|
Didaktikon
|
1#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:11/09/2007 09:30:38)
Hi, all.
I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?
If so, please let me know.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
Glad-to be out
|
2#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:11/09/2007 10:51:23)
Reply to : Didaktikon  The GRC equates salvation with the receiving of the Holy Spirit ( evidence of same is speaking in tongues) and baptism by full water immersion.
I know that this has been done to death, but I would like some scriptures that absolutely point to one being "saved" without having experienced the "tongues" phenomena, (apart from the thief on the cross) and also salvation, without actual water baptism.
Pretty simple stuff, but examples which cannot be twisted and screwed with, would be exceptionally liberating for any GRCer wrestling with this particular crippling Revivalist doctrine.
Thanks,
Glad
Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
3#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:12/09/2007 02:32:36)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
Good morning, 'Glad'.
Okay, here are just a few passages of Scripture for you to reflect on:
When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, "Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, Arise, take up your bed and walk' But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house." Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (Mark 2:5-12, NKJV)
Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little." Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace." (Luke 7:44-50, NKJV)
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:7-12, NKJV)
Then Peter arose and went with them. When he had come, they brought him to the upper room. And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them. But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he rsaid, "Tabitha, arise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. Then he gave her his hand and lifted her up; and when he had called the saints and widows, he presented her alive. And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord. (Acts 9:39-42, NKJV)
Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:7b-8, NKJV)
He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. (Romans 4:20-25, NKJV)
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9, NKJV)
And my personal 'favourite', the only passage in the entire NT that asks the question, "what must I do to be saved?", and then provides the crystal clear, simple answer:
But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here." Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:25-31, NJKV)
God bless,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
4#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:12/09/2007 02:42:29)
Reply to : Didaktikon and my personal 'favourite', the only passage in the entire NT that asks the question, "what must I do to be saved?", and then provides the crystal clear, simple answer:
But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. ??Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately ??all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "?Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.?" Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. ?And he brought them out and said, ?"?Sirs, what must I do to be saved??" So they said, ??"?Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.?" (Acts 16:25-31, NJKV Hard to see the keyboard through the tears in my eyes !! Thank you !! Cheers, Glad
(Message edited by Uncoolman On 18/04/2008 05:56:35)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
5#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:12/09/2007 06:35:57)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
Hi, 'Glad'.
Hard to see the keyboard through the tears in my eyes !!
I know the feeling! My eyes often 'leak' when I read Scripture too 
Thank you !!
No need. Thank God, it's his Word 
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
For Zions Sake
|
6#
|
Rank:Newbie
Score:520
Posts:23
Registered:17/12/2006
|
(Date Posted:13/09/2007 11:29:09)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian
Hi Ian...yes, many...but I'll start with this one for now. Thanks.
What is water baptism?
Infant or Adult?
Sprinkle or immersion?
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Can a person be baptised by anyone?
Do we have to get re-baptised if we find a new Church after being baptised in Revivalism?
Thanks again... 
--------------------------------------------------------------
For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
7#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:13/09/2007 15:24:20)
Reply to : Didaktikon & Glad
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9, NKJV)
Hi guys
I love the clarity of this passage - it has come to mean so much to me. I am constantly blown away by God's amazing grace and love to us.
This is from a book I read recently by Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening; Jesus found himself standing before the brain trust of legalism, the Pharisees (sound familiar?) Listening to Him were also many who believed in Him. He had been presenting His message to the crowd; it was a message of hope, of forgiveness, of freedom. "As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ' If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free' " (John 8:30-32)
He spoke of the liberating power of the truth. Even though the official grace killers rejected His message, He assured them it could make them free. All who embrace grace become ' free indeed'. Free from what? Free from guilt and shame, free from the tyranny of others' opinions, expectations, demands. And free to what? Free to obey, to love, free to forgive others as well as myself, free to allow others to be who they are - different from me! Free to live beyond the limitations of human effort, free to serve and glorify Christ. " So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" John 8:36
An alternative to salvation by grace would be to emphasise ' works' over grace when in fact, works follow faith, behaviour follows belief, fruit comes after the tree is well rooted. Martin Luther's words come to mind: No one can be good and do good unless God's grace first makes him good, and no one becomes good by works, but good works are done only by him who is good. Just so the fruits do not make the tree, but the tree bears the fruit.. therefore all works, no matter how good they are and how pretty they look, are in vain if they do not flow from grace.
I apologise if I have gone off-track here, but I feel it is important to emphasise that the Revival groups' doctrine of ' no tongues, no salvation' (or 'gracelessness' - is this a word?) has the same result as the Pharisees (the official grace-killers). Full of law but no understanding of grace.
Words from a song by Chris Tomlin "His grace is enough, His grace is enough for me"
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
8#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:13/09/2007 16:47:41)
Reply to : Sea Urchin I think you are right. Grace is such a wonderful thing, it definitely sets you free, from all manner of things.
The GRC always harps on about having a heart that is "soft' to the Lord, but I honestly don't think that they have any understanding of the softness of heart that is achieved once you experience the gift of the Lord's Grace. The best way I can describe it is that you become "mellow" and far more compassionate, understanding and tolerant towards others.
I have been amazed at the agression that has been displayed in various posts and now realise that the writers are yet to find peace within their "Faith".
I used to love a chorus that had the words, "Be still my heart and know that I am God ................", the stillness of the heart is, I believe, a small portion of the beauty that is Grace.
Cheers,
Glad
Reply to : Didaktikon & GladBut God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have beensaved),and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceedingriches of His gracein His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.(Ephesians 2:4-9, NKJV)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
chris7
|
9#
|
Rank:New Member
Score:940
Posts:47
Registered:03/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:17/09/2007 05:59:08)
Good afternoon Ian
We might have had differences previously but this an honest question
With regard to the references to the woman who poured ointment over the feet of Jesus
Matthew 26 6 to 13
Mark 14 3 to 9
Luke 7 36 to 48
All all three accounts the same incident but recorded differently. And if they are the same incident does that make the woman Mary ( Lazarus sister ) as described in 11 verse 22
Thanks Chris
|
|
chris7
|
10#
|
Rank:New Member
Score:940
Posts:47
Registered:03/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:17/09/2007 06:01:11)
Sorry Ian
The last bit should have said John 11 verse 2
Chris
|
|
Didaktikon
|
11#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:17/09/2007 11:12:25)
Reply to : chris7
Hello, Chris.
Well, I've always assumed as much.
Blessings,
Ian
P.S. By the way, isn't it a bit incongruent of you to be asking my advice concerning Scripture, so soon after posting the following comment?: ENGAGE WITH IAN IF YOU LIKE BRETT BUT AS I FOUND OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS IT GENERALLY IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
chris7
|
12#
|
Rank:New Member
Score:940
Posts:47
Registered:03/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 04:02:03)
Ian
P.S. By the way, isn't it a bit incongruent of you to be asking my advice concerning Scripture, so soon after posting the following comment?: ENGAGE WITH IAN IF YOU LIKE BRETT BUT AS I FOUND OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS IT GENERALLY IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME
No i dont think so Ian i didnt want to say any more about the subject but you added it as a P.S.
Because i did feel that i was wasting my time engaging with you over the issue of calling Frank a heretic whilst seeming to support the Catholic church. I engaged with you because i thought you were wrong but felt that after a while engaging with you seemed a waste of time, because if you were using scripture to support your view to label Frank a heretic the you should use scripture to label the Catholic Church equally, but you didnt. To suggest that i wont ask you a question regarding scripture suggests that i dont agree with all that you post on the site, and that is not the case, i enjoy and learn a lot, but occasionally i dont agree
In the latest question regarding the woman who poured oil over the feet of Jesus, i wasnt intent on engaging with you i just wanted your thoughts, and your thoughts are the same as mine, however i have read some bible commentaries that suggest that the events quoted are not the same event. but once again thanks for your thoughts
Chris
|
|
Didaktikon
|
13#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 04:30:06)
Reply to : chris7
Chris,
I think you missed my point. You injected the opinion that engaging with me was 'generally' a waste of time to Brett Warren. The subject matter had nothing to do with my position that Frank is a heretic, or that he promotes heresy by dint of his Revivalist beliefs.
It seems, given your latest comment, that you're happy enough with my views when they reinforce your own. But not otherwise. Or to put matters in a slightly different way, you're apparently happy enough to seek out my informed opinion when it suits you, but reject and dismiss the same when it doesn't. As I said previously, incongruent
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Didaktikon
|
14#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 06:02:52)
Reply to : chris7
Nice to see that you're engaging with me on the issue, Chris
Now help me out just a bit. How is it that you so readily accepted my personal opinion on the subject of the woman with the ointment, and then as provided without a shred of scriptural discussion or defence on my part at all, but railed so long and so hard over my views on heresy and yours on the Roman Catholic Church?
Incongruent? 
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
15#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 06:37:22)
Reply to : Didaktikon  Hi Ian, your help please. It has been brought to my attention that the GRC has "twisted" yet another scripture for its own perversion.
This has caused grief to a person in the middle of a very sad situation with regard to the GRC. Could you please give your considered interpretation of the scripture here.
It seems that the GRC apart from banging on with added intensity that it is "the one true church" is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord.
The pressure being applied to the "saints" to conform and obey this instruction has now become intolerable in a particular circumstance.
Any assistance would be most welcome.
Cheers,
Glad
Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
16#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 06:56:19)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
Hi, 'Glad'.
It seems that the GRC is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord.
Wow! Huge mishandling and misinterpretation of Scripture! 
The answer, however, is quite straightforward. The passage derives from the Decalogue ('Ten Commandments'), specifically Exodus 20:12. If you have a look at the way the Decalogue is set out, you'll notice the following: the first section relates to one's obligation towards God (vv. 1-11), which is primary. The second section addresses one's obligations towards the community (vv. 12-17), and begins by outlining one's responsibilities towards one's parents, which is also primary given that the family forms the basic unit of society. Now the New Testament is replete with teaching on the role that the Church finds in moderating the life and conduct of the Christian, and metaphors abound. However, at no point do we find the Church Universal (or it's local expression, the congregation) described as a believer's 'mother'.
In short, this is very clearly just a further example of Noel wresting Scripture in an attempt to shore up his ever diminishing control of the 'folk'.
Very sad 
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Never too Late
|
17#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:4960
Posts:227
Registered:12/06/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 08:23:18)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Reply to : Glad-to be outHi, 'Glad'.It seems that the GRC is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord.Wow! Huge mishandling and misinterpretation of Scripture!The answer, however, is quite straightforward. The passage derives from the Decalogue ('Ten Commandments'), specifically Exodus 20:12. If you have a look at the way the Decalogue is set out, you'll notice the following: the first section relates to one's obligation towardsGod(vv. 1-11), which is primary. The second section addresses one's obligations towards thecommunity(vv. 12-17), and begins by outlining one's responsibilities towards one'sparents, which is also primary given that the family forms t
Ian,
I have spent a couple of hours reading over your 'opinion' and explaination on the scriptual questions the many have asked..
I particularily was interested in your response to 'GLAD'. RE: " honur thy Mother and Father" - I am balancing on the fence b/w GRC and Frredom & recently had this told to me.
That the Father is the Lord and the Mother is the "Church' in particular the GRC. I found your explaination inspiring and thoughtful. I will be spending some time tonight reading Exodus 20:12-17.
Great stuff Ian. Nice to know there is some people out there that dont force scriptural MIs-interuptation on people but have the heart to share free knowledge and love !
|
|
Didaktikon
|
18#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 08:36:21)
Reply to : Never too Late
Hi, 'NTL'.
You're very welcome. The most important thing to keep in mind about properly interpreting Scripture is this: a passage simply can't mean today, what it didn't (or couldn't) mean for it's original audience. This stresses the importance of context, something which is completely overlooked by Revivalists who play very "fast-and-loose" with Scripture.
The Decalogue is a perfect example. The 'Ten Words/Commandments' were given to order Hebrew society under Moses under God. When you realise that the first 'bunch' of them relate to proper relations with God, and the second 'division' to proper relations with society; then it's clear that the commandment to honour one's parents simply can't bet twisted to mean what Noel is attempting to promote. He's simply engaged in 'scare-mongering' to satisfy personal ends, and he will have to give an account to God, one day
God bless,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Never too Late
|
19#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:4960
Posts:227
Registered:12/06/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 08:49:19)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Reply to : Never too LateHi, 'NTL'.You're very welcome. The most important thing to keep in mind about properly interpreting Scripture is this: a passage simplycan'tmean today, what it didn't (or couldn't) mean for it'soriginal audience. This stresses the importance ofcontext, something which is completely overlooked by Revivalists who play very "fast-and-loose" with Scripture.The Decalogue is a perfect example. The 'Ten Words/Commandments' were given to order Hebrew society under Moses under God. When you realise that the first 'bunch' of them relate to proper relations with God, and the second 'division' to proper relations with society; then it's clear that the commandment to honour one's parentssimply can'tbet twisted to mean what Noel is attempting to promote. He's simply engaged in 'scare-mongering' to satisfy persona
I just find it hard that for an organisation that promotes the importantance of living by Gods word and continually reads of the scripture that man MUST not interpret scripture for himself that Noel and his pastors interpret them on a daily basis to suit themselves. Twisting the Lord word to suit there evil works.
BI- KAR-RUMBA !!! I cant belive I wasted som much time listening and believing!
|
|
chris7
|
20#
|
Rank:New Member
Score:940
Posts:47
Registered:03/02/2007
|
(Date Posted:18/09/2007 08:55:32)
Ian
Now help me out just a bit. How is it that you so readily accepted my personal opinion on the subject of the woman with the ointment, and then as provided without a shred of scriptural discussion or defence on my part at all, but railed so long and so hard over my views on heresy and yours on the Roman Catholic Church?
I am surprised you asked this question Ian
The answer is simple You saw the scriptures the same way as i did. I didnt need any shred of scriptural discussion I also said that the reason i asked the question is that i had read some bible commentaries that suggested that the incidences were different and i wanted your view THATS ALL SIMPLE
You offered little or no scriptural evidence in support of the Catholic church.
ARE YOU GIGLING AND THINKING " Got him engaged again "
LOL NO more
Chris
|
|
Didaktikon
|
21#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 01:09:12)
Reply to : chris7
Chris,
To be serious for a (very brief) moment... one doesn't need to be much of a psychologist to work you out 
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
22#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 01:28:00)
Reply to : Didaktikon Am reading the autobiography of John Shelby Spong at the moment. Something that we (GRC) always took as a forgone conclusion to answer SO much was disputed by him, and I must admit I only think of it in small ways with regard to my life, but not the bigger world picture. I am wondering if I should re-think the entire principle.
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOD'S WILL.? If there is, what context do we put it in, all encompassing, ----?
Cheers,
Glad
Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
23#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 02:35:49)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
'Morning, 'Glad'.
Am reading the autobiography of John Shelby Spong at the moment.
Ah, yes. Spong, the heretic who masquerades as a bishop! 
Something that we (GRC) always took as a forgone conclusion to answer SO much was disputed by him, and I must admit I only think of it in small ways with regard to my life, but not the bigger world picture. I am wondering if I should re-think the entire principle.
I'm sorry, 'Glad', but I'm not really sure what it is that you're stating (or asking?)
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOD'S WILL.? If there is, what context do we put it in, all encompassing, ----?
Well, I'd hate to think this entire Creation is being managed by an all-powerful being who doesn't know what he wants!
To be serious, God's will seems to be something along the lines of redeeming the whole of Creation back to himself.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Fremde
|
24#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 02:36:29)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
Reply to : Didaktikon Hi Ian, your help please. It has been brought to my attention that the GRC has "twisted" yet another scripture forits own perversion.This has caused grief to a person in the middle of a very sad situation with regard to the GRC. Could you please give your considered interpretation of the scripture here.It seems that the GRC apart from banging on with added intensity that it is "the one true church" is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord.The pressure being applied to the "saints" to conform and obey this instruction has now become intolerable in a particular circumstance.
"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26)
Should Paul McCartney then have sung "When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Jerusalem comforts me"?
Seriously...
Jesus said "But he answered and said unto them that told him, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Galatians 12:48-50)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
25#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 02:44:31)
Reply to : Fremde
Hi, Fremde.
Jesus said "But he answered and said unto them that told him, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Galatians 12:48-50)
Well, first, that verse ain't from Galatians, it's Matthew 12:48-50! But have a look at the context of the passage. Jesus was sitting with his disciples, teaching them about the Kingdom of Heaven. His immediate family comes on the scene, and attempts to draw him away, using the Jewish principle of 'family first'. Jesus responds by indicating that his disciples, those who were predisposed to doing the will of his Father, were equal to his family in his estimation. What we read is the application of a fairly standard Rabbinical teaching method.
Nice try
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
26#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 03:25:16)
Reply to : Didaktikon OK, I know that I rabbit on a bit. When you deal with an exGRCer who doesn't have much knowledge of sripture( apart from the GRC twisted variety) , but a love towards Jesus. I guess you have to put yourself back in the first year of your training or even earlier!!! lol
When Hollin's wife died, horribly from cancer, with possibly no medical intervention at all, just the prayers of the faithful, "it was God's will" to free him up to travel to the far flung assemblies and "minister" to the "saints". (these italics signify sarcasm)
When the little girl in Bendigo was struck by lightening and died, "it was God's will".
When someone lost a baby at birth. "God's will", and so on.
The Lord's Prayer, says "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" .
In the crises of life, is it God's will, or just fate.
Cheers,
Glad
ps Is God actually a being? HHmmm Maybe I should just get back to doing the dishes!!!!!!!!
Reply to : Glad-to be out'Morning, 'Glad'.Am reading the autobiography of John Shelby Spong at the moment.Ah, yes. Spong, the heretic who masquerades as a bishop!Something that we (GRC) always took as a forgone conclusion to answer SO much was disputed by him, and I must admit I only think of it in small ways with regard to my life, but not the bigger world picture. I am wondering if I should re-think the entire principle.I'm sorry, 'Glad', but I'm not really sure what it is that you're stating (or asking?)IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOD'S WILL.? If there is, what context do we put it in, all encompassing, ----?Well, I'd hate to think this entire Creation is being managed by an all-powerful being whodoesn't
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
27#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 03:50:43)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
'Glad',
When Hollin's wife died, "it was God's will" to free him up to travel to the far flung assemblies and "minister" to the "saints". (these italics signify sarcasm)
Oh, that's the nature of the issue you were hinting at.
When the little girl in Bendigo was struck by lightening and died, "it was God's will". When someone lost a baby at birth. "God's will", and so on.
Sure. The technical term for theological discussions of this sort ('defences' for God's sense of justice when bad things happen to good people) is 'theodicy'. Relatively easy to say, relatively difficult to defend Personally, whenever I'm confronted by the reality of suffering in the lives of others, then, pastorally, I always return to the book of Job. What I find there isn't the answer to the question, "why do good things happen to bad people, and bad things to the good", but reassurance that God is not dispassionately isolated from, or unaware of, such events. Scripture uniformly presents the image that God remains, by his very nature, 'good', 'loving', and 'just'. Scripture also uniformly presents that, in the fullness of time, all tears will pass away, and all things will be renewed. However, we aren't privy to the details of God's plans and purposes, nor does he seek out our counsel with respect to such matters.
In short, the existence of evil in the world doesn't discredit (in my opinion) the reality of God. To the contrary, the existence of good in spite of the reality of evil confirms, to me, that God 'is'.
The Lord's Prayer, says "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".
The above is actually an imperative, and one from the perspective of the person praying. It isn't a negative 'acceptance of misery' sort of thing, a: "...oh, okay, your will be done, Lord...". 'Nope', this is a confident, "...your will be done, Lord!" It's a positive statement about what life will be like when lived fully under God's rule
In the crises of life, is it God's will, or just fate.
If God is God, then there is simply no such thing as 'fate'. You see, 'fate' implies impersonal and random action, action having no true purpose whatsoever, never-mind any thought of a 'higher-purpose'. In the end, all we can do is trust in God's goodness and justice, and take his promises on faith, often in spite of our present circumstances. This is also what stands at the heart of those psalms known as 'laments'.
As Job so famously worshipped, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord!" (Job 1:21)
Blessings,
Ian
P.S. In response to your postscript, 'yes', God most certainly is a being
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 03:56:19)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
29#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 04:05:13)
Reply to : brolga
Hi, Ralph.
In the context of this also, Revivalists (mainly Hollins) use the verses of 'hating your mother , father etc.,' (Luke14:26)to justify their rejection completely of families and threaten their members they will be excommunicated if they make contact with those outside of their church. What I read is, Jesus is stating as "by comparison of his love for me" that to following Him, not literally hating etc.
Absolutely! Jesus was Jewish. In both Aramaic and Hebrew, comparisons are often made via appeal to 'opposites'. To love fully meant to 'love'. To not love as completely meant to 'hate'. The basic problem for us is linguistic more so than hermeneutical; we English speakers automatically view 'polarity' languages in terms of 'either/or'
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
30#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 04:18:09)
Reply to : Didaktikon Thank you for taking the time to answer Ian.
Couple of "extras" , tsunamis, earthquakes, floods - GRC end time prophecy fulfillmemt - will of God - or natural disasters linked to climate change.
If you believe that tragedies such as the death of newborns and the lightening strikes etc. are the "will of God", and not just tragic "life" events, accidents if you will, doesn't this inhibit the grieving process because your loved one has been taken by an all knowing, kindly being and is forever in their care.
I believe that they will be with the Lord, but having trouble "seeing" that the Lord was "in" on the event. Hope you can understand the difference.
I know that believing it to be the will of God, will give comfort, but isn't that perhaps causing people to not progress through the stages of grieving smoothly. ( I am a great fan of Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross)
Cheers,
Glad
Reply to : Glad-to be out'Glad',When Hollin's wife died, "it was God's will" to free him up to travel to the far flung assemblies and "minister" to the "saints". (these italics signify sarcasm)Oh,that'sthe nature of the issue you were hinting at.When the little girl in Bendigo was struck by lightening and died, "it was God's will". When someone lost a baby at birth. "God's will", and so on.Sure. The technical term for theological discussions of this sort ('defences' for God's sense of justice when bad things happen to good people) is 'theodicy'. Relatively easy to say, relatively difficult to defendPersonally, whenever I'm confronted by the reality of suffering in the lives of others, then, pastorally, I always return to the book
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 04:30:38)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
32#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 04:43:58)
Reply to : Glad-to be out
'Glad', once more.
Couple of "extras" , tsunamis, earthquakes, floods - GRC end time prophecy fulfillmemt or natural disasters linked to climate change.
Biblically, the earth also 'suffers' under the effects of sin. It's for this reason that redemption includes re-Creation.
If you "believe" that tragedies such as the death of newborns and the lightening strikes etc. are the will of God, and not just tragic "life" events, doesn't this inhibit the grieving process because your loved one has been taken by an all knowing, kindly being and is forever in their care.
I wouldn't think so as grief will still occur given that separation from loved ones due to death is always painful. The difference is, perhaps, more 'qualitative' than it is 'quantitative' (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13). Due to this, and what we look forward to, our grief should be temporary and tempered by hope 
I know that this will give comfort, but isn't that perhaps failing to promulgate the phase of denial when grieving.
Obviously I can't speak for how others have grieved, but what you're suggesting above certainly hasn't been my own experience.
Blessings,
Ian
P.S. 'Glad', could you please not keep changing your posts when I'm in the process of responding to them? I'm finding it very difficult keeping up with you when you do!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
33#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 04:50:12)
Reply to : brolga  Don't forget the other scripture for tearing families apart. Where the followers of Jesus were told to go into the villages and preach the Word and if any didn't accept then they were to shake the dust from their feet and move on.
Hollins equated "unsaved" relatives who wouldn't accept his warped version of EVERYTHING as that very dust. The "saved" family members were to literally shake off the "unsaved" family members and have no more contact with them!!!!
Isn't it great to be out of that place??!!
Cheers,
Glad
Another one that is favourite for Revs to split up families,is when Jesus said He came not to grant peace but to divide. (Luke 12:51-53)Ian, In the light of this;(Part of your responce towater baptism)During the first and second centuries, when a Jew or a Greek submitted to being baptised, and thereby identifying with Jesus Christ and his Church, then he or she was effectively cut-off, root-and-branch (including children) from the safety of his or her former social community (Synagogue or Polis). Christian baptism was 'counter-cultural', and led to the complete severing of community and familial ties, and from protection u
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Fremde
|
34#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 05:23:55)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Reply to : FremdeHi, Fremde.Jesus said "But he answered and said unto them that told him, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Galatians 12:48-50)Well, first, that verse ain't from Galatians, it'sMatthew12:48-50! But have a look at the context of the passage. Jesus was sitting with his disciples, teaching them about the Kingdom of Heaven. His immediate family comes on the scene, and attempts to draw him away, using the Jewish principle of 'family first'. Jesus responds by indicating that hisdisciples, those who were predisposed todoing the will of his Father, wereequalto his family in his estimation. Wha
Ouch ! Galatians ??? I'd like to say it was a typo...but it wasn't.......but an unintentional error nevertheless
You have misconstrued my meaning (I hope), the crux of Jesus message is of course "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven". Far be it that I would dream of agreeing with Hollins doctrine!
And before you say anything, I know I have left out the apostophe in "Jesus" I get confused as to where to apostraphise proper nouns ending in "s"
|
|
Didaktikon
|
35#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 05:32:43)
Reply to : Fremde
Hi, Fremde.
Cool. I will admit that it appeared to me that you were trying to support 'pastor' Hollins' new teaching
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Fremde
|
36#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
(Date Posted:19/09/2007 06:43:50)
Furthermore, I found out about the apostrophe......
Some words sound awkward when an apostrophe "s" is added:
Jesus's disciples.
The accepted form here is to just use the "s" apostrophe:
Jesus' disciples.
N.B. This only applies to names of Biblical or historical significance e.g. Jesus, Moses, Zeus, Demosthenes, Ramses ... the rest of us whack in the apostrophe and add an "s".
Moses' followers, Zeus' priests, Demosthenes' teachings, Ramses' pyramid
http://www.write101.com/sample.htm
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:20/09/2007 05:37:59)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
38#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:20/09/2007 06:00:56)
Reply to : brolga
Hello, Ralph.
I haven't quite my head around this; Concerning the operation of "gifts" (tongues inclusive) in Corinthians. Completely leaving the Revivalist and Pentecostal groups line of thinking out of the subject; Are the same gifts operated in the church, for today ? If so, what congregation are you likely to witness them?
The question itself demonstrates something of a dilemma You see, what many people fail to adequately grasp is that Paul's extended discussion on 'spiritual gifts' in 1 Corinthians wasn't intended as a "blue-print" on the "how-to's" of a church service (contra the Revivalist misunderstanding), but as a pastoral corrective that was directed towards a specific situation involving specific gross error! And as I demonstrate in my essay at the 'PleaseConsider' site, the various NT "lists" of "gifts" were intended to be indicative of the way in which God equips the Church, rather than as exhaustive "shopping lists" of supposedly 'spiritual' activities that somehow must be evident in every church, every service.
You might care to try the following as a personal exercise: re-read 1 Corinthians 12 through 14 for yourself. Which "gifts" do you believe fall into the category of the "better/best gifts", the ones that Paul directs believers (or the Corinthian believers, at least) to actively "seek"? Once you've compiled your list, then you will be in a position to ascertain which churches (or 'types' of churches) are likely to evidence the same with consistent frequency.
It was just such an activity as this, which I undertook myself, that effectively led me from Pentecostal/Charismatic-type churches towards more biblically-inclined and biblically-grounded fellowships 
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:23/09/2007 01:58:32)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
40#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:23/09/2007 03:54:57)
Reply to : brolga
Good morning, Ralph.
Q. 1Cor.13: v10. What is Paul referring to here? Is it meaning, when perfect "love" comes?
'Nope'. Christ. For an extended explanation, see my article on 'Spiritual Gifts' at www.pleaseconsider.info
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
(Date Posted:25/09/2007 16:30:38)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
42#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 02:15:42)
Reply to : brolga
Ralph,
RE: My "bigotry" against the Roman Catholic Church.
You are bigoted against the Roman Catholic Church, Ralph, so I do wonder that you place the word in inverted commas
The Roman Catholic Church has been the main tool used by Revivalists and others, to link the prophesies to and also say they are the modern day Pharisees, anti-Christ, etc., To the unwary, their teaching is very convincing and feasible especially when they use coloured slides and power point discussions and apply it to scripture and history to prove their point. My question is; What do you apply to scripture to the contrary? in other words who/what does the bible apply it to?
To the ignorant and/or un-thinking their teaching may seem convincing and feasible (especially to those who accord 'Powerpoint' presentations canonical status). Just stop and reflect for a moment on the credibility of Revivalist teaching in toto, and of their use of (and application of) Scripture to defend their mutiplied novelties. British-Israel. Salvation by 'tongues'. Bible Numerics. Pyramidology. Have you never stopped and noticed that what sets Revivalists apart doctrinally from Christians is their philosophy of "Anything 'quirky' but nothing 'concrete'"?!
In all fairness I expect the answer is not straight forward as I probably need to know more history. But lets look at one item. Revelation 17: This clearly identifies Rome, Revivalist say it is the Catholic Church, but can we say that it ( the Church) evolved out of Rome to this day? Why?
Ralph. I've mentioned several times here one very basic principle of responsible biblical interpretation: a passage can't mean something for us today, that it didn't (or couldn't) mean for its original audience. So ask yourself the obvious question: " who did John write his Revelation for?" The secondary question then become readily apparent: " what was the purpose of him writing to them?" I think that when you start to consider some intelligent questions for yourself, then it will become immediately obvious to you how 'dumb' (the politest word I could think of) your line of reasoning, above, really is
I don't really want to see it the Revivalist way, but it is hard not to when no alternative is presented. If you know what I'm getting at.
'No alternative', huh? I would suggest that you try suspending judgment for the moment (given that you're very clearly uninformed on the subject), and engage in a little first-hand research so as to become better informed. Visit a theological library. Buy a commentary on Revelation. 'Google' for all you're worth, and exercise the intellect a little more.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
RF_on_the_edge
|
43#
|
Rank:Regular Poster
Score:3180
Posts:156
Registered:12/03/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 03:22:25)
Reply to : Didaktikon
I've mentioned several times here one very basic principle of responsible biblical interpretation: a passage can't mean something for us today, that it didn't (or couldn't) mean for its original audience. So ask yourself the obvious question: "who did John write his Revelation for?"
Hi Ian,
I'm still chewing on other 'meat' ... but ...
Do you subscribe to what I understand to be the traditional view that Revelation was written by the Apostle John during the reign of Domitian, around 96 AD? The date seems vital for understanding who the original audience was, and the traditional date would (as far as I see) remove one of the major schools of interpretation from contention.
FWIW I find the arguments for the traditional date way more convincing than those for pre-70AD, though I've only read papers on the web from the various schools.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
44#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 04:04:14)
Reply to : RF_on_the_edge
'morning, RFOTE.
I'm still chewing on other 'meat' ... but ... Do you subscribe to what I understand to be the traditional view that Revelation was written by the Apostle John during the reign of Domitian, around 96 AD?
The 'traditional' view has the scholarly consensus, although I also think there's much to be said for the arguments put forward for an earlier date by Dr JAT Robinson is his work, "Redating the New Testament" (which is well worth buying of you can find a copy [BTW, Tyndale stocks this text]).
The date seems vital for understanding who the original audience was, and the traditional date would (as far as I see) remove one of the major schools of interpretation from contention.
Well, the 'praeterist' position might be a little more robust than you credit it being
FWIW I find the arguments for the traditional date way more convincing than those for pre-70AD, though I've only read papers on the web from the various schools.
Okay. Bear in mind though, that the 'praeterist', 'historicist', 'futurist' and 'idealist' positions on Revelation are all artificial constructs that actually impose meaning on the sense of the text, and all would have been thoroughly meaningless to the original recipients of John's Revelation in any case
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
RF_on_the_edge
|
45#
|
Rank:Regular Poster
Score:3180
Posts:156
Registered:12/03/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 04:48:47)
Reply to : Didaktikon
The date seems vital for understanding who the original audience was, and the traditional date would (as far as I see) remove one of the major schools of interpretation from contention.
Well, the 'praeterist' position might be a little more robust than you credit it being 
Okay .... something else to review
FWIW I find the arguments for the traditional date way more convincing than those for pre-70AD, though I've only read papers on the web from the various schools.
Okay. Bear in mind though, that the 'praeterist', 'historicist', 'futurist' and 'idealist' positions on Revelation are all artificial constructs that actually impose meaning on the sense of the text, and all would have been thoroughly meaningless to the original recipients of John's Revelation in any case 
So back to your original point of needing to understand the meaning for the original recipients! Another one for my 'to do' list.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
46#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 05:03:13)
Reply to : RF_on_the_edge
RFOTE,
Ain't theology grand!
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
earth5
|
47#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:11700
Posts:513
Registered:07/01/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 06:03:32)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian
Hey Ian, having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??
God Bless
E5
--------------------------------------------------------------
earth5
I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn"t, than live my life as if there isn"t, and find out there is"
|
|
Didaktikon
|
48#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 07:03:12)
Reply to : earth5
E5,
Hey Ian, having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??
For or against 'what'?
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
earth5
|
49#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:11700
Posts:513
Registered:07/01/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 07:15:40)
Reply to : Didaktikon
Reply to : earth5E5,Hey Ian, having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??For or against 'what'?Ian
sorry not as obviouse as I thought,
what is the biblical view re pre adamic man,
ie was there men around prior to Adam or was adam and eve liturally the first man?
My view is man around prior to, however am interested and happy to stand corrected if wrong that is all
e5
--------------------------------------------------------------
earth5
I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn"t, than live my life as if there isn"t, and find out there is"
|
|
Didaktikon
|
50#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
(Date Posted:26/09/2007 07:48:25)
Reply to : earth5
E5,
sorry not as obviouse as I thought, what is the biblical view re pre adamic man, ie was there men around prior to Adam or was adam and eve liturally the first man? My view is man around prior to, however am interested and happy to stand corrected if wrong that is all
Huh?
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
