|
Post by lloyds on Jul 9, 2006 8:38:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 9, 2006 8:39:23 GMT -5
FINISHED
|
|
|
Post by lloydswanson on Jul 9, 2006 8:52:47 GMT -5
Doctrine exemplied people Macgregor ministries token monitor however precision dynamic
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 9, 2006 9:07:36 GMT -5
Please give it a rest Chad
|
|
|
Post by las again on Jul 9, 2006 9:15:22 GMT -5
I think there was a error on page 44 a misspelling it should read Impossible to follow christs commandments a 100 percent
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jul 9, 2006 9:53:59 GMT -5
Karl. You asked about my last sentence...
Re Matthew 10. This is one of the specific chapters on the topic of preaching the Gospel. I believe that all things recorded in the bible are there for a reason, and the reason here is that it provides a template for future generations where the Gospel is preached. The text wasn't so much relevant to that generation (perhaps) because these people already had a ministry handed down from Jesus.
As I see it, the Gospels, with their direct instruction on the ministry, were written in the mid to late first century. At this time it was obvious to that generation how the ministry operated. (Even apostates send out preachers.) The emphasis on how the ministry was to be conducted suggests to me that perhaps it had in mind times when there would be no direct example of ministry. Just a thought. Bert
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 9, 2006 10:00:37 GMT -5
Bert,
In your opinion, is the so-called ministry normative or necessary?
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jul 9, 2006 10:37:44 GMT -5
I love this ministry.
Does me loving it, make it right?
Does me loving it, make it necessary?
Does me loving it, mean anything, other than I cannot find another ministry that is as kind, inspirational, loving, that it makes me want to do whatever I can to help out where ever I can.
Everyone is free to choose.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 9, 2006 13:49:30 GMT -5
I believe I learned a lot being a 2x2 like John Long said being exclusive on one hand meant great gain but on the other great loss ...I'll leave it there
|
|
|
Post by lloydswanson on Jul 9, 2006 14:44:12 GMT -5
The secret Long chose to profess Pruberts choice to anything ministry loving necessary
|
|
|
Post by lloydswanson on Jul 10, 2006 15:40:27 GMT -5
I see the real Lloyd has revealled his email address to registered users only but the fake Lloyd has hidden his from all but registered users. And neither Lloyd is fat.
|
|
Me
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by Me on Jul 10, 2006 20:21:24 GMT -5
I see the real Lloyd has revealled his email address to registered users only but the fake Lloyd has hidden his from all but registered users. And neither Lloyd is fat. i dono both lloyds look rotund ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 11, 2006 6:26:56 GMT -5
rob, re "In your opinion, is the so-called ministry normative or necessary?" Depends on that word normative. Someone told me recently there was no such word! Our ministry is certainly not normative in a global Christian sense. But yes, we strongly feel it is necessary. Bert
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 7:02:18 GMT -5
Bert,
So you strongly feel it is necessary? In what sense? Can a person positively respond to the gospel without the mediation of one of your ministers?
Normative, means it is normally the case but exceptions exist therefore proving it is not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 11, 2006 7:20:23 GMT -5
Hi Rob. Yes, I love that word Normative, and Normalisation, as we Aussies spell it. We don't have priests which mediate, as does that grand old dame, the Catholic church, does. But the preacher is the one who brings the Word of God, and as Jesus pointed out, must die for that word as well. When Jesus spoke of the corn of wheat falling into the ground and dying he didn't mean career evangelists. The notion of dying for faith is what has always given it a special power.
But in anwer to the question - to come into our faith it is through the preacher. I don't know of any instance in the New Testament where this wasn't necessary. Even that great preacher Apollos, who knew the Truth through John the Baptist, the one who intimidated Paul with his power and eloquence, found it necessary to submit to being re-baptised by Paul.
Bert
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 7:33:42 GMT -5
Bert,
So how does this sit considering it's inconsistent with your paradigm:
" Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31, ESV)
John's purpose in writing and specifically in including certain signs (miracles) was that the reader would have in front of them sufficient to invoke a saving faith, such that the respondent could believe and that by believing have eternal life in His name.
There is no necessary use for a preacher in this view, and certainly not for a preacher subscribing to any specific methodology. The letter itself is sufficient for the seeker to come to salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 11, 2006 7:42:39 GMT -5
Rob, some ask whether our preachers "do miracles." It is important to understand that the miracle in itself did not necessarily create faith - sometimes it was done to offend (ie Sabbath healings) I believe that the miracles appeared during the inception of the Mosaic Law and the New Testament to help give them authority. Jesus said something to the effect that if the Jews didn't believe in him, at least believe him because of the miracles. This secondary belief was not necessarily the saving belief because it appealed to the mind, not the heart. But those who witnessed the miracles still had to come to Christ, or to his disciples. Again, I cannot think of any person who didn't come through them, even if they fully believed everything they spoke. If this alternative was the case, I am sure the bible would have mentioned it. Bert
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 7:55:56 GMT -5
Bert,
You haven't even interacted with the passage.
Indeed. And John specifically states this can be achieved by responding in faith to the witness of his letter - in other words, no 2x2 ministry.....just the experience of a person reading this gospel and responding in faith to the Christ therein presented.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 11, 2006 8:10:56 GMT -5
Sorry, but I thought I answered it.
In other ages, other cultures, revelation through reading only was necessary because there may not have been any so-called 2x2 ministry.
But as well as read, God clearly wanted the word PREACHED by someone who LIVED it, and acted as a WITNESS.
Rob, why do you think that Apollos submitted to Paul - he was already a mighty man of God; he already knew the Truth. And, why couldn't Phillip's eunuch get a revelation simply by reading Isaiah 53?
Bert
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 8:32:51 GMT -5
Bert,
It's not so much about answering but interacting with what the passage states, and no, you still haven't interacted with it.
This is a neat attempted side-step that fails. In your view, John was one of these necessary 2x2 ministers. Rather than insist on the necessity of any methodology, he points to belief in Christ on the basis of the signs, and that such saving belief can be invoked through reading his gospel.
This could be. But it only demonstrates a ministry as normative, not necessary. And it says nothing about a 2x2 ministry. Curious also is the fact that John never even mentions a 2x2 ministry or any methodology of ministry yet asserts that his gospel includes sufficient for someone to come to salvation. That fact alone defeats any concept of necessary methodology.
First, Apollos didn't "submit to Paul" as you put it. He was given further instruction by Priscilla and Aquila because they recognised although he taught accurately concerning Jesus, he only knew of John's baptism. This of itself is irrelevant to the intent and scope of John's gospel which is the point at hand.
Again, what relevance does this have to John's gospel? It is not as though the eunuch was reading John and couldn't understand it. He was reading Isaiah and was unaware of the relationship between Jesus and the Messianic prophecies.
If anything the story about the eunuch is further proof against your view. Philip was not an apostle or so-called "worker" in a 2x2 ministry. He was a deacon out on an evangelistic mission.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 11, 2006 8:50:48 GMT -5
Rob, I am about to hit the sack. I am tired. At this stage I can only re-iterate what Prue always says - we believe in a ministry because one is strongly demonstrated in the New Testament.
Belief in Jesus came through the ministry
Re no mention of ministry - Many things were often not mentioned, but Shown. As Prue likes to put it, the bible is a picture book.
I think Apollos did submit in the sense he could have stated that he understood more than Paul, was in the truth longer and never persecuted it - he could have said he was already baptised.
I think that the eunuch would have heard the argument that Jesus was the Messiah as all Israel at that time knew the events surrounding Jesus. But saying Jesus was the son of God in itself would have been a statement, an opinion. It was Phillip's preaching that opened his eyes.
Yes, Phillip was on his own. Sometimes preachers were on their own, or in threes. But he was still a preacher, whatever term people used to describe him.
I am going to bed. Bert
|
|