Freedom and Grace Forums
September 17, 2014, 06:38:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: freedomandgrace.com is alive!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 11 
 on: Today at 02:13:14 PM 
Started by Lone Arranger - Last post by Lone Arranger
I feel like the president will be making a huge mistake sending 3,000 of our troops to Africa to function as medical personnel to combat Ebola.  What could be a quicker way of ensuring it spreads to the United States than to send our troops over there to get infected and bring them back home?  I know this can't be true - can it? - that some high powered drug company has greased so many palms that they want the contagion to come here so Americans will be forced to buy their expensive drugs.  No, that can't be.  It's just paranoid to think that way, but why...why...why expose our citizens to this horrible plague and risk exposing the rest of us as well?  What the heck is the prez thinking? 

 12 
 on: Today at 01:58:33 PM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by Lone Arranger
Regarding what is on this link http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html (the didache), I noticed 2 things that stand out strongly.  1. Nowhere does it proclaim Christ as God.  He's referred to as "servant" or "Son of David" "Son of God" or "Lord" but never as GOD, an essential part of the Trinity.  2. The whole thing is heavily works based.

In my humble opinion it misses the mark as a true declaration of saving faith for those reasons: Doesn't see Christ as God; and heavily instructs the follower to gain their way with WORKS.  I say thumbs down.    

 13 
 on: Today at 12:46:33 PM 
Started by BFDD - Last post by BFDD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/to-save-the-church-embrac_b_5834488.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 14 
 on: Today at 12:04:26 PM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by billbennett
Mark,

I had not read the Didache. Interesting stuff. In reading some background material, this seems like the teachings of the apostles to gentile believers on how they were to live and how local churches should function. The date of the writing seems to vary, depending on who you read. I would guess it was first century though, given the instructions on how to tell if one is an apostle or not.

This, it seems, was one of the most highly respected writings that did not make it into the cannon. Spurgeon listed it among the extra-biblical writings useful to the believer.

Bill


 15 
 on: Today at 11:43:06 AM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by Jeffrey
Quote from: Bill
Suppose another person has the gift of mercy. That person will have a tremendous desire to helping hurting people, to meet needs. To such an individual, theology will not seem nearly as important. Their emphasis will be hands on ministry.

That's not totally true. For those of us who have the gift of mercy, we also feel a tremendous desire to teach, but we have to very carefully choose our words, and time, and place. I would say it's as great a weight as those called to teach.

.

Yes, but what about being " teachable". The way I see the current culture of western thought especially in the current state of evangelism on teaching is not " working out salvation " but belief in bullet points of arrived traditional ideas.

When concepts are challenged there is an easily offended spirit. Why? If the theories are so proven and or evidenced ?

The greatest need in teaching is showing some one " How" to learn not " WHAT " to learn.

Maybe if this was the case there would be more merit and sense of exercise of in the spirit of validation to individual work.

right on...

if you doubt anything that is considered "mainstream" within the evangelical world, it seems to those within that world, you, as a doubter, are automatically bound for heresy, if not hell. Again, there is a desire, maybe even a compulsion to enforce belief. Belief cannot be forced, or coerced. In fact, Christ himself never demanded that anyone believe in him. He made his case, and allowed people to come to their own conclusions.

It's even more complicated than that Maxx. Calling me or anyone without a traditional subscription as a heretic is a defense mechanism. The problem is that a discussion are hardly executed as an actual discussion.

Which is an unteachable position . The method by which information has been presented especially in the Christian criteria is one of preaching. So if we assume to learn facts about a spiritual paradigm by being preached at then it isn't a stretch to assume that this is the way to approach all matters of conversation in regards to it and let's face it..presenting actual evidence ? Pretty hard to do and was not the intention was it ?

We have a hundred different views on Jesus and his nature. But you are right in that from my observations as well in the red letters he didn't seem to be overly concerned in being completely understood by everyone.

Why a becomes troubling when having a discussion or another point of view outside the usual theological sphere is...It no longer becomes enough that I believe differently then you and ok with it. Someone has to be wrong because this is the way it is set up. If some one is wrong then by default they have to be corrected.

Now you can't help but think another could be wrong in their interpretation . That's natural and ok. But is that a truth we actually can stand on? In other words as stated before...has Christianity sold it's performance of grace and unconditional love for being right theologically ?

I say yes. Overall yes.  But here's the burning question...which one can be evidenced right now ? When you can answer that then you begin to see Jesus as he is. It's not like you can't do both either...but which one has priority ?

The minute my theological position takes priority in my life or in my perceived line of sight from others...then unthinkable I have become a noisy gong.

Which is why I can't for the life of understand how my position and thoughts on whether a flood took place or whether there's hell or rapture or any other thing has taken priority over my charity and empathy attempts in Christ with my past church friends and family.

All this to say..a discussion does not have to be a reconciliation or demand that some one sees things the same way or give up or take offense. If we could employ empathy to understand how and why someone has reached such conclusions then the conversations would drastically change to a more grace and freedom like atmosphere.

I'm afraid I have fallen into the " give up" column with regards to evangelical Christainity as a whole these days.cool



Did someone call you a heretic? I haven't read all the way through all these posts. You got called a heretic?

 16 
 on: Today at 10:23:31 AM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by MaxxAction
I agree with rr and max in a way. I dont think you should limit God by making fast rules with these second causes. If you examine the biblical teaching on second causes you will.find that it is much different saying that the first cause is one line and the second cause is the other parrellel line.
Look.what David says about second cause sacrifices. Sacrifice and offerings you did not require but my ears you have pierced. .....the In said here am I Lord ...I have come to do your will Your law is within my heart. Basically David is saying that he was Gods servant acting to.preserve Gods kingdom. That being that salvation and grace are much bigger than sacrifices. So.David narrows the purpose pf salvation to one thing and it is unto full deliverance from all powers of this world.

And the apostle says I consider all things a loss for the sake of Christ. This is why Ive beeen saying that the Bible is not book of answers but its the language that we speak. Giving it.all to God is the same thing as God working through us or every unified description of our inward experience is the reflection of Gods perfect description of us in words. This is why Paul said for me to live is Christ because He acted in perfet.unity as the expression of the perfect word

Good post Brother...

Thanks for that.

 17 
 on: Today at 10:05:31 AM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by morning listener
Quote from: Bill
Suppose another person has the gift of mercy. That person will have a tremendous desire to helping hurting people, to meet needs. To such an individual, theology will not seem nearly as important. Their emphasis will be hands on ministry.

That's not totally true. For those of us who have the gift of mercy, we also feel a tremendous desire to teach, but we have to very carefully choose our words, and time, and place. I would say it's as great a weight as those called to teach.

.

Yes, but what about being " teachable". The way I see the current culture of western thought especially in the current state of evangelism on teaching is not " working out salvation " but belief in bullet points of arrived traditional ideas.

When concepts are challenged there is an easily offended spirit. Why? If the theories are so proven and or evidenced ?

The greatest need in teaching is showing some one " How" to learn not " WHAT " to learn.

Maybe if this was the case there would be more merit and sense of exercise of in the spirit of validation to individual work.

right on...

if you doubt anything that is considered "mainstream" within the evangelical world, it seems to those within that world, you, as a doubter, are automatically bound for heresy, if not hell. Again, there is a desire, maybe even a compulsion to enforce belief. Belief cannot be forced, or coerced. In fact, Christ himself never demanded that anyone believe in him. He made his case, and allowed people to come to their own conclusions.

It's even more complicated than that Maxx. Calling me or anyone without a traditional subscription as a heretic is a defense mechanism. The problem is that a discussion are hardly executed as an actual discussion.

Which is an unteachable position . The method by which information has been presented especially in the Christian criteria is one of preaching. So if we assume to learn facts about a spiritual paradigm by being preached at then it isn't a stretch to assume that this is the way to approach all matters of conversation in regards to it and let's face it..presenting actual evidence ? Pretty hard to do and was not the intention was it ?

We have a hundred different views on Jesus and his nature. But you are right in that from my observations as well in the red letters he didn't seem to be overly concerned in being completely understood by everyone.

Why a becomes troubling when having a discussion or another point of view outside the usual theological sphere is...It no longer becomes enough that I believe differently then you and ok with it. Someone has to be wrong because this is the way it is set up. If some one is wrong then by default they have to be corrected.

Now you can't help but think another could be wrong in their interpretation . That's natural and ok. But is that a truth we actually can stand on? In other words as stated before...has Christianity sold it's performance of grace and unconditional love for being right theologically ?

I say yes. Overall yes.  But here's the burning question...which one can be evidenced right now ? When you can answer that then you begin to see Jesus as he is. It's not like you can't do both either...but which one has priority ?

The minute my theological position takes priority in my life or in my perceived line of sight from others...then unthinkable I have become a noisy gong.

Which is why I can't for the life of understand how my position and thoughts on whether a flood took place or whether there's hell or rapture or any other thing has taken priority over my charity and empathy attempts in Christ with my past church friends and family.

All this to say..a discussion does not have to be a reconciliation or demand that some one sees things the same way or give up or take offense. If we could employ empathy to understand how and why someone has reached such conclusions then the conversations would drastically change to a more grace and freedom like atmosphere.

I'm afraid I have fallen into the " give up" column with regards to evangelical Christainity as a whole these days.cool




I like your emphasis on "teachability". It hit home right away.  There are un/teachable conditions,learners and so called teachers (which you described as preachers).
Imo,
1) An unteachable condition is one where there is no clear shared starting point or set of assumptions. Or consent to enter into a teacher/learner scenario. One's preferred or most convenient starting point or assumptions are not necessarily the appropriate place to start if they are not shared, and/or if one or the other cant temporarily suspend their own in order to understand and proceed from the other. Lastly a shared logic or line/style of argumentation is needed.
2) An unteachable person/learner is one who doesn't pay attention and clutches on to their starting point or sets of assumptions without a willingness or ability to properly compare, weigh or adapt the contents of those assumptions.
3) An unteachable teacher is basically the same as #2 but in a teaching role - and  is one who doesn't pay attention to, understand and cant accurately portray back to the learner, the learners starting points, assumptions and counter-arguments. This teacher cannot teach because they cannot learn.

 18 
 on: Today at 09:41:20 AM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by morning listener
Here is a very early, pre Nicene confession and instruction on the essentials of the faith, circulated among the community - especially for new participants/converts as being the essentials:

http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html

 19 
 on: Today at 09:15:14 AM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by billbennett
Good discussion. The attempts to force others to conform to doctrinal unity on often non-essential issues is sure a fault in many evangelical churches. Over twenty years ago I had to defend my position on new testament grace-based giving before a deacon council that was heavily biased on the tithe as the new testament standard. Got kind of tense to say the least. So I have a few beliefs that might be considered non-traditional to some, yet these are all on non-essentials.

Now the question of the essentials of the faith. My list is every short but here goes:

Work of Christ
1. Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins
2. He rose bodily from the grave the third day
3. One must trust in Christ as their Savior to have eternal life
Person of Christ
1. He is the eternal Son of God, God incarnate
2. He became man through the virgin birth

Those are truths that have been essential tenants of Christianity from the beginning. But how to earn the right to share those truths with unbelievers. That flows from a life of service to others.
Meeting needs, helping heal broken hearts.

With all our faults, the fellowship I worship with are doing many of those things. We have a pastor who loves and cares for us all, with no agenda or underlying motives other than following Jesus. Over the last few years, I have lost both mom and dad. Each time, my pastor and friend called or came by to see me. For at least a week, every day. Not because he had to, not because it was his job. Because he cared. Now this dear pastor could share with me anything he felt led by God to share, and I would listen. Wish there were more like him in the ministry, for sure.

Bill


 20 
 on: Today at 08:43:34 AM 
Started by billbennett - Last post by mybigGod
I agree with rr and max in a way. I dont think you should limit God by making fast rules with these second causes. If you examine the biblical teaching on second causes you will.find that it is much different saying that the first cause is one line and the second cause is the other parallel line.
Look what David says about second cause sacrifices. Sacrifice and offerings you did not require but my ears you have pierced. .....the In said here am I Lord ...I have come to do your will Your law is within my heart. Basically David is saying that he was Gods servant acting to preserve Gods kingdom. That being that salvation and grace are much bigger than sacrifices. So David narrows the purpose of salvation to one thing and it is unto full deliverance from all powers of this world.

And the apostle says I consider all things a loss for the sake of Christ. This is why Ive been saying that the Bible is not book of answers but its the language that we speak. Giving it all to God is the same thing as God working through us or every unified description of our inward experience is the reflection of Gods perfect description of us in words. This is why Paul said for me to live is Christ because He acted in perfect unity as the expression of the perfect word.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
anything