UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> question bout divorce.


4/12/13 2:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/12/13 3:39 PM
Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14238
I think where we won't agree is I am not a Bible literalist. I don't hold that it is inerrant. I do think it is divinely inspired, but still written by men. I don't think God is the asshole you say he is and is going to hold dysfunctional marriages over people heads and deny them the Kingdom because of it, especially if there is remorse over it.

I don't like divorce, especially for the trivial reasons people come up with today that are mostly selfish. But I wouldn't want to stay in an ugly, unhealthy marriage myself.

We have someone at our church who thinks it's their business to go around and tell people who got divorced 25 years ago that they are living in sin with their new spouses. I think if Christ was around in body today he would smack people like that upside the head with a Bible.
4/12/13 4:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12841

I knew this conversation would continue.

4/12/13 5:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1905
gord96 - I think where we won't agree is I am not a Bible literalist. I don't hold that it is inerrant. I do think it is divinely inspired, but still written by men. I don't think God is the asshole you say he is and is going to hold dysfunctional marriages over people heads and deny them the Kingdom because of it, especially if there is remorse over it.

I don't like divorce, especially for the trivial reasons people come up with today that are mostly selfish. But I wouldn't want to stay in an ugly, unhealthy marriage myself.

We have someone at our church who thinks it's their business to go around and tell people who got divorced 25 years ago that they are living in sin with their new spouses. I think if Christ was around in body today he would smack people like that upside the head with a Bible.

Well thanks Gord. It is good to know what you believe.
4/13/13 11:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1906
I think it is very simple. If you love God you will do what He says.

If 2 people are christians in a marriage. And they both are real chriatians and love god. There is no way they have a heart to divorce each other.

That is why i mentioned before that the question should not be whether somebody can lose their salvation from divorce. That is the worng question. Because if they belonged to God they would never think of being selfich to divorce. The real question is were they ever saved to begin with.

So many "so called" Chritians today have a form of God. They say they are Christains. But really their God is still the person they look at in the mirror. They do away with Gods word through spritual pride. They are not dead and risen with our Lord. They are not slaves that belong to Him and are bought at a price. Instead they call God a liar by using His work on the cross to continue to live in sin.

A Christian repents. An aduterous relationship is a sin you LIVE in. You are calling God a liar if you say you are not an adulterer until the day you die.. doesn't matter if you lived 50 years and had 10 kids with this person. If you married somebody in the Lord when you were young and divorced for indelity and never repented by going back or staying single. But as I said this is highly unlikely in my opinion as I do not think such a person was saved to begin with or they would lose their salvation. So the problem of the arguement is is a true christian would repent or never have the heart to go through with a divorce.

Also what does this say about all those true Christians who have struggled with marriges and staying in them. Everybody has problems in a marriage. Would'nt it have been easier for them just to walk away? What does this say for those who stay in a marrigage and keep Gods covenant? Does that make them fools because they did not have to? I guess to gord96 it does.

4/13/13 11:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14239
Also what does this say about all those true Christians who have struggled with marriges and staying in them. Everybody has problems in a marriage. Would'nt it have been easier for them just to walk away? What does this say for those who stay in a marrigage and keep Gods covenant? Does that make them fools because they did not have to? I guess to gord96 it does.


I would applaud anyone who puts difficulties aside and fights to keep their marriage together. no where did I imply that I like divorce. but it takes two to tango. if one person is dead set against keeping the marriage together, then there isn't much the other person can do to save it. I know people where their spouses left them, their spouses came out of the closet, their spouses left them for another person, etc. I don't think those people should be forced to stay single/celibate for the rest of their lives because of the actions/decisions of others.
4/13/13 12:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/13/13 12:15 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1908
<blockquote>gord96 - <blockquote>Also what does this say about all those true Christians who have struggled with marriges and staying in them. Everybody has problems in a marriage. Would'nt it have been easier for them just to walk away? What does this say for those who stay in a marrigage and keep Gods covenant? Does that make them fools because they did not have to? I guess to gord96 it does. </blockquote><br /><br />I would applaud anyone who puts difficulties aside and fights to keep their marriage together. no where did I imply that I like divorce. but it takes two to tango. if one person is dead set against keeping the marriage together, then there isn't much the other person can do to save it. I know people where their spouses left them, their spouses came out of the closet, their spouses left them for another person, etc. I don't think those people should be forced to stay single/celibate for the rest of their lives because of the actions/decisions of others.</blockquote><br />





I don't get it Gord. Either you are backpeddling or you we are agreeing? Because now it seems like you are lining up more with scripture on marriage and divorce..

I agree with what you said above lines up scriptually.

The key word here is a "legal marrige" with 2 Christians..Obviously the scripture says if an unbeleiver wants to leave to let them leave.."to let them go" meaning DO NOT STOP THEM! Do not ask them to stay or fight for them. Actaully it forbids a beleiver from stopping an unbeleiver from leaving if they desire to. Otherwise they must stay married if the unbeleiver wants to stay married and live as their spouse.

Also it says if you are the victim of adultery you are free.

No where under these cicumstances is a Christian bound to their spouse. They are free to remarry.

Though I think they need to repent from marrying an unbeleiver in the first place
4/13/13 12:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1911
Romans 7:3 ESV / 16 helpful votes

Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.




1 Corinthians 7:10-17 ESV / 50 helpful votes

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. ...





1 Corinthians 7:15 ESV / 111 helpful votes

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.


1 Corinthians 7:15 ESV / 111 helpful votes

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.


Matthew 5:31-32 ESV / 24 helpful votes

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 ESV / 24 helpful votes

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Not Helpful

Hebrews 13:4 ESV / 20 helpful votes

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.





4/13/13 12:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1912
"We have someone at our church who thinks it's their business to go around and tell people who got divorced 25 years ago that they are living in sin with their new spouses. I think if Christ was around in body today he would smack people like that upside the head with a Bible."

You should listen to this man more than your pastor. You should ask him about other things to. You may be surprised.
4/13/13 4:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/13/13 7:04 PM
Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14240
You should listen to this man more than your pastor. You should ask him about other things to. You may be surprised.
I doubt it. People who try and create strife in a church do not know Christ.
4/13/13 6:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12842

Right fighters always lose in the end. They will fight to the bitter end to prove their rightness because they tie it to their righteousness. It is of no interest to me to fight over christian doctrine. You and 33,000 other denominations not to mention catholics cant decide what a relatively small book means and how it is applied to the christian life. Mired in the details of mimicking the apostles........what a waste of a life. 

He that does the will of my father......in as least ..... What a miserable life pronouncing judgement and spending days comparing your life with others. 

4/13/13 7:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1913
gord96 - 
You should listen to this man more than your pastor. You should ask him about other things to. You may be surprised.
I doubt it. People who try and create strife in a church do not know Christ.

Actually the church IS supposed to argue and come to decsions about things. Espscially about being Holy.


The church is not supposed to be edler ruled and one person leading an making decisions and where everyone esle shuts up.

Your description of the church , or what the church is or is supposed to be has no bearing on what true biblical church is as defined by our Lord and the apostles.

You have a different definiton than the biblical definition that our Lord had for His church or the proper biblical definition of the word "Church" as decribed by our Lord and NOT websters miriam dictionary.

First is the (local) church is to be Holy! That is a no brainer. Or so you would think!

Second.. why do you think Jesus pick the word "Ekklesia" to describe His church? He could have chose words like eranos, synogoge', theasos or other words to describe His church.

During the time of Jesus, the word ekklesia was used almost without exception to refer to a political assembly that was regularly convened for the purpose of making decisions.

One of the reasons He chose the word ekklesia to describe His church is because He wanted His church to deliberate because He wanted them to make corporate decisions that affected all of them as a group.


Jesus designed that believers propose matters for discussion, decide things together, make joint decisions, and using and experincing the consensus process. Had Jesus merely wanted to describe a gathering with no such political connotation, he could have used sunagogé, thiasos or eranos. Significantly, however, He chose ekklesia.

To undertand the NT biblical church and the the consus process. Is really what Jesus had in mind for His church. What you and many are doing is following mans traditions and not a New testament church. why would you want to throw that out of your bible and follow mens traditions?


God’s people have a decision-making mandate. A church is fundamentally a body of Kingdom citizens who are authorized (and expected) to weigh issues, make decisions, and pass judgments.

That Jesus expected decision making from the ekklesia is seen in Matthew 16:13-20. After promising to build His ekklesia on the rock of Peter’s revealed confession, Jesus immediately spoke of the keys of the kingdom of heaven and of binding and loosing. Keys represent the ability to open and to close something, kingdom is a political term, and binding and loosing involves the authority to make decisions. Then, in Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus said that the ekklesia (18:17) is obligated to render a verdict regarding a brother’s alleged sin, and once again, binding and loosing authority is conferred upon the ekklesia.
4/13/13 8:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14241
I didn't say anything about my views on church or church leadership. You are just making stuff up now.

My comment was simply saying there are moral busy bodies who think its their job to be the Bible police and they create strife. Worse yet, they think being an ass to others is ok as they do it with the approval of their own conscience. Phone Post 3.0
4/13/13 9:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1914
gord96 - I didn't say anything about my views on church or church leadership. You are just making stuff up now.

My comment was simply saying there are moral busy bodies who think its their job to be the Bible police and they create strife. Worse yet, they think being an ass to others is ok as they do it with the approval of their own conscience. Phone Post 3.0

My point in the school or or what you call a church this happens. In a New testamnet church does not happen because men are expected to speak up or teach in the offical part of the church meeting. If there is a problem they deliberate. They don't have to sneak around being busy bodies like a woman.



I am not making stuff up to divert anything if that is what you thought. You just didn't follow my point and I will try to be more clear next time.



4/14/13 1:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1915
Men are suposed to be able to talk and excercise their gifts in a church meeting. If you folow this then there would be no Bible police being moral busy bodies. There would be no need to. The meetings of the NT church were and are "interactive". Church is not about one Mr. important on sundays preaching a show for 1 1/2 hours while everyone else has to shut up and listen. .



Maybe i should re-write that better so one can undertand how the NT church pattern relates to this topic..

if you follow a NT church pattern. The peope (men)ARE the church leaders. Not the building, the pastor, asst pastor , music leader ect and TAH-DAH ..it is "SHOWTIME!". You and other pews sitters do not have to walk around as the "bible police" afterwards. if you have something to say to the rest of teh church. Then just say it during the offical church metteing. You can read the bible and men are responsible to teach and preach , bring hymsm, songs ect. A NT meeting flows and you get a lot more out of it than any instutional church meeting. In a NT church meeting you are responsible to be a part of the church . This responsibilty put on men then extends to the home and them being the spritual leaders of their family.


of course this type of thing does not work with unbeleivers being present (church participation is for beleivers) or large numbers of people in a church. Jesus only had 12 diciples. Church meetings are best when there are only a few families getting togther. Otherwise they need to split up into their own church to make it functional.

Oh and you don't need a building fund or have to use money to pay salaries ect. Paying a salary for the work of one person to speak and lead and preach? If you have the Holy Spirit then you are qulified to speak. There are always elders in place just in case things get haywire. But you would never know who they are in a NT church. Because they are not everybodies focus. They could be that man you call the Bible police.
4/14/13 10:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12843

4/14/13 11:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1916
Well if you do not hold to biblical inerrancy then there is no base to work from except one own opinion. And since the bible says we cannot be saved WITHOUT the bible. Then if you say we can, that makes the bible a liar?
4/14/13 12:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/14/13 1:37 PM
Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14244
The earliest new testament canon was by Marcion in the 2nd century. That didn't include half of what is in the new testament today and didn't include the old testament as Marcion thought the OT God was different. The earliest New Testament that looked anything like we know today would have been in the 4th century. So I really don't know what you mean when you say we can't be saved without the Bible. If the Bible was going to be the 'key' to salvation, you think Jesus might have mentioned it and got it out there to his followers quicker then 300-400 years after his death.

note: this is not to say that I don't have great respect for the Bible and its authority in Christian life, because I do.
4/14/13 12:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/14/13 1:33 PM
Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14245
colubrid1 - Men are suposed to be able to talk and excercise their gifts in a church meeting. If you folow this then there would be no Bible police being moral busy bodies. There would be no need to. The meetings of the NT church were and are "interactive". Church is not about one Mr. important on sundays preaching a show for 1 1/2 hours while everyone else has to shut up and listen. .



Maybe i should re-write that better so one can undertand how the NT church pattern relates to this topic..

if you follow a NT church pattern. The peope (men)ARE the church leaders. Not the building, the pastor, asst pastor , music leader ect and TAH-DAH ..it is "SHOWTIME!". You and other pews sitters do not have to walk around as the "bible police" afterwards. if you have something to say to the rest of teh church. Then just say it during the offical church metteing. You can read the bible and men are responsible to teach and preach , bring hymsm, songs ect. A NT meeting flows and you get a lot more out of it than any instutional church meeting. In a NT church meeting you are responsible to be a part of the church . This responsibilty put on men then extends to the home and them being the spritual leaders of their family.


of course this type of thing does not work with unbeleivers being present (church participation is for beleivers) or large numbers of people in a church. Jesus only had 12 diciples. Church meetings are best when there are only a few families getting togther. Otherwise they need to split up into their own church to make it functional.

Oh and you don't need a building fund or have to use money to pay salaries ect. Paying a salary for the work of one person to speak and lead and preach? If you have the Holy Spirit then you are qulified to speak. There are always elders in place just in case things get haywire. But you would never know who they are in a NT church. Because they are not everybodies focus. They could be that man you call the Bible police.

Early Christian writings like the Didache possibly date earlier then NT writings(some dating putting it at 40-60 AD) and is what a lot of early Christian worship was based off of. It says to appoint bishops and deacons. You are basing your church off of the New Testament that wasn't even close to what we know it is today until the 4th century. By then early Christians were rocking out some solid liturgy worship for hundreds of years.
4/14/13 2:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/14/13 3:17 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1919
Who Is Greatest?

24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.


Those churches excersise authority over them..

Jesus said not be like the rulers of the gentiles.. who were power hungry dictators.

What did Jeses say the rulers of the gentiles do? Jesus said not to excerisce authority (see above Luke 22:26)


websters translated- "excercise authority"-right or power to do with something (or someone)as he or she seems fit. You have the power to force them to do what you want them to do by threatening, manipulation, violence, killing them.

A 'benefactor' is someone who says i am excersiing authority over you for your own good.
4/14/13 3:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/14/13 4:25 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1920

All the institutional churches decribe their form of government.


Institutional Churches tend to shadow what their secular government did in that country ..

Anglocan-pyramid arch bishop
episcable-monarchy-one man rule
methodist-episcalple
presberterian-plurality-instead of a king u have a board of directors.
congregational-england-democracy (babtist and bible church)


Why in the world would anyone want to throw out what it says in scripture on how it istructs us how the NT church met is beyond my comprehension.
4/15/13 4:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12844

I find it beyond comprehension that a person would actually devote themselves to a life of figuring out minutae of church. More than divorce, your hobby horse is the church and 'recreating' the apostles. As I have stated earlier, the church in Jerusalem was an unmitigated disaster and God had to destroy Jerusalem to kick out the christians left and end temple judaism.  

At this point, all we will accomplish is stating our beliefs or lack thereof, not exchanging ideas. The pope isnt the only one pontificating. People with little else in life oftenn cling to their religion in a fashion that exerts control over others and cut themselves off from the world. 

You want to know why we lose the cultural wars in this country and the world over? Because Christians do not seek to engage culture, they run away from it. Where are the great thinkers of the world whom the non christian takes seriously. Where is the art that is respected and brings us into a journey of mans existence with God? Where are the writers who can compare with the greats, even on the NYT bestseller list? 

I don't buy the excuse that the world will always hate us and that they jsut are lost. Its because of douchery by sectarians who have their wife in denim dresses to their kankles, its christian junk that parrots the world and is only a rip off of a good idea by a secularist. 

Why do we have a debate on Gay Marraige ? Why the hell that ? because christians are so pathetic in their ability to engage in the world that they retreat to their cultic activities and withdraw. We can't win the culture war until people like a Ben Carson and others who are the best at their profession are takenn seriously. And my friend, no person with any self esteem would ever engage in your type of theology or church. Likely men with multitude of robot children and subservient door mat wives while the MAN runs the family like a patriarch. Percentage wise, their children and their marraiges do no better than those who have no Christ in their life.

In fact, the church beats the world in divorce by 1 percent by most recent studies. Want to make sure your child rebels, shove a man whose underwear are so tightly bound that his testicles shrink down the throats of his family and they will beat foot it to HELL as fast as someone who doesn't go to church.

This sounds hateful and it isn't meant to be, I'm just telling you how I feel about people on the road that you are on and the views that you hold. Peace.

4/16/13 11:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/16/13 12:02 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1921
You know what "the world " refers to in scripture right? And it says that we are not to be a part of it.


His direct and eternal wrath are real. Most people don't want to hear those parts in scripture. That is how you know you know you are christian. That you can handle the hard parts in the bible.

When you refer to the word church it is really difficult to cross that language barrier with you because your definition is different than te biblical ekklesia . Yeah, there is a difference between the local assembly and the universal church. But that is not what i am referring to. I am refferring to the local biblical church and not mans traditions based on mans government.

People say that if you don't believe in God that He rejects you. But that is not true. People reject God at His word, so HE rejects them.

For this reason He gives "us over" to depraved mind because we rejected who He is. He gave us over to our immorality to just let us do as we please.

God has abondoned us in the U.S. because we rejected His word. He has abandoned country to sin and He has abandoned the church for this as well.
4/16/13 12:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/16/13 12:21 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1922
The gospel is not to be tampered with . Paul made that very clear.


Also i do indeed hold to apostolic tradtion but have absolutely no use for apostolic succession. I find apostolic succession to be a snareleading to all sorts of mischef: (first witness: Roman Catholicism. Second witness: Greek Orthodoxy. Third Witness: Church of England).

I hold to government by consensus (all agreed) rather than
congregational rule (51% dictatorship). and, we are deluded enough to think we can support such from Scripture & that it is apostolic!
4/16/13 1:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gord96
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/16/13 2:04 PM
Member Since: 3/26/03
Posts: 14251
You know what "the world " refers to in scripture right? And it says that we are not to be a part of it.


Not being part of the world is rejecting what is of this world. It doesn't mean being intolerant while quoting scripture as that is something other religions do as well. It means showing radical love to others and especially the unlovable. It means forgoing those comforts of this world so others can have basic needs met. It means letting go of our desire to always be right (about scripture and everything else), and realize that we are morons whose only worth is in Jesus. Jesus quoted lots of scripture, but usually to put down the pharisees.

Edit: I suck at not living in the world, but it's the battle we fight.
4/16/13 4:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/16/13 4:24 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1923
<blockquote>gord96 - <blockquote>You know what "the world " refers to in scripture right? And it says that we are not to be a part of it.</blockquote><br /><br />Not being part of the world is rejecting what is of this world. It doesn't mean being intolerant while quoting scripture as that is something other religions do as well. It means showing radical love to others and especially the unlovable. It means forgoing those comforts of this world so others can have basic needs met. It means letting go of our desire to always be right (about scripture and everything else), and realize that we are morons whose only worth is in Jesus. Jesus quoted lots of scripture, but usually to put down the pharisees.<br /><br />Edit: I suck at not living in the world, but it's the battle we fight.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />



Except when we tolerate sin in the church.. 2 very different issues -evenagelism and church.

Being Jesus half brother won't save you (because they weren't saved until after the resurrection). His mother needed a savior and she needed to put her faith in Him. There was no salvation outside of jesus Christ for the Jew or gentile. All are condenemed that come do not come to
repentance. There is no free pass. Beleive me if there was a free pass, i would want it! But there isn't!

The #1 flaw in the emerging church is they assume they are seekers. There are no seekers. There is none who seeks after God . "NO, NOT EVEN ONE!" Apart from the Holy spirit convicting you , you cannot be saved. The best way to know that somebody is saved is to make it as difficult for them to be saved as you can. Because then you know it is genuine. If you make it so easy for them to be saved then how will you know? It would be so shallow and so superficial!.. How would you know? If the HS is convicting and saving the person who hears the word of God- REACTS to it. He does not react to it for any other reason except the Holy Spirit has drawn them.

You wanna know something? If you could prove to people the bible is true to someone it won't save them. Not to mention the fact you can't prove it anyway. No amount of evidence will ever convince soembody that the bible is true. Only the HS can! The HS is the only one who can persude you of anything. You can tell people. But you cannot convince people. If evidence can save you>> Why was Isreal so rebellios? Nobody had more evidence than them! Israel had that visual manisfistation.

Evidence evangelism does not save you. It doesn't work. because you would have to acknowledge you are immoral and in need of a savior.

The gospel is not about you. You are a secondary issue to the gospel. The gospel is about the glory of God. If it were about you, He would save all of us. Or does He lack the power to do so? So the essence of the gospel is not YOU. It is about the glory of God. It is about bringing glory to the Father. There is abosultly no violation of Gods charatcer whether He saves you or doesn't save you. There is no vilation to Him if he condemns you.


Hoepfully this picture will sink in.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.