisms, Amish, etc When the outward appearance and behaviours become the gospel instead of the newness of life through our SAviour's death and resurrection! Like we've accused others of having a gospel plus thing going! With regard to your last comment, I believe that as soon as you organize into a social system of any kind, the essential knowledge that Jesus passed on is skewed toward supporting various power imbalances. For example, some complain about the workers that they put the workers first before Christ. I don't think it is quite precise or correct to say that workers do this. It's more correct to speak of tendencies, good and bad, and some things a given worker will say are true "Gospel" and some benefit the workers. Let's take a simple example: regular gospel meeting attendance to support the workers. This is not wrong in itself, but it becomes wrong when ideas like "meeting attendance" move to the center of people's thinking. Anyway, ANY social system, religious or political, over time, will develop ingrained knowledge that exists to support power relationships. I believe the workers and friends are no worse in this than many churches. The central teaching of Jesus was love God, love your neighbour as yourself; also, forgiveness, cultivate the fruits of the Spirit, and so on. The central teaching of most churches is: repent of your sins and worship Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The latter teaching is not wrong, but constitutes a shift to doctrine that supports the church, because where do you worship? In the church. Where does an altar call take place? In the church. Remember I'm not saying this is wrong; I'm saying that the emphasis is on knowledge that supports power relationships. The thing is - this kind of knowledge has no genuine ethic, or put another way, it's not Spirit-led. So, doing "good" shifts to things like going to church regularly and supporting the church, and away from things like living honestly and trying to help others. And it's also a shift away from liberty and freedom; we are supposed to be bound only in love. Any given leader, minister, worker or any follower of Jesus can overcome these tendencies that can throw a person off course. The essence of remaining on a true course is a direct relationship with God through Jesus, praying, and reading Scripture for yourself. As long as the workers preach this, I don't believe they will ever go too far wrong ... or any church for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 6, 2014 16:16:20 GMT -5
With regard to your last comment, I believe that as soon as you organize into a social system of any kind, the essential knowledge that Jesus passed on is skewed toward supporting various power imbalances. For example, some complain about the workers that they put the workers first before Christ. I don't think it is quite precise or correct to say that workers do this. It's more correct to speak of tendencies, good and bad, and some things a given worker will say are true "Gospel" and some benefit the workers. Let's take a simple example: regular gospel meeting attendance to support the workers. This is not wrong in itself, but it becomes wrong when ideas like "meeting attendance" move to the center of people's thinking. Anyway, ANY social system, religious or political, over time, will develop ingrained knowledge that exists to support power relationships. I believe the workers and friends are no worse in this than many churches. The central teaching of Jesus was love God, love your neighbour as yourself; also, forgiveness, cultivate the fruits of the Spirit, and so on. The central teaching of most churches is: repent of your sins and worship Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The latter teaching is not wrong, but constitutes a shift to doctrine that supports the church, because where do you worship? In the church. Where does an altar call take place? In the church. Remember I'm not saying this is wrong; I'm saying that the emphasis is on knowledge that supports power relationships. The thing is - this kind of knowledge has no genuine ethic, or put another way, it's not Spirit-led. So, doing "good" shifts to things like going to church regularly and supporting the church, and away from things like living honestly and trying to help others. And it's also a shift away from liberty and freedom; we are supposed to be bound only in love. Any given leader, minister, worker or any follower of Jesus can overcome these tendencies that can throw a person off course. The essence of remaining on a true course is a direct relationship with God through Jesus, praying, and reading Scripture for yourself. As long as the workers preach this, I don't believe they will ever go too far wrong ... or any church for that matter. What a nice way to explain all of this. A number of years ago, I attended a lecture where someone said "A Truth is a Truth until you build an organization around it. Then your loyalty is to the organization, rather than the Truth." This nicely encapsulated for me the struggles I was having with 2X2ism. And also explains why I'll never be a "joiner".
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 7, 2014 6:49:56 GMT -5
With regard to your last comment, I believe that as soon as you organize into a social system of any kind, the essential knowledge that Jesus passed on is skewed toward supporting various power imbalances. For example, some complain about the workers that they put the workers first before Christ. I don't think it is quite precise or correct to say that workers do this. It's more correct to speak of tendencies, good and bad, and some things a given worker will say are true "Gospel" and some benefit the workers. Let's take a simple example: regular gospel meeting attendance to support the workers. This is not wrong in itself, but it becomes wrong when ideas like "meeting attendance" move to the center of people's thinking. Anyway, ANY social system, religious or political, over time, will develop ingrained knowledge that exists to support power relationships. I believe the workers and friends are no worse in this than many churches. The central teaching of Jesus was love God, love your neighbour as yourself; also, forgiveness, cultivate the fruits of the Spirit, and so on. The central teaching of most churches is: repent of your sins and worship Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The latter teaching is not wrong, but constitutes a shift to doctrine that supports the church, because where do you worship? In the church. Where does an altar call take place? In the church. Remember I'm not saying this is wrong; I'm saying that the emphasis is on knowledge that supports power relationships. The thing is - this kind of knowledge has no genuine ethic, or put another way, it's not Spirit-led. So, doing "good" shifts to things like going to church regularly and supporting the church, and away from things like living honestly and trying to help others. And it's also a shift away from liberty and freedom; we are supposed to be bound only in love. Any given leader, minister, worker or any follower of Jesus can overcome these tendencies that can throw a person off course. The essence of remaining on a true course is a direct relationship with God through Jesus, praying, and reading Scripture for yourself. As long as the workers preach this, I don't believe they will ever go too far wrong ... or any church for that matter. What a nice way to explain all of this. A number of years ago, I attended a lecture where someone said "A Truth is a Truth until you build an organization around it. Then your loyalty is to the organization, rather than the Truth." This nicely encapsulated for me the struggles I was having with 2X2ism. And also explains why I'll never be a "joiner". I think you've done more then encapsulated your own struggles with 2x2ism and know why you never be a joiner! I think that this is enough of a fact clear across the board of 2x2 ism that many people find themselves either not joining, or exiting to either atheism or joining due to fear of being sent to hell for not joining, etc The workers have enough polluted workers within them due to the powers that make them hungry for more powers that it has polluted the whole religion. I read in the bible not so long ago that this very thing happened in the OT and this was when people were following a corrupted religious journey led by corrupted leaders....and it plainly states that people are not to put their trust or efforts behind such leaders! But this is what the leaders in the 2x2s are...it has evolved into a corrupted power house! It actually will eventually leave the common man out of the equation all together! Or no one will be allowed to think for themselves if they want the workers' approval which is equated to salvation by some.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 7, 2014 9:13:52 GMT -5
What a nice way to explain all of this. A number of years ago, I attended a lecture where someone said "A Truth is a Truth until you build an organization around it. Then your loyalty is to the organization, rather than the Truth." This nicely encapsulated for me the struggles I was having with 2X2ism. And also explains why I'll never be a "joiner". I think you've done more then encapsulated your own struggles with 2x2ism and know why you never be a joiner! I think that this is enough of a fact clear across the board of 2x2 ism that many people find themselves either not joining, or exiting to either atheism or joining due to fear of being sent to hell for not joining, etc The workers have enough polluted workers within them due to the powers that make them hungry for more powers that it has polluted the whole religion. I read in the bible not so long ago that this very thing happened in the OT and this was when people were following a corrupted religious journey led by corrupted leaders....and it plainly states that people are not to put their trust or efforts behind such leaders! But this is what the leaders in the 2x2s are...it has evolved into a corrupted power house! It actually will eventually leave the common man out of the equation all together! Or no one will be allowed to think for themselves if they want the workers' approval which is equated to salvation by some. I'm quite hopeful that the 2x2s/ friends will manage out all right. Our generation will be out of the picture before too much longer, and those now in their 30s and 40s will take more of a leadership role. This will pose an entirely new set of possibilities and problems. The one thing that saves the friends strictly from an organizational behaviour perspective is that the worker hierarchy is widely dispersed and fairly flat. So if you have one rogue or incompetent head worker, as in the LW or IH situation, the others can deal with the problem and fix it to an extent. All the highly malevolent church and religious organizations, by comparison, always revolve around a single leader. You can analyze any church as a healthy functioning community along four dimensions: 1) Christ led, 2) Internal community, 3) Neighbouring, 4) Leadership and management. Just looking at the friends objectively in comparison to other churches, they do (1) and (2) very well. I know some will pick away at their doctrine, but in my opinion, that is mainly squabbling. Neighbouring, which includes outreach to the poor, is a failing, and leadership and management are concerns. The main issue in the last category is a willful blindness and ignorance to some of their problems, the source of the problem being one of pride. Comparatively, other churches have more experience and a pragmatic approach to fixing issues.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 7, 2014 9:25:41 GMT -5
With regard to your last comment, I believe that as soon as you organize into a social system of any kind, the essential knowledge that Jesus passed on is skewed toward supporting various power imbalances. For example, some complain about the workers that they put the workers first before Christ. I don't think it is quite precise or correct to say that workers do this. It's more correct to speak of tendencies, good and bad, and some things a given worker will say are true "Gospel" and some benefit the workers. Let's take a simple example: regular gospel meeting attendance to support the workers. This is not wrong in itself, but it becomes wrong when ideas like "meeting attendance" move to the center of people's thinking. Anyway, ANY social system, religious or political, over time, will develop ingrained knowledge that exists to support power relationships. I believe the workers and friends are no worse in this than many churches. The central teaching of Jesus was love God, love your neighbour as yourself; also, forgiveness, cultivate the fruits of the Spirit, and so on. The central teaching of most churches is: repent of your sins and worship Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The latter teaching is not wrong, but constitutes a shift to doctrine that supports the church, because where do you worship? In the church. Where does an altar call take place? In the church. Remember I'm not saying this is wrong; I'm saying that the emphasis is on knowledge that supports power relationships. The thing is - this kind of knowledge has no genuine ethic, or put another way, it's not Spirit-led. So, doing "good" shifts to things like going to church regularly and supporting the church, and away from things like living honestly and trying to help others. And it's also a shift away from liberty and freedom; we are supposed to be bound only in love. Any given leader, minister, worker or any follower of Jesus can overcome these tendencies that can throw a person off course. The essence of remaining on a true course is a direct relationship with God through Jesus, praying, and reading Scripture for yourself. As long as the workers preach this, I don't believe they will ever go too far wrong ... or any church for that matter. What a nice way to explain all of this. A number of years ago, I attended a lecture where someone said "A Truth is a Truth until you build an organization around it. Then your loyalty is to the organization, rather than the Truth." This nicely encapsulated for me the struggles I was having with 2X2ism. And also explains why I'll never be a "joiner". My wife and I have been fortunate to find a solution to the "joiner" problem, of sorts. We meet every few weeks with several other couples in a kind of mutual support group. It's not really a church. Our concept of church would be open and unbounded, not just "us" and our thing. We're not looking for joiners and we aren't joiners; the best description is a group of believers supporting each other. Then outside of our group, we almost all participate in various church activities. I think the organizational issues begin when we think of our 'church' experience as requiring us to belong to a specific denomination, or home church, or whatever. When we start to belong to such a group, then before long, they start to own us. And yet, we need leadership and hierarchy to make things happen in this world. I think what works well are single mission Christian enterprises that are ecumenical in nature. Almost everyone in our support group is involved or supports various enterprises of this nature. And some of us are also involved in conventional church. I may still do that myself, but I haven't found one yet. I see some of the friends becoming involved with charitable groups, and other faith-based movements. In the past, the workers have discouraged this kind of activity but I think it could be a very healthy positive thing for the friends to do more of this. One thing I like about mission-specific organizations (everything from World Vision to local ecumenical programs for the homeless) is that when they fail or if they become redundant, they just end, and their members go work somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 31, 2014 1:28:15 GMT -5
After I'd studied Jesus Christ for about 3 years and had some long arguments with Nathan and Stanne here on TMB with Scott sometimes putting a bit of information in the kettle, I had to realize that all that Nathan and Stanne were saying about the Trinity was definitely in the bible even thought the word "Trinity" wasn't! This is quite typical of belief systems Sharon. You'll see what lines up with a particular persuasion and miss what doesn't. It's like if you've just bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee - all of a sudden you'll notice lots of other Jeep Grand Cherokees on the road and you had no idea there were so many. I doubt that an individual who had never been exposed to trinitarian theology would come to it alone. It was formulated over a period of many years - probably centuries.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 1, 2014 13:03:44 GMT -5
Trinitarian arguments are such a waste of time!
The idea is based on nothing really but surely does divide people
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 1, 2014 16:58:14 GMT -5
Trinitarian arguments are such a waste of time!
The idea is based on nothing really but surely does divide people
People see things that are not there. Attachments:
|
|