paul1149

AISI, the root of the issue is that God in His wisdom chooses to respect the structures He set in place in this age, despite those structures largely having rebelled against Him. So the Kingdom was introduced and is spread as a guerrilla operation in a hostile milieu. He knows the right time to wrap the whole thing up and call the rebels to account, when the most good will be done and the most souls saved. Until then, we struggle against evil, including the powers that be and our own propensity to sin.

It's interesting that the first Church meeting after the Holy Spirit fell almost immediately broke out of its four walls and brought the message outside. p.

It was my first poll, and I messed it up. I should have specified in-depth bible study and used radio buttons. I didn't know multiple choice meant more than one answer is possible. I very often use some sort of original language aid, either inline Strong's or interlinear or parallel versions. This is where electronic bibles outperform -along with their defining function: SEARCH!

Lady C - I also should have clicked two - both Websites and commercial, but I just stuck with commercial. I use the websites for finding and copying verses to use for social media, but for deeper study or a lot of quoting I use Logos, which segues into Word for writing. asecretchord - I use hard copy too, and I like the sense of context the page gives, but I use it much less than I used to. Quite a revolution we're living through. bb, p.

Probably many here know of this, but I just discovered The Word software: http://j.mp/1J7gfg. It's free, very well conceptualized, and very beautiful to the eye (important for long study sessions). It's also young, and it's developer is actively responding to user requests and suggestions, so it should have a bright future ahead of it. The major limitation at this point is a relative dearth of modules. But there is an import tool for the free e-sword modules and more, and more modules are coming online continually. I have Logos, which is very powerful but a resource bear - and very expensive. I frankly get more excited about what people are doing in the low-or-no cost area than on the top shelf, since by far most people can't afford hundreds or even thousands of $$ for Bible software. There's also a Pocket Word, I guess for PDAs. I have no connection; I just want people to be able to study the Word effectively, and I have an aesthetic appreciation for well- and creatively-designed software. I just saw the Poll form and thought it would be interesting to poll people here. Hope that's ok. bb, p.

I agree Paul1149. All commentaries are man made based on mans interpretation of the word of God. Whoa, agreement here!? Hallelujah! How good and pleasant.... I'm actually not an anti-commentary person. When I'm trying to take apart a passage I'll often whip one out and learn from it - before I make up my own mind. But I dislike commentary wars, or any kind of theological wars. I like what Wigglesworth said: "Some like to read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew; I like to read it in Holy Spirit". I don't pretend not to need help at times from others, but the HS is the final interpreter and can get the meaning across to the heart that is open. Be blessed, p.

If someone were to come to me broken by sin and repentant, as Christ's ambassador I would tell them the same. But thats not what we are discussing. Actually it is ...God forgives them, not a priest, rabbi or minister, but God, and only those with a contrite and repentant heart...because only God can see the heart. And this forgiveness only comes by way of the cross, through Christ Jesus. The scriptures I researched are the ones you listed in response to my question as to how you justified a priest's ability to forgive sin and the apostolic succession, in which I found no support for such a claim. In this thread I have seen it stated that salvation can only be received if you belong to the one true church, meaning the RCC, I would be interested to know the scriptures used to support this claim. I need to know how my understanding of the sacrifice my Lord and Savior made ,by God's Grace, is no longer a free gift, but dependent upon my membership and the approval of the catholic church. I need to understand why catholic priests are called father, when the scriptures clearly prohibit us from doing so. I need to understand what scriptures encourage God's children to pray to any other being except Him. i need to understand how a church, any church, can demand things for God's gifts beyond that which God requires. I suggest you review my posts to see where I said the things you say I did, and before you define for yourself what I am discussing.

Would you please tell me where to find this in the gospel. Mt 16.19, 18.18, Jn 20.23 for starters. Mt.16:19 Is about the authority given to the Apostles to teach and preach the gospel. Albert Barnes Comm. It was not to forgive individuals, but to establish in all churches the terms and conditions on which men might be. Adam Clark Comm. When the Jews made a man a doctor of law, they put into his hand a key of a closet in the temple where the sacred books were kept, and also tablets to write upon, signifying, by this, that they gave him the authority to teach and explain the scriptures. Binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Jews, and that they meant binding or forbidding, granting or refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, this is in reference to John20:23 Authority is given to determine who is worthy to be a member of the church( see Isaiah 22:22). How can a priest or minister know a man's heart and determine whether he is worthy of forgiveness. Almighty God through the, one time only, sacrifice ,made by our Lord Christ Jesus, accepts this payment in atonement for the sins of all mankind. Why then, would a priest, able to forgive sin( as you say), require penance, when God Almighty Himself does not require the same? Acts6:6 Albert Barnes, Among the Jews it was customary to lay hands on the head of a person who was set apart to any particular office(Nu,27:18) also (Ac.8:19). This was done, not to impart any power or ability, but to designate that they received their authority or commission, from those who laid their hands on them... 2Timothy1:6 Albert Barnes, that thou stir up the gift of God,, That thou kindle as a fire, the original word here denotes the kindling of a fire. The idea is, that Timothy was to use all proper means to keep the flame of pure religion in the soul burning, and more particularly his zeal in the great cause to which he had been set apart. which is in thee by putting on of my hands, In connection with the presbytery(see 1Ti4:14). This proves that Paul took part in the ordination of Timothy, but it does not prove either that he performed the duty alone, or that the " ordaining virtue ", whatever it was, was imparted by him only, for it is expressly said in 1 Ti 4:14, that he was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, of which Paul was doubtless one.... 2Timothy2:2 Brethren commentary...From the concluding part of the verse " who shall be able to teach others also ", it is implied that the ' things " here alluded to include all things Paul had taught him pertaining to the doctrines of the Christian religion and how he should conduct himself as a minister of Christ. On verse 2 Adam Clarke says this.. but where is the uninterrupted apostolic succession. Who can tell? Probably it does not exist on the face of the world. All pretensions to it by certain churches are as stupid as they are idle and futile. He who appeals to this for his authority as a Christian minister, had best sit down till he has made it out.... Titus1:5..John Wesley, Ordain Elders- Appoint the most faithful, zealous men to watch over the rest. Their character follows, Titus1:6-9. These were the elders, or bishops, that Paul approved of, men that had living faith, a pure conscience, a blameless life. I consulted more than the commentaries I quoted above. Consistent throughout was the declaration that only God can forgive sin and that the authority given to the church was to teach and preach the gospel and to maintain the truth in the teaching. Thanks, but I'm not interested in interpretations and a barrage of commentary. If someone comes to me broken by sin and repentant, I'm going to take up my God-given role as Christ's ambassador and tell them on the authority of Scripture that God forgives them and wants to restore.

No that is not really true. They believe that if you are born a Protestant and taught in that Church you can go to heaven. But you are correct in that they believe that only their Church is the fullness of the Church established by Christ. So a Christian would be missing out by not joining them at some level. Yes. That is true. Outside the one holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church there is no salvation. To put a little finer point on it, the RCC teaches that joining the church is necessary for salvation if one understands that it is the one true church. They also teach that all other valid churches are subsumed in the RCC.

I think circumstances have a lot to do with it. Some premarital situations lead to marriage, and in those cases marriage is to be encouraged. When there is stability and love, I would congratulate and then promote the deeper commitment of marriage. Other situations are tougher. I might offer congratulations, but not so enthusiastically, and then use it as a touchpoint to talk about getting relationships right (or breaking them off), and affirming the value of all human life in God's eyes. Basically, in each situation I would try to engage the person where he/she is at and then try to promote a better position, if there is one.

Would you please tell me where to find this in the gospel. Mt 16.19, 18.18, Jn 20.23 for starters.

AISI, who to confess to depends on the nature of the sin. When the Prodigal Son returned, he said to his father "I have sinned against heaven and in your sight". Similarly, sins against a marriage should be confessed to the spouse, sins against the Body should be confessed to the Body. That way both vertical and horizontal relationships are restored. Even the passage in James talks about calling in the church elders. I see this as a sort of discernment/counselling/repentance session with mature believers. There's power in unity, and Jesus did give the church the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. What I don't agree with is making canon law out of this stuff and saying it's the only way for all sins to be confessed.

That was a true blessing. I've been following the Muslim world, and in particular the witness being made among Muslims, and it is amazing. YouTube is loaded with such testimonies. bb, p.

It's now morphed into a global elitism. Instead of one race dominating the others, it will be an intelligentsia with complete command and control of a dumbed-down and manipulated population, with the media used to manufacture consent. What today's socialists and Hitler's National Socialists have in common is love of the state, because it is their vehicle to wield coercive power over those who disagree. The only antidote I know of - if there is a political antidote at this point - is a Biblically-informed conservatism that focuses on government's role to keep the peace and protect the borders. To others: I personally think we have a lot to be thankful for in the US. Last century it was aggressive godless Communism threatening us, now it's no less threatening (and no less godless) militant Islam. Our forebears fought, suffered and died so that we could freely study, speak, and live the Word. That's more than a privilege, it's a responsibility to live in a way that honors their sacrifices. That's what saluting the flag means to me. And as the pledge rightly says, it's all under God. Should the day come when the law of the land contradicts fidelity to God, God will come first; the flag is no idol to me. In many ways we are seeing the nation change into something we could not have recognized 40 years ago, and it's not good. The enemy couldn't take us down militarily, so instead turned his attention to an ideological gradualism, brought on generationally through the schools. And the plan has been working so splendidly that what started insidiously has begun to break out into daylight. I would like to see government brought back to the classic ideal the Founders delivered to us, so that we could have maximum freedom to live out the Gospel. But that can't happen without reeducating much of the populace concerning principled freedom and moral responsibility. Considering what this nation has been doing with its freedom (sexual immorality, economic immorality, humanistic relativism, etc), we are on a collision course with disaster, and the election of Obama is a sign that fate approaches quickly. It may well be that persecution is in the cards. The Lord can work through that as well, but I will work for the common good as long as I am able. bb, p.

A headline today had the superintendent saying that the video was illegally made and published. The impression I got was that he was more upset at being caught than at what actually happened. And I'm not surprised. That seems to be the standard response these days. The nation is out of control. Never thought I'd see it degenerate this far, though Clinton was headed here as well. The state ed. dept. is now going to investigate. Hopefully the parents in this Jersey town are really angry.

When I started reading the Bible many years ago, before I was saved, I also started on page one and read consecutively. But I wouldn't recommend it. At least for a new believer, some parts, such as the "begats", simply are not as edifying as others. And there's so much in the OT that I found myself getting lost in the forest. Also, if you're new to Bible reading, you're adding extra difficulty with the KJV. I found it took a bit of getting used to the phraseology before I could think along with it. bb, p.

Much of Mt 11 is devoted to defining the Messiahship of Christ. John asks whether it is true. Jesus demonstrates it in deed. He blesses those who are not stumbled by Him. He condemns the cities that wouldn't believe in Him despite His display of the revelation and power of God. Then He praises God for revealing these things to the pure in heart rather than the intellectual. I've always though that this verse refers to the necessity of our seizing the kingdom through a spiritual warfare that conquers the world, the flesh and the devil - all three. It ties in with the letters to the seven churches of Revelation, where so often those churches are exhorted to overcome various obstacles in order to be fully reconciled to God's will. Our destiny in God does not happen automatically. There is much opposition, from various sources, that must be overcome. That's where violence comes in. bb, p.

Thanks, I was waiting for this to come out, but thought it would be next week. Clearly Islam is at war with itself concerning its self-identity. Indeed, I believe this is God's purpose for the war on terrorism. For me, the ironic thing is that while I wish and pray for the Reformers' success, I disagree with their characterization of Islam as a religion of peace. I think Islam's source books and the record of its founder argue definitively against that. The radicals are the ones who have it right. Some of the reformers are getting very bold. Witness the one guy who said he would rather a person find another religion altogether than embrace radical Islam. In coercive Islamic culture, that's enough to get your head cut off. And I've been continuing to follow the post-election resistance in Iran fairly closely, and their brave stand for freedom is humbling. Even more, I've witnessed a rare beauty in their hearts of some. They don't have anywhere near the accurate revelation of God that we do, but the level of selfless devotion to God, in the face of great danger, that I saw was amazing. bb, p.

I think the best way to prove God's will is a multifaceted approach. We can test it by the Bible, the church, circumstances and our conscience. But it's important to realize that any or all of these can lead us to error. We can misinterpret the Word, the church can be wrong, circumstances often mislead, and we can deceive ourselves. I think the answer starts with walking circumspectly. Run these tests, and give God enough time to let the dust settle. And then take the next step. Jesus says in John that anyone who is willing to do the will of God will know of the doctrine, whether it is of God. This promise was the basis of George Muller's method of proving God's will. After he ran the above tests, he then prepared himself by emptying his will of any preferences in the matter at hand. He submitted, ahead of time, to God in the matter. Regardless of how God then answered, he was willing to obey. In this way he knew that he had removed him own error from the equation, and then he trusted God to give him the right way to go. When he finally got his direction it was attended by light and peace. And oftentimes the way God directed was higher than natural reasoning could dictate. Muller had an amazing life of victorious faith. bb, p.

I'm glad you see that, LovingHimForever. Many times people conflate forgiveness and reconciliation, and that causes problems because they essentially are separate. And when they're wrongly tied together, people either tend not to forgive because they think they then will have to reconcile, or they reconcile because they've forgiven, and harbor bitterness because the reconciliation is unjustified. Reconciliation is based on trust. bb, p.

I worry a bit less about the prosperity teaching - wrong as it is - because it's basically immaturity that can and will be corrected with a personal rude awakening or two. And yes, the bumps will cause some to turn away. More troublesome I believe is the creeping liberal humanism that progressively infects us, because there isn't much natural restraint against it once institutional barriers have been breached (indeed, law is actually being used as it vanguard). Many of the destructive effects are generational, and by the time the data is in a lot of damage will have been done. And Charitow - your comment was "babbling" only in the sense of clear, cool mountain brook! <smile> bb, p.

Thanks for raising this issue. I think the difference between "sending away" and divorce adds another dimension to our understanding. I think especially regarding the OT passages, it clarifies the original intent. But I'm not so sure that translates perfectly over to the NT, as is claimed. Consider briefly Mt 19: They said to Him,

As I see it, the sin against the Body by Ananias and Sapphira took place in the context of a lot of Light. The Holy Spirit was filling the church in a mighty way back then, and love was perfected to the degree that people were giving their fortunes to the church for distribution. Because of the stark contrast, the sin against Body unity here shows a depth of motivation that a lie in another context might not have. Sin carries a price. God sees the heart and can judge perfectly. In this case, the judgment was loss of life. I don't see any proof, though, that they lost their salvation. It could be that they were taken so that they wouldn't. bb, p.

For me the central question would be the vow aspect. In Acts there are two instances of vows mentioned, both involving Paul - one directly, the other at least peripherally: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/tran...V&cscs=acts Evidently taking a vow is ok. Is a vow of silence ok? I don't see why not. But the crucial thing is the leading of the Lord and the motivations of the heart. It's not to be an external performance thing; it's to allow the Lord to bring resolution and holiness to root issues. bb, p.

Not that he operated outside the Law, but outside the authority of the religious leaders. bb, p.