Lately his excitement has grown to its fullest because of the upcoming baptism. It's been a special treat just to watch him, seeing a boy who acts like Christmas is just around the corner. He has constantly been saying things like: "Soon it's time!" or "I can't wait!" But it's not presents he's been waiting for. About a week ago he had written this note for himself, and pinned it above his desk. It says: "I love my hevenly Fathe vary mush and (heart)". We've noticed in just a short time how spiritually mindful he has become. Of course, he is still your standard boy who loves to play and perform crazy pranks. But yet... there is something different.

My wife and I have been very careful not to manipulate any of our children into getting baptized. Although most active LDS Christians let their children be baptized at age eight (minimal age limit), the children should not be forced in any way. Obviously we have taught the principles of Faith and Baptism in our family, and what it means to follow Christ, but that's where it stops. The listener then has to make his or her own decision based on personal wishes and feelings of... how shall I put it... inner faith.

The day before his baptism I asked Isak why he wanted to do this. He responded with a sigh: "Ah Dad, you know why!"

"Well, yeah... maybe? But tell me anyway. I'd like to know... again."

He looked at me and said: "I wanna do it because it's the right thing to do! And in my life... I want to follow God."

Wow, it's that simple, isn't it? I thought. He's really got it!

These photos are taken just minutes before the baptism. The moment was very emotional and joyous at the same time (you know the feeling).

A big thank you to all who came and helped make this a memorable occation for Isak and his family: to family and relatives, Church friends, and klass mates to Isak, and their families (that Isak personally invited). You are all appreciated.

And to you, Isak, thanks for letting me have a special part in your baptism. I was truly honored. Your mother and I hold you dear to our hearts. You are the peace-maker of this family, caring much for those around you. We are so proud of the decision you have made to follow God in your life. We know life won't always be easy, but we hope you can often look back and gather strenght from this moment. God cares for you. And He will never leave you.

Your Dad,
Louis

Publisher Marketing:
"The Prayer of Jabez" used a little-known story of the Bible to redefine success for Christians. The Prodigal God uses a famous story of the Bible to redefine nothing less than the central Christian message for believers and skeptics alike.
"Newsweek" called renowned minister Timothy Keller a "C. S. Lewis for the twenty-first century" in a feature on his first book, "The Reason for God," In that book, he offered a rational explanation of why we should believe in God. Now, in "The Prodigal God," he uses one of the best-known Christian parables to reveal an unexpected message of hope and salvation.
The Prodigal Son is the most well-known parable in the Bible. Incredibly, it is also almost universally misunderstood. Taking his trademark intellectual approach to understanding Christianity, Keller uncovers the essential message of Jesus, hidden in plain sight for centuries. Within this parable is the lost message of Jesus, where he outlines just how his followers are supposed to love and accept one another so they can join him in Heaven. With this book, both the devout and skeptics will see Christianity in a whole new way.

From Riddle Blog:

WorldNetDaily is at it again, pushing a video which tells us why we as Christians should be celebrating Yom Kippur and the Feast of Tabernacles, just as Jews do.  Sorry to break it to you, but Jesus has finished his redemptive work, fulfilling all of the Old Testament types and shadows.  It always amazes me that some dispensationalists get so caught up in typology they miss the obvious.  Oh, that same video also claims to reveal the day (but not the year) the Lord will return.   Click here: Find out why Feast of Tabernacles is not just for Jews

Also from Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, Joseph Farah’s Armageddon Three-Pack

Quote..

When will the end of the world be? WorldNetDaily is currently pushing no fewer than three alternative armageddons on its credulous readership.

*see stories at links

If you can keep your ADD at bay long enough to watch this documentary, you will know exactly why everything going on today, from the $700 billion financial bailout to the Terrorist farse to the stock market crash and ultimate destruction of our country as we know it is nothing but a GAME.

And we are the losers.... the slaves.... the failed breeders.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912]

Christians admit—at least in principle—that we are all evil, and that we depend on the Lord God for our personal redemption. Therefore, when we the faithful, pray that God remove evil from the world, what is it that are we asking God to do?

Are we asking God to remove us from the world scene? I doubt it. Instead, we tend to do a lot of finger pointing. In reality we each see evil as something outside of us rather than within us. And we do this in spite of the Lord’s warning that we are not to “throw the first stone,” or “see the speck in someone else’s eye” (especially when there is a log in our own eye).

We all want change in the world but we seem to have lost our true focus on what needs to be changed.

In the famous words of the comic strip character Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Wars between countries are a natural extension of, and multiplication of, our personal and individual wars with other people. We war with our spouses, we war with our neighbors, we war with other communities, other states, and finally other nations.

Even within civility we can harbor inner hatred, jealousy and envy towards others.

How do these harmful tendencies fly safely under our personal radar and are never detected by us?

There are two big reasons.

One is religious. The other is the psychology behind self-centeredness. The religious doctrine of salvation by faith alone places almost no value on self-examination and our taking part in the salvation process. In fact, this ill-conceived doctrine puts Christians above the Law of the Commandments and personal responsibility. We are saved through mere belief and trust that the Lord died for our sins, not in our cleaning up our own act.

Self-centeredness also thwarts introspection. While spotting negative traits in others is easy–being a simple matter of observation, seeing these bad traits in oneself is limited to what his or her heart wishes the eyes to see. Seeing evil in others requires mere ocular vision but seeing our own harmful proclivities requires permission from one’s will.

Until we take ourselves to task, we have no real sense of our evil compulsions because they are only detected as pleasures. We derive pleasure from revenge and in dominating a situation. This “pleasure” of always coming out on top seduces our thinking and distracts our reflections.

This psycho-harlotry is what is actually meant by the term “whoredom” used in various stories of Holy Scripture. It is a spiritual condition that causes one to separate his or her faith from life—a condition where faith is not lived or put into action. Instead we prostitute ourselves for a false worldview.

To live one’s faith, one must sincerely love God and neighbor.

One cannot sincerely (inwardly) love God and neighbor unless one knows what is really going on in his or her heart. Only when we take inventory and make unflattering self-discoveries can the Lord God begin to help us. We have to give God a clue as to what we want changed in our lives.

Until then, true Religion will fly under the radar as well. 

This week, while reading Early Christian Doctrines I came across a que to a thought by Gregory of Nazianzus. So, I went searching for it, in hopes of finding something biblical about it. This is the quote:

XXVI.  To this I may compare the case of Theology^37333733 Theology is here used in a restricted sense, as denoting simply the doctrine of the Deity of the Son or Logos.  It is very frequently used in this limited sense; examples of which may readily be found in Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Chrysostom, and others.  A similar use occurs in Orat. XXXVIII., c. 8, in which passage θεολογία is contrasted with οἰκονομία, the doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity with that of the Incarnation. except that it proceeds the reverse way.  For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions.  For the matter stands thus.  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory,^37343734 Ps. lxxxiv. 7, and 2 Cor. iii. 18. the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues.  And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully.  I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth.^37353735 John xiv. 16, 17. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority.  Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name.  He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send,^37363736 John xvi. 7. then again, I will send,—His own dignity.  Then shall come,^37373737 Ib. xvi. 8.the authority of the Spirit.

Theology, the translator tells us, is restrict to the Doctrine of the Deity of the Son. We can accept that. Gregory's use of Father does not equal the use by the Jews, the Apostles, the Apostolic or the early Church Fathers. For them, Father was the principle, the source of Creation. The Son is proclaimed not as Son, but as Messiah, as the Hope of Israel.

The problem with Gregory's analysis of the Old and the New and the Now (Father, Son, Spirit) is that it only provides Inspiration for the two. We are the base our doctrine on the Scriptures. If this is the case, then we have no real scriptures pointing to the deity of the Spirit and thus, no justification of the third person of the Trinity.

There is of course problem with the 'gradual' indwelling of the Apostles by the Spirit. There is no scriptural evidence for that. Christ did not give the Spirit measured in John 20.

Well, I don't want to disect him too much, but I would rather stick with Chrysostom

Beginning with this post, I am going to attempt a commentary on Sirach for examination and proof of Inspiration.

Below you will see the addition of several alternate verses which are found in a different Greek recension of Sirach that used by the KJV and RSV. I include these because they are highly valuable, and unfortunately, the level of Textual Criticism that is often applied to the rest of the Bible has not yet reached a sound scientific basis for many of the books of the Deuterocanon. I will discuss the alternate verse as a stand alone verse in the passage.

This is not designed as the final word on Sirach, but to open up doorways for thinking by Fundamentals on Sirach, and fellow Economists/Emanationists (oneness) believers on the Wisdom passages of the Old Testament and the Deuterocanon. I always encourage discussion on these posts, and indeed, all posts.

Sirach 1:1-8

(1)  All Wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever.

Ben Sira uses Wisdom not to encompass pure knowledge, but his view is clearly religious in nature, as would be natural for him. By itself, this verse is hardly impressive, however, by undertaking the rest of the passage first, we see that this Wisdom is an emanation from the Lord. (Wisdom 1.26, Hebrews 1.3).

(2)  Who can count the sand of the sea, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity?
(3)  Who can search them out the height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the abyss, and wisdom?
(4)  Wisdom was created before all things, and prudent understanding from eternity.

The verse is a prologue to John's Logos passage, when in the beginning was the Word. It also looks back to Proverbs 8, the basis of understanding the Jewish view of Wisdom.

"I, Wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding, I have strength. By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, All the judges of the earth. I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me. Riches and honor are with me, Enduring riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yes, than fine gold, And my revenue than choice silver. I traverse the way of righteousness, In the midst of the paths of justice, That I may cause those who love me to inherit wealth, That I may fill their treasuries. "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.  (Proverbs 8:12-22 NKJV)

Sirach connects to the the Logos of John and the Wisdom of Proverbs as well as the Emanation of Wisdom 7.26. This is not difficult to justify from the Economist/Emanationist standpoint. The Divine is not without His Wisdom or His Word, and thus not alone; however, the Wisdom and Word are divine persons, but attributes and emanations. Wisdom is God Thinking whereas Word is God Active.

And alternate verse here, which is highly Christological, reads

(4a) Wisdom's spring is God's word in the highest, and her journeys are everlasting commandments.

This verse is attested to in the Syriac as well as the Latin,

Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis, et ingressus illius mandata aeterna. - Nova Vulgata

The Logos is seen here as the spring of Sophia, the source. In ancient times, Wisdom is associated with the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God is seen as emanating from the Son. In John 14 and 16, we read of the spirit of Truth that will come from the Father as well as coming from the Son. This is God speaking His wisdom to dwell among flesh as the gift of the holy Spirit.

This verse is important to the Church, as we cannot fail to be reminded that the Apostle called Christ the Wisdom of God. (cf Luke 7.35 and 1st Corinthians 1.24)

(5) To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed? Who knows her great deeds?

The Greek word 'Sophia' is feminine, causing most translators to make the pronoun feminine as well; however, this should not the reader's mind nor single Wisdom as female. Many would assume that Wisdom is the the Jewish version of Isis, the Egyptian goddess; however, even in Proverbs, Wisdom is usually translated as feminine.

(6)  There is One who is wise, greatly to be feared, sitting upon his throne.

This (6) verse is left out of some ancient MSS. One theory is that it was removed by the Jews sometime after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135. The Rabbi's, seeking to save Judaism, began removing certain passages from the LXX (cf Justin's Dialogue with Trypho) in hopes of reducing the Christology of the Old Testament.

(7)  The Lord himself created wisdom; he saw her and numbered her, he poured her out upon all his works.
(8)  She dwells in the midst of all flesh according to his gift, and he supplied her to those who love him.

This calls to mind John 3.16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 NKJV)

And alternate verse here reads,

(8a) Loving the Lord is esteemed wisdom, but to whomever He appears, He apportions her as a vision of Himself.

Again we turn to Paul's writing, when he calls Christ the Image of God.

Whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4 NKJV)

And to John,

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.  (John 14:7-11 NKJV)

For many so-called Evangelicals today “narrowness” in regards to faith is to be avoided at all costs.  Murray traces the history of how we got here in the book.  From the outside not much seems to have changed among evangelicals over the last 50 or 60 years.  In actuality, as many among evangelicals have been falling all over themselves to appear open-minded very few among those they have been trying to impress have taken notice.  Various groups from the academy to mainline denominations still consider Evangelicals to be in an isolationist ghetto in spite of their loud protests to the contrary. Of more concern is the effect of all of this on the heart of Evangelicalism.  Murray explains that:

“…evangelicals, while commonly retaining the same set of beliefs, have been tempted to seek success in way which the New Testament identifies as worldliness.  Worldliness is departing from God.  It is a man-centered way of thinking; it provides objectives which demand no radical breach with man’s fallen nature; it judges the importance of things by the present and material results; it weighs success by numbers; it covets human esteem and wants no unpopularity; it knows no truth for which it is worth suffering; it declines to be a fool for Christ’s sake.  Worldliness is the mind-set of the unregenerate.  It adopts idols and is at war with God.” (p. 254-255)

If I seem to be throwing stones let me hasten to say worldliness isn’t just a rare disease.  Worldliness is an epidemic.  Man-centered thinking is the air we breathe and who among us hasn’t recently placed undue importance on material things or coveted human esteem?  At this point I’m less interested in assigning blame than in doing all that I can to avoid the spirit of the world.  How do I fight an enemy that is not only invisible but to which I am constantly submitting both “unwillingly and unconsciously”? Sorry to leave you hanging but this post is already too long.  Ponder the question and we’ll get back to it soon.

When Christ comes unexpectedly at the end of this Age, He will redeem his people from the Earth.
The dead in Christ will rise first followed by those who are alive in Christ. This is the first ressurrection and the rapture (or the Harvest) at the End of the Age.
Hence, all believers will be called up to be with Christ when he returns and they will remain with Him forever. (1Thess 4:17)
They will stand before The Judgment Seat of Christ and will reign with him for 1000 years in Heaven over the Nations on Earth and will be rewarded for the things that they have done in the Body.
When Christ returns with his army of Believers, he will defeat the Beast and the False Prophet and the Kings of the Earth. He will separate the nations into the Sheep and the Goats.
The Dead outside of Christ will not be raised until after the Millennium.
Satan is bound for the duration of the Millennium and then is released for a brief time before being thrown into to the Lake of Fire where the Beast and the Antichrist were thrown.
At the End of the Millennium, the Dead in Hades and the Sea will be raised for Judgment at the Great White Throne. Those whose names are not in the Lamb's Book of Life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire which is the second death.
Death itself is thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Finaly, when all things have been put under Christ's feet, the Son hands the Kingdom back to the Father.
God then makes all things New.
The New Jerusalem descends from heaven as a Bride beautifully adorned for her husband.
God lives with Man on Earth in the New Jerusalem which is composed of New and Old Testament believers.
The Nations are outside but are allowed to bring their glory into the New Jerusalem once a year and are given the Leaves of the Tree of Life for healing.

http://www.truthinlove.com
http://www.truthinlove.com/References/millennium.htm

The Bible begins and ends with God creating (or recreating) the heavens and the earth the way He intended it to be.
In the third chapter of the Bible (Gen 3), Satan enters to corrupt mankind and lead man away from God's purposes.
Not surprizingly, it is in the third last chapter of the Bible (Rev 20) that Satan exits (he is thrown into the Lake of Fire along with Hades and death and all those whose names are not in the Book of Life).
In between the first three chapters and the last three chapters of the Bible, God sets about redeeming man and restoring man to his purposes and in so doing, brings Glory to Himself.
If Satan would like to remove one chapter from the Bible, it would be the third last one; the one in which he is judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire.
This is also the Chapter that deals with the Millennium. The Millennium reveals how God deals with His people and the People of the World (ie the Nations).
If Christians are to go to heaven after Christ returns, it will be during the Millennium.
It is during the Millennium that Christians are rewarded for the things that they have done in the body.
When Christ returns at the beginning of the Millennium, the Nations will be sorted into the Sheep (who were kind to God's people) and the Goats (who persecuted God's people).
At the End of the Millennium, all enemies are put under Christ's feet and Jesus hands the Kingdom back to the Father.
God then lives with man in the New Jerusalem on a New Earth surrounded buy the Nations who refused the Mark of the Beast and were kind to God's people during the Great Tribulation.

http://www.truthinlove.com
http://www.truthinlove.com/References/millennium.htm

ONLY BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS GO TO HEAVEN AND ONLY BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS WILL BE PART OF THE NEW JERUSALEM (THE WIFE OF THE LAMB)

What's more, ALL born again believers go to heaven to reign with Christ for the Millennium and then descend to become the New Jerusalem in eternity.

http://www.truthinlove.com
http://www.truthinlove.com/References/millennium.htm

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth ~ Acts 1:8

This is from an article that I originally wrote in July of 2007 and after reading through it again, I found that now was a very good time to re-visit the subject as it mainly deals with what I perceive to be nothing more than dogma and doctrine; another rule that has to be followed.  At least that's what I see within the denomination that I have been a member of.   What happened was I really got to thinking about that verse.  As you are going to see, there are two sides (maybe more) to my point.  There is also scripture which supports each side of the issue.

We will be witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all of Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. That part is not at issue here since to me is supports the Great Commission.   It is also for certain that when the Holy Spirit comes on you, you have power.  Call that zeal, motivation, excitement, passion or any of the thousand other descriptive words that each individual might use to express their particular experience.  That is not what is at issue for me either.  What is at issue and what is at the heart of this particular verse for me and at this particular time is the seven words in the middle.  When is it then that the Holy Spirit comes on you?

Within the Community of Christ, confirmation, otherwise known as baptism of the Spirit follows baptism by water and completes a person’s initiation into the church. So let's start with this.  What is confirmation?  The dictionary definition is "something that supports, validates or verifies something else".   A religious definition is "a ceremony which marks a persons formal acceptance into a church." In Reformed Judaism, confirmation marks the end of someones religious training and entry into full adult membership in the community.  In the Community of Christ, confirmation is a celebration.  You and the people you love, together in fellowship, give praise for the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in you.  It is a reception into the community of the church.  I question how this ceremony supports and validates an agreement that you entered into with Christ.  If a public show is required, that was most certainly fulfilled by your baptism.  It seems to me that a confirmation service is simply another hoop to jump through before you are allowed to be a member of your community...AS IF!!  Is that all it is, what amounts to nothing more than sacramental hazing?  What really gets me is that often, this ceremony is referred to as "the laying on of hands for receipt of the Holy Spirit." That's what makes me begin to question it.

The laying on of hands for receipt of the Holy Spirit is supported by the Acts of the Apostles. Peter and John laid hands for receipt of the Spirit in Acts 8:17 and Paul laid hands on twelve in Ephesus for receipt of the Holy Spirit in Acts 19:6.  In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul also reminds us through Timothy to “fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands”.

On the flip side, Jesus himself was baptized and the Holy Spirit just came upon him.  One could argue that John the Baptist had his hands on Jesus at the time but then that would adding to the scripture; wouldn't it?  The twelve disciples were baptized by the Spirit at Pentecost and nobody laid hands on them.  Directly following that, Peter says this to the crowd:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”

What he didn't tell them was to get in a line so he could lay hands on them.

For my brothers and sisters within the LDS faith, Moroni said this:

“After they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ.” ~ Moroni 6:4

I always get a good chuckle out of that particular verse because "wrought upon" essentially translates in current language to "work over" which really does reflect institutional church.  For the purpose of this post though, it pretty much sounds like receiving the Spirit just happened.   Moroni didn't say anything about the laying on of hands. Even Christ himself said that the Lamanites had been baptized at the time of their conversion and knew it not; 3 Nephi 4:50. I'm sure that they probably knew something was happening, they just didn’t know what it was.

It’s my belief that when we are born, there is a part of the Spirit that resides in each of us. We were each created spiritually by God and therefore, we are each born with some of God in us. God makes himself known to us through the Spirit in his own time and his own way and it is, in my opinion again, the Holy Spirit in us that leads us to Jesus Christ and into the waters of baptism.  It is not my desire to allude to the sacrament of confirmation as not being important because I feel that the sacraments are there to help us to experience God more fully in our lives and to bring us closer to Him.  My biggest point is this; I can't support the idea that the Holy Spirit comes upon us simply because some person places his hands on your head and prays. For some, it might happen that way but not for all.  Everyone experiences the Holy Spirit entering their lives differently.

In my case, the Holy Spirit came upon me the night I surrendered myself to Christ.  When I was humble enough to fall upon my knees and tell him that there was no way I could do anything without him and ask for his help and his forgiveness; at that moment, the Holy Spirit entered me with power.  I had felt the leading of the Spirit before, but at that moment, he entered me with power and I was on fire AND it happened a long time before I ever made the decision to be baptized.

I would like to quote Peter Judd, the Chair of the Theology Task Force for the Community of Christ from his comments on the Sacrament of Confirmation.

It is not for the church or individuals to say when the Holy Spirit is first present in an individual or even when a person has their first experience of sensing that Spirit working in their lives

That about sums it up for me.  It's just too bad that this information gets lost somewhere between the leadership and the congregations.

Bible Verses are from the New International Version
Book of Mormon Verses are from the RLDS 1908 Authorized Version

Or, the person that you are having a "conversation" with does not address the points you make directly. They seem to ignore what you write, even though you are careful to address every point they make and question they pose. Frustrating. In real life, I have given people books and they have not read them, given people things to listen to and they have not listened. Talk about being ignored, that is very frustrating.

Doctrinal issues are, perhaps, the most prone to this type of argumentation. There is nothing wrong with a good argument, as long as it's done in an atmosphere of love and respect, something that is sorely missing from our society these days. Soon, these arguments break down into one person, or both, questioning the salvation of another.

I have been involved in these discussions since the BBS days. Very few, perhaps 1 or 2 % in my experience, ever end up well. I have been guilty of doing all of the things I describe here, so I am not blameless. Yet the draw is still there, the old man still wanting to put the gloves on and go at it.

So I have made a decision not to argue with anyone who comments here. I will tell you what I believe, and ask you questions. As long as people are asking and answering questions, things usually go along fine. But that is precisely where things usually break down for me, and I get very tired of asking questions that go unanswered, or quite often ignored, and making points that are not addressed by the respondent. In light of that, here are some tips for responding to articles you read online, blog points, or even for normal, face to face conversations.

1. Read more that you type. Do some research into an issue before firing your guns. Be up to speed on what the core issues are, from both sides of an issue, not just an expert in your own opinion. Be well read.

2. Address the specific points and assertions made by the person with whom you are talking. There is nothing more frustrating to say something and be ignored. It only signals that you don't care, you just want to be heard and dominate the other. Not nice. In fact, it makes you look stupid.

3. Answer questions. If a person asks you a question, answer it. Or put another way, if you see this symbol >>> ? <<< that means the other person is seeking information from you, and you have an obligation to provide it, if you want to have a good relationship with said person. So answer the question, even if you think it's a stupid waste of time.

4. Keep your responses simple and short. No one has time to wade through a novel. Shut up once in a while and listen for a change. Who knows? You might learn something.

5. Don't give references to verses or outside works without the quotes themselves. Make it easy on the other.

6. Don't use profanity in comment boxes. It makes you look like a moron, and I just delete them anyway. And for people with blogs who allow comments, when you allow people to use profanity and do not moderate, it makes you look bad. People stay away.

7. Show respect and love for the other. Especially true for those in Christian circles. You can disagree without being mean or stupid.

So there you have it. My simple suggestions for posting comments, making arguments, and having conversations. I welcome comments and conversation, but I will not argue.

Until next time, peace in Christ,

D

Hebrews 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.

Romans 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 2:7

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist

"And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim" ~ 1 Kings 18:17-18

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" ~ Galatians 4:16

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” ~ Matthew 5:10-12

Let's see if we can bring this nice lady back from the edge, shall we? She writes,

The conversation began with a question about how much of the bible is true and of course I replied that the Christian bible as we know it, was ‘created’ (for want of a better term) by the council of Rome in AD 382, when it was determined which of the available books of the Jewish Old Testament and those of the possible New Testament were to be included as the final version of the ‘written word of God’ …. see what I mean by conspiracy?  Remember the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Although the Council of Rome did set out a canonical list, those lists have been long established and modified since at least the late 2nd Century, at least in writing. We know that the early Christian writers employed a set core of books, even back to Ignatius. 1st Clement will give you an essential canonical usage list if you are willing to look. As a matter of fact the Pauline Corpus provides us a pretty firm hold on the OT canon that he would have used.

The idea that at some point the Catholic Church 'invented' the bible is absurd and far from reality. Granted, Ignatius and blessed Polycarp did not have the fine editions that we have now, but they had the core books, including some of the the Deuterocanon.  (Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom come to mind). This is the problem with conspiracy theories - rarely are they based on complete facts.

She comments,

We then moved onto why Christianity …. and of course, I had yet another answer!  Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when Constantine decided that a good way to unify a disparate grouping of people would be to have a single religion that all were to believe in.  At the time, another potential rival to Christianity for this honour was Mithraism, a cult that was widespread throughout the Roman empire because of it’s links to the legions.

From Wikipedia,

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians. This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan set forth in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic," Although as remarked above, little was actually known about Mithras in 1882.

The Prophet Haggai speaks to us from across the centuries when he calls Christ the 'desire of the nations'.

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.  (Haggai 2:7 KJVA)

There is no need to dismiss the constant similarities between Christianity and Paganism, as we know that from time memorial, the adversary has used a little Truth and leavened it to great poison. Mithraism does bare some similiar traits to Christianity because, as Justin Martyr said, they borrowed and abused the Faith. Only the mind that sees tok destroy Christianity would first assume that Christianity is the 'borrowed' religion.

Concerning Constantine, the author is correct. He did institutionalize Christianity, but by then it had grown across the Empire. Of course, I would rather debate whether or not the Christianity that he put in place was the Christianity of the Bible.

She then comments,

Of course, the easiest way to spread a religious doctrine is to incorporate the ‘local traditions’ and so we end up with such things as 25th December being the date of birth of Jesus Christ - when it was originally the date of ‘birth’ of Mithras, close to the winter solstice (a powerful time in the pagan calendar), and also close to the Saturnalia and the date of the Deus Sol Invictus - both ancient Roman/pagan celebrations.

She should first discover the controversy over Nisen 14. The idea that Christianity as a whole set this date (December 25th) as the date of celebration is misguided at best, intellectually dishonest at worse. She mentions these grand conspiracy theories and yet is herself a product of one. Sin is the greatest conspiracy to darken the mind.

From James Grant:

I remember reading John Piper’s book The Pleasures of God and the list of 10 resolutions from Clyde Kilby on how to benefit your soul and mental health. Justin Buzzard posted them this week, and it was a helpful reminder. John Piper writes about Kilby, “He pled with us to stop seeking mental health in the mirror of self-analysis, but instead to drink in the remedies of God in nature.” Here are the resolutions:

1. At least once every day I shall look steadily up at the sky and remember that I, a consciousness with a conscience, am on a planet traveling in space with wonderfully mysterious things above and about me.

2. Instead of the accustomed idea of a mindless and endless evolutionary change to which we can neither add nor subtract, I shall suppose the universe guided by an Intelligence which, as Aristotle said of Greek drama, requires a beginning, a middle, and an end. I think this will save me from the cynicism expressed by Bertrand Russell before his death when he said: “There is darkness without, and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendor, no vastness anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing.”

3. I shall not fall into the falsehood that this day, or any day, is merely another ambiguous and plodding twenty-four hours, but rather a unique event, filled, if I so wish, with worthy potentialities. I shall not be fool enough to suppose that trouble and pain are wholly evil parentheses in my existence, but just as likely ladders to be climbed toward moral and spiritual manhood.

4. I shall not turn my life into a thin, straight line which prefers abstractions to reality. I shall know what I am doing when I abstract, which of course I shall often have to do.

5. I shall not demean my own uniqueness by envy of others. I shall stop boring into myself to discover what psychological or social categories I might belong to. Mostly I shall simply forget about myself and do my work.

6. I shall open my eyes and ears. Once every day I shall simply stare at a tree, a flower, a cloud, or a person. I shall not then be concerned at all to ask what they are but simply be glad that they are. I shall joyfully allow them the mystery of what Lewis calls their “divine, magical, terrifying and ecstatic” existence.

7. I shall sometimes look back at the freshness of vision I had in childhood and try, at least for a little while, to be, in the words of Lewis Carroll, the “child of the pure unclouded brow, and dreaming eyes of wonder.”

8. I shall follow Darwin’s advice and turn frequently to imaginative things such as good literature and good music, preferably, as Lewis suggests, an old book and timeless music.

9. I shall not allow the devilish onrush of this century to usurp all my energies but will instead, as Charles Williams suggested, “fulfill the moment as the moment.” I shall try to live well just now because the only time that exists is now.

10. Even if I turn out to be wrong, I shall bet my life on the assumption that this world is not idiotic, neither run by an absentee landlord, but that today, this very day, some stroke is being added to the cosmic canvas that in due course I shall understand with joy as a stroke made by the architect who calls himself Alpha and Omega.

2. We should pray before and after we share the Gospel with the lost, asking for meekness of wisdom, charity, and wisdom to testify to hope that dwells within us. Not an exhaustive list by any means, but the point is to pray. I don't do this now, so this is not an exhortation based on experience but rather an Internet article I read called Salvation is God's Work (I have it, but I can't find the link!)

3. The Gospel be spoken with confidence, clarity, and conviction - without compromise. Think about these princples with a hobby or area of study in your life. I'll give an example of my own life. Yesterday I recounted to my roommate all of UGA's home losses in football since Mark Richt has been head coach, including the team that Georgia lost to. I could have given the scores of the games if asked. Clearly, I have a confidence about my understanding of Georgia football under Mark Richt's coaching tenure. I can communicate this knowledge with clarity and conviction because I know these facts, and am not ashamed of this knowledge beacause I know it true. Now say a Tennessee or Florida fan came up and wanted to dispute these facts. Would I compromise? No way!

In the same principles of confidence, clarity, and conviction must be applied when the deliver the Gospel of Jesus Christ - even in the face of persecution.

4. Doctrine. Something I want a prayer burden for is for the Church to remember sound doctrine. Doctrine is not for only for theologians, persons with advanced degrees, or church leadership, but for all who walk in the way of Christ. You are probably familiar with the text from 2 Timothy where Paul warns Timothy that believers will turn away from sound doctrine, raising up teachers for their own itching ears to hear (2 Ti 4:3-4). As an immature believer I believed doctrine was just a waste of time, and I did looked for resources that made Christianity less offensive and more contextualized to the culture. However, God has granted me repentance from that error.

Andreas Kostenberger:

1. The church’s mission--in both belief and practice--should be grounded in the biblical theology of mission.
2. Reflection on the church’s mission should be predicated upon the affirmation of the full and sole authority of Scripture.
3. The church’s mission should be conceived primarily in terms of the church’s faithfulness and responsiveness to the missionary mandate given by the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in Scripture.
4. The church’s understanding of its mission should be hermeneutically sound.
5. The church’s mission is to be conceived ultimately in theocentric rather than anthropocentric terms.
6. The church’s mission, properly and biblically conceived, is to be trinitarian in its orientation, but not at the expense of neglecting the distinct roles of the three persons within the Godhead.
7. The contemporary context of the church’s mission, while important, ought not to override the church’s commitment to the authority of Scripture, its need to be grounded in the biblical theology of mission, and the understanding of its task in terms of faithfulness to the gospel.
8. The church is the God-ordained agent of his mission in this world today.
9. The way in which the kingdom of God is extended in this world today is through regenerate believers acting out their Christian faith in their God-assigned spheres of life: the church, their families, their workplace, the societies in which they live (Eph 5:18-6:9; 1 Pet 2:13-3:7).
10. There is no true lasting social transformation apart from personal conversion through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
11. Human organization does not necessarily entail a lack of acknowledgment of God and his initiative in mission.
12. The church’s task today is to nurture, renew, and plant churches composed of a spiritually regenerate membership and constituted in keeping with the biblical teaching regarding church leadership.

Read the whole thing for an explanation of each point. Kostenberger invites feedback.

Iată că am ajuns la o dilemă, trebuie să definim calea pe care trebuie să o urmăm ca fiind îngustă, mai mult de atât tot ce spune Domnul în predica de pe munte este îngust, să-ţi iubeşti vrăjmaşii, să nu ripostezi, să întorci obrazul ca să fii lovit, să binecuvântezi pe cei care te ocărăsc şi înjură...etc.

Sunt mulţi oameni religioşi care vor ajunge în iad! Deasemeni sunt mulţi oameni care spun că l-au primit în viaţa lor pe Hristos şi la fel, vor merge în iad. Mai sunt şi oameni care sunt preocupaţi de Dumnezeu, de religie, de doctrine, le este teamă de iad şi de Satan, sunt înfricoşaţi de Dumnezeu care va pedepsi lumea, au un sentiment de reverenţă faţă de tot ce este sfânt şi se înclină a respect în fiinţa lor către Acesta, însă, ce folos? - vor merge mulţi dintre ei în iad.

Am ajuns să credem că a fi creştin înseamnă numaidecât ceva frumos, atrăgător, minunat şi fascinant, acesta este un mod lumesc şi firesc de a privi Evanghelia Domnului Isus. Dacă spunem oamenilor aceste lucruri ne facem vinovaţi pentru că Evanghelie în sine declară că nu este uşor de a o primi şi de a o trăi dar că este posibil.

Cred că pentru mulţi oameni care astăzi îşi spun creştini le trebuie redefinită teologia cu privire la calea îngustă. De obicei teologii liberali redefinesc, redefinesc şi mereu redefinesc. Redefinirea la care mă refer acum îşi are scopul de a trasa şi a marca aici adevărul Scripturii, nu o concepţie şi interpretare proprie.

Domnul Isus invită în predica pe de munte oamenii să intre pe poarta cea strâmtă pentru ca apoi să păşească pe calea cea îngustă.

Este singura cale care duce la viaţă, sunt multe căi în lumea aceasta, însă acestea se împart în 2 categorii: calea îngustă – este una singură şi duce la cer şi calea lată care cuprinde celelalte căi care duc la moarte, unele dintre ele par că duc în paradis dar de fapt duc în iad.

Cum le putem distinge?

Poarta prin care se intră în viaţă este strâmtă, este atât de strâmtă încât atunci când intri pe ea nu mai poţi lua nimic cu tine, nimic din ce ţi-ar putea garanta că te poate ajuta, nimic din ce ţi-ar putea da impresia că ai vreun merit, nimic din ce ar putea să te facă să te încrezi în tine însuţi. Eşti supus detectorului lui Dumnezeu - ochilor Lui, cărora nu le scapă nimic.

Pe poartă strâmtă nu poţi intra şi să nimereşti pe calea lată şi nici invers. Unii doar au avut impresia că au intrat pe poarta strâmtă dar de fapt au intrat pe poarta lată, nu şi-au dat seama de acest lucru pentru că nu au cunoscut diferenţele dintre ele, nu au înţeles realitatea.

Puţini sunt cei ce se găsesc şi găsesc calea îngustă. Este o singură cale care duce la cer!

- Nu e populată, de aceea s-ar putea ca uneori să ţi se pară că eşti singur dar nu eşti, mai sunt mulţi alţii pe care Dumnezeu îi are şi El mereu e lângă tine (nicidecum n-am să te las), iar o dovadă a acestui fapt e tocmai ceea ce a spus. (despărţiţi de mine nu puteţi face nimic) – dacă eşti pe această cale, şi-ţi este greu – Dumnezeu e lângă tine să te întărească şi să-ţi ofere al său ajutor.

- E îngustă, nu e mare şi nici plină de strălucire. Tot ce lumea vinde astăzi, pe această cale nu se face reclamă. Trebuie să te obişnuieşti că e diferită, că trebuie să fii diferit şi excepţional. Acest lucru este necesar. Părăseşte mulţimea!

- Calea este de aceeaşi nuanţă cu poarta, când vei vrea să intri pe ea vei vedea că e strâmtă, iar calea de asemeni, nu se lăţeşte după cum vrei tu ci rămâne îngustă.

A fi creştin înseamnă să fii îngust, îngust în ceea ce priveşte sistemul de gândire al lumii, sistemul de principii şi comportamentele pe care ea le vinde. Încrederea de sine, bogăţiile, faima, strălucirea, mulţi prieteni şi mult comfort nu sunt lucrurile care se găsesc pe ea. Vei găsi însă o familie care te va primi cu dragoste, vei găsi un Dumnezeu care are totul în mâna Lui, şi care vrea să-ţi ofere ceva mai mult decât poate oferi viaţa searbădă de pe pământ.

For me some things are self evidently indispensable: the bible as a spiritual guide, the gospel and trust in God. But then there's the doctrine issues of the ICOC that we used to take for granted: 10% tithing, one-on-one discipling, one church in one city etc... One of the aims of this blog is to encourage people to work through these things and develop their own ideas, but I'll also be arguing for things I believe in and things I oppose. I've already written extensively on one-on-one discipling -and I've decided the structure and culture developed in the ICOC is definitely dispensable.

Some have decided it's optional, and some have made it indispensable, even if they haven't said so, in their congregation. I've argued it didn't exist in the New Testament. Sure, Christian training exists -and that was indispensable in many cases: Jesus with the apostles, Paul and his partners, Elijah and Elisha and countless other examples. Partnerships in evangelism are common place in Christianity -but the distinct structure of having a personal "discipler" or "shepherd" and the chains of command and accountability take things way too far.

I've also decided, being part of an "ICOC" church is not indispensable, but now we need to review our beliefs and be shrewder in deciding which church or congregation to be a part of. I mentioned before Kip Mckean has allowed more church organisations in his definition of a "saved Christian". But you don't need to go by what he says. So for example, you may believe in repentance and baptism as a submerged adult, then there are churches around with similar beliefs such as the mainline Church of Christ.

There are some other things you may decide are indispensable: certain standards in the fellowship or transparency of leaders. I've even decided at the current point in time I'm not attached to a fellowship, until some certain issues are resolved.

If there's one lesson I've learned, I've got to take responsibility for what I believe, and to have the wisdom and faith to say, "I agree", or "I oppose", or "I'm willing to compromise". If you don't do your homework then you're in danger of being a "reed in the wind" as they say.

I know after 2003 and the turmoil in many of the churches involved there was much conflict and pain, but there was also a sense of honesty and a time of freedom to reflect on what one's beliefs are. (This was in some churches, not in all). It was a time that allowed people to take time out or leave "guilt free", and a chance for people to choose their way to live without pressure.