methinkshe

I have noticed that new converts are taking leadership roles - whether it be in worship, or teaching, or other ministries - that I find alarming. The potential for error is huge, especially when the new convert has no Christian background. They come straight from the world and into the church and within months begin to lead, and all too often they bring the world with them because they simply haven't had the time to "renew their minds" or "conform to the likeness of Christ." And because doctrinal teaching is so absent from today's churches, they do not even receive proper instruction in The Word so that they can mature. I agree with you. Ruth

This is far too eastern mysticism or new age for my liking. Yes, I meditate on God's Word - i.e. a specific Scriptures - but as for the concept of meditation on nothing or anything for its own sake - no thank you! What next? Abracadabra? Oh, yes, I forgot, we've already seen some misguided souls and so-called churches use the name of Jesus as an incantation, a magic spell, as though sheer repetition could achieve a goal. I want none of it. Count me out. Ruth

I didn't realize Mormons did that? No. Why would you think that? good for you That is also "OT Law" so why are you doing that? He said that to people who observed Shabbat He said that to people who observed Shabbat There is no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua and walk according to the Spirit! I had to work on Saturdays many times and even dropped out for a couple of football seasons when my sons were playing. It's not a matter of legality but a special time of appointment with God. Is "salvation" the only purpose of being born again? I started observing Shabbat because God commanded it and found that "we" don't keep Shabbat, it keeps us. That is how the jewish people have survived and maintained themselves as a unique people on the earth for about 5,000 years. Entering the Shabbat is an ancient connection to the Creator through His creation. We have the Messiah as our connection to the Father now, yet that doesn't negate the fact that He is still the Creator of the world, does it? I do find it strange how one's personal "salvation" is all that is considered by christians when choosing whether to obey God's will on this or not. But there is no condemnation either way...we are fully brother/sister in Yeshua Well said, Yod. I appreciate your insights. In Jesus, Ruth

Dear Mike, The only answer I have been able to arrive at through reading the Scripture and praying is that God uses trials and tribulations of all manner - including sickness and disability - to strengthen us in our faith. If when times are hard we turn around and blame God and fall away, then that doesn't say much for our faith. But if through all our trials we still praise God and give Him the glory and thank Him in, and in spite of, our circumstances, then our faith is made sure. I do not believe that the reason we do not receive healing is because of some sin in our lives or lack of faith or other such things - at least, not necessarily. Sometimes it suits God's purposes to work in and through our weaknesses. And what (or who) is the pot to dare to say to the potter, why have you made me thus? All I know is that I trust God completely and implicitly, that He is good and will work all things together for good. That's my present understanding, anyway, but I do get discomfited when someone like our Pastor tries to tell me that if I/a member of my family is not healed then it is because we are "blocking" God's healing. I just can't find that in Scripture. Hence my OP because I don't want to disagree with my Pastor just for the sake of it, but I cannot at present find any Scriptural backing for his opinion. In Jesus, Ruth

All sin boils down to unbelief. Unbelief in the character and words and actions of God our Creator. Sin is anti-Godness - no more and no less. If God says it - it is true. If you choose to believe and/or act otherwise, then you sin. If God says it is good, then it is good. If you choose to believe otherwise, then you sin. If God does it, it is good. If you choose to believe otherwise, then you sin. Sin is anything and everything that is anti God. In Jesus Ruth

But is the healing of the body always to be received in this life, or is it sometimes only completed in our resurrection bodies? What about Timothy's frequent illnesses? Paul didn't instruct Timothy to pray for a miracle, nor did he suggest that Timothy must in some way be blocking God's healing through something he was or was not doing in his life. All he advised was that Timothy take a little wine for his stomach and his "oft infirmities." And what about my brain-damaged daughter? What am I to conclude about her? She has been a great blessing because of and in spite of her disability, and I praise God that He is working all things for the good even through such a terrible injury as that. But I am not claiming her healing although I often pray for God's healing for her and have seen many improvements: at one time is was thought she would never speak but now she is a real chatterbox, albeit that her speech is indistinct and not easily understood by those who don't know her. And what about Job? He lost health and wealth and family. Yes, God restored his losses to him, but his original family was horribly slaughtered. And they weren't raised from the dead, either. I cannot glean from Scripture that we have a right to expect perfect health in this life. What about all those missionaries to Africa of the 19C who died of disease or were eaten by wild animals or, worse still, by cannibals? What was wrong in their lives that they didn't enjoy perfect health? And I know of a missionary to Malawi who was doing a wonderful work but has recently had to return home because of bowel cancer and has undergone chemotherapy etc. I have just come back from church and again our pastor was preaching that Scripture says all believers if they are in fellowship with the Lord and are giving Him His rightful place in their lives should enjoy perfect health. But I just can't get this from Scripture. Sorry if I'm just being dumb. Ruth Ruth I dont think you are dumb, far from it you know your scriptures and God. Some questions we will not know the answer to this side of heaven. Some people are greatly used in their "weaknessess" for the word says 2Co 12:9 And he hath said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. However I do agree that you should continue to pray for healing, Also thank God that he is with you in this situation. Sometimes I have been told to give a situation to God and leave it with him. I think each individual situation warrants prayer for guidance as to what to do and when God tells you then do it . I don't know if this helps or not. May God bless you through all of this. Thanks, Carol, I wonder whether those who preach perfect health in Christ realise the condemnation that they can so easily put others under when they find themselves having to live with imperfect health and with disability. Perhaps they do not understand the full implication of such teaching - i.e. that if you do not receive healing/are not in perfect health, it is against God's will and therefore it has to be something you are doing/not doing that prevents God from healing. Ruth

Dear Mike, Your "don't know" response witnesses to my spirit in a way that being told that I/we are "blocking" God's healing in some as yet unknown way does not. That's more or less what I have concluded in the absence of any other teaching - I don't know why God heals some and not others - BUT I trust Him and believe that His sovereign will is ALWAYS good. Whether it means maturing spiritually through the trials and testing of one's faith in adversity, or just accepting that God knows the end from the beginning and has a purpose even in our afflictions. Either way, God is sovereign and I have no right or claim, even through Christ's atonement, to lead and presume on God to follow. Thanks, Ruth

But is the healing of the body always to be received in this life, or is it sometimes only completed in our resurrection bodies? What about Timothy's frequent illnesses? Paul didn't instruct Timothy to pray for a miracle, nor did he suggest that Timothy must in some way be blocking God's healing through something he was or was not doing in his life. All he advised was that Timothy take a little wine for his stomach and his "oft infirmities." And what about my brain-damaged daughter? What am I to conclude about her? She has been a great blessing because of and in spite of her disability, and I praise God that He is working all things for the good even through such a terrible injury as that. But I am not claiming her healing although I often pray for God's healing for her and have seen many improvements: at one time is was thought she would never speak but now she is a real chatterbox, albeit that her speech is indistinct and not easily understood by those who don't know her. And what about Job? He lost health and wealth and family. Yes, God restored his losses to him, but his original family was horribly slaughtered. And they weren't raised from the dead, either. I cannot glean from Scripture that we have a right to expect perfect health in this life. What about all those missionaries to Africa of the 19C who died of disease or were eaten by wild animals or, worse still, by cannibals? What was wrong in their lives that they didn't enjoy perfect health? And I know of a missionary to Malawi who was doing a wonderful work but has recently had to return home because of bowel cancer and has undergone chemotherapy etc. I have just come back from church and again our pastor was preaching that Scripture says all believers if they are in fellowship with the Lord and are giving Him His rightful place in their lives should enjoy perfect health. But I just can't get this from Scripture. Sorry if I'm just being dumb. Ruth

I really need to know the truth of God's Word concerning physical healing of a miraculous nature - i.e. not healing of vague aches and pains, but healing of injuries that cannot be repaired in any natural way. My 20 yr old son badly fractured his right elbow - he had a fragment from the raidial head pinned which has healed nicely, but a fragment from the capitellar (end of humerus) was too small to be fixed and was therefore excised by the orthopaedic surgeon. He now has severe pain in his right arm and it sometimes locks in position and he has to manually unlock it using his left arm to raise his right arm to shoulder level and then slowly let it down until the elbow joint unlocks, and he can no longer do his work as a carpenter. He has to resort to painkillers just to lead even a semblance of normal life. It would appear that there is also damage to a nerve or something because he gets a lot of referred pain up and down the whole arm. There is only one surgical option open to him - debridement - a process where the rough bone that has resulted from excision of the frament is smoothed so as hopefully to allow a smoother operation of the elbow joint instead of the crunchy, graunching operation he has at present. However the success rate is only 60 - 70% and the improvement if there is one is only temporary so that the operation has to be repeated. Since he is only 20, he must think long and hard about such surgery and how many times it can be repeated and whether it will be successful. My problem is that our Pastor has told my son that he needs to believe God for his full healing and has futher suggested that his claim for compensation is standing in the way of God's healing (the person he was working for at the time of the injury had supplied him with step ladders that had no central brace and which "pancaked" while he was standing on them to paint windows. He was, however, fully insured.) This doesn't seem right to me, not the least because if he were to give up the claim, he has already contracted with the law firm that is representing him to pay their fees and they have already done a huge amount of work. He would not be able to honour that contract if he just dropped the claim. My understanding of the WHOLE counsel of Scripture is that God can and does heal the body (although more importantly He heals the spirit) but not always and that to "claim" healing as though by right, is presumptuous and doesn't acknowledge God's soveriegnty. Moreover, I think that to be told to examine one's life for things that may be "blocking" God's healing can all too easily lead to condemnation. What if it is not God's will to heal, either at all or even at that time? Joni Erikson wasn't healed and yet look how God has used her in her paraplegic state. When Peter walked on the water it was in response to Jesus calling him to come. He didn't just decide to "have faith" and jump out of the boat and GO to Jesus. I think that healing is the same: we can pray for healing but we must wait until Jesus personally instructs us to receive healing through faith. Our Pastor seems to think that it is ALWAYS God's will that believers enjoy perfect health and therefore full healing of injuries such as my son's. I'd be grateful if anyone who has studied the Word of God could help me understand what the Bible REALLY says on this matter and how we should pray. In Jesus, Ruth

I often hug myself with sheer delight for knowing that God always swears by Himself because there is no-one or nothing greater. It is one of those self-confirming truths contained in the Bible that were it not so would call into question God's very nature and therefore the truth of His existence. Against that we see that Allah swears by just about anything and everything, which is why those who believe that the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are one and the same are very much mistaken. IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? ALLAH AND OATHS A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by: For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13 For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16 Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure believers that he will do all that he promises: "I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23 "I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5 Yet, Allah swears by things less than him: Swears by the Quran By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2 By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1 Swears by the sky and constellations By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1 Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34 By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1 Swears by the pen By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1 Swears by the city Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1 Swears by the Creation By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory; by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3 The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the one and the same God. In Jesus, Ruth

What bothers me inasmuch as I have been able to pin down what the emergent church is, is that there seems to be a blanket dismissal as legalism or religiosity of all that has gone before within the church of Christ. So that, for instance, my 80 yr old mother who has been a Christian for 60+ years, and is known and accepted as a dear sister in Christ by all those who know her, and whose works are very much evidence of her faith, is dimissed as legalistic because she will not dance in church, or raise her hands on demand (she has often raised her hands of her own accord but rejects being instructed to as "proof" of her spirit-leadness.) Such dismissal of elders in Christ by some who are, by comparison, very new converts seems to me to be bordering on heretical. There is nothing new under the sun, so Solomon says, and all that the emerging church is resurrecting is ancient gnostic heresies as far as I can tell. They rely on a continuing revelation and a form of experientially derived mysticism as opposed to the Canon of Scripture - God's Word. This is dangerous territory, i.m.o. and has overtones of occult practice. But this is only what I have been able to gather of the movement because it is very amorphous and difficult to pin down. Suffice to say that it doesn't witness to my spirit. Nevertheless, I'd be interested to hear from other brothers and sisters in the Lord who have greater experience than I of this movement. Ruth

Personally, I'm not a great fan, largely because of what is omitted than what is included. It tends toward providing a strategy for salvation with the stated goal of getting the Holy Spirit on day 10 of the course, as opposed to teaching the Word such that unbelievers are convicted of their sinfulness and turn to Christ to be saved from the judgment to come. It's more "what can I get if I become a Christian" than "what must I do to be saved from God's righteous judgment of sin?" Also its total acceptability to RC's and Protestants alike should have the Sola Scriptura adherent wondering how this can be possible. Are we saved by grace alone through faith alone or also by adhering to the traditions of a particular denomination? Ruth

What a wonderful testimony! And even if it IS anecdotal, it has about it the ring of truth. What a comfort it must have been for his wife and daughter. We (my mother and brothers) sang all my father's favourite hymns as he slipped away to be with the Lord. He wasn't conscious most of the time, but on the few occasions when he came round, he let us know how much he loved for us to sing, and also asked us to read to him from the Bible. On one occasion when I was on watch at his bedside on my own, he came round and called me by name and asked me to sing the old choruses to him before slipping back into unconsciousness. I was amazed at his clarity of thought and speech for that moment, because he had meningitis and severe brain irritation which made him quite irrational and delerious when he wasn't unconscious. He is now safe in the arms of Jesus, and although we still miss him, we are comforted in our knowledge that he is with the Lord and that we shall meet again. Ruth

I am against any counsel, psychology, philosophy or teaching that does not find its' foundation in the Bible. Any pastor that uses secular psychology in his counseling runs a very high risk of using unBiblical ideas and methods in his attempt to solve human problems. I agree with you. Do Christians really need to be counselled according to worldly methods, like digging out old memories and hurts, and re-examining old relationships, and endlessly discussing how victimised they have been in the past? Surely, when we become Christians, we become new creations in Christ, everything is made new, God puts away our sins as far as the east is from the west and remembers them no more. Does muck-raking in our past achieve anything useful, or would we not be better having the Word of God, the truth about who we are in Christ, ministered to us with power and authority? That is what I would call Christian counselling or therapy, not this so-called healing of memories, for instance, that requires endless dredging-up of every hurt ever experienced, and other such stuff that has been borrowed straight from secular psychology. All of these are vain attempts to drive out the darkness using various techniques and strategies, whereas the Christian message is about letting in the light of the world - Jesus - which has the automatic effect of dispelling the darkness. Ruth

My final word on the matter, because argumentation will get us nowhere: "He who has ears, let him hear." Ruth

I have not yet managed to pin down exactly what is the emerging church. However, I think I got a taste of it today at our fellowship. Our pastor said that a limping leg holds back a functioning arm (and limped across the stage, with arm flailing to prove it) and that he had a prophetic word that very soon God will separate the limping legs from the functioning arms so that the bride of Christ will emerge spotless and the limping legs will be left behind. Hmmmmmmmmm............... Ruth

I do not believe that self-control is listed as a fruit of the Spirit. There should be 12 per Rev 22:2. The ones named are probably all found in;Gal 5:22-23, Eph 5:9, Phil 1:11, Rom 5:4, II Cor 6:6, II Peter 1:5-7, Col 3:12. If anyone is to be in control it is God's Spirit within us. Our own control will lead us to sin every time. Galatians 5:22-23 (New King James Version) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (temperance in the AV, meaning the same). Against such there is no law. 2 Peter 1: 5 - 7 ....add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self control, to self-control perseverance, to perserverance godliness, to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be nether barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ruth

Does anyone remember Rachel as a pastor? "And while he yet spake with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep: for she kept them." Gen 29:9 Isn't a keeper of sheep a pastor? No. A keeper of sheep is a shepherd or shepherdess. A pastor is a spiritual overseer. Or does your local sheep farmer call himself a pastor? Attempting to take metaphors and/or symbolism literally can only end in confusion. Jesus says: "how I long to gather you under my wings..." Does that make Jesus a bird? No. Nor does Rachel keeping sheep make her a pastor. Ruth

The nature of light is still very much a mystery. If God says He created light BEFORE He created the sun, moon and stars, then that is what I believe. Therefore I also believe there must be more to light than science currently understands, as is admitted in the concluding paragraph (pasted below) of the following article from New Scientist. What is light? "In recent years, a growing number of physicists have been developing different versions of the 'realist' picture of the nature of light. These possibilities will be investigated by experiments as the technology we have described here improves. But three centuries after Newton, we have to admit that we still cannot answer the question 'what is light?' As yet there is still no answer to the basic question: is light 'really' a wave, a combination of wave and particle, or something entirely different which cannot be comprehended except as an abstract mathematical description? As Einstein remarked in 1951, four years before his death, in a letter to M. Besso: 'All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'what are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.'" Ruth

Praise be to the God who is there in the storm. I was privileged to meet Richard Wurmbrand - he stayed with my parents shortly after he was released from prison - must be about 40 years ago because I was about 14, as far as I can remember. I shall never forget two things: the scars on his body from beatings and torture while he was in prison, and how he cried openly when he sat down for tea with us. It was just sandwiches and a choice of cakes and a cup of tea, but he was overwhelmed by the plentifulness of what was to him a feast, yet was no more than our daily tea. At school, each class would choose a charity to support every term. I went in to school the next day and gave a talk about the sufferings of Christians in the communist world, and asked my class to support Wurmbrand's charity - Mission to the Communist World. It was quite a departure from the usual type of charities we had supported - Oxfam, RSPCA, that kind of thing. And several other girls put forward other charities for our support. But against all my expectations, the whole class voted to support Richard Wurmbrand's charity - they were so moved by his suffering and the suffering of others like him. Hope I haven't hi-jacked this thread, just wanted to share my memory of a wonderful man of God. Ruth

So.. it's the fault of the doubt and little faith in the parents or other family members or whoever is in charge of the child? Where does faith come from? "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is a gift of God lest any man should boast." Ruth "17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." But who unstops the ears? "Hearing they will not hear...." Ruth

So long as the wife ministers within her boundaries then husband and wife ministries are great! However, when wives begin to teach the congregation (and thereby their husbands) then I think that breaches the roles God has ordained for men and women and results in general confusion in the long term. The following is my own personal understanding, but as a general principle, it has helped me to understand a lot, and you are at liberty to accept or reject. Men initiate, women reciprocate and multiply. Now this fits in with the laws of procreation and the spiritual rules vis a vis Christ and the church. Moreover, I have always felt more comfortable, as a woman, being the reciprocator and multiplier, than the initiator. Look at most husband/wife relationships, and more often that not you will find that a woman only needs to be shown love to be able to reciprocate it and multiply it tenfold to her husband and then a thousandfold to her children. But a woman who is denied love, does not seem to have that same capacity to initiate love and thence reciprocate and multiply love. Men, on the other hand, are not reliant on being loved so as to fulfil their personalities. They are not bound by the rules of reciprocation and multiplication in the same way as women - at least, not in the physical. But in a spiritual sense, all believers are female in terms of Christ and His bride, the chucrh. We know that "we love God because He first loved us" and I think that is true of the male/female relationship. Just my personal observations and you are free to discard them without fear of causing me any offence. Ruth

So.. it's the fault of the doubt and little faith in the parents or other family members or whoever is in charge of the child? Where does faith come from? "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is a gift of God lest any man should boast." Ruth

If that were so Eve wouldn't have suffered the consequences of her sin. But she did. Adam was responsible for sin entering into the rest of humanity because he sinned deliberately and knowingly. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Eve was deceived and THEN sinned. Adam KNEW and then sinned. Both suffered the consequences of sin. The order and how sin occurred is important as Paul confirms in the NT verses that give you so much difficulty. Ruth

I don't think that anyone has argued that a husband is responsible for his wife's actions. He is responsible for her welfare, both physical and spiritual. That is a different matter entirely. I, as a mother, am responsible for my children's welfare, to keep them fed and clothed and with a roof over their head, for their education in the Lord, for their spiritual welfare, but I am not responsible for their actions. They answer to God for those. Ruth I agree with you Ruth that a husband is responsible for a wifes welfare; physical but not spiritual. God is responsible via the Holy Spirit for everyones spiritual welfare. Husbands are responsible to display godly actions and attitudes, as are wives. Back to the thread's title. Arguing that Adam is responsible for Eve's sin is indeed arguing that Adam was supposedly responsible for Eve's actions. And as you can see, it isn't true. No one can be responsible for another's choices. We can be responsible for our own choices, including if they influence another. But each person will reap the effects of their choices no matter how they come to them, even if deceived. Perhaps I have missed something, or perhaps you have read something that was never there, but I have not heard anyone on this thread attempt to argue that Adam was responsible for Eve's sin, if indeed Eve sinned. As far as I can tell, at the moment of judgment, sin was imputed to Adam and not to Eve - she was deceived - but that is a different matter entirely from suggesting that Adam was responsible for Eve's sin - she didn't sin, she was deceived. Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone is arguing that Adam was reponsible for Eve's sin? According to the Bible she didn't sin - she was decieved, so how could Adam be responsible for that which she is not accused of? Ruth Actually Eve did both. She was deceived and fell into sin. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 1 Timothy 2:14 HCSB God held her personally responsible for both Exactly so! But because deception came first in Eve's case, the first sin was imputed to Adam and not to Eve. Ruth