ajchurney
-
Posts
158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by ajchurney
-
-
In the documentary, the family being followed around were in danger of being shunned for simply agreeing to the interview. They knew others that were shunned. The woman had tears in her eyes thinking about the possibility they could be ex-communicated. I am not ignorant of the pressure they are under to conform. I simply said they can make the choice to leave anyway and deal with the fact others in the community will no longer have any dealings with them. If someone is content to live like that, so be it. I don't see anything wrong with it, so long as they are not having a gun put to their heads requiring them to stay. I believe in the freedom to choose what kind of congregation you want to belong to, even if it is ultra controlling. In the same way, people are free to belong to no group, fellowship or church, or they can belong to a very liberal church. I don't feel like it is my place to look at them and think to myself that I have some duty to free them from oppression. They have every right to live that way, and no, it is not a sin. Sin is the transgression of God's laws.
If what you are saying holds water, then what is Paul's problem with the Galatians? Amish are made to feel that their obedience to these things has a bearing on their salvation, as Amish are very Arminian and do not emphasize being born again or being filled with the Holy Spirit. Do you see a problem with such an approach? Brother, this is more than just cultural choices. The Amish way is extremely works-oriented, and many of the works are Amish distinctives. You see no danger here? Also, you do not think that control and manipulation is equal to witchcraft in God's eyes (which is a serious sin)?
-
It is not an either or choice of "living off the knowledge of good and evil rather than off of life." The Bible states that God's people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. We need to know what God says in his Word. Jesus was asked what the great commandment was, and he narrowed it down to 2, because if you follow them, you will be following the entire law. You won't sin against God or your neighbor. He wasn't doing away with the other laws. We are saved because we believe in Jesus, but we cannot continue to live in sin and remain saved. There are lists in the Bible of specific sins that will guarantee we will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. It is good to know what those things are.
There are two extreme sides of the fleshly nature, like two deep ditches on either side of the road of real spritual life. Those ditches are extreme license and extreme legalism. Hedonists live with extreme license (no rules), and radical muslims (religionists) in extreme legalism, for example. License is an aberration of the truth of freedom in God, and legalism is an aberration of obedience to God. Hedonists are irreligious, and legalists worship rules, not the true Person of God. Both are false extremes, and each one hates and despises the other.
The truth is that he whom the Son sets free is truly free, and he who abides in the true love and grace of God breaks no true law of God as he so walks. Being legalistic does not make one spiritual, and neither does being hedonistic make one free, but both are bondage to the spirit of this world, and slaves to the fleshly nature. Christians who lean hard in one direction or the other tend to despise greatly the one who leans in the opposite direction, but both are carnal and not truly walking by the Holy Spirit alone and His grace alone.
The scriptures are neither legalistic or hedonistic, but represent the way, truth, and life only. People with a soul bent in either extreme as described will then attempt to bend the scripture to their own understandings and preference, and wrongly do so in every case. Here again, the problem is never the scripture, but the bias with which one comes to it and reads into it according to fleshly and carnal mindsets
It is interesting that you should mention radical Muslims, because if I was a Muslim, there is little doubt I would be one of the radicals. If I believe in something, I really believe in it as written. It just happens my faith is in the God of the Bible, and I really believe what the Bible teaches is true, so I believe in following it. We aren't saved by simply following rules, because we still wouldn't measure up, but neither are we saved by believing and having no change in our life. Faith without works is dead, according to James. True faith brings a change in lifestyle. We know what is right in the sight of God by his Word.
I wholeheartedly agree, Butero! I desire to live radically for Christ. I hope you can see my point here, though. There are fleshly people driven by pleasure, and fleshly people driven by prideful legalism, but both are still fleshly. One is no more spiritual than the other. A murderous muslim is no better than a drug addicted homosexual. An unsaved legalist is more likely to try to use the Bible to justify themselves, but is still no more saved than the hedonist, having not a true love and devotion to Jesus Christ. Neither "knows" the Master.
-
It is not an either or choice of "living off the knowledge of good and evil rather than off of life." The Bible states that God's people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. We need to know what God says in his Word. Jesus was asked what the great commandment was, and he narrowed it down to 2, because if you follow them, you will be following the entire law. You won't sin against God or your neighbor. He wasn't doing away with the other laws. We are saved because we believe in Jesus, but we cannot continue to live in sin and remain saved. There are lists in the Bible of specific sins that will guarantee we will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. It is good to know what those things are.
There are two extreme sides of the fleshly nature, like two deep ditches on either side of the road of real spritual life. Those ditches are extreme license and extreme legalism. Hedonists live with extreme license (no rules), and radical muslims (religionists) in extreme legalism, for example. License is an aberration of the truth of freedom in God, and legalism is an aberration of obedience to God. Hedonists are irreligious, and legalists worship rules, not the true Person of God. Both are false extremes, and each one hates and despises the other.
The truth is that he whom the Son sets free is truly free, and he who abides in the true love and grace of God breaks no true law of God as he so walks. Being legalistic does not make one spiritual, and neither does being hedonistic make one free, but both are bondage to the spirit of this world, and slaves to the fleshly nature. Christians who lean hard in one direction or the other tend to despise greatly the one who leans in the opposite direction, but both are carnal and not truly walking by the Holy Spirit alone and His grace alone.
The scriptures are neither legalistic or hedonistic, but represent the way, truth, and life only. People with a soul bent in either extreme as described will then attempt to bend the scripture to their own understandings and preference, and wrongly do so in every case. Here again, the problem is never the scripture, but the bias with which one comes to it and reads into it according to fleshly and carnal mindsets
-
First of all, they are not in sin to be legalistic. The Bible itself gives us a definition of sin in 1 John. Sin is the transgression of the law. No law of God is being broken because you have church leaders imposing strict rules on the people. It is like when I have considered the Amish lifestyle or something similar. I would be freely choosing to place myself under their leadership. The Amish people are free to leave anytime they like. If they choose to remain, they need to submit to the authorities.
There is an interesting documentary at YouTube where they actually spent time with an Amish family, and even though it had a bias against them, you could see first hand how they live. It was done by the BBC. I like what I saw of how they live.
Butero,
We are not under Law but under grace. Grace is the direct influence and empowerment of God's Spirit. If the Law that was given by the mouth of God Almighty to Moses is inferior to living by grace, as Paul argues, then how is it a good thing for NT Christians to now come up with their own lists of superficial laws to bind upon one another in order to walk a sanctified life? The true grace of the Holy Spirit walks in agape love and NEVER breaks a true command of God. How are Christians improving upon the Spirit walk by adding a rule book of laws loosely based upon their private interpretations of scripture? How is this not doing precisely what Paul rebuked the Galatians for, except they substitute their own rule book for that of the Jewish ceremonial laws as in Galatia? The principle is the same. Paul was abundantly clear that such, "don't taste, don't touch" rules were purely aesthetic and profited nothing in the real subduing of the fleshly nature. Buggies, hooks no buttons, bowl haircuts, and beards for married men have NOTHING whatsoever to do with following the Spirit of God, but only conforming to ideas of certain men. What you obviously fail to grasp is the danger of growing up in this system and coming to believe that the cultural system is what saves you, and let me tell you a fact that this is epidemic in these sorts of societies. I have been told this by literally hundreds of people that have grown up in that and became born-again, then suffered under the oppression of it all. Many born-anew believers are persecuted ad disciplined for having prayer and bible study meetings in these communities. Are you a proponent of the perfect law of liberty or of laws of man-made rules that take people into bondage? You cannot have it both ways, brother, and in this case I do not believe that you have enough information to determine which is going on in the real Amish community. You watched a documentary on this. My life has been intimately interwoven with this community for 15 years. Many of my closest friends grew up Amish, and I personally know Amish and interact with them every single day. In all due respect, you are looking at something from the outside without a knowledge of the inner workings of it and the spirit behind much of the control and manipulation that occurs continually, and the destruction that causes, not to mention the suppression of spritual truth in favor of traditions of men.
As far as Amish being "free to leave anytime they like", you are in extreme ignorance regarding this. Yes, they can leave....their families, often their jobs, their friends! do you know nothing about "the ban" or of "shunning"? There is virtually no freedom to live by your own convictions when it comes to the exhausting lists of rules that they adhere to. This is an all or nothing deal for them. This would not be as bad, if the name of Christ was not being attached to the whole thing. When Amish are baptized, they submit to the organization utterly, they join the Amish church, not just join themselves to Christ! They are made to take a solemn vow of obedience to the Amish church, and leaving the Amish church is breaking that vow, and there is incredible pressure applied to individuals who decide that following Christ and obeying the Holy Spirit leads them out of the Amish culture. If you agree with these tactics, then I question your grasp of scripture and its right application, and make no mistake that these are the standard practice of the Amish church, even in its milder forms. The smaller, hyper-conservative groups are brutally controlling, even cultish in radical devotion to non-scriptural cultural practices. Do you believe that one must literally kill those who leave, like radical muslims, before crossing the line of control and manipulation?
-
The scripture as a whole seems to offer some patterns, though not meant to be absolute and without exceptions, they are obvious scriptural norms.
1) The leaders of NT churches are "Elders". The word itself is telling. I have read that in Jewish culture, one would not fall under this category until at least the age of 40, which is the backdrop for the NT early church. Watchman Nee presents an interesting idea that the exception to this norm would be in a group of new believers where the "Elder" would likely need to be the one with the most experience in the Lord amongst the group, hence the most qualified one available at the time. The point to made here is that time and experience in Christ is what makes one "Elder" and most qualified for leadership, their character also bearing witness, of course. For example, a 30 year old who has been faithfully following Christ for 12 years is more qualified than a 60 year old who got saved 2 years previous. Timothy is likely one in the NT in this rubric. This must be taken into account.
2) Youth has strength and energy, which should be utilized, yet under the supervision and leadership of those "Elder" to them. It is dangerous to give too much authority to anyone who is not a seasoned veteran in the faith. One can often see this pattern in the stories of the great men of faith in the OT. David is a great example of one who was early anointed by the prophet Samuel to be king, but did exploits and served long before He actually became the leader. Joseph, Moses, and others required much seasoning before being ready for their eventual place of leadership.
3) There is voluminous general instruction in scripture for younger believers to honor and submit to elders, even apart from official leadership capacity. It is unwise in the extreme to find excuse to flip this on its ear. One of the curses found in the OT was that the children would rule over the older ones!
I have personally witnessed leadership positions being given to younger ones mostly based on charisma and talent, particularly when it comes to worship teams and youth groups. I have wondered at the wisdom of putting often the least experienced minister in charge of the most challenging group in the church, which is very typical with the choice of high school youth pastors and leaders. This is an area where charisma and "hipness" often seem to outweigh other more important factors in determining qualification. I have strongly questioned the idea of "relevance" and how it is applied in these situations.
In summary, style and hipness are superficial at best, and conformity to worldly standards at the worst. Substance is always to be preferred over style! I appreciate the reminder in this thread to recognize where the lines are being blurred and crossed in many circles. It is a rebellious spirit that despises or disrespects the wisdom and glory of age and experience, particularly experience and time "in the Lord".
Blessings, Andy
-
Intense thread y'all!
Perhaps an important distinction to make here is the veracity and effectiveness of the scriptures themselves vs the individual or group's approach to the study and interpretation of those scriptures. This debate gets rightfully heated when it seems that the Bible itself is being questioned, as if there is something wrong with the Bible. This would be heretical and dangerous. The real debate here concerns one's approach and heart's attitude toward the Word of God and how one is attempting to use the Bible and what one intends to learn and gain from it. The discussion IMHO brings forth some clear points:
1) The rightly translated and interpreted scriptures are inseperable from God Himself and are the revealer on earth of who He is and what He commands of men
2) One can only rightly interpret scripture as aided and gifted by Holy Spirit, by illumination and revelation
3) Interpretation of scripture by fallen and faulty human intellect alone is bound to produce error and pride
It seems to me that much debate occurs in trying to determine the lines between #2 and #3. Every serious believer desires to be operating in #2 and not #3!! While there are language and translational issues regarding scripture that can be resolved by basically purely technical means (even an atheist could potentially participate here with accuracy), right interp of the scripture is the realm of Holy Spirit alone, which was what Jesus meant by saying there is "One Teacher". THE Teacher teaches THROUGH human teachers, but this has always been the rub. If a teacher is not actually submitted to the Teacher (Holy Spirit), then here comes the error and slants. Shiloh's point about true devotion to the scriptures indicates that there is relationship with Christ and Holy Spirit in the searching of His Word. Nebula's point about mere intellectual pursuits often doing more harm than good emphasizes #3, which is what the cults are filled with. JW's are typically more devoted to study (of THEIR material and doctrines) than most true Christians, for instance. But, because of the lack of Holy Spirit and faulty human approach, their error only increases year by year. I understand that the JW's have added to the issue by making their own faulty translation as well, but their cardinal doctrines were all codified when they only used the KJV, which is an excellent translation in itself.
There is nothing the matter with scripture itself, but only how the carnal mind and sinful nature, often aided by lying demonic spirits, attempts to understand them apart from a living relationship with God by the grace of Holy Spirit, because of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Submission and true humility to God is required to abide in this relationship, and thereby gain true understanding of His Holy Word. Intellectual pride is a barrier to true understanding, which is perhaps the greatest lesson to be gleaned from this particular discussion.
Let us strive to be scholars of the Spirit together!
Blessings, Andy
-
<snip>
Amish people are still people, and many of them are kind, loving, and good hearted. I am not attacking any individual people in this line of questioning, but simply asking where it is right and scripturally permissible for such control and legalism to be employed. Any thoughts??
In the context of a community setting, like the Amish, I suppose there needs to be some set of rules that everyone agrees on otherwise the community won't work very well. Its hard for me to say having never lived under those conditions. I tend as a general rule to be very cautious around those who immediately start trying to tell me how to live my Christian life.
From a scriptural standpoint I don't see where legalism has a place in someone's relationship with Christ. That's supposed to be a relationship, which means what's in our hearts (Christ) is supposed to work its way out into our daily lives. We're supposed to live differently than the world, not because of outside rules, but because we're new creations in Christ. A church congregation may have some rules, common beliefs, etc. that they all agree on, but that's a bit different.
Here's an example: When I came to Christ I was a homeless drug addict. Smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. were all a part of how I lived and wanted to live. That changed after meeting Jesus. The desire for all those things went away over time, and I don't miss them now because I'm a new person with different desires. I can still do all that stuff if I wanted, but I don't want to any longer. My desires are different because my heart is different, like Paul said.
Legalism is just a set of rules that try to govern from the outside in, and that won't last in a true believer's life. Another example: a halfway house, or "sober living" house. To live there you agree not to use alcohol and drugs, and you are held accountable via random or other testing. Violate the rules and you're out on the street, which isn't a good outcome. You might still have a really strong desire to use alcohol or drugs, but the rules do nothing to help with that other than provide consequences if you break them. You are still stuck with the desire to get wasted. For some this is too much and they go back to using again, others are okay until the rules are no longer there - then look out because its party time.
Anything else is religion -- and that's something man made up, not God.
Walla,
I heartily agree! Paul stated that one of the weaknesses of the Law was that the exceedingly sinful nature of sin actually used the Law to stir up rebellion to it. The Law diagnoses sin but lacks empowering grace to actually overcome it. The evidence of this in the Amish is that the majority of them push the limits of the rules that are over them, and when away from the community and its enforcing oversight, many dress in more normal clothes (like when they are on vacation somewhere), and watch television like crazy in the hotels. For myself, it has become a very interesting case study in the attempt to use legalism heavily in a Christian movement, and its results.
-
Thanks for the recent posts!
I agree that there are some positive benefits to not having television and some of the things that Amish avoid. IMHO, it would be better for people to choose these options for themselves instead of it being made into a bunch of rules and forced upon you as one huge package that you must conform to or be disciplined and censured. As with many other religious groups that have ultra-conservative or unusual rules and practices, there is something nearly always going on behind the scenes. That something is an extreme peer pressure and control in order to keep the status quo.
I am posting this only because Worthy is a Christian discussion board, and I believe that control and manipulation is an important topic in discussing religion and extremist religious groups. People who drive through Amish areas, buy some goods, and have 30 second chats with the folks really have no idea what may be really going on. Yes, the Amish way is quaint and rural and an interesting throwback and all of that. There is nothing sinful at all about choosing to drive horse and buggy, use gas lights, shun electricity for the most part, and wear 1800's style clothing. Any one of us is free to choose how to eat, drive, and clothe ourselves. The question that really merits asking is when is it sin for church leaders to IMPOSE such things upon their congregants, either on a small scale of one church body, or within a whole movement like the Amish? Christ has set us free from a legalistic base of faith, and given the Holy Spirit to each and every true believer to empower and guide them in righteousness. Hyper-religiosity may look quaint or effective on the outside looking in, but isn't something wrong when every minute detail of clothing, hair, and other things is strictly dictated to people in the name of Christ?
Amish people are still people, and many of them are kind, loving, and good hearted. I am not attacking any individual people in this line of questioning, but simply asking where it is right and scripturally permissible for such control and legalism to be employed. Any thoughts??
-
Welcome back Tolken! It seems you share my desire for a truly Christian form of debate and discussion.
Bless you, Andy
-
It's funny how nobody has mentioned how Paul said that the covering was also for the angels watching....I won't even try to go there! As a couple of posts have mentioned, verse 16 clearly puts this discussion out of the realm of command or requirement. Paul was aparently asked a question about it by the Corinthian believers, probably the elders, and he gives a reasoned response that is suggestive, but again, v16 absolutely takes this out of play as a rule of conduct for the universal church. Proper submission of the wife and headship of the husband is a standing principle, and the reality behind the symbol of the covering. The symbol is certainly not a bad thing, and some women enjoy wearing a head covering, but I would submit that v16 puts this completely in the realm of personal conviction and preference, as long as the reality is being practiced!
It shows it isn't a salvation issue, but I do believe we should follow it. I believe it goes beyond preference or personal conviction, but doesn't rise to the level of sin.
Butero, you are ignoring v16 and preferring your own opinion above Paul's stated limits of enforcement here, aren't you? It's fine for you to like long hair on your wife and/or a head covering, but honestly what lies between preference and sin here? "Whatever is not of faith is sin." How does this fit your category here? Look up the context of that statement, and it is about questionable things. The fact is that one should not violate one's own conscience, but should really study the word and pray about such things. If the Holy Spirit strengthens or corrects your fallible human conscience, then great. Otherwise, don't do it! This is the sense of "preference" I meant, and it is scriptural, if it is used in the Lord as described. For the Christian, preference does not include violating one's conscience. What I am saying is that unless something is clearly a command in the NT, personal conviction IS the line of "the level of sin"!! If someone changes their hairstyle because you or I told them to, that is worthless religion. If the Holy Spirit personally convicts them, whether through this passage or not, then that defines sin for them.
There is a vast difference between a clear injunction of scripture, and interpolating scripture to justify or bolster our own traditional religious opinions.
PS- Nobody is touching the angel thing still!! lol
-
What time in history do Amish believe is the time that technology stopped? Or if I rephrase that, what era are they living in?
Hi OakWood!
The Amish do not really claim a certain time period as Holy. They even use quite a bit of technology in many Amish settlements. Some examples are solar power, wind generators, and "skid loader" tractors. It is really entirely up to the leaders to decide what is acceptable and what is not. I am told that 100 years ago, you could hardly tell the difference between Amish and other conservative Christians at the time. Nearly everyone drove horse and buggy and wore similar clothing. It was in the late 1800's and very early 1900's that certain Bishops began to equate technology with "the world" in the scriptures. This idea took hold, and by the mid 20th century was an entrenched tradition and defined the Amish more than anything else.
The Amish have a meeting in each local church district (divided strictly by geographic bounds encompassing a certain number of families) each year called "rules and regs" (english translation loosely). It is during this meeting that they discuss and decide on any new prohibitions, but seldom if ever lift any of the existing ones, though at times they make exceptions or change something. One thing that has changed much in recent decades is that most of the larger Amish settlements allow the Amish businesses to use all kinds of technology and machinery. This can include cell phones, computerized machinery, heavy construction equipment, power generators, and much more. The strange thing is that often the Amish are allowed to use all kinds of things in their business that they cannot have in the house. If it involves making money, apparently the Lord is OK with it, but not if it is only for use in the home!??!
The Amish are not so much trying to live in another time period, it's just that they value "simplicity" and try to shun things that are too fancy or deemed unnecessary extravagances. Once you get to know them, though, you find that most of them love really nice and expensive things, and they just attempt to keep it within the boundaries (just barely!) of what the rules dictate. I could go into much detail about thousand dollar barbecue grills, ten thousand dollar special breed horses, five thousand dollar lawn mowers, and many other "acceptable" extravagances that many Amish indulge in. They are also famous for their rich and fattening foods......another story!!
There are very conservative and staunchly backward Amish, but only in smaller groups, usually separated from the majority Amish.
-
It's funny how nobody has mentioned how Paul said that the covering was also for the angels watching....I won't even try to go there! As a couple of posts have mentioned, verse 16 clearly puts this discussion out of the realm of command or requirement. Paul was aparently asked a question about it by the Corinthian believers, probably the elders, and he gives a reasoned response that is suggestive, but again, v16 absolutely takes this out of play as a rule of conduct for the universal church. Proper submission of the wife and headship of the husband is a standing principle, and the reality behind the symbol of the covering. The symbol is certainly not a bad thing, and some women enjoy wearing a head covering, but I would submit that v16 puts this completely in the realm of personal conviction and preference, as long as the reality is being practiced!
-
Hey Enoch!
Amish like to go barefoot more than most people. I have seen Amish teenagers running around the farm doing all kinds of chores barefoot that I wonder how their feet can take it!
I believe a lot more people would walk barefoot if we had more ground and grass to walk on, and our parents didn't force us to put shoes on when we were younger.
Personally, my feet are ugly, so I hide them most often lol
-
EnochBethany,
You said, "I cannot accept that a person who says he can lose his salvation is saved at all -- for he does not trust Christ as His Savior; he does not trust that Christ is definitely going to get him to Heaven."
If you actually mean what you wrote, you contradict yourself fiercely. You argue elsewhere vociferously that salvation is grace through faith plus nothing, and now you find it hard to imagine a saved person who doesn't tow your razor-fine doctrinal line here. Shame on you! I seriously cannot believe you posted this! I happened to believe strongly in eternal security for a number of scriptural reasons. However, I wrestled for years with the issues, though never disbelieving I was truly born again, or that Christ had paid my debt. I was simply wrestling with some difficult scriptures, as well as wanting to make sure that I was not assuming or misunderstanding anything. If you do not personally know someone that shows all the fruit of being born again who leans toward the possibility of being able to fall away and reject God, then I wonder how small your circle of association has been. I have known a number of very godly and faithful pastors who disagree with me on eternal security, but passionately love and serve Jesus Christ. I appreciate so much of what you post on Worthy, but your prejudice here honestly shocks me.
-
Hey Enoch!
Amish like to go barefoot more than most people. I have seen Amish teenagers running around the farm doing all kinds of chores barefoot that I wonder how their feet can take it! The Amish around here normally wear shoes in public. but many almost never at home
-
The Amish have become a fairly popular subject of reality TV shows and docu-dramas. I happen to live in one of the largest Amish settlements in America in Northern Indiana, and I have visited many other Amish areas in the midwest repeatedly. I work side by side with Amish men, and I have my own side business driving them around anywhere they can't make it by their buggies (or just don't want to!). I have had long discussions with Amish bishops, and many of my close friends grew up Amish. I don't know everything about them, but I probably know more than the people who make those TV shows! Anyhow, I just thought it would be fun to offer to answer any questions the best I can for those unfamiliar with real Amish folks. You can also personal message me if you don't want others to scrutinize your question (there are some odd stories out there, not all of which are entirely true). I intend to be respectful of the Christian aspects of being Amish, but I won't shy away from truth if I am asked about some of the cultural stuff that they practice.
Teaser: The men kiss each other square on when they "holy kiss" (mints and/or gum suggested!)
-
Entire Sanctification is not a true doctrine as I understand it is taught by the Nazarene church. The sin nature can only be eradicated by physical death or translation. The NT offers no experience by which one can, in one moment, completely eliminate the sinful nature. In fact, I believe this idea runs contrary to virtually all of the instruction in the NT regarding sanctification and the walk in the Spirit. This is consistently presented as an ongoing process and battle. Perfectionism as some gift of the Spirit that keeps one automatically in a sinless state is simply not reality. To walk in the Spirit is a moment by moment choice and submission. This is not to say that victory and overcoming evil are not available. Christians do not "have to " sin continually. I am simply saying that there is no single profound decision post-salvation, no second, third, or fourth "definite work of grace" that suddenly ends our battle with sin. Winning the war with sin is an every day, every hour battle of decision making and surrender to Christ, not the attaining of some mystical state of sinless bliss.
Fight the good fight!
Andy
-
EnochBethany,
You said, "However, as to Calvinism, I don't claim to dogmatically understand election completely, though election is definitely taught in the Bible."
You are fairly dogmatic and confident in other areas of doctrine that you comment on. What is it about election that you are still wrestling with, if you don't mind me asking?
What beez I wrestling with on election? LOL. I am not wrestling, my bro. Election is God's business; something He does. Its practical value for me is to realize the great grace of God in choosing me before creation to be a trophy of His grace. Of course I recall that Jacob wrestled, & the wrestling match did him good, even if he limped the rest of his life.
Election is according to foreknowledge. My great prof in soteriology explained foreknowledge on the basis that God knew in the "pregnant" sense of knowing; like Israel alone God knew, as having a special relationship, akin to a man "knowing" his wife. (The prof rejected the POV that God knows in advance who will believe & on that basis elects.) However, the prof never came up with a verse to justify his pregnant interp with the prefix fore- attached to knowledge. Take the word "understand." It is under + stand. But how far would you go on explaining "understand" based on under + stand? Finding a peculiar meaning for "stand" does not transfer the peculiar meaning to "understand." And pulling a Hebrew term out of Amos by which to interpret a Greek word in the NT, is also precarious.
So I would like to find some references to foreknow & foreknowledge that mean anything other than literally knowing in advance.
Now take John 3:16. It is oft argued by Calvinists that regeneration precedes belief. But John 3:16 does not say, "God so loved the world that whosoever is regenerated should not perish, but believe!"
Do the unregenerate have the capacity to believe? Do not all people everywhere believe, trust in things, for good or ill. Could it be that having the capacity to trust or believe is not meritorious at all, neither is the act of trusting Christ a symptom of being good?
I am pretty content to take it that election is God's business; man's responsibility is to believe, depend on the Lord Jesus & thus receive a transformation & eternal life. And I will not take the route that a dogmatic Camper did in debate with myself that one should not tell people to believe because such a course is contrary to the election of God. I say, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, & you will be saved.
Nonetheless, Romans 9 helped me believe when I was lost.
Nothing ill meant by the term wrestling!
For me, election, predestination, and foreknowledge were all much harder to grasp until I realized one key factor. This is the eternal nature of God. When I understood that eternality is to be above and beyond the time/space continuum that we live in, this all made perfect sense to me. God is the Lord of time and its creator and sustainer. It is a force or factor of the created universe. If God was subject to time the way we are, them He would not be God the Almighty, as time would, in a sense, be a power or force God Himself had to operate in without choice.
I am not saying that this understanding is unassailable, but I would like to hear a better explanation if one exists.
If God's eternal nature is as described, then He is omnipresent in time as well as space. If this is His reality, then He has perfect foreknowledge because He is already there. It is "fore" to you and me but "I AM" already there to Him. Predestination and election work the same way.
For one proof of this reality, just examine John's Revelation. John is literally taken up in his spirit and shown things that are to come, including many future events, and groups of "Saved" souls in heavenly scenes. Obviously these groups are made up of individuals, and it seems that John is being granted to see these things as actualities and not some pure dreamlike vision of what might be or representative of the events. This can be said of prophesy in general. For God to be 100% accurate, He either has to make these things occur as He said (including the evil and works of the devil) OR He is simply already there and looking at it as it is to Him, but will be from our time-bound perspective. To me this is the only viable option to an approach that, when taken to its logical conclusion, nullifies freewill entirely and makes all of our existence, including evil, something that God is carrying out directly. This is a hyper-sovereignty problem.
Anyways, I obviously cannot be dogmatic on these things, as being outside of time is beyond our experience, even if we can grasp it conceptually. I also realize that these are not central issues of the Faith, but the fringes of understanding that theologians and wanna-be's like me enjoy touching on and exploring.
You are obviously a seminary trained man, so maybe I cannot speak in systematic theology language, but hopefully we can still have enlightening exchanges. I can tell that you love the word, and that is from the Spirit of God, so all praise to Him!
In the end, let God alone be found true and every man not in line with Him a liar!
Blessings, Andy
-
Thank you for the words to ponder Andy
Very welcome, brother. It encourages me that you are serious about walking in the kind of supernatural mindset and reality that is presented in the NT, and Jesus exhorts the believer to believe in and practice. Desiring any gift is the first step!
I also want to clarify that though I have seen some definite results in what I shared with you (it is simple biblical truth, so I should expect it results!), I am working and growing every day in walking it out more "faithfully"!
Miracle Blessings, Andy
-
EnochBethany,
You said, "However, as to Calvinism, I don't claim to dogmatically understand election completely, though election is definitely taught in the Bible."
You are fairly dogmatic and confident in other areas of doctrine that you comment on. What is it about election that you are still wrestling with, if you don't mind me asking?
-
Some people don't want to win the debate, they just don't their opponent to win. It stems from vanity and pride and isn't edifying for the Church.
My brother is a lt. colonel in the army reserves. My other brother was a navy seal in vietnam. My Father was a ww2 vet and 10 years in the Navy. I appreciate your service to our country and pray you are a great light to your fellow soldiers. God bless you, Andy
-
I believe that there are two keys to miracle faith. One is that whatever you are declaring has to be according to the will of the Father. Our job is to bring heaven's will to earth, not to use the Holy Spirit to impose our will upon heaven and earth. The second is found in Jesus' words regarding "nothing doubting". Doubt is the opposite of faith and cannot be mixed with it. The only way to overcome doubt is to be immersed in the word and walk in the Spirit. I think that this is where your idea on "faithfulness" comes in and is definitely pertinent!
I believe that there is a crucially important first step to walking in "mountain moving faith." This is surrender or submission to God. The idea is best shown in Rom 12:1-2. If we offer ourself as a living sacrifice (totally submit), resisting conformity to the world, our mind will be renewed by the Spirit and we will then know the will of God. Once we certainly know the will of God, it is a matter of obediently carrying it out, fighting every doubt by taking the thoughts captive as they arise, and declaring the will of God boldly and confidently until it is accomplished. The entire process must be led and quickened by the Spirit, as it is His power and not our own, His delegated authority being exercised to carry out His will and command. It is actually quite a simple concept that we are God's representative, so we only have delegated authority to do the things that He orders and wills to be done. If we are not sure what His will is, we had better submit, pray, and get revelation (back to rom 12:1-2).
I said this is a relatively simple concept, but not at all easy to carry out from start to finish! Satan and his demonic horde, the world secular system, and our own sinful nature all work to interrupt and taint us each step of the way! Simple.....not easy!!
Blessings, Andy
-
Blessings ajchurney
God Bless you & Praise our Lord! I understand exactly what you are saying in giving reference to Deborah
Deborah provides a picture of leadership that wasn't normally seen in the society of her time. Very few women in Scripture rose to positions of national leadership. Deborah stands out due to both her spiritual and civil leadership. She was the only woman who served as a judge during those extended years of turmoil.
simply as an"exception"to the rule,chosen by God.............yes indeed,the Holy Spirit is the Only One qualified to make those special exceptions in very special circumstances,,,,,,if Deborah was alive during the "church" era at the time Paul was teaching I am sure she would have been well respected as the prophetess of God that she was ...
I do enjoy your posts ,Brother.....it seems apparent to me that you have a good grasp of the meaning of Scriptures in context....let us give thanks & Glory to God!
With love-in Christ,Kwik
Thanks again,Kwik!
Yes, the Judges were an odd collection of individuals anyways, weren't they!?! Gideon became a military leader, then overly-exalted politician. Sampson was basically a mess of testosterone with a great calling from God that he mostly messed up. Ehud was a lefty assassin of a hugely overweight foe. Can we just skip Jephthah and the human sacrifice (or not, depending on your interpretation!). These were not judges the way we envision them exactly (robed elders presiding over court cases), but they were the hodge-podge leadership between Joshua and the Kings. It is only fitting that Deborah also takes her place here.
As to some of the questions others pose about female Elders filling a vacuum of male qualification.....Since the NT is silent on that, I must assume that Holy Spirit quickly fills that void or speaks to the exception as temporary measure. My guess is as good as another bible students!
-
Blessings ajchurney!
God Bless you,dear Brother in Christ......let us praise & give all Glory to God!I understand what you are saying & sometimes as I read it literally breaks my heart to witness some debates that are clearly out of control........but not everyone is at the same level of maturity at the same time & many are not walking in spirit & in truth & respond "in the flesh"..........there are so many different people with different personalities & all we really can do is be accountable for our own actions & hope to bring that lovely Spirit of Love & Peace to grace these forums by our walk with Christ and remembering Who it is we represent...
I personally do not believe there is any reason to ever"debate" but lots of reason to "discuss"and "reason together" to hopefully grow and learn from one another...........and as far as the debates I see between believers & non-believers & don't see how any good fruit can come from arguing,,,,,,I know exactly what you are saying when you see personal attacks,arrogant ,prideful assualts & accusations and all I can say is ....again....lets be accountable for ourselves & do our best to depend on the Holy Spirit to use us & to always give God the Glory!
I have turned the cheek on many occasion but only because of Christ in me,I hope & pray that it encourages others to do all things in "love"..........Let us continue in prayer that this ministry be effective in doing Gods Will & that this Worthy Family grow in love & unity as the Body of Christ & be a light for all to see
With love-in Christ,Kwik
Thanks Kwik!!
You clarify the heart of the matter, and I definitely agree that many do not understand walking in spirit and truth. We can have ALL knowledge, but without love.......
IMHO: A big part of understanding Hebrew Roots...
in Understanding Hebrew Roots
Posted
Spock, how do you celebrate the feast of tabernacles. What do you specifically do to honor that feast?