100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: this holy spirit, you say i need? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Wed 07/16/08 11:55 PM
|
|
Tribo......
Faith comes by HEARING ...and even a child upon hearing, is able to recieve and believe with childlike faith ,the simple gospel message of salvation. And of course, a child had to understand to a certain degree what he is Hearing ,in order to recieve and believe. But to be able to FURTHER understand the DEEPER things of God ...and to be able to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the Word of God... requires the Holy Spirit living in you first...who comes to live in you at salvation. And after salvation , God's Word actually is Food for the BELIEVER. As well as a ROADMAP and FOR THE BELIEVER. So...In order to get saved ,does not require knowing the whole bible word for word, first. Actully, just the simple gospel message of salvation ,is all that one needs to hear in order to get saved. But until a man's spirit has been made alive(born again),he cannot eat the spiritual food provided ....cause his spirit is still yet dead. A dead spirit that is not alive, can't eat atall. But until man is born again, he will Somewhat be able to understand God's Word thru his intellect(intellectual understanding only). But ONLY when man is born again, wil he then be able to understand with spiritual understanding...cause his spirtual eyes are now opened. And that spirtual understanding deepens and develops, as a born again believer grow in God's Word. Tribo...God's Word is not just logos(written), it also becomes Rhema ( where the Word speaks and becomes ALIVE in one's born again spirit ) . The Spiritual Journey that begins when one is born of God ( born again), is truly a Magnificent one, Tribo...one I Pray you and the Whole World will join me and other christians on , one day.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 07/17/08 12:49 AM
|
|
When Christians Disagree,
What Do You Do? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, a Christian friend and I were having a discussion when it became apparent that we had both examined a topic from Biblical perspectives and arrived at different conclusions. In spite of our disagreement, we both could see that we were striving for the truth and basing our viewpoint on Biblical evidence.We came away from the discussion mentally stimulated, and our friendship and mutual respect was deepened in spite of this disagreement. While we experienced an amicable outcome to our disagreement, not all disagreements among Christians end so amicably. At times, people can disagree so strongly with fellow Christians on some matter that they "go their separate ways." In some cases, disagreements among Christians have strained (or terminated) friendships and even split church organizations. What should Christians do when they find themselves in unresolved disagreements with other Christians? The New Testament includes several examples showing how early Christians reacted when they experienced disputes and divergent viewpoints. By examining these Biblical precedents, we can learn scripturally-based methods of not only coping with, but profiting from our disagreements. Doctrinal Disagreements The early church experienced doctrinal disputes on a variety of issues. One disagreement (involving circumcision) was so intense that a plenary conference was called to address the issue. Emotions were clearly running high as Acts 15:2 states that Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation" with those holding the opposite viewpoint at that conference. Clearly, both sides in the Acts 15 conference had ample opportunity to present their views and evidence as the issue was examined from different perspectives. This was no wild "free for all," however, as the literal meaning of the Greek word translated "disputation" is "joint seeking" (according to Young's Analytical Concordance). This account indicates that while an uncensored airing of all viewpoints did occur, the disagreeing participants in this conference were "jointly seeking" the will of God on the circumcision issue. There are several lessons for modern Christians in this account. The first lesson is that Christians can experience strong disagreements and vehement debate on doctrinal matters and still remain part of the same body of Christ. The Acts 15 conference allowed (even encouraged) the airing of all viewpoints in an effort to determine God's will on the subject of circumcision. Clearly, God's Holy Spirit guided the early church into a consensus decision on this dispute via an "iron sharpening iron" process. Through a full and open discussion of the dispute, the early church came to a consensus decision on the circumcision question and very likely prevented a schism over this matter. It is also noteworthy that no one in the Acts 15 account was called a "heretic" or "disfellowshipped" simply because of a sincere doctrinal disagreement. This example indicates that the Christians are not to be removed from fellowship whenever doctrinal disagreements occur. Paul upheld this principle in Romans 14 while discussing vegetarians who were "weak in the faith." Romans 14:1 states: "Give a welcome to anyone whose faith is not strong, but do not get into arguments about doubtful points." ( The New Jerusalem Bible). In Romans 14:10-13, Paul also advised: "... why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?... Therefore, let's stop passing judgement on each other! Instead, make this one judgement--not to put a stumbling-block or a snare in a brother's way." (JNT— Jewish New Testament) In Romans 15:1, Paul concluded: "So we who are strong have a duty to bear the weaknesses of those who are not strong..." (JNT) Paul warned "strong" brethren (mature Christians who were doctrinally accurate) not to drive weaker brethren away from the truth (or church). All Christians need to realize that when disagreements occur, we do not "make points" with God simply by "proving the other person wrong." While seeking the truth on a disputed issue, we must also make every effort to avoid "giving offense" to those with whom we disagree. Interestingly, Romans 15:1 indicates that God puts greater responsibility on "the strong" for maintaining unity than he does on "the weak" (those who don't yet realize they are incorrect on a particular doctrine or issue). In Matthew 5:46-47, Jesus Christ said: "What reward do you get if you love only those who love you? Why, even the tax-collectors do that! And if you are friendly only to your friends, are you doing anything out of the ordinary?" (JNT) It's easy for all of us to be friendly with those with whom we agree. However, Jesus' statement indicates that God learns more about our character and maturity by observing how we deal with each other when we disagree than when we agree with one another. Administrative Disagreements Although Paul and Barnabas were allies on a doctrinal matter (circumcision) in the Acts 15 Conference, they soon separated over an administrative matter. Acts 15:36 indicates that after the conference concluded, Paul and Barnabas disagreed on whether to bring John Mark on an evangelistic tour. Verse 39 states: "the contention was so sharp between them, that they separated one from another" ( KJV, marginal reading). Even though Paul and Barnabas were united on doctrinal matters, they disagreed so vehemently over an administrative decision (a personnel matter) that they had to "part company." Clearly, they remained a part of the same body of Christ even though their disagreement on an administrative issue caused them to go their separate ways. There are lessons for modern Christians in the separation of Paul and Barnabas because of an administrative dispute. Notice that Paul did not feel empowered to enforce an artificial "unity" by "commanding" Barnabas to submit to his decision. Neither did Barnabas feel he had any authority to "give orders" to Paul. They "agreed to disagree" on the matter, and decided to serve God separately instead of jointly. Was God's Holy Spirit able to work through both Paul and Barnabas after their disagreement and separation? Of course! Both Paul and Barnabas continued to do God's Work, and there is no evidence that they ever saw each other as enemies or competitors. Perhaps there is a lesson in their experience for modern Christians and church organizations. Disagreements Between Church Organizations When one christian church has beliefs that another christian organization regards as false doctrine, can their members still interact and accept each other as Christian brethren? Consider the example of the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3. All seven churches are acknowledged by God as being part of "his church."Yet God states that two of the churches (Pergamos and Thyatira) had embraced false doctrines. Pergamos had two false doctrines ( the "doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans") while Thyatira had embraced the false doctrines of a prophetess called "Jezebel." While God warned both churches to repent of their false doctrines, God had not abandoned or disowned them. We do not know how long God allows a church to repent of adopting false doctrine, but since God gives such churches (and people) "space for repentance" (Revelation 2:21) so should we. However, we must "hear what the spirit says to the churches," and make every effort to avoid false doctrines because they can weaken and jeopardize our relationship with God. While God warned the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira to repent of their false doctrines, he did not call them "heretics." There is no indication that any of the seven churches had abandoned God's laws. God says to none of them, "You have abandoned my Sabbaths and Holy Days" or "You have forsaken my commandments." In Hosea 4:6, God makes it clear that he will reject those who forget his laws and reject his knowledge. Since Pergamos and Thyatira had not been rejected, they clearly had not forsaken God's laws. If any of the churches of Revelation had been guilty of openly rejecting key elements of God's law, Hosea 4:6 indicates God would have voiced neither tolerance nor patience with them. The Ephesian church (which correctly hated the false doctrine of the Nicolaitans) may have regarded the members of the Pergamos church as a "bunch of heretics" because they had embraced this false doctrine. If so, their judgement would have been harsh and incorrect because Jesus Christ still accepted the Pergamos church as "one of his." Conversely, while the Ephesian church was very strong doctrinally, Revelation 2:4-5 shows they were unaware of their own attitude problem (i.e., "they had lost their first love") which was jeopardizing their relationship with God. A lesson for us is that since God himself does not immediately withdraw his fellowship from people who have mistakenly mixed false doctrines in with God's true doctrines, neither should we suddenly withdraw fellowship from those who mistakenly accept a false (or merely "inaccurate") doctrine. Furthermore, the letters to the seven churches reveal that there is much more to our relationship with God than simply being "right" or "wrong" on doctrines. The letters to the churches show that God regards both attitudes and doctrines as important factors in our relationship with him. Further evidence of this fact is found in God's words to the Sardis and Laodicean churches. God regarded the Sardis church as "dead" spiritually, and he strongly warned the Laodiceans about their "lukewarm" attitudes even though he attributes no false doctrines to either church (Revelation 3:1-6, 14-22). Matthew 24:48 warns God's people that they should not "smite their fellowservants" as the return of Jesus Christ draws near. Does it not follow that christians churches should not "smite" (ostracize, judge, condemn) their "brother churches" as well? Like brethren in Christ, the churches of God should strive to edify each other and cooperate as much as possible. In John 13:35, Jesus instructed: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for each other." It seems self-evident that Jesus excerpts church organizations (as well as individuals) to heed that instruction. Conclusion Acts 15 records how the early Christian church handled doctrinal and administrative disputes. Because God calls people from very diverse backgrounds and perspectives, disagreements are inevitable. Today God's people are experiencing disagreements on doctrinal and administrative matters, and leaders and laymen alike are deciding (as did Paul and Barnabas) to "go separate ways" even as they both continue to "do God's Work." It is vital that we understand that the early Christian Church experienced similar disagreements. We all need to realize that when we disagree about doctrinal or administrative matters, we remain members of Christ's body and are still responsible to our God and Savior to continue to treat each other as "brethren in Christ." The above scriptures indicate that if Christians (and churches) can "bear" some disagreements among themselves and still "show love for each other," it is evidence that God's people are learning to walk in Christian maturity. written by Steven M. Collins --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Thu 07/17/08 07:42 AM
|
|
When Christians Disagree, What Do You Do? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, a Christian friend and I were having a discussion when it became apparent that we had both examined a topic from Biblical perspectives and arrived at different conclusions. In spite of our disagreement, we both could see that we were striving for the truth and basing our viewpoint on Biblical evidence.We came away from the discussion mentally stimulated, and our friendship and mutual respect was deepened in spite of this disagreement. While we experienced an amicable outcome to our disagreement, not all disagreements among Christians end so amicably. At times, people can disagree so strongly with fellow Christians on some matter that they "go their separate ways." In some cases, disagreements among Christians have strained (or terminated) friendships and even split church organizations. What should Christians do when they find themselves in unresolved disagreements with other Christians? The New Testament includes several examples showing how early Christians reacted when they experienced disputes and divergent viewpoints. By examining these Biblical precedents, we can learn scripturally-based methods of not only coping with, but profiting from our disagreements. Doctrinal Disagreements The early church experienced doctrinal disputes on a variety of issues. One disagreement (involving circumcision) was so intense that a plenary conference was called to address the issue. Emotions were clearly running high as Acts 15:2 states that Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation" with those holding the opposite viewpoint at that conference. Clearly, both sides in the Acts 15 conference had ample opportunity to present their views and evidence as the issue was examined from different perspectives. This was no wild "free for all," however, as the literal meaning of the Greek word translated "disputation" is "joint seeking" (according to Young's Analytical Concordance). This account indicates that while an uncensored airing of all viewpoints did occur, the disagreeing participants in this conference were "jointly seeking" the will of God on the circumcision issue. There are several lessons for modern Christians in this account. The first lesson is that Christians can experience strong disagreements and vehement debate on doctrinal matters and still remain part of the same body of Christ. The Acts 15 conference allowed (even encouraged) the airing of all viewpoints in an effort to determine God's will on the subject of circumcision. Clearly, God's Holy Spirit guided the early church into a consensus decision on this dispute via an "iron sharpening iron" process. Through a full and open discussion of the dispute, the early church came to a consensus decision on the circumcision question and very likely prevented a schism over this matter. It is also noteworthy that no one in the Acts 15 account was called a "heretic" or "disfellowshipped" simply because of a sincere doctrinal disagreement. This example indicates that the Christians are not to be removed from fellowship whenever doctrinal disagreements occur. Paul upheld this principle in Romans 14 while discussing vegetarians who were "weak in the faith." Romans 14:1 states: "Give a welcome to anyone whose faith is not strong, but do not get into arguments about doubtful points." ( The New Jerusalem Bible). In Romans 14:10-13, Paul also advised: "... why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?... Therefore, let's stop passing judgement on each other! Instead, make this one judgement--not to put a stumbling-block or a snare in a brother's way." (JNT— Jewish New Testament) In Romans 15:1, Paul concluded: "So we who are strong have a duty to bear the weaknesses of those who are not strong..." (JNT) Paul warned "strong" brethren (mature Christians who were doctrinally accurate) not to drive weaker brethren away from the truth (or church). All Christians need to realize that when disagreements occur, we do not "make points" with God simply by "proving the other person wrong." While seeking the truth on a disputed issue, we must also make every effort to avoid "giving offense" to those with whom we disagree. Interestingly, Romans 15:1 indicates that God puts greater responsibility on "the strong" for maintaining unity than he does on "the weak" (those who don't yet realize they are incorrect on a particular doctrine or issue). In Matthew 5:46-47, Jesus Christ said: "What reward do you get if you love only those who love you? Why, even the tax-collectors do that! And if you are friendly only to your friends, are you doing anything out of the ordinary?" (JNT) It's easy for all of us to be friendly with those with whom we agree. However, Jesus' statement indicates that God learns more about our character and maturity by observing how we deal with each other when we disagree than when we agree with one another. Administrative Disagreements Although Paul and Barnabas were allies on a doctrinal matter (circumcision) in the Acts 15 Conference, they soon separated over an administrative matter. Acts 15:36 indicates that after the conference concluded, Paul and Barnabas disagreed on whether to bring John Mark on an evangelistic tour. Verse 39 states: "the contention was so sharp between them, that they separated one from another" ( KJV, marginal reading). Even though Paul and Barnabas were united on doctrinal matters, they disagreed so vehemently over an administrative decision (a personnel matter) that they had to "part company." Clearly, they remained a part of the same body of Christ even though their disagreement on an administrative issue caused them to go their separate ways. There are lessons for modern Christians in the separation of Paul and Barnabas because of an administrative dispute. Notice that Paul did not feel empowered to enforce an artificial "unity" by "commanding" Barnabas to submit to his decision. Neither did Barnabas feel he had any authority to "give orders" to Paul. They "agreed to disagree" on the matter, and decided to serve God separately instead of jointly. Was God's Holy Spirit able to work through both Paul and Barnabas after their disagreement and separation? Of course! Both Paul and Barnabas continued to do God's Work, and there is no evidence that they ever saw each other as enemies or competitors. Perhaps there is a lesson in their experience for modern Christians and church organizations. Disagreements Between Church Organizations When one christian church has beliefs that another christian organization regards as false doctrine, can their members still interact and accept each other as Christian brethren? Consider the example of the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3. All seven churches are acknowledged by God as being part of "his church."Yet God states that two of the churches (Pergamos and Thyatira) had embraced false doctrines. Pergamos had two false doctrines ( the "doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans") while Thyatira had embraced the false doctrines of a prophetess called "Jezebel." While God warned both churches to repent of their false doctrines, God had not abandoned or disowned them. We do not know how long God allows a church to repent of adopting false doctrine, but since God gives such churches (and people) "space for repentance" (Revelation 2:21) so should we. However, we must "hear what the spirit says to the churches," and make every effort to avoid false doctrines because they can weaken and jeopardize our relationship with God. While God warned the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira to repent of their false doctrines, he did not call them "heretics." There is no indication that any of the seven churches had abandoned God's laws. God says to none of them, "You have abandoned my Sabbaths and Holy Days" or "You have forsaken my commandments." In Hosea 4:6, God makes it clear that he will reject those who forget his laws and reject his knowledge. Since Pergamos and Thyatira had not been rejected, they clearly had not forsaken God's laws. If any of the churches of Revelation had been guilty of openly rejecting key elements of God's law, Hosea 4:6 indicates God would have voiced neither tolerance nor patience with them. The Ephesian church (which correctly hated the false doctrine of the Nicolaitans) may have regarded the members of the Pergamos church as a "bunch of heretics" because they had embraced this false doctrine. If so, their judgement would have been harsh and incorrect because Jesus Christ still accepted the Pergamos church as "one of his." Conversely, while the Ephesian church was very strong doctrinally, Revelation 2:4-5 shows they were unaware of their own attitude problem (i.e., "they had lost their first love") which was jeopardizing their relationship with God. A lesson for us is that since God himself does not immediately withdraw his fellowship from people who have mistakenly mixed false doctrines in with God's true doctrines, neither should we suddenly withdraw fellowship from those who mistakenly accept a false (or merely "inaccurate") doctrine. Furthermore, the letters to the seven churches reveal that there is much more to our relationship with God than simply being "right" or "wrong" on doctrines. The letters to the churches show that God regards both attitudes and doctrines as important factors in our relationship with him. Further evidence of this fact is found in God's words to the Sardis and Laodicean churches. God regarded the Sardis church as "dead" spiritually, and he strongly warned the Laodiceans about their "lukewarm" attitudes even though he attributes no false doctrines to either church (Revelation 3:1-6, 14-22). Matthew 24:48 warns God's people that they should not "smite their fellowservants" as the return of Jesus Christ draws near. Does it not follow that christians churches should not "smite" (ostracize, judge, condemn) their "brother churches" as well? Like brethren in Christ, the churches of God should strive to edify each other and cooperate as much as possible. In John 13:35, Jesus instructed: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for each other." It seems self-evident that Jesus excerpts church organizations (as well as individuals) to heed that instruction. Conclusion Acts 15 records how the early Christian church handled doctrinal and administrative disputes. Because God calls people from very diverse backgrounds and perspectives, disagreements are inevitable. Today God's people are experiencing disagreements on doctrinal and administrative matters, and leaders and laymen alike are deciding (as did Paul and Barnabas) to "go separate ways" even as they both continue to "do God's Work." It is vital that we understand that the early Christian Church experienced similar disagreements. We all need to realize that when we disagree about doctrinal or administrative matters, we remain members of Christ's body and are still responsible to our God and Savior to continue to treat each other as "brethren in Christ." The above scriptures indicate that if Christians (and churches) can "bear" some disagreements among themselves and still "show love for each other," it is evidence that God's people are learning to walk in Christian maturity. written by Steven M. Collins --------------------------------------------------------------- As to having to have the spirit to understand the words, even spider says its not necessary - take that up with him, not me. i will ask you one question - do you watch TBN, 700 club, and listen to and believe the teachings of those there and their guest? especially Lindsey and Hinn and Hagan, etc? If so then i separate myself from you and those false doctrines. sorry, won't listen to a word you say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole idea that a god would write a book and then blind people from understanding it who are trying to seek him is utter nonsense. For a god to do such a thing it would need to be an extremely deceitful and untrustworthy deity. That would be cruel beyond comprehension. Also he could have made religion easy to understand like food , water , sex ,....something from him to humans without going through a third party who is a man . Ummm - I'm confused. Doesn't this equation hold true: Humans = man. What "3rd party"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole idea that a god would write a book and then blind people from understanding it who are trying to seek him is utter nonsense. For a god to do such a thing it would need to be an extremely deceitful and untrustworthy deity. That would be cruel beyond comprehension. Also he could have made religion easy to understand like food , water , sex ,....something from him to humans without going through a third party who is a man . Ummm - I'm confused. Doesn't this equation hold true: Humans = man. What "3rd party"? I think what he meant Eljay is christ god/man |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Christians Disagree, What Do You Do? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, a Christian friend and I were having a discussion when it became apparent that we had both examined a topic from Biblical perspectives and arrived at different conclusions. In spite of our disagreement, we both could see that we were striving for the truth and basing our viewpoint on Biblical evidence.We came away from the discussion mentally stimulated, and our friendship and mutual respect was deepened in spite of this disagreement. While we experienced an amicable outcome to our disagreement, not all disagreements among Christians end so amicably. At times, people can disagree so strongly with fellow Christians on some matter that they "go their separate ways." In some cases, disagreements among Christians have strained (or terminated) friendships and even split church organizations. What should Christians do when they find themselves in unresolved disagreements with other Christians? The New Testament includes several examples showing how early Christians reacted when they experienced disputes and divergent viewpoints. By examining these Biblical precedents, we can learn scripturally-based methods of not only coping with, but profiting from our disagreements. Doctrinal Disagreements The early church experienced doctrinal disputes on a variety of issues. One disagreement (involving circumcision) was so intense that a plenary conference was called to address the issue. Emotions were clearly running high as Acts 15:2 states that Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation" with those holding the opposite viewpoint at that conference. Clearly, both sides in the Acts 15 conference had ample opportunity to present their views and evidence as the issue was examined from different perspectives. This was no wild "free for all," however, as the literal meaning of the Greek word translated "disputation" is "joint seeking" (according to Young's Analytical Concordance). This account indicates that while an uncensored airing of all viewpoints did occur, the disagreeing participants in this conference were "jointly seeking" the will of God on the circumcision issue. There are several lessons for modern Christians in this account. The first lesson is that Christians can experience strong disagreements and vehement debate on doctrinal matters and still remain part of the same body of Christ. The Acts 15 conference allowed (even encouraged) the airing of all viewpoints in an effort to determine God's will on the subject of circumcision. Clearly, God's Holy Spirit guided the early church into a consensus decision on this dispute via an "iron sharpening iron" process. Through a full and open discussion of the dispute, the early church came to a consensus decision on the circumcision question and very likely prevented a schism over this matter. It is also noteworthy that no one in the Acts 15 account was called a "heretic" or "disfellowshipped" simply because of a sincere doctrinal disagreement. This example indicates that the Christians are not to be removed from fellowship whenever doctrinal disagreements occur. Paul upheld this principle in Romans 14 while discussing vegetarians who were "weak in the faith." Romans 14:1 states: "Give a welcome to anyone whose faith is not strong, but do not get into arguments about doubtful points." ( The New Jerusalem Bible). In Romans 14:10-13, Paul also advised: "... why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?... Therefore, let's stop passing judgement on each other! Instead, make this one judgement--not to put a stumbling-block or a snare in a brother's way." (JNT— Jewish New Testament) In Romans 15:1, Paul concluded: "So we who are strong have a duty to bear the weaknesses of those who are not strong..." (JNT) Paul warned "strong" brethren (mature Christians who were doctrinally accurate) not to drive weaker brethren away from the truth (or church). All Christians need to realize that when disagreements occur, we do not "make points" with God simply by "proving the other person wrong." While seeking the truth on a disputed issue, we must also make every effort to avoid "giving offense" to those with whom we disagree. Interestingly, Romans 15:1 indicates that God puts greater responsibility on "the strong" for maintaining unity than he does on "the weak" (those who don't yet realize they are incorrect on a particular doctrine or issue). In Matthew 5:46-47, Jesus Christ said: "What reward do you get if you love only those who love you? Why, even the tax-collectors do that! And if you are friendly only to your friends, are you doing anything out of the ordinary?" (JNT) It's easy for all of us to be friendly with those with whom we agree. However, Jesus' statement indicates that God learns more about our character and maturity by observing how we deal with each other when we disagree than when we agree with one another. Administrative Disagreements Although Paul and Barnabas were allies on a doctrinal matter (circumcision) in the Acts 15 Conference, they soon separated over an administrative matter. Acts 15:36 indicates that after the conference concluded, Paul and Barnabas disagreed on whether to bring John Mark on an evangelistic tour. Verse 39 states: "the contention was so sharp between them, that they separated one from another" ( KJV, marginal reading). Even though Paul and Barnabas were united on doctrinal matters, they disagreed so vehemently over an administrative decision (a personnel matter) that they had to "part company." Clearly, they remained a part of the same body of Christ even though their disagreement on an administrative issue caused them to go their separate ways. There are lessons for modern Christians in the separation of Paul and Barnabas because of an administrative dispute. Notice that Paul did not feel empowered to enforce an artificial "unity" by "commanding" Barnabas to submit to his decision. Neither did Barnabas feel he had any authority to "give orders" to Paul. They "agreed to disagree" on the matter, and decided to serve God separately instead of jointly. Was God's Holy Spirit able to work through both Paul and Barnabas after their disagreement and separation? Of course! Both Paul and Barnabas continued to do God's Work, and there is no evidence that they ever saw each other as enemies or competitors. Perhaps there is a lesson in their experience for modern Christians and church organizations. Disagreements Between Church Organizations When one christian church has beliefs that another christian organization regards as false doctrine, can their members still interact and accept each other as Christian brethren? Consider the example of the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3. All seven churches are acknowledged by God as being part of "his church."Yet God states that two of the churches (Pergamos and Thyatira) had embraced false doctrines. Pergamos had two false doctrines ( the "doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans") while Thyatira had embraced the false doctrines of a prophetess called "Jezebel." While God warned both churches to repent of their false doctrines, God had not abandoned or disowned them. We do not know how long God allows a church to repent of adopting false doctrine, but since God gives such churches (and people) "space for repentance" (Revelation 2:21) so should we. However, we must "hear what the spirit says to the churches," and make every effort to avoid false doctrines because they can weaken and jeopardize our relationship with God. While God warned the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira to repent of their false doctrines, he did not call them "heretics." There is no indication that any of the seven churches had abandoned God's laws. God says to none of them, "You have abandoned my Sabbaths and Holy Days" or "You have forsaken my commandments." In Hosea 4:6, God makes it clear that he will reject those who forget his laws and reject his knowledge. Since Pergamos and Thyatira had not been rejected, they clearly had not forsaken God's laws. If any of the churches of Revelation had been guilty of openly rejecting key elements of God's law, Hosea 4:6 indicates God would have voiced neither tolerance nor patience with them. The Ephesian church (which correctly hated the false doctrine of the Nicolaitans) may have regarded the members of the Pergamos church as a "bunch of heretics" because they had embraced this false doctrine. If so, their judgement would have been harsh and incorrect because Jesus Christ still accepted the Pergamos church as "one of his." Conversely, while the Ephesian church was very strong doctrinally, Revelation 2:4-5 shows they were unaware of their own attitude problem (i.e., "they had lost their first love") which was jeopardizing their relationship with God. A lesson for us is that since God himself does not immediately withdraw his fellowship from people who have mistakenly mixed false doctrines in with God's true doctrines, neither should we suddenly withdraw fellowship from those who mistakenly accept a false (or merely "inaccurate") doctrine. Furthermore, the letters to the seven churches reveal that there is much more to our relationship with God than simply being "right" or "wrong" on doctrines. The letters to the churches show that God regards both attitudes and doctrines as important factors in our relationship with him. Further evidence of this fact is found in God's words to the Sardis and Laodicean churches. God regarded the Sardis church as "dead" spiritually, and he strongly warned the Laodiceans about their "lukewarm" attitudes even though he attributes no false doctrines to either church (Revelation 3:1-6, 14-22). Matthew 24:48 warns God's people that they should not "smite their fellowservants" as the return of Jesus Christ draws near. Does it not follow that christians churches should not "smite" (ostracize, judge, condemn) their "brother churches" as well? Like brethren in Christ, the churches of God should strive to edify each other and cooperate as much as possible. In John 13:35, Jesus instructed: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for each other." It seems self-evident that Jesus excerpts church organizations (as well as individuals) to heed that instruction. Conclusion Acts 15 records how the early Christian church handled doctrinal and administrative disputes. Because God calls people from very diverse backgrounds and perspectives, disagreements are inevitable. Today God's people are experiencing disagreements on doctrinal and administrative matters, and leaders and laymen alike are deciding (as did Paul and Barnabas) to "go separate ways" even as they both continue to "do God's Work." It is vital that we understand that the early Christian Church experienced similar disagreements. We all need to realize that when we disagree about doctrinal or administrative matters, we remain members of Christ's body and are still responsible to our God and Savior to continue to treat each other as "brethren in Christ." The above scriptures indicate that if Christians (and churches) can "bear" some disagreements among themselves and still "show love for each other," it is evidence that God's people are learning to walk in Christian maturity. written by Steven M. Collins --------------------------------------------------------------- As to having to have the spirit to understand the words, even spider says its not necessary - take that up with him, not me. i will ask you one question - do you watch TBN, 700 club, and listen to and believe the teachings of those there and their guest? especially Lindsey and Hinn and Hagan, etc? If so then i separate myself from you and those false doctrines. sorry, won't listen to a word you say. tribo....When my tv burnt up over 3 years ago, I never felt led to get another one. From that time on, I have come to enjoy the peaceful and quiet commune ... alone with God... with no other distractions. It is not my place to judge any ministry. Only to Pray. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to having to have the spirit to understand the words, even spider says its not necessary - take that up with him, not me. i will ask you one question - do you watch TBN, 700 club, and listen to and believe the teachings of those there and their guest? especially Lindsey and Hinn and Hagan, etc? If so then i separate myself from you and those false doctrines. sorry, won't listen to a word you say. tribo....When my tv burnt up over 3 years ago, I never felt led to get another one. From that time on, I have come to enjoy the peaceful and quiet commune ... alone with God... with no other distractions. It is not my place to judge any ministry. Only to Pray. TRIBO: i will rephrase my question then MS, - "DID" you listen to those i asked of above? And "DO" you believe what they say??? do you follow those teachings? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 07/17/08 07:58 PM
|
|
I mean seriously Spider, tell me one prayer that has without a doubt been answered by this "God?" Now you have changed the topic again. Acknowledge my point about God being able to watch billions of people and we can move on to this new topic. I will not acknowledge something I do not believe, just as you won't dent it. Explain the logical failing of what I posted. We aren't talking about "Does Peccy believe in the God of Abraham as an all-powerful God", I am stating that an all-powerful God would be capable of observing all humanity. Your position is that an all-powerful God could not observe all of humanity. Please offer some arguments to support your position. Thus I win the argument, since you refuse to offer logical arguments. This is the way of these forums, so many depend upon the stupidity of their debating oppoent for them to win. I'm not stupid, so you will need to do better than offer platitudes, specious arugments and witty comebacks to beat me. That's very funny Spider.  You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole idea that a god would write a book and then blind people from understanding it who are trying to seek him is utter nonsense. For a god to do such a thing it would need to be an extremely deceitful and untrustworthy deity. That would be cruel beyond comprehension. Also he could have made religion easy to understand like food , water , sex ,....something from him to humans without going through a third party who is a man . Ummm - I'm confused. Doesn't this equation hold true: Humans = man. What "3rd party"? I think what he meant Eljay is christ god/man I got the impression he was refering to the "writers" of the gospels, not the object of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you may be right eljay thats not what i got so i'll let him respond - sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amazingly, there are thousands of different denominational and independent Christian churches who, for the most part, agree on the basic fundamentals of Christ, but who maintain their separate groups for relatively minor issues. They may not agree on all other matters of doctrine, interpretation, traditions, or the special emphasis placed on certain beliefs.
Regardless of how closely various churches may agree with each other doctrinally, there still will never be two churches exactly alike. This is largely due to the fact that no two people are alike in every detail. Churches are made up of people. Thus, the combined individual personalities in a congregation, creates a distinct “congregational personality.” Sometimes people mistake differences in church personality as differences in belief or doctrine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. i don't know where you get that an omniscient or all knowing god would would have to be also omniobservant?? knowledge and visualizing are so completely different things why are you stating such as you have? could an omnipotent god observe all? now that can be discussed. would it have the power to do so? that i can understand. only if you believe this omnipotent being has eyes or emotions or needs to do such things as watch all of its creation. But from your take on things the answer is yes - your god could. and sophistic would be a better word for you to use than continuing to say specious which has meaning you don't really mean to convey here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. i don't know where you get that an omniscient or all knowing god would would have to be also omniobservant?? knowledge and visualizing are so completely different things why are you stating such as you have? could an omnipotent god observe all? now that can be discussed. would it have the power to do so? that i can understand. only if you believe this omnipotent being has eyes or emotions or needs to do such things as watch all of its creation. But from your take on things the answer is yes - your god could. and sophistic would be a better word for you to use than continuing to say specious which has meaning you don't really mean to convey here. Specious Apparently right; superficially fair, just, or correct, but not so in reality Sophestry The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only They are basically the same thing, but specious applies universally while sophestry applies to reasoning only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. i don't know where you get that an omniscient or all knowing god would would have to be also omniobservant?? knowledge and visualizing are so completely different things why are you stating such as you have? could an omnipotent god observe all? now that can be discussed. would it have the power to do so? that i can understand. only if you believe this omnipotent being has eyes or emotions or needs to do such things as watch all of its creation. But from your take on things the answer is yes - your god could. and sophistic would be a better word for you to use than continuing to say specious which has meaning you don't really mean to convey here. Specious Apparently right; superficially fair, just, or correct, but not so in reality Sophestry The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only They are basically the same thing, but specious applies universally while sophestry applies to reasoning only. specious 1obsolete : showy 2: having deceptive attraction or allure Main Entry: so·phis·tic Pronunciation: \sä-ˈfis-tik, sə-\ Variant(s): or so·phis·ti·cal \-ti-kəl\ Function: adjective Date: 15th century 2 : plausible but fallacious are we not "reasoning here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how do we know we need somthing that we never experienced? I dont a woman until i find a woman who completes me, then i am unable to live without such a woman... God is just that people dont feel they need him until you have him, and then you dont want to let him go
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. I know the definitions of the words. I just don't answer pointless "What if" or hypothetical questions. And the truth is ~~ it doesn't matter ~~and I don't care. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider Wrote: Thus I win the argument, since you refuse to offer logical arguments. This is the way of these forums, so many depend upon the stupidity of their debating oppoent for them to win. I'm not stupid, so you will need to do better than offer platitudes, specious arugments and witty comebacks to beat me. JB wrote: That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Really. The whole biblical myth is based on illogical absurdities. An all-powerful God is at war with a demonic angel? That's illogical. Mankind is responsible for death and imperfect in this world because he has choosen to disobey God? That's illogoical on many levels, not to meantion the fact that we now know that the world was full of in perfections and death long before mankind ever came onto the scene. An all-wise God would allow the entire human population to become corrupt before he floods them out? That's not a very wise way to raise humans. But wait! He had to do it this way because he had to perserve Free Will! But that's illogical because Free Will didn't stop him from drowning them out in the end. So if it didn't stop him in the end, then why should it have stopped him from giving bad people heart attacks dynamically along the way. In fact, God asks people to stone their unruly children to death, and to stone their sinning brothers and sister to death. But wait that illogical! Later in the biblic this supposedly unchanging God tells people not to judge one another, yet he clearly had asked them to do just that back when he requested that they stone unruly children and sinners to death! There is nothing logical about the bible. In fact, it's not even reasonable if you stop and think about it with a truly open mind. If all-powerful omnicient God wanted unruly children to die, why doen't he just give them heart attacks or whatever? Why ask other people to pass judgements on them in his stead? Why ask other people to kill their children and neighbors when he had previously commanded them to not kill? That's illogical. Why would an all-powerful intervening God be asking mere mortals to pass judgements and excute punishments of death upon one another? Clearly there is something horribly wrong with these stories. These are stories of a God who is not the least bit stable in what he wants from people. He appears, (according to these stories), to be quite confused and unsure of how he wants men to behave and what he wants them to do. At best the bible is full of mixed messages that are completely illogical. If Spider was truly interested in logic he'd have to concede that the Bible can't be true because it is entirely illogical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. I know the definitions of the words. I just don't answer pointless "What if" or hypothetical questions. And the truth is ~~ it doesn't matter ~~and I don't care. JB If it doesn't matter and you don't care, then I'm confused as to why you felt the need to add your 2 cents to begin with. Just to try to get under my skin? Just to insult my reasoning, because you are unable to refute it? It's really confusing to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Fri 07/18/08 07:34 AM
|
|
That's very funny Spider. You win the argument because he refuses to offer logical arguments? Your entire argument rests on illogical information that can't be proven that is based on faith. You can't demand that people provide you with logical or scientific proof when your argument is based on what the other person considers total illogical myth based assertions. JB Once again, you join Team Specious. Tell me JB...or anyone else: Could an omniscient, omnipotent God observe all of humanity at once? If not, why not? Wouldn't omniscient demand that God be observing all things in the universe, not just people? Why we got onto the tangent...I'm not sure. But it's the very definition of specious. And just FYI...You don't have to believe in an omniscient god to answer the question. You just have to know the definitions of the words, if you do not know the definitions of the words, then definitions will be supplied to you. I know the definitions of the words. I just don't answer pointless "What if" or hypothetical questions. And the truth is ~~ it doesn't matter ~~and I don't care. JB If it doesn't matter and you don't care, then I'm confused as to why you felt the need to add your 2 cents to begin with. Just to try to get under my skin? Just to insult my reasoning, because you are unable to refute it? It's really confusing to me. she does care spider to this point - you are making conclusions based on faith, then asking others to prove their take on the matters at hand - when you cannot do the same, - you want proof of their take but can not offer anything in return as you ask of them, only your personal belief that what you take on "faith" is true. This will frustrate anyone if kept up over and over ad nauseum. you want to make points of how you believe fine - them give the same type of evidence you ask of others, show Jb, or others your proofs apart from your faith. direct them to science, history outside the book, or anything else that backs up what you state. Not plausible truths but factual truths, things that non believers of what you say can look at and say "ok, science, archeology,history, etc., states this to be acceptable facts, and find sources that are not those of believers in those fields that have a personal bent for concluding such matters in a christian context to support your theories, that again is not independant conclusions but bents by believers as to the books proofs. If and when you can do this, you will find much less argument when you bring a subject up than you do now. Even my answer to you of whether your god can see all at once has to be based on - what you believe by ""faith"" your god to be and have and act, not on anything else - so to even answer you one is "forced" to take a view of what you personally believe your god to be as a fore gone conclusion. It is then impossible to have a concrete discussion or debate if one "HAS" to talk within your faith based take on things. Then if one does reply you simply attack his arguement or statement based again on your take in your arena and prove them wrong by use of only such as you believe and hold true. You may want to be fair or think that you are, but your not. - you set up the questions and answers to fit what you know will have to be the outcome you desire based on how one responding will have to answer in agreement to how you believe your god operates By your "faith" in this. How then can anyone reply outside of that, if they do not have that faith or belief? it's ""entrapment theology"", whether intended or not. A large part of all christian apologetics. And though Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and many others were much much better at it than you, once you see how it operates you cannot hold a meaningful discussion with those who take this course of actions. Sorry but it's true. |
|
|
|
|
