L.J.

Consider it a sign.

Ervin, You say that Socrates died the same death as Jesus because Socrates was an innocent man. Socrates was not an innocent man. He sinned like we all do. Jesus, on the other hand, did die an innocent man. He committed no sin. Plus Socrates did not die someone else's death. Jesus died a death that we all deserved. If you believe some things in the bible, but not all of it, how do you distinguish between what is true and what is not true? I can tell you what I look for in a congregation. I read my bible, I pray and I choose one that as close as possible matches what I see is portrayed in Scripture. Be careful on jumping into a denomination without having a strong base in the word. One can easily be led astray.

First we have changed the meaning of Tithing. Tithing literally means 10 percent. So you can't "tithe" 5 percent. You can't tithe 20 percent. And tithing 10 percent is redundant. Second, in the New Testament, Christians were from a mix culture. Many were not from the Jewish faith so tithing was foreign to them. What you see in the letters from Paul was to help out when help is needed. Third, there is nothing wrong with tithing. There is nothing wrong with not tithing. Where the blessing comes is giving 100 percent of our hearts. That is what our Father wants.

While it's true it's not their official creed, you will never get a creed from them. To have a creed would solidify their beliefs and put them in a corner. They want us to believe that Christianity evolves. They want us to believe that they are "radical". Radical literally means root (going back to the basics). The emergent movement is anything but going back to the basics. I personally think that the emergents will continue to grow. And IMHO one of the reasons for that growth is that we as brothers and sisters in Christ argue over doctrines and theologies and we ourselves won't go back to the root of our faith, which is Jesus Christ Himself and His teachings. And I have been as guilty as anyone else.

Yet the only mention of love in the above creed is in reference to a book. Not really ... we read "I believe that Love Wins and that the divine being will ultimately help us all embrace the divine spark (Imago dei) within all of us so that we can become one with the great mysterious majestic spirit and experience self-actualization, the next evolutionary leap and the life of the ages." They have been on this site and many others and they approach people with "God is love and is in everyone, sinner or not". Notice the acceptance of everything that is sin, but tears apart all that goes against sin? They also don't like the "theo-capitalist suicide machine". That's what I mean. Love Wins is a book by Rob Bell. Hence the capital letters. In their creed, that is the only reference to love. They love everybody and everything except people who take the Bible as the Word of God. While sometimes they do bring up some good points, it's usually by chance. About the same chance as a blind squirrel has to finding an acorn. To be honest, at first I was fascinated by their teachings. But the more I dug into them the more I realized that their "new conversation" was nothing more of an attack on orthodoxy than trying to find the truth. They practice the religion of Re-. Re-imagining... Re-inventing..... Re-thinking.... Re-visiting..... How about re-reading. Getting back to the Bible and practicing what it says. Not trying to evaluate it against what we experience in a fallen world.

Yet the only mention of love in the above creed is in reference to a book.

I agree Candice. It seems in the effort to be "inclusive" they practice exclusiveness to the Truth.

Found this on another forum. Not sure it's true but does seem to be the case... "Finally... The Emergent Church Creed (from LetterOfMarque.us): I believe, but not with absolute certainty, in a majestic mysterious divine being who cannot be comprehended, the initiator of Darwinian Evolution. And in Jesus, whom we agree to follow with a humble hermeneutic, who was conceived by the Mother Spirit (aka Sarayu from The Shack) born of Mary who probably wasn’t a virgin (it really wouldn't matter if she was or wasn’t) who was crucified under Pontius Pilate in order to expose the evils of the Roman Empire and motivate us to defect from all Imperial framing stories. On the third day He/She rose in the hearts of His/Her followers (getting hung up in Modernist arguments for or against Jesus' bodily resurrection entirely misses the point and the beauty of the resurrection narratives) He/She ascended into heaven and He/She is dreaming and hoping that we’ll follow His/Her examples of feeding the poor, embracing the “other” and non-violent passive resistance and thereby dismantle the theo-capitalist suicide machine and create an economically sustainable and socially just Kingdom of God on Earth (aka Global Marxist Socialism) so that He/She can return, glorify us and give us all a big group hug. I believe the mysterious divine being embraces all of us in community through questions and conversations. (Answers are not needed and only impede the journey.) Homosexuality is a gift to be embraced instead of a sin to be repented of, and that there are also followers of god in the way of Allah, Buddha, and Vishnu. I believe that Love Wins and that the divine being will ultimately help us all embrace the divine spark (Imago dei) within all of us so that we can become one with the great mysterious majestic spirit and experience self-actualization, the next evolutionary leap and the life of the ages. Peace out. Namaste"

Repentance is returning to Him, returning to where we should have started. If one has confessed His name, which is required for salvation then we would start to walk in His ways, which is returning to Him. In the Hebraic thought repent is teshuvah, not making effort to turn from but to turn back to, turning our backs on our fleshly lives and thoughts and to allow the Spirit to return us to a place where we can hear His voice more clearly. Repentance is the condition of the heart, softening it so He can mold us into the person we are meant to be in Him. So if you have confessed His name, you are repenting, you are returning to Him. You cannot confess His name without confessing your sins, repenting them is part of it all. shalom, Mizz That is beautiful!!

I want to throw this out there. I really don't know what to think on the subject and hoping someone might enlighten me. In some places in scripture, repentance is required for salvation, yet others it seems like it isn't. So the question is: Does salvation require repentance or does repentance require salvation?

I have the same problem. What I have found is waiting on God to give the opportunity to speak to that person. They may ask a question that opens the door for dialogue. Also pray for God to give you the words to speak. What I have found is that beating someone over the head with a bible rarely works.

Not sure who you are addressing this to. I'm going to go ahead and take it's me (or maybe both). "You cannot lump all churches into the same boat" No you can't, but I am talking about my personal experience and there are alot of people that feel the same way. If not just go to www.simplechurch.org or any organic/simple church sites. Check out George Barna's research on the subject. BTW Barna is one of the leading christian statisticians out there and his research is used by just about every major christian news group out there. (p.s. he also co-wrote Pagan Christianity) "If you chose not to attend a church, fine, but perhaps you have not yet found the right one for you?" As far as attending a church, I'll explain more about that later. But I don't think I said anywhere (nor did the OP) about not attending a local assembly. And since when should we choose a body of believers like we are in a cafeteria picking food? "As for spreading the word. Our church works from Mongolia, to Madagascar, to Zimbabwe and in Mozambique. And recently the Bahama's and New Zeland." That is awesome!! I think we all should do more in supporting foreign missions, but that doesn't take place in personally spreading the word, and I think that is what the OP was getting at. Too many times we think writing a check is evangelism, and it's not. "We go to church to learn, then we go......." Ok, I'm lumping this with the whole attending church comment. Where in scripture do we "go to church"? There is nowhere in scripture that describes a church as a place. It's a people. We are the church! We assemble together as commanded in scripture. We assemble to corporately pray and worship together, to edify one another, to attend to each others needs, and to share a meal together. Atleast that is what the first century church did. "Where are you spreading the word?" Work mostly since that takes up the majority of my time. And watching someone who a year ago didn't know Jesus from Moses to now talking non-stop about what he read in the Bible last night and going to different congregations sharing his testimony is awesome!! Watching God work in this young man's life and seeing how it's effecting his wife and children is just amazing. To God all the glory!! I don't think neither the OP or I have suggested anyone leave their congregation. But local assemblies are losing people in droves now. More and more people are without a church home. There has to be a reason and I don't think its all about them "not finding the right church for them".

I do think your on to something DLANE. A good book to pick up or atleast check out their websites is Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Alot of things done in today's "churches" are not biblical in the least. L.J.

The problem is not who to vote for, or if we don't have enough Christians voting. Our problem is we don't have enough CHRISTIANS!! I'm not talking pew warmers but true hard core followers of Christ. When that becomes a majority, then you will see this country change. Then again, it could be God's plan that this country falls. He does establish the rulers.

I voted no. Like Cobalt, I was married to a Mormon for 8 years. They are not Christian. I decided long ago that I was a Christian who happens to be an American. If there is not a believer on the ticket, I just don't vote. Is it un-American not to vote? I don't think so. It's a right, not a demand. Before anyone starts waving a flag and saying I'm unpatriotic, I proudly served 10 years in the armed forces. I paid for my right for free speech and the right not to vote. I answer to God for my decisions. Nobody else! Don't mean to sound so harsh. Just tired of some people defining what is duty. Don't remember seeing these people when I was pulling broken bodies off the bus during Desert Storm.

That is so neat!!! Our cat jumps in the tub with you. So much for stereotypes about cats not liking water.

While I agree with what the young man is saying, MAN has made religion what it is today. The bible does not shoot down religion, it shoots down man made religion. James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Jesus never criticized what the religious ppl did of that day, he criticized that they had an unclean heart. 1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. We must be careful not to be "religious" about religion. There are 2 types of religion, pure/undefiled and the un-pure/defiled.

I would prefer to vote for a believer, but that's not always an option these days. God is sovereign and can use nonbelievers or believers to do what He wants done. I'm afraid I have to point out that "choosing not to choose" is a choice in itself and a potentially hazardous one. Not voting in a election is actually voting for whoever wins, because they got the most votes. A few thousand people can change the outcome of a local election, and a few million a national one. Choosing not to choose Christ for salvation is ultimately a choice for an eternity without Christ. I used of the term "choosing not to choose" poorly. I would choose not to vote. Hows that. And as far as my not voting helps whoever wins? so be it. I have to stand in front of my God one day, not a politician. Our focus on changing this country seems to be on our politicians. Our focus should be on the lost. We say this is a "Christian" country. Its not. The majority of this country is not followers of Christ. That is where our focus should be. Want to stop abortion? So called gay marriage? Start having prayer in school. Get the trash off our tv's and movie screens? Lets go after the voters to change their hearts and minds, not the politicians. America's problems are not the politicians that are in office, it's the people that put them there.

While I agree with you that many use the name of Jesus for personal gain, I can't think of any issue more important than being a true follower of Christ. A true follower will not compromise any issue.

I guess I'm kinda weird. I won't vote for an unbeliever at all. If there is no choice, I choose not to choose. I feel like I am accountable for my vote. Everytime this comes up, this verse keeps coming to me "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Love it. What a wonderful way of studying scripture.

I don't think Christianity is spiraling down. Maybe the unbelievers view of it will be. True followers of Christ knows the truth and can see through all this junk. I'm with you about an unbeliever leading a bible study. It been better if she was just participating. Especially since she is Jewish, it been awesome to read all the Old Testament prophesies about Christ. L.J.

Short answer, Yes. To think God would want someone to stay in a marriage where the person is being physically abused just sounds out of character with the God in the Bible. Atleast the One that I read about. L.J.

Taylor, It is a good question, one that I am sure we all have asked ourselves. Don't confuse salvation with sanctification. I'm still learning the sanctification part. The difference is salvation means we are saved and sanctification means we are being set apart. The fact that you feel bad is the Holy Spirit working on you. Should you be worried about sins, YES. Does it mean your not saved? I can't answer that question, but if you repent (turn away) they are forgiven. Are you gonna stumble? Yes, we all do. Sanctification is a process. As far as it concerns me and my walk, a very gradual one. I'm trying to stay in the word and on my knees. As far as you feeling your trying to earn your salvation, you won't. The fact that it's still hard to "do good" is your flesh. Just trying to "do good" on your own will never get easier. Stay in the word, stay in prayer and stay in fellowship. Lately, I have even starting to cut away from those who are not believers, watching what kind of shows and what kind of music I listen to. It's not "to be saved" but its to not allow myself to be influenced by the world. I know these days preachers seem to always preach on "how to be saved" and hardly anything on "what's next". Just my 2 cents. L.J.

I am curious, what makes you think the NASB, sometimes the KJV and the NIV are the best translations? My faith in the KJV is based on the TR. I can tell you why I think it is the best translation. To think the NASB, sometimes the KJV and NIV are best, there must be a reason? The KJV is based on the TR, and the NASB and NIV on the majority text. Why these three? What do they have in common? By the way, you mentioned how some translations were changed for a political agenda. One of the people involved in the translation of the NIV was a lesbian. The more recent version of the NIV, the TNIV, is gender neutral. It was created to cater to feminists. The NIV leaves verses out and relegates them to footnotes, and discredits other scriptures by stating that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..." The NIV is a terrible translation. I know this was not addressed to me but I would like to try to clear something up. The NASB and the NIV is NOT based on the majority text. It is based on the Minority/Alexandrian text. There is no bible to date that is translated by a committee that is based solely on the majority text. The closest thing we have is the NKJV and that is in the footnotes, not in the main text. As far as your accusation of a lesbian on the NIV committee, you are wrong. The person that you refer to is Virginia Mollencott. She was on the literary committee and had nothing to do with the actual translation. When her sexual views came to light, she was promptly asked to leave. We could start going through the KJV translators or Erasmus himself. Not to mention King James reputation. Why go down that road? Why can't people make a decision on what or how many bibles to read from without someone else accusing of them reading the wrong translation? Oh and before I hear the "well he called me "ilk" and blah blah blah" may i remind you of what you called me in previous posts? Worker of Satan i believe. Hypocrite if I recall? Maybe we have two different definitions of hypocrite. There is ample true material that could be used to bash the KJV, but I have refrained from doing that thus far. I view bashing Bibles as childish and harmful to God's Work. At the least, the KJV only folks use misleading and downright false information to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible that are actually better than the KJV. I'm trying to decide right now whether or not to completely abandon the KJV because of the outrageous claims of the KJV only crowd. I don't want to be associated with that crowd. I can understand bashing spurious translations like the JW bible with a little "b", but I don't think that bashing of real Bibles should be allowed on a Christian forum. We must remember that the Holy Bible wasn't written in English and we're talking about opinions of JUST TRANSLATIONS. The KJV is a good English translation of the Holy Bible, but it's far from being the best English translation of the Holy Bible. Each translation has strengths and weaknesses, and the KJV has more than its share of weaknesses. One can do various Google searches and get the whole story about the KJV and comparisons to other translations that are superior (i.e. ASV, ESV, NAS77, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and others). Only the cult bibles like the JW bible deserve to be bashed. Real Bibles that God is using around the world for His Work should be excluded from such childish and damaging bashing. At the least, Bible bashing causes division, strife, and confusion for the Body Of Christ, especially the babes in Christ. It also creates doubt and confusion for those seeking Christ as Lord and Saviour. All of this space, time, and effort didn't accomplish a single positive thing. It's a tearing down exercise with nothing but negative results. These resources could have been much better spent on just about anything. Brother, Since my last post was quoted I'll respond: First and foremost, I never bashed the KJV. In earlier posts I said there was problems with all translations. I just wish that the same measuring stick used to judge some translations would be used for all. I also said that many people were saved using KJV, NASV, NIV etc. I also stated why I don't use the KJV anymore. These are MY reasons. It took me a long time to come to the point of looking elsewhere. I would hate that someone would pick up another translation because of the rhetoric. And I mean from both sides. Anyways, Happy New Year I hope 2012 is a blessed one for you. L.J.