|
Post by from happy on May 24, 2006 10:31:55 GMT -5
No, I'm not mocking or ignoring. I heard "Jesus is our example" all my life and didn't hear, "Jesus is our savior". Therefore, I didn't understand salvation. For that reason, I don't prefer to hear that his main purpose was to be our example. If he is our Savior and Lord, He will be able to work thru us to have the qualities of character that He had.
Consider it a little barb in my side......try to understand where I'm coming from. Happy unplugged
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 24, 2006 10:36:11 GMT -5
Prue,
I'm sorry, but I find little of that. Can you not, as Peter exhorted, give a defense of the hope that you have? If you cannot explain what you believe beyond a few vague references and no engagement of scripture, can that really be considered a defense? As I said, I accept that you're tired but can I hope for more reasoned and scripture referenced responses when you're not tired?
I work for myself and get up when I want. One of the fortunate ones, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2006 10:36:14 GMT -5
karl, or is it lacpastor (why that name?) You asked "So if "we" don't do the things that Christ has asked of us- is salvation taken from us, or is the opportunity for salvation taken?" I guess that is a semantics issue Karl. I am not sure. Are you a pastor? I know you're tired, but I am trying to understand you. I do not believe that it is a semantics issue, so if later you could more fully address this that would be great. I'm Karl- lacpastor I am the pastor of L ighthouse A lliance C hurch= lacpastor Thanks! Karl
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 24, 2006 10:36:46 GMT -5
To "This very interesting" With my web site I have tried hard to present the church which existed back then as accurately as anyone can. You, like others, say I present the so-called "2x2 tradition" but I have only spoken from the bible. In each case I have quoted, referred, referenced, sourced and pointed back to the bible. What more can I do? Please be specific as I am asked to be.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 24, 2006 10:37:23 GMT -5
Rob. I don't want to condem other churches. Too late. You already have.
|
|
This is very interesting
Guest
|
Post by This is very interesting on May 24, 2006 10:44:54 GMT -5
To "This very interesting" With my web site I have tried hard to present the church which existed back then as accurately as anyone can. You, like others, say I present the so-called "2x2 tradition" but I have only spoken from the bible. In each case I have quoted, referred, referenced, sourced and pointed back to the bible. What more can I do? Please be specific as I am asked to be.
Do you realize that on your website there is not a single mention of being saved through Christ's blood? Do you realize that you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the reality of grace? Do you realize that you've demonstrated you have no idea what Paul was teaching regarding justification and sanctification? Do know why all this is true? It's because you believe in salvation through your system. You can deny this reality if you wish, but you've already clearly demonstrated all of this and everyone can see it - except you.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on May 24, 2006 12:18:43 GMT -5
To be a 'leader' means you follow, ie what he does, you do. His works are your works. To be a Master means you obey, ie his commandments. His rules are your rules. This is where the true uniqueness of Truth comes from. Simply wrong. From Prue's site, under the section "Their Ministry" [of The Christian Church]: "The apostles and workers had authority over the church, as was shown when the author of Hebrews exhorted his people to "remember them which have the rule over you." Prue's own fantastic site describes a very real and structured authority of "leaders" other than Jesus Christ. Was this a specific enough example?
|
|
|
Post by ozelaine on May 24, 2006 18:59:13 GMT -5
Thank you Prue for your reply. The Gospel needs a lot more explaining than there is time and space for here I agree. Maybe we could just go through a little at a time.
You said:
"What he brought is priceless, and we can never repay. But it is also costly in that a lot is asked of us if we are to have his grace."
In my humble opinion:
The Gospel is the Good News of Salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.
Since grace is receiving what we don't deserve then I can't fit that with your view of something we need to do that preceeds that grace. How is that Good News?
How is it possible to please God when we are dead in trespasses and sins? Unsaved, unregenerate people cannot respond to God.
"...by the obedience of ONE shall many be made Righteous (Rom. 5:19);
"...unto whom God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT WORKS" (Rom. 4:6),
What do you believe these verses mean?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 24, 2006 19:25:54 GMT -5
Prue, Is it possible for a Christian who does not attend 2x2 meetings to receive salvation? Perhaps prue could finally answer this question...
|
|
|
Post by ozelaine on May 25, 2006 6:11:00 GMT -5
I was wondering if you have missed my questions about the Gospel on post #63 Prue, the board is pretty busy at the moment.
OzE.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 25, 2006 6:12:48 GMT -5
To lacpastor. You asked if I have been a part of other denominations. Yes, and generally, I enjoyed the people, and found their service interesting, so long as it wasn't too nebulous. I do enjoy Jehova Witness services and literature I find Roman Catholicism quite interesting Mormonism is a bit strange in doctrine, but the folk are nice, and like practicing Catholics and JW's, I respect them.
A lot of these churches I can accept, of course, because they focus upon aspects of Christianity familiar to me.
.. but Islam I find totally offensive.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 25, 2006 6:30:28 GMT -5
To Rob You said "Can you not, as Peter exhorted, give a defense of the hope that you have?" in regards to what I said are ambiguities of the New Testament.
I am sure something like this was asked of Peter:
Why don't you have a name? You are a "sect," are you not? Why did you support James with the Law, and then Paul with Grace? Why have so many left your sect? Many are saying you people stole Jesus out of the tomb? Was Jesus really from Bethlehem, or just another Galilean? Where is your creed, your constitution, your doctrine? Did others wrote many of your hymns? Where is your proof of all these things? Do you have a theological background? Can anyone be saved outside your religion? There are many good people in the world who don't accept your beliefs.
and so on.
|
|
|
Post by to Prue on May 25, 2006 6:34:03 GMT -5
You wrote "You asked if I have been a part of other denominations."
Could you please define "a part" as you used it above? How much "a part" have you been? Did you attend the church regularly for a period of time? Or go once with a friend? Did you join any of the churches you mentioned? etc.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 25, 2006 6:43:54 GMT -5
Well Prue,
I do admit to being disappointed that you prefer evasiveness to straight answers. That is what we have come to expect of the apologists for traditional 2x2ism. I had initially hoped you were different, but I think I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 25, 2006 7:02:51 GMT -5
To "to Prue" You asked "Could you please define "a part" as you used it above? How much "a part" have you been? Did you attend the church regularly"
I have not been a lifelong member of my faith. Often I would go to churches out of curiosity. I am particularly interested in Judaism and Roman Catholicism because of their deep roots.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 25, 2006 7:06:36 GMT -5
To OzElaine
We believe that Grace is given as a gift to those who are prepared to hear and obey. Why would God give grace to people not willing to obey? Some take this gift of grace simply by virtue of believing.
I like what one minister, in his column, said. “If we try to atone for our own sins then we trivialise our sin.”
“How is it possible to please God when we are dead in trespasses and sins” It says that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” What the widow with two mites gave was of no consequence, but it was her act of willingness and sacrifice that caused Jesus to notice.
Yes, the “obedience of one” – but that doesn’t mean the disobedience of everyone, forever more. His obedience is our salvation, but it is given to those who in turn obey and follow Him.
“righteousness WITHOUT WORKS.” Paul was referring to the Law – that the works of Law in themselves, ie sacrifice, cannot bring us to Christ. This is a main point of contention between Catholics and Protestants. An easy way to tell is just look at the admonitions, expectation and example of Paul, the author of these words.
Where are you from?
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 25, 2006 7:14:33 GMT -5
Hi Rob. I have tried to answer questions here. I have been counting how many of my own have been answered, and am quite surprised - less than 1%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2006 8:23:07 GMT -5
To lacpastor. You asked if I have been a part of other denominations. Yes, and generally, I enjoyed the people, and found their service interesting, so long as it wasn't too nebulous. I do enjoy Jehova Witness services and literature I find Roman Catholicism quite interesting Mormonism is a bit strange in doctrine, but the folk are nice, and like practicing Catholics and JW's, I respect them. A lot of these churches I can accept, of course, because they focus upon aspects of Christianity familiar to me. .. but Islam I find totally offensive. So you really haven't been part of anything outside of your own tradition then. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are not at all within the historic Christian faith as they deny central tenets, and in the case of Mormonism add quite a bit. The Roman Catholic church is the best overall example of the traditional church, but it does not seem that you have been exposed to much in the Protestant wing. I will be g;ad to answer any questions that you might have of me. Thanks for being willing! Karl
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 25, 2006 10:37:47 GMT -5
I . . . found their service interesting, so long as it wasn't too nebulous. If this is the case, then 2x2ism is certainly not for you.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 25, 2006 11:29:51 GMT -5
To lacpastor. ... A lot of these churches I can accept, of course, because they focus upon aspects of Christianity familiar to me. .. but Islam I find totally offensive. Prue, I'm intrigued by the fact that you find Islam offensive, and if you don't mind, I'd like to understand better your thoughts in that regard. Is there a particular aspect of Islam that you find offensive, or is it a general dislike? Is it because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Savior? For myself, I felt differently about Islam before I became acquainted with some practitioners thereof. So I wonder, do you have any acquaintances, close acquaintances, freinds, or relatives that practice Islam?
|
|
|
Post by ozelaine on May 25, 2006 22:17:45 GMT -5
Prue,
Your reply to me was not very clear and I can't really follow your thoughts. I'll leave others to try and sort through what it is you really do believe.
By the way I'm from Victoria.
OzE.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 26, 2006 1:52:49 GMT -5
To Gene Hi. I cannot accept Islam because I am a Christian - period. Yes, Islam repudiates the Christ. Islam also returns to the Law of the Old Testament. Islam loves this world, and its literature is about worldly kingdoms, human achievements etc.. I am also shocked at the violence of Islamic thought, and here I am not just speaking about radicals. But, the fact that it sees the New Testament as a fabrication is enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 26, 2006 1:59:06 GMT -5
Hi Ilylo - no, the one thing I like about my faith is that it is quite clear where it stands on things, what we believe and don't believe is quite clear. You may not agree with those things, but you can't say they are not clear about it. When I ask a question on this board such as, "where do you folk draw a line with what is good and bad?" and get utterly no response, I take that as being nebulous. But, being nebulous here I am referring to this vacuous, ephemeral "spirit" thing, such as one I heard yesterday, finding "spiritual beauty" in a wilderness area. What therefore does a "spirit led" person believe in?
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 26, 2006 2:17:46 GMT -5
To OzElaine Sorry if my reply was all over the place, but the question was simply too broad. I did find out you were from Victoria Australia because I read your entry under that very interesting post on where everyone is from. Amazing how people can communicate so quickly around the world!
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 26, 2006 2:33:10 GMT -5
Prue, sorry to say, but you live in a fantasy world. There is anything but clarity in the F&W world. Some are Trinitarian, some are Arian, some are Pelagian, others are evangelical, some believe no divorce is allowed and have a blanket condemnation on remarriage, some believe remarriage after adultery is the only exception, others believe in a case-by-case approach, some accept external Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, others reject any such notion, ad infinitum. No consensus exists on any important topic.
You may feel a certainty in your mind that what you believe is the correct essence of Christianity and the next Friend or Workers may totally disagree but have a certainty that what they believe is the correct essence of Christianity.
I suggest that any clarity or consensus you feel exists is because Australian F&Ws are largely uniform in their beliefs. But then you face the problem of explaining why Australian 2x2ism is the authentic expression of Christianity.
If you are prepared to actually think through your rhetoric you may be surprised at what you find.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 26, 2006 5:42:57 GMT -5
Hi Rob. Talking technical about diversity of opinion:
Within my faith the normal distribution (bell curve) of opinions is quite tight. This curve exists pretty everywhere in nature, politics, engineering etc. There will always be a left, middle and right to this curve (centre, conservative and liberal.) I don't see such tight opinion distribution in the churches I have looked at.
Within mainstream Australian religions, such as the Uniting Church, you have groups that hate each other and have fought issues for 40 years, such as women priests, gays and lesbians etc.. Roman Catholics seem almost split into two over the authority of the Pope. This hate and division runs from the laity all the way to the top. And more, one group will accept there is a God, and another group that there is not!
I have not met anyone in my faith who believes that outsiders are brothers and sisters in a spiritual sense - though I am sure they exist. They wouldn't fit within the standard deviation, and would reside on the far liberal left ultra thin end of this chart.
As for trinitarians, arians, pelagians etc. I am sure a lot would not know what they meant, or even care. They may find themselves agreeing and disagreeing on the same point, depending on how it is expressed, or what implications someone is trying to make.
There would have been diversity within the apostolic church, and even amongst the apostles. It is all a matter of degrees. Compared to mainstream groups, the degree of difference here is something that requires robust exaggeration by VOT's to even be considered as an attacking point.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 26, 2006 5:49:21 GMT -5
Prue,
I spent 23 years in your "faith" as you call it. My brother was a worker. I knew many workers and many friends. I believe you believe what you are saying but your group is doctrinally fragmented.
Try polling all the current friends who participate on this forum. You will find many different viewpoints.
However, I'm sure you believe your view represents authentic Christianity and you will outrightly reject the views of those even within your group should they disagree with you.
Ps. How long have you been in the group?
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 26, 2006 5:57:05 GMT -5
Hi Rob, yes, there are differences, again. But the degree of difference within the mainstream is the point. Amonst the disciples - John was more willing to believe than Thomas, and amongst early workers James was more conservative than Paul. We don't have a viewpoint as broad as, from say, belief to disbelief in God, that you will encounter in some churches.
|
|