@JackDouglas I see that I misremembered the passage from revelation, that it is the bride that wears the fine linen that is identified as the righteous acts of the saints
@Andrew I think that can happen very fast.Not because many jews right now are open for Jesus.But when they see Jesus as the messiah,many will change there mind and heart very fast
That day will be a day of wrath— a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness—
16 a day of trumpet and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the corner towers. 17 “I will bring such distress on all people that they will grope about like those who are blind, because they have sinned against the Lord. Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like dung.
18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath.” In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth.
@Andrew I'm still working through my exact beliefs on Tribulation, but more and more I'm finding that I'm not sure it's what we have been taught. All the "heavy stuff" is for those who have rejected Christ. Meanwhile, Christians are told to look forward to that day.
I'm starting to think Christians have gone wrong being afraid of the Tribulation (and once again, we have secret rapture being result of a false belief)
But I'm tempted to guess it is actually pre-Trib persecution. Which, no, I don't deny. I'm saying the God's wrath part of Tribulation is what believers shouldn't fear
@Eagel Well first, Christians shouldn't have a weekly Shabbat. It irritates me when Christians argue for why Sunday is our new Sabbath day. Look, its fine to have a day of rest, its fine for Sunday to be a day of assembly and fellowship. but its not Shabbat!
@Joshua "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare."
@Andrew Ah ok. Well there we have an ellipsis going on. He's going from Second coming a surprise like a thief, to the judgement post-millennium, to the new heavens and new earth. So yes, consuming fire.
@Eagel I'm saying the weekly Sabbath is obsolete, like the rest of the Jewish rituals. I'm fine with celebrating them, but very intentionally. Fully aware that we are doing it for instructional purposes. For teaching and personal reflection. NOT for tradition sake.
I would suggest considering how none, or maybe few, of the last days passages contain all the events, in order. Most skip some steps, because most are trying to make a point so they highlight the parts that are relevant.
But when you overlay all the accounts in parallel, you can see how they fill each other in, not contradict.
That is why I say there is an ellipsis in what Jesus says there. Unless we are going to deny a millennium, it had to happen somewhere in there (if you are premill) so we can't take it as a complete order of events
@Joshua i once had a dream that I was falling towards an enormous glorified Messiah in the midst of space. As i got closer to him his chest opened an it looked like the center of the earth, like a volcano, turning with glowing heat as i fell. In my dream I was in awe. I woke up comforted, not terrified.
@Joshua "And he [Paul] came to Ephesus...When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast [of Tabernacles] that cometh in Jerusalem" (verses 19-21).
@Eagel Yes, like I said, there is nothing wrong, intrinsically, with any of it. I think that is the point of what Paul is saying about when he talks about not being a stumbling block for those of weaker conscience
@Eagel Yes...like I said, its fine. But no day is or will be holy again until that day Christ comes again. Those who gained something from Shabbath gained it not because of something that Shabbat did to them, but that they were intentionally seeking the Lord. They could have done it on a thursday.
THOUGH, the fellowship part is important too. So i'm saying if all factors were the same, they could have held it on any day and gained something from it.
@Eagel The traditions are a shadow of the things that were to come, that have now come: the works of Messiah. It is good to enjoy them, because they come from God.
@Eagel No offense, but whatever it is about that day is tied up in your own mind, and in the minds of those with you. If you all collectively decided to feel the same way about Thursday...it would be the same.
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
@Eagel I'm all for the feasts and their meaning. And you may practice your freedom in them. BUT don't lead others into it and cause them to stumble, suggesting they hold some power of their own. AND don't fall into the trap of giving up your freedom to those very traditions.
@Eagel The feasts and the whole law point to Christ. And the Sabbath...well, Christ IS our Sabbath. Theologically we are in constant sabbath and yet at the same time we await our eternal sabbath.
@Andrew But Eagel...you could rest in Christ and reflect on him for the gain of your soul.,..on any day. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. We are not commanded by Paul to not forsake the sabbath, but to forsake fellowship We happen to do it on Sunday.
Interesting trying to understand the catholic church... they preach alot of stuff I have seen is true.But the part about Maria is so new to me,i don`t understand it yet!
And praying to the saints!I don`t think i have heard that in judaisme,where does that come from?
@Andrew on a only partially related note. I should just start a Justullian (Justin/Tertullian) church since I continually agree with everything I read of them. Things I had already considered and come to conclusions on. Such as Sabbath.
Both Catholic and Orthodox have the "praying to the saints" thing, and it actually makes sense if you consider the facts that 1) they are not praying to the saints as if they had any power, 2) the saints are arguably more alive than we are, 3) the saints have a closer relationship to God than we do, and 4) they certainly felt the compulsion to pray for their people while on Earth, and would likely feel that compulsion even more strongly in Heaven.
@Eagel Not as much as I'd like, just for curiousity's sake. I know a decent amount theologically and historically. But not much when it comes to details of liturgy
@Eagel Well it certainly appeared like it was to them. How did they know what Moses and Elijah look like?...And where does Jesus affirm Peter's assumption?
In Fact Jesus tells them Elijah has already come, implying that that was not Elijah. Or it could be. I'm just saying...maybe research it. I've only studied it enough to know to be cautious :)
@Joshua I prefer Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Tertullian took the Trinity too far, in my opinion. We should not attempt to discuss the substance of God, this is quintessential violation of"do not go beyond what is written." Obviously, it is from Tertullian's teaching that the whole Church fell away from unity.
@Andrew I can actually agree with that. But have you read Tertullian's other writings?...on the flesh and on the resurrection? I think he just got caught up arguing vs heresies sometimes.
@El'endiaStarman I think its cool,but I would like some scripture that would agree more that we are to pray with the saints or pray to them.There is a cloud of witnesses,that is scripture and there not dead.
@El'endiaStarman I have heard an exorcist talking about ,speaking with your guardian angel.I think that might work,but not sure if we should?In the pentacostal church you mostly speak to Jesus or the holy spirit or maybe right to God
@Eagel I speak to my Heavenly Father. Let him command his angels concerning me, if he wills. If I see an angel then I maight speak to him, but I don't anticipate that. Reaching out to "your guardian angel" i think, is either delusional or futile.
@Eagel The pentacostal church is in a dangerous place now. There are many young people being caught up in exciting works, and they lack the discernment of the previous generation.
@Eagel The leaders of the Charismatic movement (Bethel, IHOP, Vinyard) invited a strange spirit into their ministry in 1994. A little bit later, one of their leaders was caught in an affair, and divorced his wife and married his mistress. He has continued in his ministry and increased in his authority since then. They have strange new teachings since then, and people in their churches behave in strange new ways during worship. They claim it is a new working of the Holy Spirit.
@Andrew Dunno if I should say this.But I heard a catholic exorcist says:Telepathy,this is how the angels speak to each other and you can talk to your angel if you focus on him(your guardian angel) And he will talk to you,so you can work with him.But this is very new to me.Bobby Connor(great man) says Angels,you can see them,like a Flash(light)
@Eagel These Churches, Bethel and IHOP, are very popular with young Pentecostals and even many Evangelical youth, mostly because of their widespread music.
@Andrew NoT sure Andrew,very new to me.But the exorcist do it when they kick out demons.Very new to me.But I think I might have talked to an angel once.Jesus says,He will send his angels.
Some scripture says,They did think it was Peters angel
@Andrew I know,but we should be gifted and understand who is good and who is not
of the angels we meet
I have no problem with these churches,there not that strong when it comes to being humble and think they will change the world!They have great plans! and stuff,but the faith is strong there , sometimes they go overboard
Micke bickle is a good man!He prays like every second
@JackDouglas Making Christ a sin offering makes far more sense than making him sin. Interpreting it as "making him sin" requires a rather forced interpretation, because "making someone sin" is rather unintelligible both in Greek and in English. Paul used the LXX, and as this answer points out, the LXX uses ἁμαρτία, with or without περὶ, to translate "sin offering."
In short: Translating it as "sin offering" makes immediate sense of the passage. Translating it as "sin" makes it largely unintelligible. I don't think Paul intended to be unintelligible. I think he was engaging in a little play on words by using ἁμαρτία in two different senses in close proximity to one another.
@JackDouglas If Jesus is the plaintiff, there's no need for any penal substitution. Jesus can simply forgive the defendant, and refuse to press charges. If Jesus is the plaintiff, he would be paying the penalty to himself, which makes no sense. A plaintiff in that situation would not substitute personal payment (to himself) for the offense, but simply forgive the offense and not require payment at all.
@JackDouglas And a more basic fallacy is in making sacrifice and atonement a judicial act. That's not how the sacrifices and atonement functioned in ancient Jewish society. Reading it in a legalistic way is not only anachronistic, but also falls afoul of Paul's own rejection of the Law as binding upon Christians. Paul was precisely attempting to get away from a legalistic approach. Interpreting his theory of atonement legalistically is therefore at odds with his whole approach to Christianity.
@JackDouglas The experience of the scapegoat would be of having the priest's hands laid on his head, and then being brought out into the desert and released. That might be somewhat disconcerting, but presumably the goat would then seek food and water, and if he found it, go on with his life. It seems highly doubtful that the goat would feel "punished."
@JackDouglas Yes, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations" does require some interpretation. But those translations that render it "punishing the children for the iniquity of the fathers . . . " have, I think, gotten it wrong. It seems more likely that the sense is that the damage done by the father's sin travels down the generations and harms the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
@JackDouglas Oh, and I should have said earlier, even if 2 Corinthians 5:21 is translated as "made him to be sin," it still doesn't say anything about paying the penalty for sin. The focus is still on the sin itself, not on the penalty, as it always is when the NT speaks of Christ dealing with human sin.
@JackDouglas And to interleave a bit, an animal killed for a sin offering wouldn't experience it any differently than being killed for a dinner with an honored death. Animals live, and their lives generally end by getting killed either by a predator or by a human being interested in using their bodies for food, leather, and so on. Does every animal who is slaughtered feel "punished." I really don't think so.
@JackDouglas Yes, I object to any doctrine or preaching which gives any opening whatsoever to the idea that we can be saved merely by believing something, without engaging in repentance, which involves no longer sinning, but being good and righteous instead. Justification by faith alone and its concomitant penal substitution doctrine leaves the door wide open for such thinking, and such thinking is quite common among Protestants.
I'm in regular communication with a young woman in Nigeria who goes to evangelical churches but is moving heavily toward Swedenborgian theology. She tells me that "everybody in Nigeria goes to church" (the Christians, obviously), but then most of them go home and live terrible lives. And they're all going to fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant churches.
They hear "faith alone" and "Jesus paid the penalty for our sins," and figure it doesn't matter how they live as long as they believe in Jesus.
They could never get away with that if they were attending Swedenborgian churches.
@Joshua Not perfectly, but in the main, yes. And the Bible assumes that people can stop sinning and be righteous. Otherwise 99% of what it enjoins on us is totally useless and beside the point.
@Andrew Ah I see. Don't really hold that against him. I see that as a result of the institutionalization of the church a century later. Not his fault 100 years later a bunch of bishops decided to argue about filioque like things
@LeeWoofenden They couldn't get away with it if they attended an evangelical church that takes church discipline seriously either. One of my relatives said he "believed in Jesus" for many years, but that didn't stop his church from excommunicating him over unrepentant sin, and it doesn't stop me from doubting that he was ever saved in the first place.
@LeeWoofenden I'd like to know the actual affiliations before labelling them evangelical. That term is losing its meaning. As Fundamentalist did before it. They are probably Pentecostal and if so there is a huge range of possibilities in their actual theology
And by actual theology I mean what they truly think about God. Not what doctrines they recite.
@LeeWoofenden That's odd, cause my Bible says "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" and "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." and then there's all of Romans 3.
@Eagel Mike Bickle ministers with Rick Joyner and Bill Johnson , (ex Passion for Jesus Conference next weekend). Rick Joyner promoted Todd Bentley on his TV show and endorsed his ministry after Bentley was exposed to be having an affair with an intern- an affair that abruptly ended a revival in Florida- and then divorced his wife an married his mistress.
@Eagel The young people at Bickle's church are noted for shaking violently and uncontrollably during worship, erupting into tears, laughter, and screams, even losing consciousness. They enter into a trance that is indistinguishable from that of tantric yoga. They claim that these are "manifestations" of a new type of movement of the Holy Spirit. They teach "Dominion Theology" Are they dangerous? I don't know. Do I trust their teaching? Certainly not.
@Joshua "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."
@Joshua "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; (Q:)who can understand it? (A:) I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind , to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.
@Joshua Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, …
@Joshua You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
@Andrew I actually fully agree. Just wanted Lee's response :P However, John's epistles are quite...unique. There's a lot to how one interprets that passage. And how it seems to stand in stark contrast to reality is downright frustrating!
@Andrew This attitude of the mind (the heart) I think is the key. I'm not sure our understanding of ethics is quite right. The law is action and result based, but Jesus seems to be telling us it is intent and attitude based.
@Joshua John, I mean. They frightened me. But that's because I believed in God but was living a sinful lifestyle. John did not pull his punches, as it were.
@Joshua I read that he raises the bar to himself. The standard increases from the Law to the Messiah, not decreases.
@Joshua but that doesn't mean its the law that we have to do, its that we have to live like Jesus.
@Andrew I think Paul is telling us in Galatians how the law was given to instruct our sinful hearts. A action and result based ethic is all we were capable of. Regenerate OT saints still were justified by their faith, as Hebrews tells us, and this only make sense if it is grounded in heart based ethics.
@Joshua But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
Rahab lied and it was accounted to her as righteousness? David committed adultery and murder, but was a man after God's own heart like none other? HUH?
@Joshua Throughout the Gospels and The Epistles, we see that love for Christ is synonymous with right action and trust (sound doctrine).
@Joshua David, though, was disallowed to build a house for Yahweh because of his violence.
@Joshua He was repentent. "Blessed is the man whose sins are not held against him"
@Joshua But faith without deeds is dead, and Abraham was not justified by faith alone but his works made his faith complete, as James tells us. The two must always go together- trust in the Testimony of Messiah, and right action. right action comes from faith, though- trust in Messiah is fist. The works demonstrate the faith.
@Andrew Faith=Trust. Trust must be put into action, effectual belief. Faith without works is just concept. Work without faith is just also dead. Yes. The old "you can't trust in a chair until you sit in it"
@Joshua "Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person." [and later] "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ."
@Joshua "Work without faith is just also dead." Indeed, "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
@Joshua For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
> The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks. (Luke 6:45)
@Nathaniel Faith alone theology itself still opens up the possibility of thinking that living a good life isn't anywhere near as important as believing the right theology. No Swedenborgian church of any kind would allow for that. The theology itself requires living a good life as a condition for salvation.
@Joshua There are many different Protestant denominations and churches in Nigeria. My friend was speaking generally, and not of any particular church. Obviously it is a generalization. The point is that faith alone theology allows for it, especially when it reaches the popular mind. A theology that requires good works also for salvation—i.e., the Bible's theology—does not allow for it.
@LeeWoofenden good, because relying on the 'most translations are wrong' argument alone is highly suspicious. We all have our interpretative framework which we bring to every verse and it is good to acknowledge that others might just be very rationally and intelligently applying a flawed framework rather than implying they are stupid or aren't seeing the obvious.
@LeeWoofenden I just hope you aren't tarring all protestants with the same brush — Lordship Salvation is a fairly hot topic of debate and I know which side I'm on :)
Whenever we open the American History, the ugly chapter of Doctrine of Discovery opens up.
Although there have been some criticisms and calls for it to be abandoned, why hasn't US President/Congress and Church openly apologized (which is a pretty small thing in context of what happened to Red-I...
@JackDouglas That's a lot of words. And I did read some of them. But what's your Cliff's Notes version of the key difference(s) between "Lordship Salvation" and the other side of that debate?
@JackDouglas I am an ordained Swedenborgian minister, from a family of Swedenborgians that goes five or six generations back on either side.
@JackDouglas When I attack Protestant doctrine, I'm mostly referring to the key doctrines that Luther (and Calvin) set up as a contrast with the Catholic Church: sola fide and penal substitution, as well as the Catholic-derived doctrine of the Trinity of Persons, and the Protestant version of original sin--which is much harsher than the Catholic version.
@JackDouglas However, I do not believe in sola fide, so although my own doctrinal beliefs are very strong and distinctive, I don't think people have to agree with me in order to be saved. As Christians, they simply have to believe in the divinity of Jesus in some way, repent from their sins, and live a good life according to God's commandments as they understand them. Protestants who do this will be saved regardless of their doctrinal beliefs.
@JackDouglas I should add that my father was a Swedenborgian minister, his father was a Swedenborgian Sunday School superintendent, and my mother's father, grandfather, and both of her siblings (my aunt and uncle) were/are Swedenborgian ministers. And there might be one more back there as well on her side. I almost literally drank in Swedenborgian theology with my mother's milk. To my knowledge, all of my seven siblings remain Swedenborgians, and one of my nieces is also a Swedenborgian minister.
In the 1940s and early 1950s my maternal grandmother, Anita S. Dole wrote a set of Swedenborgian Sunday School notes that were subsequently edited by my father and published in a six volume set titled simply Bible Study Notes,which are still in print. And my mother was the primary author/artist for a set of crafts/activities to go with each of my grandmother's lessons.
So you could say that I follow Swedenborg's teachings. :-) Though primarily I think of myself as a follower of the Lord God Jesus Christ.
@Joshua Maybe it's restricted to a certain geography — I'm in the UK.
@LeeWoofenden Well we have that in common then: "So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" :)
@LeeWoofenden I'll try: One side believes that justification and sanctification are separate gifts of grace. They are always given together but one is not purely a consequence of the other. The other side largely teaches that sanctification is a consequence of justification.
Having been an atheist for 30 years, and then looked into various religions and denominations, I hope you don't assume I take the side of protestantism (with all it's faults) against what I understand about Swedenborgianism (from Wikipedia and your blog that you linked to) because of my preconceptions: …
…I really just find what you are saying so strongly to be a lot less convincing than protestant teaching in general. You make a lot of assertions what the Bible means but most of your actual reasoning seems to me to be suspect. For example in your section "The Bible is inerrant", you conflate inerrancy with literalism.
An Inerrantist such as myself might be unsure whether the Bible teaches a literal 6-day creation without having any doubts at all about inerrancy.
@JackDouglas That is odd. Thanks for the SS though. I wonder if you clicked on the video title if it would send you to the YouTube video. Sometimes I see videos on other sites that cannot be embedded but play on YouTube. Maybe there is a UK thing enforcing that. Or was that exact version not working. Oh well. But thanks any info and feedback is useful. The site is still new so bugs are quite possible
@Andrew you seem like a nice man and God fearing ,but this is just not true.There is shaking,not much more.No tantric yoga or anything else.False and just something said by critiques that don`t know anything reallly about them.There is some laughter and not every manifistation is good,there might be also evil spirits trying to do stuff in some people,but this is not the general thing that is happening.
@Andrew There is more revelation in Bethel church then many others and healings"thousands" of them!
@Andrew Rick Joyner is a great preacher,trying to follow God.
@Andrew so many other churches critque them but there are more signs of Gods work in these churches then many others.But there are stuff i dont agree with,but where is that church where you agree with everything?
@Andrew I have a friend from scandinavia living in America,him and some others was at morningstar ministries protesting,because of this stuff with Todd.I do not agree that was a good move.I do not agree. But there might be lots of stuff we dont know. It looks strange but I dont know.Off course divorce that way is wrong and marry a mistress ,but what is the truth or whats really going on i dunno.
It has turned into a gossip church,the body of christ going crazy over this.God will deal with they in leadership who is not doing there job and we are to pray for every leader.Not attack them.I can bring a curse if we do.Authority is something real! we have it over demons and so on.And some people have a it in the church,like leaders.Look at David and Saul.You do not attack authority,you pray for them.God will deal with all of us.
@Andrew You know why jews move when they pray,you see it like a meditation.because the sages tell that the priest did that in the temple and they where filled up with the Ruach Hakodesh or as we say The Holy Spirit and the had deep knowledge of God.
@Eagel I have not condemned anyone. I have to test their words by the scriptures and by their fruit. I said that they are in a dangerous position that is they are in danger not that they are dangerous. I think that many of their young people are being caught up in an experience of tantrism instead of sober worship and that, if what you say about evil spirits is true, then that is evidence that they lack discernment and the ability to keenly test the spirits they encounter.
@Andrew Where the light is strong,evil spirits can come to light,thats a blessing!A good sign,like when jesus comes!But most of the shaking and stuff,are not evil spirits and certainly not ! Tantrism
@Eagel I worshiped with a Pentacostal congregation for three years so I'm speaking about the tantrism from firsthand experience. After a few hours of rythmic music and prayer and speaking in babbling tongues, it is quite ordinary to experience a tantric state. The problem is that they equate this experience of tantric bliss with the presence of the Holy Spirit, and they seek this out, spending hours upon hours singing and meditating, and in knowledge many remain like little children.
@Andrew What is sober worship!What does that look like?When the spirit came on pentacost,they critiques said:There drunk! For they who critique the work of the holy spirit it can look like "there drunk"
@Andrew If you see someone speaking another language,would you say:they are drunk.What if there where both ,shaking and other toungs?
@Andrew I can agree that some pentacostal churches,mess up stuff like,living holy ,fake grace teaching,and how to understand authority.A kinda feel good church movment.But thats just something to work with and preach to them
"If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."
"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in…
@Eagel I'll repeat this, because bears repeating, "If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."
@Eagel I directly equate the Corinthian church with the modern Charismatic movement- it is almost as if that letter was written for them.
@Andrew I think that vers is to give order to the church not to stop people for speaking in tounges and! The church should speak more in tounges and the interpreter should be there,why is there not more of that,I dunno.I will study that,thank you for bringing that up
I don't think that people should _not_ speak in tongues. But in the Pentecostal church, people pray for years asking god for that gift specifically, because they teach that prayer in babbling tongues is better than prayer in understandable tongues. But, my opinion is that babbling tongues is a farce. It is regular practice for a whole room of people to be preaching in tongues with no translation whatsoever.
The apostolic gift of tongues was speech in discernible languages so that those who understood those languages heard the word of God.
@Andrew That is not the whole story: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 14:2
@Eagel Yes, they do. The Assembly of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, and while it may not be a written doctrine it is certainly taught in their curches.
@bruisedreed I do know that heavenly language is mentioned, and I have heard babbling tongues declared with a mighty voice in an assembly of thousands with a mighty translation declared thereafter that moved me immediately to tears. One voice spoke over thousands, and one voice followed. I am not saying that it cannot or does not happening. I'm saying that what they practice at IHOP is contrary to the Scriptures.
I would like to add: Authority is a real thing!!!! Nothing just in the minds of humans! David did understand this so He did run from Saul and did not curse him.Saul was worse to david then any church leader today! Bless the leader and pray for the leader,and even run if you have to,but dont curse him.The father is the fam has authority,he can bless the fam and his wife is protected from demons if she honor him
She can bless him ,because they are one body
The church,when they honor the leader,they are under protection
in the spiritual world
When they curse people in authority get out from under that protection
@Eagel Anyway, we started this discussion about Pentecostalism because we were talking about attempting to contact angels. Who is this exorcist you keep mentioning?
@Joshua Just listened to Judah and the Lion. I've never heard of them before. I like them. I like the Avett Brothers, they have a similar sound. Have you heard Josh Garrels?
@Joshua He's self-published. He has nine or ten albums that are all excellent. He's folky, but a bit more progressive.
@Andrew well like I said in that post, Judah and the lion are well outside of my normal listening circles. I came across them in that song pretty randomly. But I do appreciate a good banjo. I will check Josh garrels out
My main issues with country and bluegrass are the twangy vocals and steel guitar, and the simplistic bass lines. Oh and the bad harmonies. Okay so there's several things. But there are groups like Judah and the lion, and Nickel Creek with a nice crisp music and vocals.
@Joshua Bluegrass is an acquired taste, indeed. After attenting a few bluegrass festivals with friends I developed an affinity for it. Josh Garrels is by no means blue grass though, though many of his compositions are heavily influenced by folk music.
@Eagel Yes but I can't watch such a long video now. The audio is poor and I can barely hear him on my computer. I may try listening with headphones later.
@Eagel Saying or typing "#________" has become a funny way to make fun of something. #1stworldproblems is a popular one. its a way to bring humerous attention to problems wealthy westerners have, like "my power bill is too high, because it takes a long time to cool my mansion"
@Eagel I certainly will. Remember that your flesh will cause you to suffer, because it is addicted. Be prepared to experience that suffering and to turn away from it. Also remember that it takes a few minutes to buy a pack of cigarettes, and so everytime you are walking into a store to purchase them, you will have enough time to feel convicted about that choice. Don't ignore that feeling of conviction, but be thankful for it.
@Eagel Lol that may be counteractive
@Eagel I also enjoyed smoking. I would like to start again when I am old and my body is falling apart anyway.
@Eagel For me, it was more about the control of my flesh. I want to be the master of my flesh. Think of it this way: if you can quit smoking, what else can you quit doing?
#1atWorldProblem is a satirical joke complaining about a problem that is actually quite inconsequential and only a problem for those in opulence. Like... "Line at Starbucks was 5 minutes long #1stWorldProblem"
Ok I have a strong faith that we do not battle the flesh, but powers in heavenly places.So if there is something i dont like,I say In the name of Jesus,spirit of whatever should leave.So i have controle over everything,I have the authority in Jesus name,because He has it.But i started again smoking because i like it and there is nothing better then coke and junk food
@JackDouglas I'm aware of the distinction between inerrancy and literalism. But it is a distinction made primarily by theologians and seminary-trained clergy. For all practical purposes, and especially when it filters down to the vast bulk of laypeople, it is a distinction without a difference. And my blog speaks, not to theologians and clergy, but to laypeople—who are the flock that we're supposed to be shepherding.
I am impatient of finely argued distinctions that theologians make which, when they reach the people, collapse together into one indistinguishable idea anyway. For example, I've had debates here with sola fide believers in which they castigate me for conflating "justification" and "salvation." But what, really, is the difference between the two when it comes to the practical reality of whether or not a person is saved and goes to heaven?
The Upper Room
The Upper Room