improved

WOW!!! Thank you so much! I will research it and get studying. please be very careful with this. nouthetic counseling can be dangerous and has done harm to many people. a friend of mine went to a nouthetic counselor when her infant son died. the "counselor" asked her what sin she thought was in her life that caused this to happen. and that is the core belief of nc: all struggles are caused by sin. so they try to get people to stop sinning by thumping them over the head with a bible. there is little compassion and grace with nc. i would first google nouthetic counseling and get the pros and cons of it from what others have to say before you delve into it too deeply. and btw, nc has little to say about psychoses. Sadly, you are right to a degree. Like the Bible, Biblical Counseling has been abused. Without the Holy Spirit present, nothing gets done. Also, without people submitting themselves to the Bible BEFORE counseling begins, nothing productive can happen. That is an awful thing that happened, no doubt, but honestly, just from sitting in class I felt like I became a different person. I also do think that a lot of our problems stem from sin, but not things like the death of children. People just need to be careful and use wisdom with counseling, because counseling without the Bible gives us no goal to reach or purpose in life. We need purpose in our lives. If the Word of God is not used to bring life (even if it involves the painful process of pruning), it is being abused.

All that I'm saying is that we walk away with the expectation to sin, and I think it is wrong to do so. Original Sin is imputed sin, but we trade it for imputed righteousness. Original Sin did two things, though, it made us both Legally (covered in last sentence) and Experientially sinful. the experiential, isolated events of sinning (sin, not Sin) are a pollution of our being with habits. Salvation in its immediate effect (I think the term used was Justification) has already covered the imputed sin, making us legally sinless in His eyes(as I believe I have said thrice, now). We all agree here by this point. The indiviual sin by habit is what we are left to deal with, so I agree with everyone who has already posted. I just have heard the teaching that the original teachings on Salvation were idealistic and optimistic that we never have to sin again. The only problem is that no one has ever had the full faith to break all habits at the first instance of Salvation. The habit breaking is the process. This thread was just inquiring on that original teaching, wondering if I had heard right. (explaining the Hebrew Roots Forum)

1/3 of the Scriptures is Bible prophecy particularly as it relates to the end-times. If God invested that much of his Word on the subject, it would seem fairly important biblical subject matter. I don't think we should rip each other to shreds over the rapture issue, but eschatology is a very important part of the Word of God. Shiloh, In this we agree. Let me offer a thought. I may be wrong, but i dont believe this poster is saying there is no resurrection, just no pre trib rapture, and in this id have to say hes right if this is what he meant. Traditionally since the very early church it has been said that antichrist will wage war on the saints and that this is the final sign of His coming. A secret pre trib rapture was never even considered before the early 19th century. Lets consider this too... we determine sound doctrine from unsound doctrine based on foundational scripture. There isnt a single passage in all of scripture declaring a rapture BEFORE the trib... they base it all on scripture out of context when it comes down to it, and inferances that can be take n in many ways... its also neccessary to not take scripture literally when one defends the pre trib rapture... we cant believe the words of Christ for instance, that the resurrection occurs at the last day Yes we will be caught up to meet the Lord... but this word translated 'meet' has a particular connotation... meaning to leave a place to meet someone coming to you, and escorting them back to where you left from. You're getting the right idea. I didn't say any part of the Bible is unimportant, but I don't think I communicated it right. What I'm trying to say, is that the fashion in which our Lord comes back is inconsequential if you are truly loving Him in this physical love time. Love is an action that enveleopes everything you do. I don't believe in the "blink of an eye, go into the sky Rapture" to avoid the one-man Anti-Christ, type of Eschatology so what? I will let nothing stop me from loving God. If the Rapture comes, I'll be taken up if I have devoted all my energy to loving God and showing compassion on his people (etc,etc,etc.). If the rapture doesn't come, I won't love God any less, and you won't see me sitting on my hands, looking into the sky, anxiously losing my hair as I wait for the Lord to come back. God is good, and God is a powerful, conquering King, even now from Heaven. He gave us Grace to empower us to be overcomers. He told us to subdue the Earth and make His glory cover the Earth. Even from before the sin of Adam there was work to be done. Eden was Heaven on Earth, and Adam was to work the garden so it would cover the Earth. Now, because of Sin the work load is heavier and harder. Focus on this work, not on when we get out of here? I believe the Lord will come after we have overcome AFTER WE have made His Glory cover. Why would our Holy, sanctified, clean Lord let Himself come to this Earth (in His new body, which not even one person was allowed to touch) when we have been just as empowered? I agree with the statement on going to "meet" Him mean more of going to "greet" Him. Personally, this is a little too ambiguous of a verse to base all of my theology off of. Also, sometimes people don't realize what stuff has already happened, what stuff is poetic, etc. when interpreting Apocalyptic scripture. This isn't an attack at anyone, any statement, or any view held in this discussion as far as I know. It is just an observation I have made over years of people trying to teach me different doctrines. That is another reason I don't place such a hard emphasis on Eschatology, when other parts are more cut and dry, pertaining to what is right in my face, right now.

Maybe you misunderstood my proposition; sorry if I'm not communicating well. Here are my main points: -EVERYONE has sinned -EVERYONE can recieve Salvation from Sin (and other things, but that isn't part of the conversation) -EVERYONE that has recieved Salvation from the Beginning of time, has most likely committed a sin after Salvation I think we all agree on every, single one of these points. Right? (I can imagine a resounding mix of "Right!"s, "Amen Brother!"s, "Right On!"s, and "Right-O"s from the imaginart audience) These are pretty foundational and/or experiential. BUT: - Was the original intent that we should be able to live a sin-free life from that point on? Obviously we screw up. Obviously we fall under temptation from time to time. Obviously abounding mercy is a continual must. -"If we do sin..." sounds like there is an expectation to not sin. It sounds like people DO sin, but we aren't expected to. It sounds like DON'T SIN, but there is still Mecry and Forgiveness if you do, so don't walk in fear and condemnation of it. -Phrases like "Go and sin no more" and "Be perfect therefore, like your Father in Heaven is perfect" suggest that there might be a standard that we have lowered. - We are no longer captive to I just like to bounce thoughts off people, and I hope this doesn't turn ugly. I have no intention to step on toes. P.S. Paul was just a name drop for early church figureheads; I was not suggesting that he had Supreme Dominion on doctrine. I was asking "Could people in the Early church, such as Paul [or any other figure], have possibly believed this?"

I think the rapture, and really most-to-all of Eschatology, is the least important of all teachings... sorry to everyone who really gets off on it. I personally don't believe in the "Rapture", and as far as I understand, neither did the original Church. They were much more effectinve than the 21st Century Church. Maye we should learn a lesson.

I would recommend you study Nouthetic Counseling, which is Bible-based. I am finishing up a ten-week (not adequate at all in my idea) class on Biblical Counseling, and that is what we studied. The world has become Humanized in the name of a demon I like to call "being politically correct". (Humanism is actually the religion of atheists, whether they know it or not) Since a Humanized world will not admit that God exists, it will not label anything as sin or demonic activity, either, partially because it doesn't want to be so mean as to openly label anyone with anything so "mean". Instead, sin is called sickness and demonic activity a disorder or psychoses. This allows for the problem to continue, hoping that human will or discovery will triumoh over darkness without God. Don't get me wrong, I believe in organic causes, too. Without the Kingdom of God's perfection on Earth, children are born with defects, brains degenerate, etc. I personally think that doctors and modern medicine are a thing of God, whether they realize it or not, but we rely so much on these things, instead of God, we over prescribe the wrong things in the wrong situations, leaving many people helpless. We try to medicate sin and rehabilitate demons inappropriately, and we see the results of it, don't we? Once again, it is called Nouthetic Counseling. The author of our text books was Jay E. Adams. I believe he has 8 books out books out, two of which we used: "Competent to Counsel" and "The Christian Counselor's Manual"

By original, I mean 1st Century Church, which was Jewish. Did Paul teach that we would have to get "saved from sin" over and over and over again, rededicating our lives to God as we constantly do? Or did he think that we could once and for all get Sin (Original, or Imputed, Sin) legally purged from us, and also have sinful contamination and habits purged from us as well - thus relieveing us from our obsession of being defeated by sin over and over. He tells us that we are empowered to overcome temptation (1 Cor 10:13), which leads me to believe that he thinks we can live completely sinless forever. Grace, as I have come to understand it, means empowerment for whatever God wants us to do or be, as well as to go where He wants us to. This concept of Grace seems much stronger and more powerful to overcome sin than the one that treats Grace more like a whitewash for our inevitable sins to come in spite of our "salvation".

I have heard that the original concept of Salvation is, first of is not just Salvation from sin, but more importantly, that once that Imputed Sin is legally removed I shouldn't expect to sin again. This directly contrasts the Gentile struggle with sin and expecting to succomb to it, while thanking God for the blanket of "Grace" (which I think is misunderstood anyways) to pretend like I don't sin anymore. What is the original view on Salvation. I feel the "Christian" view of it is wrong.

I'm going to put my beliefs in a very blunt way that may make me automatically unpopular, but I'm doing it out of love. Rapture theology has weakened the church ridiculously. It has put so many people on the anxious bench to get saved, with the sole intention of escaping any work or responsibility. The mindset seems to be "If I get saved, the rapture will come soon enough that I'll just have to dance around the darkness so that it doesn't pull me back into sin before the Second Coming." Whatever happened to subduing the Earth? Whatever happened to the empowerment of Grace to overcome? People are too focused on getting themselves out of here at any moment to acually overcome anymore. We're too concerned with how quickly we can leave all the sinners behind to suffer God's wrath than to actually show them Love and bring them to maturity. Personally, I don't see the rapture in any scripture, or anywhere in History before the demonized girl feverishly spouted off some new revelation to add on to the original gospel (Gal 1:6-10). But really, my opinion matters to no one. I figure that whether or not it is a true future event or some fantasy, it should be the last thing we preach after all other aspects of the Bible have been preached. It has become a scare tactic, an anxiety attack, and really (in my childhood experiences) a paranoia for people who expect someone to come home earlier than they did. In all honesty, our devotion to God, our willingness to serve, our drive to advance God's Kingdom should not be effected by the Rapture that is lurking arround the corner. How many people have died in the last 100 years, certain that they wouldn't have to? I guess in summary of all that I have to say, don't make that component of eschatology the cornerstone of your theology. Yeshua is coming back, yes. We will be resurrected, leaving us as champions over death, yes. God is not a God of retreat, but a conquering King! Pastors, bring your people to maturity. Congregations, be mature and help your pastors by being leaders among the people and exaples of maturity. (Hebrews 5:11- 6:3, Eph 4:11-16) God is God and I love Him, whether or not my Eschatology is sorted out perfectly; it does not effect my worship and devotion to Him. I hope this is the same for everyone.

I don't mean to be rude. I just like to aske questions. Why did you choose to post that here? Doesn't that yiekd to the use of the phrase "preching to the choir?" Telling Creationist Chrisitians that Jesus made the world seems like something that has already been said, recieved, and believed from another source many times. This was not meant to be a jab at you; I just know that it is a common critique of Christians. We have a reputation for keeping such things inside our own little comfort zone and building the same building on the same plot of land over and over. I do agree with you, though, we have a God who created all things. His work is manifested physically and is scientifcally observable

I've found that it is just as important to HAVE a testimony, as to be a tesimony. Your testmony needs to be a brief summary of what God has done in you, how you have changed, and what he is doing in you now (like in the past two weeks). Make sure there are a few examples involving YOU laced in it. If you are a dedicated Christian, you get "saved" everyday (not just from sin). If you really want to talk with non-Christians or nominal, passive "Christians", you have to get to the meat and potatoes, because they think the Bible is fake. You can't quote much Bible with them, because they will write you off as a kook. Instead, aaply the BIble to YOU as you talk to them. "They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony." If you have no testimony, you cannot overcome, because apparently the blood of the Lamb has done nothing for you. If it has done nothing for you, you need to redirect your life so that the Power Of God can produce fruit in you. The BEING a testimony is good, don't get me wrong, but that testimony that you are living needs to come off your tongue often. Right on, though.

Amen! The word is "exegesis"