ajchurney

An unfortunate truth to consider on this topic is that we all know that the scriptural ideal and example is to gather together often and regularly. This is what the early church did. I believe that there are only 2 core reasons we do not conform to this. The first is that the church assemblies themselves are often not very spiritually alive and vibrant. People do not want to go to these kind of church meetings because they are either devoid of the life of God and the Holy Spirit, or the life and excitement that is there is completely human in origin, just a bunch of hype and religious activity. This is sad but true, and it is hard to bear for someone who is seeking the real Jesus and real fellowship with other people seeking the same. The second reason is that there is something wrong with the individual who makes excuses not to fellowship at an assembly where real, Spirit-led and Spirit-empowered Christianity is being practiced. The problem here is often offenses and hurts. Otherwise, the issue is likely that this person is not very committed or in love with Christ. There are always rare exceptions to what I am presenting (Home-bound persons, for instance), but these 2 core reasons probably cover 95% of all of the issues. "On fire" people are drawn to each other and understand the powerful dynamic of fellowship. If one is not burning with passion for the Lord, that is the first issue to find the solution for!! Blessings, Andy

It bears some similarity to how the Lord used the Scribes of Israel, even when the religious establishment was quite corrupt, to preserve the Tenach. It seems that much of the preservation work occurred in the monasteries, where men were set apart from much (but certainly not all) of the common abuses and terrors of the RCC. Scribal work before the advent of the printing press was laborious, tedious, and exacting. It really is amazing how the Lord orchestrates such a thing, even with very much imperfect men and movements of men.

All sin begins with thinking about it, as the battlefield of Christianity for the individual is in the mind. In Rom 12:1-2, we are given the way of the Spirit and life, and this is to continually submit ourselves to God as a true offering, and resist and refuse to be conformed to the things of the world, but be transformed by the renewing process of the Spirit. Our culture is saturated with overt sexuality, so if one does not guard the "gates" of the senses from this sexual frenzy, one will be conformed to it, instead of being transformed into the image of Christ, thinking with the mind of Christ and not the mind of perversion. I also agree with several of the posts that one must be particularly sensitive and guarded to these truths as a leader. Satanic tempters will always prefer the "bigger" target, as taking out the leader usually, if not always, has a domino effect of discouragement and disillusionment in the followers of the fallen leader. I believe it is wise to guard against tempting thoughts first, and tempting situations as well, as Shiloh wrote of.

I am also thin and have a ridiculous metabolism. However, I think that the Holy Spirit, not some rule of law, speaks to us (even the skinny ones!) about when enough is enough and we are being overly indulgent and strengthening our fleshly nature instead of keeping it in subjection as Paul instructed. When I fast, I don't do it to lose weight (in fact I am more concerned that I WILL lose weight!) but simply to draw near to to the Lord and discipline the fleshly longings. BTW MorningGlory, you are probably tempting some people to jealousy with your metabolism LOL!

Moderation is always good, especially when it comes to anything of questionable nature. We are to be led by the Spirit, in true knowledge of the Word. The Word prohibits drunkenness, not moderate drinking. The Word prohibits gluttony, but not reasonable eating. The Word prohibits sex outside marriage, but not inside marriage. There are boundaries from sinful activity and limits to excesses (which become sinful also). Ultimately, IMHO the Law was insufficient to answer every question of excess, as well as insufficient to empower one to obey it, so God made a new covenant and better way, the Law of the Spirit of Lifein Christ Jesus!! The only way to walk worthy of our calling in Christ is to walk by the Spirit, in abiding in a close relationship with Him. As far as addiction, I would say that addiction is very much relevant to this topic. A strong, nearly uncontrollable urge to overindulge in anything, or to indulge in anything inherently sinful is certainly not the Holy Spirit's leading or empowerment, and is likely demonic, and certainly fleshly (as in driven by the sinful fallen nature).

I agree with Shiloh. May I add that if a Christian is sick, they should be obeying scripture and calling for the Elders to come and annoint and pray for them, and the scripture indicates that the Lord WILL raise them up AND forgive them of any sins that might be involved. I think that is an awesome instruction and promise! In the book of Hebrews, we are told not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together AND even the MORE SO as we see "the day" approaching (the return of Christ). We all like to talk about how Christ is coming back soon, but very few of us strive to meet together more often than what the early church was! The problem is that the last days are busy, filled with "knowledge" and "running to and fro". These are "perilous times" according to Paul, and IMHO, its because of all the distractions and busyness that abounds. If we are too busy to be in much fellowship with other genuine Christians, then we should ask ourselves what all we are busy with that is more important than giving heed to the scriptures and what they say about it. The world knows that we are Jesus' disciples by how we love one another! If I love my television or video games or hobbies or making excessive money more than I love other Christians, I do not have Jesus' priorities straight! Let us strive to put every weight and hindrance aside in this matter and lovingly fellowship together as never before!! In Him, Andy PS- Innocent, I believe absolutely that we should also worship AND fellowship in our homes!!

Are you saying, that if my perspective is correct, God is incapable of orchestrating events and influencing individuals so that in the end His prophecies are fulfilled? Would this be impossible for Him? Is dealing with billions of humans to taxing for Him? God did it with Pharaoh. God can hardened peoples hearts, influence decision, put thoughts in our mind, control circumstances, introduce new events, place people in authority, as long as God does not meddle with the decisions that affect ones eternal destiny, He can do what He wants. That is true Sovereignty. It is no problem for God to choose a Roman soldier with a penchant for gambling and promote Him to Captain, and arrange that His unit to be on watch the day of the crucifixion and place the thought in his mind to gamble for Jesus' garments. I hope you see how dangerous you are getting with your hypothetical. For God to "place the thought in his mind to gamble..." is basically painting God as one who tempts to sin, as long as it justifies the end, which violates the very principles you stated to Nebula in the last post. Even in your reply here, you are hedging your bets by allowing for God to put thoughts in the mind and influence decisions, as long as they do not "affect ones eternal destiny". Do you mean sin of any kind here?? God tempts no one, for certain. This is my whole point here, that your viewpoint has to have God guiding and manipulating the thoughts and actions of mostly sinful people in their sin-filled lives, yet never influence them in any way to actually sin in any specific way, lest He be tempting them. I just do not see how this works without God being a total puppet master and hyper-sovereign. Another difficulty I have is that you have no problem with omnipresence in a now time frame, in which God is personally knowing and interacting with billions of people at the same time continuously (this is true and mind-boggling, beyond our comprehension how God can keep all that straight in His consciousness at once), all the while holding all the molecules together in the universe, and maintaining all the forces of physics and interaction of matter and energy. This is accepted,. as entirely possible and normal for God, but timelessness is completely and utterly incomprehensible and impossible for Him. Placing God in a time frame, with Him subject to time and trapped in time (its not His invention or creation and He is actually subject to the movement of time....) carries its own set of limitations upon God and inherent problems, doesn't it?? In at least some sense, this makes Time a force and reality that is above and beyond even God, a context to which God is subject to it. I assume this poses no issue to you. We seem at an impass because we see eternity (timeless) completely differently. You see this as restricting and trapping God, but I see it as the only scenario where God is truly sovereign and NOT trapped in time and its verities. I respect your viewpoint, and obviously you have put much thought in it. I feel that God has helped me understand eternity (as far as I can at this point) by revelation and illumination, and have received prophetic words in the subject. This is comforting for me, but I obviously would not expect that to influence your understanding, as you have to hear from the Teacher yourself and not from me. Whatever we are both TRULY hearing from Holy Spirit would have to agree, so either one or both of our spiritual ears needs tuning here, but it is always good to dig deep and keep on asking, seeking, and knocking. Bless you brother, and I pray your book brings glory to Christ, Andy

Pharoah was used by God. He was not predestined to do what he did. God hardened Pharoah's heart AFTER Pharoah hardened his own heart ... Perhaps the idea of "He gave them over" in Rom 1 brings light here. Both are true, so both are written. OK, but God stepping aside by withdrawing His grace -- or simply leaving sinners to their own devices -- is much more passive an act than actually hardening someone's heart, regardless of who does what first. Exodus 7:3 But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt ... Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD ... Then there's Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17 where God both raises up Pharaoh and hardens his heart for His glory. See "Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?" http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-pharaoh.html I do not have a problem with that God facilitates and uses the decisions and inclinations of hearts for His own glory. As has been said in the thread, it is crystal clear that God's general will is "for NONE to perish, but for ALL to come to repentance". To me, this strictly rules out the possibility of God Specifically forcing a man into rebellion, like a puppet master. However, God knows all things, including the future, and the true motivations and desires of every heart, therefore He is not unjust to use this foreknowledge to His advantage and glorification in the earth. It is a delicate balance to be completely loving and merciful, yet completely just in judgement at the same time, but I completely believe that God is perfectly both. I believe that God justly rules over the "clay" in love. I also believe that it is true that since all have sinned, all are justly condemned, and it is strictly by mercy and grace that a way of forgiveness has been made for us, and offered to all men. From this perspective, it is amazing that anyone is saved, not that many are condemned. The current permissive spiritual atmosphere rather overplays grace rather than to keep a balance with the facts of what we all really deserve. I do not want to be guilty of interpolating a humanistic idea of "fairness" upon the Almighty!! The thread should be making us all think and pray a little harder.

Perhaps the idea of "He gave them over" in Rom 1 brings light here. Both are true, so both are written.

1) How can we say that there is no time with God? Just because He is eternal doesn't mean that there is no succession of time, and I'm not even talking OUR time. There was a point in GOD'S time when He was all alone. You have to agree with me on that. Today God is not alone and forever will not be alone because He has accommodated to bringing us into existence. Is that not a past, present and future for God? God is simply not in a virtual now where everything is happening at once. Christ is not on the cross now. That is past in our time and God's time. 2) Exactly and to make these prophesies sure is for GOD a PIECE OF CAKE. 3) If God's plan is to create a New Jerusalem, then it is already in His mind what it will look like, dimensions and all, so it is no problem to display that for John. 4) This is quite a stretch. I had a vision once in my car just before getting out and going into church. In the vision, somehow I knew I was sitting in my car yet what I was seeing before me was not the dashboard but a big screen like at the movie theater as if I had been transported into a movie theater. Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future These plans are already conceived in God's mind but we are not there yet. However God could easily splash them on a screen if He wanted to share them with somebody. respectful rebuttals: 1)Your response here is not in response to my points, but only to restate your own. You have told others that they need to try to see things from your point of view. I have always understood time from a human perspective, and frankly that is all you are doing, and then projecting a completely human experiencial view upon God. It is obvious that you are very intelligent, but God is a Spirit, and His thoughts and ways are NOT ours, but our way is the only way you are trying to understand an infinite God. Nebula's post on this point is very good and worth your serious consideration. 2)Shockingly insufficient answer to my points. You make no effort to explain HOW God can so accurately predict future events involving the interaction of miilions upon millions of freewill agents who have not yet even been born. How can God predict the futures of completely unborn people for thousands of years, with billions upon billions of freewill decisions made that affect everythng from births and deaths to marriages and wars and on and on. Remember that your perspective is that the future does not exist at all yet, so even God has NO IDEA of what is going to happen except for the best informed guesses that can be made concerning all of those freewill decisions....unless freewill is a complete illusion and God is the great puppet master pulling the strings. You do not seem like a hyper-sovereignty proponent, but I fail to see how your theory does not force one into that rubric. You need to explain your "piece of cake" much better, perhaps give the recipe, brother! 3)The entirety of Revelation seems to be a time-travel experience for John and not a mere open vision. I realize that this is theoretical, as is most of this conversation, but you need to answer sufficiently to point #2 first, as this was another point in support of that. The reason Revelation is so compelling is the scope and details of it. Also the same for Daniel. One would surely be forced into a position of God CAUSING too many wicked and sinful things to happen in order to present such prophesies as 100% accurate. Remember that you are the one proposing that God cannot know the future as it is not knowable, except that He manipulates it or makes REALLY good predictions based upon His exceeding present and past knowledge. 4)This is only a stretch from your perspective. Remember that you are the one exhorting people to be open minded and try to see things from the perspective of the other viewpoint. I find it to be no stretch whatsoever for God to show a person a vision as you described OR to take that person "in the spirit" and literally show them what is to come by, in some way, taking their consciousness into the future. Why, this would surely be a "piece of cake" for an Almighty and Eternal God! In this case, it is you who are being narrow and closed minded, not I. The crux of the issue is that you dismiss this perspective (timeless eternal nature) on the basis of logical, natural thinking, and a pretty narrow interpretation of pertinent scriptures. You also seem to assume that most who would not agree with your position are Calvinists, which is also not a fair assessment. I am no Calvinist at all, and Calvin IMHO was more a fatalist and preached predetermination, hyper-sovereign doctrines. I am against all of that. I believe that God can be eternal as proposed, and still be Holy, omniscient, omnipresent, and maintain a genuine freewill in mankind. You have shown me nothing whatsoever that proves your position better than mine. In fact, I believe your position has a fatal flaw in that you cannot aptly explain 100% accurate prophecy in your rubric without going hyper-sovereign

Very simple. Notice what is says we were chosen to be: We were chosen to be holy and blame.ess before Him in love AND we are predestined to the adoption as sons. This is talking about what God chosen, before the foundation of the world, that Christians should be come. it is not saying that God chose who would become Christians. The word "predestine" means "to set off beforehand" and refers to what God has predestined for believers. The word "adoption" can be kind of confusing if we don’t understand what it meant in the first century. It means, “to set as an adult.” Paul is using, as an illustration, the Roman practice of adopting a son and then not only bequeathing him all of his possessions, but giving him his civil status as a adult citizen; Thus God takes a believing sinner, regenerates him, and by means of this makes him His “born” child. Then He takes this child and places him in a legal position as an adult son. We thus become joint-heirs with Christ, having been raised to a civil status as adult sons, in which we become heirs of God, inheriting jointly with Christ all that He possesses as an heir of God the Father by virtue of His Sonship and work on the Cross. Simply put, before the foundation of the world, God already the plan of salvation figured out. And in that plan, He chose for Christians to be holy and blameless before Him in love and in doing so He predestined (chose beforehand) us to the adoption as sons. Could David have lost salvation ? Bro, since David is dead and in Glory, what difference does the question make? If David had not repented, he would not have turned out to be the David we now know in scripture and his faith would have been insufficient and failed, but it did not. And now his present and future have become our past and so it is finished and done.

Could John the Baptise have failed his mission ? Did he have a choice not to preach the gospel of repentance ? Was Pharoh predestined and did he make a choice to repent If God revealed that John would do something, then it is sure, because God can neither lie nor "miss it". Of course John chose every single thing he ever did or said. Just because God knew, and even revealed some of what He knew concerning John does not mean He Predetermined (caused) the choices. Predestination is according to foreknowledge and eternal reality of God. Pharaoh made choices, and God knew what they were going to be and did not force the choice. God created the context and possibilities in which the choices could be made. Is it the way I am explaining it that is hard? If so , I am sorry

As in any doctrinal issue involving time, I believe the answer is bound up in the nature and character of God, in that He is both Eternal and Omniscient, or more acurately, He is omniscient because He is eternal and omnipresent by nature. God created the context of time as much as He did matter and all of the physical laws that govern matter, space and time. The nature of 100% accurate prophecy, fore-ordination, predestination, and other depend upon our understanding of eternality. Since being outside of time (timeless) is beyond our experience altogether, we can only stretch ourselves to comprehend this conceptually, but the idea is simple enough that I believe we can see how this begins to make sense of some biblical conundrums.God's holiness makes Him intrinsically separate from what He creates, hence the existence of freewill and evil, but He is also infinitely above and beyond anything that He creates. His creations reflect Himself, but He has made the universe in such a way that choice is a real and distinct possibility for certain intelligent beings, from which God has ordained that obedience to His revelations is faith in Him and love for Him, whereas rebellion to His revelations is the opposite. Angels had this choice at least at one point, and mankind lives in this reality of choice continually. Hence, I conclude that the title of the thread is actually misleading, in that there is no predestination "vs." freewill, but only a right understanding of how these two biblical realities co-exist and intersect. We have freewill, and God predestines according to our freewill and His eternal foreknowledge. He is Creator, and we are the created, He the potter, and we the clay, yet living clay with real freewill choice. His foreknowledge of our choice does not then make the choice invalid or illusory. It is simply a matter of His vastly superior point of reference in comparison to ours. Eternal blessings in Christ Jesus! Andy

Truth First, I have attempted to read most of the posts in the thread, but it has gotten quite long quickly and I do not have unlimited time! I have a couple issues with the angle you take here, but I will try to address them singularly so that the exchange is more efficient. The largest issue I have with your approach is that you consistently place God within the continuum of time. All of your theory is dependent upon God being bound in time, having no idea what is going to happen in the future, except by his total knowledge of what has already occurred. Your theory of eternality is limited to extension into infinite possibility of time, but not an existence outside of time, or timelessness. One problem I have with this theory is the EXTENT of biblical prophecy. Between Daniel and Revelation, there is enough sweeping prophecy of major future events, with enough specific details that one would have to conclude that if God does not already exist in our future (if He is timeless), them He would have to CAUSE many, many things to happen in order to make prophesies sure. The problem here is that so many of the prophesies include a great deal of evil things and actions of extremely evil spirits and diabolically influenced people. This creates quite a conundrum for God, doesn't it? God is predicting by Divine "best guess" (better than anyone else's, but still a guess if He does not surely know the future), not by 100% sure, eyewitness account by being there (timeless). So. let's start here, if you would please explain your view, especially in light of John's experience in Revelation, where God is not merely telling John what is going to happen, but literally SHOWING him things to come, even things that are long into the future in Heaven, even SHOWING him new Jerusalem descending from heaven and suchlike. John said that he was "in the spirit" during all of the revelation, and would seem that he was literally taken to the events by the Spirit. How can this happen if the future (to us) simply does not exist yet, even to God Himself? PS-The balance and tension between God's sovereignty and essence and that of man's freewill and his essence is extremely high ground that I am not convinced mortal man can entirely comprehend, though we may be able to partly grasp that which we cannot entirely know by experience (God's end). In other words, this is an area where His thoughts and ways are PARTICULARLY higher than ours!! One thing that we must not do is put human limitations on God, or attribute Godly knowledge to ourselves. This does not mean that we should not reach for the highest POSSIBLE understanding, but merely to recognize and be humble about our LIMITATIONS. Blessings, Andy

Ya! I think most of us could use a little more Paul in us, and a little less typical American Christian!!

I think I understand. Paul was ready to go and be with the Lord, but knew his mission here was not complete, that it was expedient for him to stay and encourage the churches. I love my wife and children, but Jesus even more. There is definitely a balance to be found in this

We are IN the world, but (thank Jesus!) NOT OF IT!! I think it is of grave importance to always remember WHO we are IN CHRIST! We are ambassadors, sojourners, aliens, reconcilers. We are to be so very careful not to love the world or the things of the world, but to love Christ first and serve him first. I believe that we should only expose ourselves to the world's version of "news" or anything else as we have the specific leading and approval of the Spirit. We need to live by the Spirit and not fulfill the endless curiosities and desires of the flesh. We live in dangerous and anti-spiritual times. We need to guard ourselves, and yet be ready to witness to that hard and cruel world that we know the Savior. Blessings, Andy

Miss Agapelove, Yes, this goes back to what was said earlier in the thread, that the tests and trials are so that we would know ourselves, that both our strengths and weaknesses, truth and falsehood, new man and ways of the old man, all would be exposed. It is the "refiners fire" that brings impurities to the surface, and also the presence and properties of the "pure gold"! I am always encouraged by the idea of being an overcomer in Christ. We are told that we are "more than conquerors" through Christ. This is awesome, but also implies that there are going to be things to overcome, and battles to fight in order to be that conqueror! We are only "victorious" when we have faced a fight or a challenge to our faith. I think that one of the biggest errors in mindset that Christians make is to desire and expect everything to be easy, comfortable, and safe in this life. When we think like that, we begin to try to manipulate circumstance and insulate ourselves. We also begin to think that anything difficult and challenging must not be ordained by God, so we avoid those kinds of experiences. Often, God steers us toward difficult and risky ventures in His name. I am not saying that it is always this way, but just to encourage an honest reading of Acts, and asking ourselves if God seems to be "safe" and "comfortable" the way we often want Him to be!!

The sad state of affairs is when type A, controlling, overbearing men surround themselves with "yes men" for the other "leaders", and followers who are not going to buck anything. There is absolutely NO Holy Spirit in any of that whatsoever, but now yet another splinter group, sect, or mini-cult of religion with a Jesus sticker on it. These types of leaders will have a rude awakening one day, but I cannot improve much on what has been said. I do want to point out that this kind of control and manipulation is nearly always present when CONFORMITY to man's rules and regulations is the center of thought and activity rather than real Spiritual UNITY. The unity of the Spirit is something that He creates by His Spirit and we are responsible to MAINTAIN. Conformity is created, controlled, and maintained by man. The failure of Christians to discern the difference between conformity and unity is at the core of the whole problem. Blessings, Andy

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong. You do not believe in the following as true? Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God. Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true. Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God. Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey. If the above is not true, how do you address salvation? How does one become saved? How do you address a "Catch-22"? The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met." In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP. "The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..." Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ... By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP". "The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..." By faith in what and whom? that was my whole point, and you conveniently excerpted what you wanted to and ignored my real line of reason. You also failed to answer my question about the type of person posed. please answer and not deflect Why do you have to ask such obvious questions when your answers can be found from the very context of the two references from Romans? And if you can please place your "real line of reasoning" re Lordship Salvation into succinct, straight forward statements, I will attempt to address it. Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit". I did already. I am done wasting time even trying to discuss with you, as it is like talking to a brick wall with opinions indelibly written on it. I pray the eyes of your understanding are opened, as I pray the same for myself. I am not interested in being witty, just trying to walk in Spirit and truth. Bless you, but I am done.

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong. You do not believe in the following as true? Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God. Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true. Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God. Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey. If the above is not true, how do you address salvation? How does one become saved? How do you address a "Catch-22"? The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met." In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP. "The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..." Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ... By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP". "The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..." By faith in what and whom? that was my whole point, and you conveniently excerpted what you wanted to and ignored my real line of reason. You also failed to answer my question about the type of person posed. please answer and not deflect

You GO Girl!! That's what I'm talkin' bout!! If only more Christians would walk out the tests and be a test-imony to the power and love of the living and active Christ! Thanks for sharing that. I have not fought cancer, but have testimonies in other areas of life. God will do the impossible, if we will believe and not doubt what His Spirit assures us of. Blessed! Andy

Butero, I agree. In the Christian church, there truly is always a man at the top. His name is Jesus Christ, and he rules the church by the Person of the Holy Spirit. When human leaders will not listen to the man at the top, there is no real Spiritual authority anymore. The Holy Spirit does not confirm His Word with the accompanying signs, because it is not His Word but the traditions and words of man that are being taught and honored and not His Word. When Paul needed to exercise authority, he said that he did not speak with merely persuasive words of men, but in the DEMONSTRATION and POWER of THE SPIRIT. If some leader wants to claim spiritual authority, he had better be exhibiting the fruits and gifts of the Spirit, and speaking the truth IN LOVE. If the Holy Spirit is not in active, recognized authority over a "church" organization, then it is not a part of His Church, but is a man-made religious group sticking His Name on their works and calling it Christian. A church is not THE Church just because they try to highjack His name to build their own religious kingdom. IMHO, many American "church members" are going to have a rude awakening when they find out that Jesus says to them, "Go away from me, you workers of iniquity..." And the leaders of those churches will be held doubly accountable for leading others astray. That being said, when leadership goes entirely astray, they are no longer leaders in Christ's kingdom but only have a false and unspiritual authority, and not to be followed. I suppose that it is not always cut and dry to determine such things, as some wolves put on a good showing. This is a serious situation warranting going elsewhere, and not a simple matter of disagreement about unclear, secondary issues like musical style, mode of dress, or suchlike. I am talking about a pervasive and systemic departure from the Spirit. Despite all that I find hard to understand about some of your viewpoints, I actually think we have more in common on the important issues than our disagreements would indicate. I think some of our differences are based on perspective and angle of attack more than substance. Blessings brother, Andy

Butero, this is the major rub here. You speak in vast knowledge of certain things, and strongly trumpet legalism, yet you plead total ignorance in this, which is an impoertant balancing point regarding leadership. You advocate "ultra-controlling" leadership methods, but here is a clear bible passage that gravitates against your position and you merely fumble around and basically conclude that there is no way of defining what this means. Sorry, but that is a cop-out. Jesus taught serving in leading (Lk 22:24-26), and that we were not to lead as the Gentiles do. Instead of offering some constructive insight here, you only swing to the extreme side and conclude that we can't operate on a dictionary definition of a cult. Well, why don't we just go to the NT and notice that maturity in Christianity is marked first by a genuine and obvious love in action for the brethren. Maturity is marked by the fruits of the Spirit, and "ultra-controlling" is antithetical to that list, is it not? Maturity is marked by humility and gentleness, not a bullying forcefulness or insistence on getting it's own way. The Holy Spirit Himself controls no one, but desires our full cooperation in all things great and small. Demons are those that seek to control and possess a person and force their will upon men. A servant does not control those that he serves, unless there is some odd definition of serving that I am unaware of. Controlling leaders should be rebuked and sat down if they refuse to act more Christlike, period. The solution is for the Elders to hold one another to a biblical standard of love and servant-hood, not for the used and abused to be forced to leave. Another issue I need to raise with you is that your theory is that if one does not like how controlling the leadership is, then they should just leave and fellowship somewhere else. You have several times put this forth as your model for dealing with disagreement. Where can I find this in the NT? Even in the passage about head coverings, Paul concludes by saying that if any seem to contend with the idea, LET THEM, since there is no such rule in the churches of Christ. It does not say LET THEM LEAVE and find another place to fellowship. Your method finds no scriptural backing, and you know that it doesn't. We are supposed to work always to maintain the unity of the Spirit. We are supposed to think the same things in the mind of Christ. We are supposed to love one another in a way that makes the world take notice, not run away every time we find disagreement or conflict. It is one thing to move or change fellowship by the true leading of the Spirit in order to obey the calling of God to minister, be a missionary, etc. It is quite another to break fellowship over completely secondary issues and preferences. If you ask me, your advice is close to directly opposing scripture. If another Jesus, a patently false Gospel is being preached, or there is serious unchecked abuse going on without hope of correction, then this is reasonable. Leaving a fellowship over music preferences and not wearing suit and tie is dangerous ground, and shows little love or preference for the brethren, and that works either way, whether the preference is conservative or liberal. This is one of the HUGE things wrong with the modern western church. It's all about our own personal, selfish opinions and ideas and not about the unity of the Spirit of God anymore. The whole thing wrong here is that when legalism OR license cuts the church up into tiny bits and destroys all sense of unity, they are both antithetical to the Spirit of Love and reconciliation, and are evidences of our own radical independent, selfish spirits instead of the Holy Spirit of one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, the Spirit of unity. This is why I hate and despise both extremes. Bottom line: if genuine Christians can no longer debate and discuss and work out their differences, even among the leaders who are supposed to be mature, there is little hope for our pathetic, Laodicean, lukewarm-in-love American church. We need revival. Unlike a lot of people, if I am not sure of something, I will say so, and then go back and look into it. I am not ashamed to admit not being sure of something, and I make no apologies for such an admission. I did go back and look into it further, and wrote a post about my findings. I am not sure which thread it is in, but I will look for it. It might be in this thread. The Bible never deals with a situation like we have today where there are churches on nearly every street corner that are the result of numerous splits over everything from padded pews, to a church split I once encountered where people left over the type of piano the church purchased. There is no scripture to cover such a thing. You had one Christian church in each city, and at times, the people met in various homes. In the New Testament, I read about a contention between Paul and Barnabus over John Mark. The contention was so strong, they split up, and Paul began traveling with Silas, and Barnabus with John Mark. Yes, this does happen in the Bible. There are times where people just can't get along, and it is better to separate. That being said, I hope this applies to the Amish people as well. If they are part of that community, based on what you just said, even if they don't like the controlling leadership, and even if they can't come to agreement, they must remain. You have really harmed your own position with this last post of yours. It would mean that no matter how controlling the leadership is in a church, you have to remain. You have rejected my counsel that you can leave. It is not your place to determine what is trivial and what is not. I found it. Check out post #28 of the thread "Four Anti-Legalistic Strategies." I took the time to look further into the passage. I don't care if you agree or disagree with my findings, but I did care enough to investigate it. I am glad I did, rather than just taking it at face value. You did not include the Luke 22 passage that I based my position on. The other is also pertinent, but the Luke 22 passage directly contrasts lording over to serving as a leader. Since you did not notice, I will reiterate my position. I said that what the church needs to do is discipline bullying, controlling leaders, and hold them to a Christlike standard. I never said that it is best to stay no matter what. My position was in response to your constant suggestion to simply leave if you don't like something. Why do you spurn holding leaders accountable for their actions and attitudes? The NT is quite clear about how to lead, I believe. I simply disagreed with your idea of doing nothing about the abusive leader and just leave the church. Leaders are supposed to submit to other leaders, and everyone is supposed to have a level of submission to all, since each has the Spirit of God. Yes, the Elders are to be submitted to, but this is in all the other contexts as well. Paul only exercised apostolic authority where gross sin was being tolerated, and he felt he had to step in. I believe that Paul's letters consistently have a mentoring, fatherly tone, not that of a controlling despot, and I hope you would agree with me. I only feel Amish should leave that church when they are told to listen more to them than to things the Holy Spirit is clearly and repeatedly teaching and showing them. I have never supported leaving over clothing, buggies, or suchlike. When the leaders command them to do things and not do things that violate many clear scriptures, and those leaders have NO interest whatsoever in sitting down and reasoning through the scripture with those who have questions strongly rooted in the scriptures, but prefer the traditions of men ABOVE the word of God, then there is good reason to leave because that is called HERESY! This has happened repeatedly to people I personally know, where scripture is flatly ignored in favor of Amish traditions. Enough said.

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong. You do not believe in the following as true? Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God. Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true. Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God. Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey. If the above is not true, how do you address salvation? How does one become saved? How do you address a "Catch-22"? The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met." In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP. "The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..." Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? If they had to have a new birth experience in order to recognize YHWH as God and display a submissive heart attitude to his Laws, then none of them made it, because the new birth experience was not available. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Heb 11 is dedicated to listing OT saints that acted in faith. Faith in God as the LORD is obviously something that a human being can do without regeneration. God has gifted man with a conscience, that though imperfect, retains an ability to have a "good answer towards God." This is what results in salvation. You are creating a supposed "catch 22" by your own flawed perception of total depravity and salvation itself. Having your conscience "cut to the heart" by clear preaching and responding with an attitude of submission is precisely what you see in Acts 2. You laser-lock on a few verses and ignore the entire "count the cost" sermon set forth by Christ and many other things He taught about the requirements of entering into His Kingdom. Where you miss it is in the assumption that a pricked conscience and submissive response is some sort of "work" or legalism. That is preposterous! The nature of man was not changed by the atonement. If man was not so depraved that he could respond in faith in the Old Covenant, he still has that ability today. The difference is that the sacrifice is Jesus' blood, which is permanent (once for all) and actually effective (it has the power to actually wash away sin). Jesus made the way to be born-again, with the only requirement being to receive this amazing grace BY FAITH. Faith in what and whom? The sacrificial death and miraculous resurrection of the Messiah, the Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ. One does not, or course, have to sanctify themselves to have faith. However, one must have Faith in Jesus as the only one who can grace them with Salvation. What is "salvation"? Primarily that Jesus saves us from the penalty and eternal condemnation due to us because of our sin? What is sin? Sin is violating a known law of God, or disobeying/disregarding a known command of God. Who or what is the God that sets the parameters for sin? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is God. So Jesus is the "Son"? Yes He is. So Jesus is God Almighty (LORD) in the flesh??? Yes He is. What if I don't want to believe that? What if I just want Jesus to be a great man, born of a virgin, who died in my place to be my "Savior", but not the LORD?? I have no intention of obeying His commands, because I just want to not go to hell, I want forgiveness, but not "live for God"...no intention of doing all that....... So, oldschool2, you believe that such a one meets the "minimum requirement" of the letter of a few scriptures you prefer, and thy are SAVED?!?! Jesus and his Lordship have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, and the Lordship of YHWH never had anything to do with Old Covenant salvation either then?? Explain this to me please