Happy Birthday John! And a Challenge…
John Calvin, was a French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. Following the trail blazed by Martin Luther, he drew together and systematized the thought and theology of the reformation period. He is without a doubt one of the most influential theologians in history, with a legacy that is still felt in the Reformed, Presbyterian, (some kinds of) Baptist, and Anglican denominations.
1.21 is a Reformed Church, meaning that to a very large extent, we agree with the theology formulated by John Calvin (not because he taught it, but because we believe the Bible teaches it). 2009 marks the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth. And in celebration of that Princeton Theological Seminary, is featuring a daily reading from Calvin’s most famous work: The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Each day, they have selected a few paragraphs from the book to be read. Over the course of the year, this schedule will take you through the entirety of the Institutes.
I’m going to go ahead and throw a challenge out there: read it.
This is a serious piece of theology and it will force you to think through what you believe and why you believe it. It will help you to be more conversant with what’s gone on in the history of the church. It will expose you to one of the classics of the Protestant Reformation. And it will help you grow closer to God and worship Jesus better.
This is a great opportunity to do it, because since it’s broken down into smaller chunks and sections, it will be a much more manageable undertaking. Reading this book over the course of an entire year shouldn’t be too intimidating (and each day has reflections written to help you process it better). I intend to re-read it this year. That means I have some catching up to do, since we’re 14 days in. But you could just pick up where we are. Your mind will be sharper, and your walk with God will be richer for this.
humm, that’s quite exciting. i have a little question for you about acts29 and calvinism and where the two meet on predestination. as a missional church for winston, how does 1.21 deal with wanting to strive and struggle and sacrifice to bring everyone to Jesus, if there is already chosen or known who will be saved? i have a little grey area in this… i don’t belivee\e in it completely, because i can’t imagine my God not giving everyone the place to be redeemed by His Son. but i also believe in God’s omnipotence to know who would come to Him and who wouldn’t. oh… i’m getting wrapped up in myself. anyways, those calvinistic parameters feel so restrictive in this. maybe i want a stepford predestiny
any wisdom to impart, gene?
That’s a great question. Here’s the most basic answer: we want to be biblical. The Bible teaches that we have the responsibility to bring the gospel to everyone, and that everyone who calls upon Jesus will be saved (Romans 10.9-17). That same Bible teaches that Christians are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestined for adoption through Christ (Ephesians 1.4-5). So, we recognize both. We go out to people and we tell them about Jesus, and we beg God to save them and all that. But we also recognize that anyone who is saved will only be saved because God has graciously (not because of anything they’ve done) worked on their hearts. Being a Calvinist should HELP people to evangelize (though it doesn’t always): because we believe that God will save his people; we believe that when we pray for God to save someone that he can actually DO it.
God has chosen to work through evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel to save people. So if we want people to be saved, we must evangelize and proclaim. We can honestly and sincerely offer Christ to them, because if they come to him, he will receive them.
Also, it’s helpful to think of it this way, election and predestination is not about God choosing whom to exclude from salvation. People are only excluded because of their sin. Instead, God’s predestining work brings people to salvation who otherwise would never come. Without God choosing people to save NO ONE would be saved. The reason that I am saved, but my grandfather (for example) was not isn’t that I am a better person than him, or that I was smart enough to recognize a good deal when I saw it. It’s because God has graciously given me what I do not deserve.
Finally, Calvinism shouldn’t be restrictive. God has not revealed the identity of the elect. Therefore, as far as we can tell, no one we encounter is a lost cause without hope. We bring Christ to everyone we can, knowing that God is powerful enough to save them…they are never too far gone.
So…to summarize: we witness and preach promiscuously (yes, this is the one way it’s acceptable to be promiscuous) because we trust that God will save people. We recognize that without God doing this, none of us would be saved. It’s not unfair because (1) God owes salvation to no one, and (2) God isn’t excluding people, he’s including them. And we can invite everyone to Jesus, because he promises to receive everyone who comes to him.
I hope that helps.
Thanks Gene, I have been wanting to read that for some time but just have not put it on my next 10 books to read list.
also, one quick note MP, our church is currently in the process to become acts29, we are not an acts29 church right now. But we are a Reformed Gospel Centered Fundamental Bible Church.
Gene, thanks for the post, i think i am going to take you up on that challenge, i look forward to dialoguing with you about the readings.
Marc, do better, try harder then you will know you are a somebody. Ha
For Gaza shall be forsaken, and Ashkelon a desolation: they shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day, and Ekron shall be rooted up. Zephaniah 2:4
Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Matthew 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
Matthew 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Malachi 2:1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
Malachi 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Matthew 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Ezekiel 12:22 Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth?
Ezekiel 12:23 Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision.
Yes Stephen when I get this next list read along with Calvin’s Institutes I will expect everyone to give me the respect I truly deserve and will know that I am not a bum and will most likely have my ticket to heaven
There was no point, I myself did not want to be heard, but since you asked. The point is, theology should be done away with. Not that I’m against any form of christianity, because holy and understandable, God is in his temple. And the name of his son Jesus the Christ still saves. But the point is, the bible was not written to blow us away. It was written perfectly for us to understand, us that are believers and not those who go to church lookin pretty. I wanted to post on the main page, because the bible says be of one like mind. It also says let us all come together. I’ve heard nothing but good about your organization, and just have a dip with theology, because gen 6:4, doesnt mean angels had sex with women. Giants could be dinosaurs, or maybe literal giants, but in no part does it say they made angel babies. People have a very big misconception of the bible (such as a rapture before the tribulation) and it comes from, God chose the foolish things in the world to confound the wise. I gave you these verses that we might be of one like mind, and that we might even come together before that great and dreadful day of the Lord. No man considers it, no no man lays it to heart….isn’t that worth considering? Would enjoy to see my post and your comments, Lord willing
Mike, you seem to be saying that we ought to get rid of theology. But theology is the study of God and his works. Jesus himself says in John 17.3 that eternal life is to know the True God, and the one whom he sent, Jesus Christ. This is a theological undertaking. Unless we know who God is and what he has done (i.e., without theology), we cannot know, love, serve, or believe in him. I agree that some theology gets too far removed from the Bible (and I think that’s probably what you’re reacting against). But we still need theology.
So, we’re fans of theology at 1.21, because we are fans of Jesus. Anything we say about him is already theological in nature.
You mention several interpretive issues about the Bible (e.g., what does it mean that the “sons of God” took the “daughters of men” in marriage?, will there be a “Rapture” [as an event distinguishable from the Second Coming]? and if so, when will it be?). But I fail to see what they have to do with your argument against theology. For the record, 1.21 doesn’t take an official position on either of those issues. We believe that the Bible is centered around and focuses on Jesus Christ (e.g., Luke 24.27; John 5.39). Therefore, we try not to get bogged down with other issues like this. A good basic principle for trying to understand the Bible is that if your interpretation doesn’t draw attention to and promote worship of Jesus, it is incorrect.
You spoke of people being united and of one mind. We desire that at 1.21 Church. And we believe that the only true unity can be found around the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you are a believer in him, then we rejoice in the unity that we have with you (despite our disagreement on the place of theology).
I hope this helps you to better understand what we’re getting at as a church.
Answer me this, as I have a question that I’m sure no one would agree with me on. What is your position on sin, because the bible says, any man that sins does not know God, and we agree that everyman sins. So my question is, Jesus lived a sinless life, and not saying we can be perfect, but do you believe we could live without sin, and if so how?
I will give you my answer, I believe we can, and the answer is to preach the gospel to the world, not just the church. If we go out and do nothing more than say, repent for the kingdom of God comes, the valleys will be filled the mountains and hills brought low, the crooked will be made straight and the rough smoothed, and all flesh TOGETHER will see the salvation of God. If you do this and nothing else, enter into no house or anything as the bible instructs the true beings of God, I believe you will not sin. Whats your take?
We’ve dealt with a proper doctrine of sin here, and touched on it here, and here.
We certainly agree that sin separates us from God and that all have sinned (see Romans 6.23; and 3.23 respectively). However, we believe that the answer to sin is Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection on our behalf (see Romans 3.24-31). Because Jesus took the penalty for his people’s sin, Christians are able to go free from the penalty of sin (Romans 8.1), and over the course of their life they make progress in overcoming sin (2 Peter 1.4-10), and will one day be perfectly freed even from the presence of sin (Philippians 1.6; 1 John 3.2-3).
However, in this life, we will never be free from sin. In 1 John 1.8 we read, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” John uses the present tense here. He is indicating that we continue to have sin in our lives. Anyone who claims to be living without sin is self-deceived and in danger. Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1.15). If we claim not to be a sinner, then we claim that Jesus has nothing to offer us.
You mention preaching the gospel. And the whole point of the gospel is how Jesus has reconciled sinners to God. If we weren’t sinners, there would be no point in preaching the gospel. Preaching doesn’t remove sin. It exposes sin, and brings Christ and his work to bear on that sin, so that sinners can find forgiveness and comfort.
So, I would say that we are against sin. We never condone it. But we also believe that the Bible teaches that sin is a pervasive reality in the hearts of men, including Christians. The answer is not to avoid sin, but to cling to Jesus. When we rely on him, we will sin less. But we will never be sinless until he returns and glorifies us.
Oh and I dont just say get rid of theology, but I say anything that isnt of God takes away from God, use that for yourselves, because I am no judge, even tho I judge. The gospel says everything we need. I say praise God as David did, and let us sing in the streets, so that if we would be of like minds, the rest will follow. Either they will hear or forbear.
Certainly we don’t want our theology to distract or detract from God. Our hope is for our theology to be biblically grounded, gospel-driven, and culturally relevant (though the first two are more important).
Since this came up in a discussion of Calvinism, I would say that by and large, John Calvin’s theology is the theology attested to in Scripture. It is, therefore, of God (not in an absolute sense, but only insofar as it is biblical). Studying the Institutes will help you to better understand the Bible and worship Jesus.
Thanks, I dont mean to beat what it is you’re doing, because obviously God himself lets it happen. I think he loves us because we are simply dirt. Even our belief in the faith based system is so simple, and even much more simple per individual. Truely we live in sin, but I just believe that as God has promised, he is God, and if we worship only him, only then can we be sin free. Take Anna the prophetess, she stayed in the church and prayed and fasted. Do you think she sinned (for some time)? God himself has everything to offer. Thanks and hopefully you’ll take a stance on the end times. Because Jesus is not here to answer for himself. We should be the ones standing up for him, and for God almighty. Soon we will, but lets pray it not be too late
I don’t know anywhere that God has promised that in this life we will be sin free. Certainly Romans 7 and 1 John 1.8 would seem to indicate that we will never be without sin in this life.
A Pelagian doctrine of sin sees sin as the “bad things” that we do. But an Augustinian/Reformed/biblical doctrine of sin locates it in our heart. It has to do with who we are and why we do the things we do. If we understand it that way, then I think we can see that Anna the prophetess did, indeed, sin. After all, she was a sinner.
I would hesitate to use examples of biblical characters to argue against other clear passages of Scripture. The Bible never says that Anna didn’t sin. It does say that anyone who claims to have no sin is self-deceived. We should let the passage that’s actually about sin speak to the way we interpret the one that isn’t about sin (when we are discussing sin, at least).
We do have a stance on the end times. Our statement of faith says:
In terms of going into greater detail about eschatology, all of the pastors have their own positions (I think we all agree at this point). But because this isn’t the central issue (the gospel is), we do not require people to agree with all of our detailed positions. We want people to focus on who Jesus is and what he’s done, rather than on whether or not there’s a Rapture and when that will happen.
THIS ISNT TO YOU BUT I JUST POSTED IT FOR SOMEONE ELSE AND IT MADE SENSE ABOUT TRYING NOT TO SIN. THE WHOLE POINT BEING, THE CHURCH NOW TEACHES THE FEAR OF GOD, AND THEY GOT IT WRONG! BUT READ FIRST
I’m not much for worldly stuff anymore, like nations and other gods etc. I know that my God, the father of JC, is God. The thing is, look at Abraham, the father of all nations. He was told go receive this nation, and he went. Noah was the only such righteous man of his time, and hearing that God was about to flood the world, he himself, fearing God, chose to build an ark. While on either of these journeys do you think these men were trying to sin, or dont you think they were on a mission. Just like JC, he come to do the work of his father, which was to show us what a life without sin was like, and said we’d do much greater works than he. If so, obviously no one has yet to tap into ‘not sinning’ to know God, and if you begin to know and understand God, it says in the book, to know God is eternal life. Not saying I dont sin, but saying fearing God, it can be done so that maybe we can come to know what God himself wants for us, not only the father of JC but the father of all. Agree with me, a god would create all and every thing right? Why would a god pussy foot around and create just one religion. Theres unsearchable things in the universe. Just as the heart and ways of man seem unsearchable, they’re just stuck on sin and what man wants to do. God has searched them, and knows everything, can we agree?
It says in the scriptures, if a man knows to do good and does it not, to him it is accounted sin. I have no better definition. Not trying to say these people did not sin, but it’s the fact they turned from it. Anna did not leave the chapel, praying and fasting without ceasing. The point is, where was the time to sin.
As for the end times, I’ve always liked to think one day we will look up and see a new heaven and new earth here, on earth, when the scroll and darkness of heaven as we know is rolled away and the heat of God’s presence melts the metal and all things on earth.
Also, why not endure his coming and just praise his works, not only his son JC but everything that is done upon the earth, because he wrote the book beginning to end. He has done all things on earth, and not only did he create the good and evil, but he looked at it when it was made and said “it is good” If it was good in his eyes, why not ours also. That is my faith, that god is faithful
You’ve touched on a lot of things here. I doubt I can address all of them. But I’ll hit what seem to be the biggest issues.
You mention how God wouldn’t create just one religion. I don’t know exactly what you’re getting at, bu the Bible is absolutely clear that salvation can only be found in the name of Jesus (John 14.6; Acts 4.12). So any time we evaluate other religions, that needs to be front and center in the conversation.
You persistently point to characters from the Bible and say things along the lines of, “well do you think they sinned?” The answer is, yes, they did. We know they did because the Bible tells us (in parts that are actually intended to answer this question) that everyone sins (Romans 3.23), and that even believers continue to have present tense [when is the present tense? right now...whatever time it is, we're always in the present tense]) sin. In fact, the narratives you mention highlight the sinfulness of both Abraham and Noah. Abraham was a coward who gave his wife to other men. He conspired with his wife to rape her servant, Hagar, and then he allowed his wife to mistreat the woman. Noah winds up drunk and naked in his tent. Neither of these men were paragons of upright living. They were justified by faith, though.
Returning to Anna, you give a definition of sin drawn from James 4.17, and then say that by that definition she never had time to sin. First of all, I’m not even sure that you could make that case from the Bible. It doesn’t say, “And Anna never sinned.” Or, “And Anna never failed to do any good thing that she knew she ought to do.” But beyond that, your definition of sin is incomplete. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (Question 14) tells us that “Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.” And cites Leviticus 5.17; James 4.17; and 1 John 3.4. So we have sins of both omission and commission (your definition left out sins of commission). Likewise, I’ve pointed you to our discussions of an orthodox doctrine of sin . Finally, Romans 14.23 tells us that everything that does not proceed from faith is sin. This expanded definition of sin helps us to better understand what it means for us to continue to struggle against sin in the Christian life.
It’s a basic principle of Bible interpretation that you let the Bible interpret itself. And part of that means letting passages that are about something be the ones you go to to discuss that thing. In this case, the passage from 1 John 1 is about sin. Therefore, that’s where our focus should be, not on other passages that are not about sin. If we were talking about the Christ child, that’s when it would be valid to bring Anna into the conversation.
I’ve been glad to carry on this conversation with you, but I have a lot of other duties beyond moderating blog comments. Therefore, this will be my last contribution to this discussion. I’d be willing to meet with you sometime to discuss things further. You have my email address.
Maybe next year we will read Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer!
It’s on the calendar for 2371 (the five hundreth anniversary of his birth).
I’ve actually never read Chafer. I’ll be honest, my first thought was, “eww, dispensationalism!” But it probably would be a good exercise. I don’t agree with everything Calvin wrote either.
hahaha, are you sure that you’re not afraid you might be converted to the dispensational point of view?
The greatest teacher I had in college was a staunch Calvinist soteriologically, but also a staunch dispensationalist. He would quote both Calvin and Chafer often. It is possible to appreciate both!
Not much danger of that. I’ve done a fair amount of reading in the area. And, while I see some merit to what Blaising, Bock, Saucy, et al. are doing, I still think that there’s far too much unity in the Bible to warrant a dispensational reading.
And I think I’d make a lousy dispensationalist if I ever were persuaded. I find the exegetical arguments for a pre-Tribulation rapture to be completely un-compelling; I see “Israel” being fulfilled by Jesus, which makes it hard to hold to a dispensational view of Israel and the Church…it just wouldn’t be good.
Havent you read the bible, how the end will be just like the beginning. So far i’m the only one who believes this. Might make the bible (the word of God) worth reading just one more time. Have a look at it. if i’m the only one to think this, you think just maybe i could be right….and not me being right, but the bible
If ever persuaded, you would make a wonderful dispensationalist! Also, dispensationalism doesn’t take away from unity in the Bible, it gives it much more unity! However, we can have that debate some other time!
Something to ponder though, not answer, just ponder: If Abraham and his descendants were promised a specific amount of land, and Abraham and his descendants never received or inhabited that entire amount of land promised to them by God, would that make God a liar for not giving it to them? Would it be wrong for me to promise you something but give it someone else? If I did that, did I actually fulfill my promise?
Again, no need to respond to the questions, I just thought it may wet your appetite for better understanding of the dispensational point of view.
lemme appetite your appetite. Doesnt God love every man the same, no respector of persons. Abram was promised to be the father of all nations. Of course he received his promise. My question to you is, shouldnt we have that same promise as individuals. To be the father of all nations. My God is a good God, dispen-whatever questions the bible, from what i see.
I know you said I don’t have to respond, but I’m just doing it in terms of friendly dialogue….
The argument you mention is one of the strongest arguments I’ve heard for dispensationalism (one that Robert Saucy makes in “The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism,”). But, I would point out that Paul informs us that the Offspring about whom and to whom the promises are ultimately made is Christ (Galatians 3.15-18). He is the True Seed of Abraham, the True Son of David, the fulfillment of all the OT promises of God (2 Corinthians 1.20). So, if ethnic Israel does not possess the Land, that’s not problematic because the True Israel, Jesus has received the promises of God. Therefore, God is not a liar.
Likewise, in Hebrews 11.8-10, we see that as Abraham journeyed to, and even lived in the Promised Land, that he was looking forward to the heavenly city of God. Which would indicate that the content of the promise is not necessarily bound up with a geographical piece of real estate in the Mid-East.
I’ve heard it illustrated this way (I don’t know who first came up with it, I’ve heard it from a few places). If in the 1800s you promised someone a nice horseless carriage and a telegraph transmitter/receiver, and then in 2009 you deliver with a Ferrari and an iPhone, would you say that the promise is unfulfilled? Would the person to whom the promise was made complain that they aren’t tapping out morse code and turning a crank to start their car? The fulfillment of the promises in Christ far exceeds the someone narrow expectations for property, etc…but the promise is still fulfilled.
Just something to think about. I’m enjoying the conversation. Let’s keep it up!
read the old testament again..remember when jesus read isaiah, at the end where it says he was called to preach to the poor, fatherless, etc, he didnt keep reading, he closed the book and said today this is fulfilled in your ears. Why, because the promise was fulfilled and all prophecy done with when Jesus died on the cross, ultimate pre-destination. Go and read the old testament again, then read i believe 1 corinth. where it says even jesus bows down his power and his glory unto the one true God of heaven. Not trying to down Jesus of course, because he is THE only begotten son of God, from the seed of God, not of Abraham.
My mind just blew up.
dont listen to me, open the bible
Mike,
Yes, we have read the Bible. Yes we do believe that at the end, the creation will be restored to its original purpose. I would tend to think that rather than saying, “if i’m the only one to think this, you think just maybe i could be right,” you would think, “if I’m the only one who thinks this you think that just maybe everyone else, including the church throughout history could be right.” Novel, unique interpretations aren’t necessarily wrong. But they have to prove themselves, which is something you’ve failed to do.
Ed and I, though we disagree about certain end-times things, the way certain promises should be understood, and what role ethnic Israel has, agree on the essential elements of the Bible.
Your allegations that dispensationalists question the Bible (in a negative way), is unfair. I disagree with their position, but they are trying to take the Bible seriously. Ed’s point was that there must be some future fulfillment of the Land promises to Abraham, not that God fails to deliver on his promises. Of course, I think the Scripture teaches that Jesus is the fulfillment of all those promises.
I’d be a bit wary of how you describe Jesus. You seem to separate him out from God, as if he is not also the “one true God of heaven.” This is heresy. Jesus is True God and True Man. Any departure from this is a departure from Christianity and from saving faith.
Finally, it would be of great help if you would keep your comments together, rather than spacing them out over four or so posts. Do one long post, rather than four tiny ones.
Thanks
Jesus is not the God of heaven, as my dispenalsationalism. He is our Lord, The true Son of God. There is a father above him. Havent you understood this from your readings. As the bible says, be of one like mind with one another, I suggest not even arguing with bob or whoever in the world you disagree with. As i said, take it back to the bible. Many people believe in rapture, but no where in the bible is the word rapture. Havent you read. Read it again! And finally, havent you read that when they put you out saying you have a devil to rejoice because great is your reward in heaven. Thats not my finally, but even still i’ve been told i’m the antichrist, i’m in heresy, etc. You tell me to prove it, I tell you I’m waiting for my God to prove me. Havent you read! Is his hand so short that it cannot even save. Even God will have mercy on you. And if you think you dont need it, then use the discretion that maybe your wrong, read the book again, and look and see what it says to you. God shows those who he wants to show, and it seems as if he has hidden some things from you even. Not saying I’m any better, because Lord knows I am the worst of all, using company time to talk about Jesus, but even still, not by works, but by our faith, and by his grace, he shows us mercy. If you truely believe, do not dispensationalize anything that the bible says, understand that even it was written by God himself. If God is the one true God, surely even he made rap music, as he made all things. I’m not saying your wrong, but by all means the bible is all truth.
Mike, as I mentioned before, I have a lot more duties than just moderating blog comments. So, I don’t have time for an internet debate with you. If you want to meet in person, I’m glad to chat with you. I was simply trying to defend Ed, who you were accusing of all sort of unfair things.
If you are denying that Jesus is God, then you truly are in heresy. The Bible teaches that there is One God, who eternally exists as Three Persons. If you make God one Person, or the persons Three gods, then that is heresy, a heresy that was dealt with nearly 1700 years ago.
As i said, I don’t have time to get drawn into a lengthy debate, a personal meeting would be much more efficient.
I accused no one. I simply said dispa—- was questioning the bible. The true word of God. No one has even searched me to find the things I know without saying, where is that, and show me that verse. So I tell you again, read the bible, it is truth. As you have many things to do, God’s ways are still above you. Read again, and see, that even Jesus prayed unto his father, the same Father that holds my right hand, as he did my brother Jesus. Not my God, my brother. I do not mean to argue with you, simply to correct you. As there is much judgement in me, I feel a certain need to judge, but as you can see i havent done so much here, simply corrected, for whoevers sake may need it. If you do nothing more, cease not in praying and cease not in reading, ask God for the things he has showed me, as if I tell you, God himself may call me a liar
Gene, bless you for your patience. You bear the fruit of the Spirit.
Thanks Russ.
Michael, you say: “So far i’m the only one who believes this.”
There may be a very good explanation for that.
And you also say, “if i’m the only one to think this, you think just maybe i could be right”
Actually, I am not finding that reasoning very persuasive at all.
See Ed, Covenant Theology is the least of your worries!
when i say, i’m the only one to believe this, as i said, this is the bible……did any of you offer to pray for me?
Actually, Michael, I think I can speak for at least Gene and myself, we are praying for you. And I assure you my friend that you are not the only one to believe the Bible, and you are on very dangerous grounds to believe that you are. Words have weight, and when we stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, we will give account for them. If you are suggesting that you are the only one to believe the Bible (and I must confess I am not sure exactly what you ARE saying), then you are condemning a vast number of people who have not only believed but DIED for the truth of God’s Word. But if your beliefs are contrary to 20 centuries of faithful Christ-loving disciples, then perhaps you need to return to the Scriptures and ask why God would made you the sole recipient of His truth after all this time. That doesn’t seem very likely to me. The witness of the faithful is a strong guard against heresy. Be assured, I am praying for you.
Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
But if your beliefs are contrary to 20 centuries of faithful Christ-loving disciples
I missed this part…And yes they are much different than anyone. Did not God himself, say in the beginning not to build him a temple, and yet you have a church building, as many other people. Even they carried their temple with them, as many people do not do today. God said he is in his holy temple. May we all now keep silence.
1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
“Our” report. Not “My” report. Here’s one for you:
Deut 19:15-21 (NASB)
15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing , 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20 “The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. 21 “Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Church buildings are not temples. Some may mistakenly think they are, but they aren’t. Temples are places of sacrifice. Church buildings are places of instruction and fellowship. And if you knew Gene, you would know that the church he serves has been meeting in a bar since its beginning.
Well, Well, Well, So much for Happy birthday John….
ed, russ, gene, and Michael – you guys have kept my attention for some time now, and it has been fun to see the dialogue
I am sad to say that this conversation will have to be moved to a different location. _ We do desire to answer questions on this blog, But for this- these topics, we are finished. – Michael if you would like to continue you can e-mail Gene at Gene@121church.org he will give you his phone # and you can chat.
Any post you write after this will not be posted.
We gladly welcome the seekers, doubters, skeptics and even the Nut Jobs to this blog- but we will need to put a cap on this one for edification purposes.
I implore you Michael – call gene.
We will pray for you.
Wow, what a conversation since the last time I read this blog. By the way, trinity is not in the Bible, does that mean it isn’t true? We argue about concepts, not words. Anyway, I would love to continue this conversation elsewhere.
If you are so inclined, please post my response. But if not, I understand. Thanks.
ed, i was thinking the same thing, if you want you can write me and i will respond back when i get a chance to, my emails jojothebarbarian@hotmail.com
[...] Cross, Character A few months ago, I issued the challenge to read through Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion during this five hundreth [...]
Calvin, Cross, Character « 1.21 blog said this on June 16, 2009 at 6:15 am |