Retired Boards (Archived)
Nature of God
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: February 17, 2020, 02:44:39 PM »<P>I understand the character of God in punishing those who deny their sinful nature. Yet I cannot understand why such a punishment would deserve eternity in hell. Think of a friend of yours that is caring and apologizes when commits an offense. However, he/she does not believe in God or at least the Christian God. Do you think that person deserves eternity in hell? </P>The evil of man has been generally hidden in history and remains hidden today. The darkness isn’t seen to be dark until you start shining some light on it, and humans keep themselves in the dark. What humans call evil is only egregious, obvious evil, but moreover they’re defining it as evil when another human crosses the path of their desires.
No challenges have been issued. The religions upheld no serious higher standards so that men could get a just measure of themselves. Jesus said the Way is strait and difficult, and then closed His mouth. The tough things are so tough, I can’t list them openly here without risking persecution. To give a hint, I read recently about the man who was first to cross Antarctica on skis. He’d do that, but won’t cross his fence to meet with a neighbor.
The secret of the human appearance of goodness is avoiding situations of conflict. Yet these situations are two-way streets, and just to be near others will always be a conflict. The Bible said it rightly, man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward. But God expected a cooperative world. He expected the souls to love one another, as Jesus said.
The Christians believe they are achieving this, but again, I cannot list their faults here from expectation of a vicious reaction. Jesus spoke strongly against money, but not strongly enough, and He would shout “Hypocrites” as loudly against today’s Christians as He did against the Pharisees back then. Men only accept friends who bring money.
Posted by: Cletus Nze
« on: January 04, 2011, 11:37:06 AM »Travis wrote:I understand the character of God in punishing those who deny their sinful nature. Yet I cannot understand why such a punishment would deserve eternity in hell. Think of a friend of yours that is caring and apologizes when commits an offense. However, he/she does not believe in God or at least the Christian God. Do you think that person deserves eternity in hell?
God DOES NOT PUNISH AT ALL! What is perceived by the ignorant as "punishment" is simply the CONSEQUENCES of wrong actions - which CANNOT be arbitrarily terminated but continue until their authors cease such wrong actions! Not only that, they MUST make amends for the wrong they have done in the past - IN FULL - otherwise the consequences will continue to return to them!
God is Love and only wants to help - ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE! But help CANNOT be given to those who reject it stubbornly! That they continue to suffer in perpetuity is their fault and NOT the Will of God!
Hell was NOT created by God - but is the work of the wicked who have desolated and devastated both the inner and outer environments of their consciousness! Why then the surprise that they suffer? And suffer without hope of remission so long as they stubbornly persist in their evil activities! Even though forgiveness is offered to them they CANNOT receive it as long as they close themselves to it with their persistence in wickedness! THEIR fault - NOT God's!
Posted by: JGK
« on: July 19, 2009, 05:56:07 PM »Hi,
On the subject of "hell" I will say this: it is not by the heart of god but by the heart of men/women that determines their true nature and lasting place. Hell is outside the sanction of god hence its "unGodly" nature.
The free will of god is evident from the young to old, from the good to bad. There are small measures, large measures of good and bad that comes from freedom and it is here knowingly that you are measured, judged fairly, FAIRLY: rest assured.
JGK
On the subject of "hell" I will say this: it is not by the heart of god but by the heart of men/women that determines their true nature and lasting place. Hell is outside the sanction of god hence its "unGodly" nature.
The free will of god is evident from the young to old, from the good to bad. There are small measures, large measures of good and bad that comes from freedom and it is here knowingly that you are measured, judged fairly, FAIRLY: rest assured.
JGK
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 05, 2009, 02:34:18 PM »You can see how difficult this problem has become today, for all you need do is look at yourself to see how hard you contend with it by your various means. The deception always comes under great amount of guise. In this case, it is that the church is not strictly a locality of believers but anyone who calls themselves church in their denomination or as a meeting of any kind really. The greatest deception will be when the Antichrist comes and will use perhaps a concoction of calvinism and amillenialism and non-OSAS and gibberish babble (false tongues). Passivity is a key element in deceiving people. But it surrounds taking the mark of the beast (gps implant to be able to buy or sell), ecumenicalism, the corporate design of denominations and blaming Israel again. The battle over oil ensues, debt increases, bills need to be paid, the nations war and certain denominations grow stronger which Satan will use for his benefit and give them corporate incentives to use their desire for money. This is Rev. 14.8, for she makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (with the world), either the Roman Church or any so-called Church. These "Churches" have great influence over the world so the Antichrist will work through them to achieve his deception of a superior Church since now Church can mean anything. But if members of the body of Christ did not fall for this trap and abided in the strict locality of believers as the church, even where only 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, then no such power structure could develop. As Paul said do I say, I have told you the truth. But I will state further, what are you going to do about it? How can you do anything about it if you don't even believe it? The Word is clear, and you have not accepted the Word of God on the matter of biblocality or Scriptural locality. And that is very sad, but nonetheless, expected.
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 05, 2009, 02:33:25 PM »forhisglory wrote: I don't think anyone is disputing that the church, in the Christian/biblical sense, is the universal body of believers. In fact, I've said that many times at my own church meetings (did I say it correctly that time). I've made it clear in those meetings that the church is not a building, but rather it's the body of Christ.
I don't think we were discussing whether the Church is the universal body of believers, for that is obvious, but we were discussing whether the church is a denomination, non-denomination, congregation OR a locality of believers. Since the Bible says don't say "I of Cephas", "I of Apollos" or "I of Christ" this gets rid of all denominations, non-denominations and congregationalizing. Since the Bible expresses the church only in terms of locality, then that is exactly what the church is, a locality of believers which have Elders who take care of it whom have been appointed by regional Apostles. There can be many meeting places in a locality instead of initially just one house meeting. The Elders of that locality approve those Elders of those meeting places. I find it amazing how you can't understand the simplicity of God's design. Why does God do it this way? Because God knows our flesh. He knows Apostles ought not to work greater than a region, otherwise they event the term "Achbishops of continents" or "Pope". Therefore, an Apostle is constrained to a region such as all the churches in Dallas. Similarly, an Elder of a locality is also constrained and ought not to exceed his governmental boundary of Houston. They can visit other localities, but their responsibility is that one locality.
Now, does that mean the word can NEVER be used in the sense that Bill used it and for which this whole discussion got started? I don't think so. Bill could just have easily of said, "Hawking attends a church meeting in Cambridge." But everyone in today's time, and since just after the early church was established, understands that "Hawking attends church in Cambridge" means the exact same thing. Is that the sense in which Christ spoke of the church, well no, not exactly. But the word we translate as church is used in Scripture to describe a group meeting, whether religious or not, and it is translated "assembly" (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Since the Bible never uses it in that sense, then you are changing the meaning against God's Word. Satan uses this to create your denominationations, non-denoms and exalted congregations and create problems in the Church. That's like modalists who say God is a Person who is 3 Persons to confuse terms. Satan is the author of confusion. Assembly is assembly, not the church. Different terms have different meaning, otherwise the Bible could just have said "church" in place of assembly. Once you deem something the church just because you go to it in assembly, whatever that may be, you begin to slide down a slippery slope. Your liberal ecumenicalism expands to the point the Roman Church says Muslims are saved. You begin to accept everything as secondary in many heterodox and unorthordox teachings. Or you think your organization is the right one even though God speaks against particular denominations. The local church is all believers in a locality. Period. It is not a meeting. It is a membership in a local body. You can meet in this body. You can assemble in this body. The whole body in this locality can assemble one time in one place even, but the church itself is not a meeting place. Everyone in the church is saved. Hawkings is not saved. He therefore is not the church and can't go to the church because he is not let in. He can go to a meeting in a place of a denomination, but in no way suggests it is the church or that this denomination is Biblical. I am only here to tell you the truth. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.
Yes, it's a shame that people think "church" ONLY means a building these days, and yes we need to teach them correctly. However, for all this to have started over Bill's simple statement, that just seems a little misplaced. For to say someone attends church implies that they are attending a meeting or assembly. I've never once attended a building! I've gone to buildings, gone in them, gone out of them, gone around them, gone by them. But I've never once attended one. So I think Bill was perfectly in his rights, using the Bible as the standard, to use the word the way he did. Since you didn't seem to care for my Harper's quote, here's a link from Easten's Bible Dictionary about "church" that I found navigating from your own website:
It was important to correct him also on his misuse of the term church, thus, it was well placed. As long as you keep thinking the church is a denomination which is the way it was used, you violate God's Word. No amount of excuses change this fact. Hawkings went to a denomination which was called the church, but the Bible says that is false. Who are we to believe, the Bible or you? Next time, one might say he went to a meeting of this particular denomination. Lots of denominations have mostly unsaved people in them. To understand how pervasive this problem has become, you could probably quote most dictionaries misusing the term "church". Your dictionary said "There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the “Church of England,” the “Church of Scotland,” etc." and I agree.
I rest my case.
I think Bill made a very good point in his last post that I had not really thought about. How exactly is a "non-denomination" considered a denomination and thus a false teaching by default, but your biblocality is not considered a denomination/sect/non-denomination/etc.? That seems to be quite contradictory. I actually feel a bit silly arguing about all of this with a fellow believer, but it just seems that other battles should be far more important than waging war over Bill's very simple statement. Thanks for the dialog.
The Bible says don't say "I of Jesus" which is like saying your particular non-denomination is somehow special just because it is not a denomination. The Bible accounts for this trickery. Biblocality states the church is a locality of believers. Period. The reason why this problem persists is because people feel silly talking about it, when ultimately it is Satan instilling those feelings in people to allow these false divisions to persist so they are never addressed properly. They make excuses even like saying there is more important battles. But that is like saying, well I need to give the gospel to more people even though you have a weight problem that seems to be getting worse. This is part of spiritual warfare. We are waging war against principalities and powers that try to make you feel silly in rejecting denominations, non-denominations and exalted congregations, none of which abide in Scriptural locality. They all have their particular false teachings. I don't know of even one that does not. They divide the church by false doctrines. Even if a denomination or congregation were to teach almost everything perfectly they would still be false, because they deny the Scriptures according to locality in which Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a locality. If they truly believed this, they would seek out as believers an Elder for their locality and the regional Apostle to approve him or her. This is what God wants, so this is why I am telling you about it.
Posted by: Bill Clute
« on: February 05, 2009, 02:25:24 PM »Parture-
Nice talking to you. This has been very informative. I've learned more than you can imagine.
Nice talking to you. This has been very informative. I've learned more than you can imagine.
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 05, 2009, 01:50:10 PM »billclute wrote: So who's to say that what you believe is right and all these others are wrong? Only God could judge that fully. The Baptist have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. The Methodist have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. The Lutherans have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. Your denomination claims that Jesus is the head of the Church and I assume that you would also claim that the Bible is the main authority. I'm sure you would object to me calling your group of believers a denomination but that is just what it is...simply a group of people that are united in their beliefs and practices. These denominations I have listed, as well as some others, believe they are worshiping in the proper manner as instructed in the Bible. We also recognize that there are primary beliefs and secondary issues. The primary beliefs can be summarized by the Apostle's Creed. I'm sure you are familiar with it so I won't list it.
Test the Apostles. Obviously God wants you to test the Apostles. When you teach calvinism, Jesus is not your head. When you teach non-OSAS, Jesus is not your head. When you teach amillennialism, Jesus is not your head. Thus they alter God's Word in their heart. Whereas I don't have a group of believers. I a member of the body of Christ in my locality and have no such denominations you listed. It is man's construction to label things as primary and secondary, to defend denominations when there are no denominations in the Bible, denominations are spoken against in the Bible, and there is only one way of dividing the church by locality. If it is important to God that the church be according to locality, then accept this fact and stop fighting it. The evidence was given this is how the universal church is described and in no other way. So what's the problem? Accept it. Otherwise you are altering God's Word in your heart for man-made constructs. Keep remembering, God does not divide the church by groups. And different people say different things are primary and secondary, and there is no such division in the Bible. That is just another way of dividing the church by doctrinal divisions. Ask yourself the sincere question if the Bible only shows one way of dividing the church, then why don't you accept that one way?
Do you believe that the historical Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, that He lived a sinless life and was crucified to pay for our sins, that on the third day the tomb was empty as He had been raised by God the Father, that on His departure from this earth He sent the Holy Spirit to minister to us until He returns? Do you believe that there is one God (essence) and He is of 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that these were not created but always existed? If you believe this and that the Bible is the word of God, preserved for us through the years, then we are united in Christianity. The other issues are secondary and shouldn't be allowed to become such distractions.
You are wrong, because you leave no possibility for someone to make this claim then teach other false teachings that are so aberrant, one can only conclude they are not saved. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit. Some will teach modalism from your words or tritheism. Others might teach calvinism and total depravity which is evil. Others might claim Jesus has returned already and there is a Holy Mother, even a Holy Mother said to have returned!? There are very strange things out there. Some teach amillennialism claiming the 1000 years is now even though Rev. 20.3 says it is not since the nations are still deceived. There are other representations of Christ having two wills or is not fully man, etc. This just scratches the surface of heresies. There are many loopholes in the Nicene and Apostles Creed. Perhaps you are a person who Judaizes Christianity, tries to keep the Sabbath and judges people falsely for not doing so. You might believe in popes and intermediary priesthood, transubstantiation and believe in deification, calling yourself God, part of eastern mysticism. Some who call themselves Christians actually believe in reincarnation. There is infant baptismal regeneration, denying women apostles, elders and teachers, paying for indulgences, adding books to the 66 books of the Bible, archbishops, praying to deceased saints and claiming only some Christians are saints. These things are not the way to salvation, but they certainly do indicate something is wrong in the person's heart: either the person is unsaved or they are carnal Christians.
Quite frankly, I think your group is reading too much into the biblical references of "the church of". I think you are inserting a theology when none was intended. The writers are just referring to the group they are speaking to or of in the most simple way available. It's not a theology but a simple product of how the gospel was spread by the early Christians in ancient times.
Frankly, the Bible says exactly what the church is, and because you don't like it, you assume I am in some group, which I am not, so you are sinning bearing false witness and yourself can't make the church agree with your definition of it. You can't find any verses in the Bible that agree with your view yet you still hold your view. That is just obstinate and brainwashed. You deny the clear words of Scripture that plainly state a church is a locality of believers. Why does this offend you? It's because you divide the church falsely and don't have light or a conscience to realize that is wrong even when the Bible says don't say "I of Cephas" or "I of Apollos." The Bible is not saying there is this church of one group or this church of another group, but it says "church of Ephesus" in the "churches of Asia Minor" or the "church in Antioch" in the "churches of Syria". This is very simple, but not so simple for denominations, non-denominations and congregationalists since they don't want the church to be described in that way, but their own selfish way. This is how the gospel was spread through the churches and remains this way today if properly done. This is the theology of the Bible. Who can deny the truth who has an honest heart? Picture it now. You have regional Apostles working regionally and appointing Elders of a locality who take care of it and the many meeting places in their locality. This is what God wants even in this last Laodecian (Rev. 3) church period of differing opinions, before first rapture takes place (Rev. 7.9).
I'd like to know what you are defining as "total depravity". It sounds like you are saying that Dr. Zacharias is calvinist, which would be incorrect. The theology of Dr. Zacharias is pretty much consistent with other notable Christians such as WLC, Norman Geisler, Erwin Lutzer, JP Moreland and Gary Habermas, just to name a few.
Sure they agree on many things, but these other scholars don't agree with Dr. Zacharias because they don't believe in total depravity. Total depravity is only defined one way which is the 1st point of calvinism; that is, none choose the cross because they are totally deprave, thus some god has to unilaterally pick some and not offer salvation to others. Of course this is wrong because Jesus died for all and pleads with all. Geisler makes the same mistake.
Even if he was a calvinist I don't think that would justify labeling him a false teacher. I'm not a calvinist but I do know of some that I consider great Christians.
A false teacher teaches falsely. Period. It is your prerogative to assume people are saved who might not be saved. I for one can't be so overassuming. Any person who teaches total depravity is suspect from the get go.
Posted by: forhisglory
« on: February 05, 2009, 11:06:35 AM »Thank you Parture,
I don't think anyone is disputing that the church, in the Christian/biblical sense, is the universal body of believers. In fact, I've said that many times at my own church meetings (did I say it correctly that time). I've made it clear in those meetings that the church is not a building, but rather it's the body of Christ.
Now, does that mean the word can NEVER be used in the sense that Bill used it and for which this whole discussion got started? I don't think so. Bill could just have easily of said, "Hawking attends a church meeting in Cambridge." But everyone in today's time, and since just after the early church was established, understands that "Hawking attends church in Cambridge" means the exact same thing. Is that the sense in which Christ spoke of the church, well no, not exactly. But the word we translate as church is used in Scripture to describe a group meeting, whether religious or not, and it is translated "assembly" (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Yes, it's a shame that people think "church" ONLY means a building these days, and yes we need to teach them correctly. However, for all this to have started over Bill's simple statement, that just seems a little misplaced. For to say someone attends church implies that they are attending a meeting or assembly. I've never once attended a building! I've gone to buildings, gone in them, gone out of them, gone around them, gone by them. But I've never once attended one. So I think Bill was perfectly in his rights, using the Bible as the standard, to use the word the way he did. Since you didn't seem to care for my Harper's quote, here's a link from Easten's Bible Dictionary about "church" that I found navigating from your own website:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/easton/ebd2.html?term=Church
I think Bill made a very good point in his last post that I had not really thought about. How exactly is a "non-denomination" considered a denomination and thus a false teaching by default, but your biblocality is not considered a denomination/sect/non-denomination/etc.? That seems to be quite contradictory. I actually feel a bit silly arguing about all of this with a fellow believer, but it just seems that other battles should be far more important than waging war over Bill's very simple statement. Thanks for the dialog.
The churches are the towns of believers, not regions. For example, there is the church of Edmonton, but not the church of Alberta. Where do they meet? Not in the air, but in homes. These are the church meetings that have no affiliation to a denomination, non-denomination or exalted congregation. All believers in a locality recognize they are the church of that city and they have an Elder or Elders ordained or appointed by the Apostles who work in the region of those churches. You don't go to church, but you can have a church meeting. The reason you don't go to church is because if you are saved, you are already the church. And if you are not saved, you can't go to that which you are not allowed in.
The MW Collegiate Dictionary is quite wrong. Satan's culture has simply created confusion and people accept it. Even Christians accept it by their flesh. So it is quite clear according to the Word of God a church is not a building. Since the church is not a building, you can't enter the church. There is a church meeting place which a non-believer can come to. At a church meeting place are all the believers who can invite some non-believers.
To reiterate with absolute clarity. You can't attend or go to church. By thinking you can go to church, you bring in denominations, cults, sects, non-denominations and congregationalism, thus propagating false teaching. But you can go to a church meeting. A church meeting is a place of meeting for the city of believers (the church). Praise the Lord for this discernment!
I don't think anyone is disputing that the church, in the Christian/biblical sense, is the universal body of believers. In fact, I've said that many times at my own church meetings (did I say it correctly that time). I've made it clear in those meetings that the church is not a building, but rather it's the body of Christ.
Now, does that mean the word can NEVER be used in the sense that Bill used it and for which this whole discussion got started? I don't think so. Bill could just have easily of said, "Hawking attends a church meeting in Cambridge." But everyone in today's time, and since just after the early church was established, understands that "Hawking attends church in Cambridge" means the exact same thing. Is that the sense in which Christ spoke of the church, well no, not exactly. But the word we translate as church is used in Scripture to describe a group meeting, whether religious or not, and it is translated "assembly" (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Yes, it's a shame that people think "church" ONLY means a building these days, and yes we need to teach them correctly. However, for all this to have started over Bill's simple statement, that just seems a little misplaced. For to say someone attends church implies that they are attending a meeting or assembly. I've never once attended a building! I've gone to buildings, gone in them, gone out of them, gone around them, gone by them. But I've never once attended one. So I think Bill was perfectly in his rights, using the Bible as the standard, to use the word the way he did. Since you didn't seem to care for my Harper's quote, here's a link from Easten's Bible Dictionary about "church" that I found navigating from your own website:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/easton/ebd2.html?term=Church
By thinking you can go to church, you bring in denominations, cults, sects, non-denominations and congregationalism, thus propagating false teaching.
I think Bill made a very good point in his last post that I had not really thought about. How exactly is a "non-denomination" considered a denomination and thus a false teaching by default, but your biblocality is not considered a denomination/sect/non-denomination/etc.? That seems to be quite contradictory. I actually feel a bit silly arguing about all of this with a fellow believer, but it just seems that other battles should be far more important than waging war over Bill's very simple statement. Thanks for the dialog.
Posted by: Bill Clute
« on: February 05, 2009, 08:52:29 AM »Parture-
So who's to say that what you believe is right and all these others are wrong? Only God could judge that fully. The Baptist have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. The Methodist have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. The Lutherans have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. Your denomination claims that Jesus is the head of the Church and I assume that you would also claim that the Bible is the main authority. I'm sure you would object to me calling your group of believers a denomination but that is just what it is...simply a group of people that are united in their beliefs and practices. These denominations I have listed, as well as some others, believe they are worshipping in the proper manner as instructed in the Bible. We also recognize that there are primary beliefs and secondary issues. The primary beliefs can be summarized by the Apostle's Creed. I'm sure you are familiar with it so I won't list it.
Do you believe that the historical Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, that He lived a sinless life and was crucified to pay for our sins, that on the third day the tomb was empty as He had been raised by God the Father, that on His departure from this earth He sent the Holy Spirit to minister to us until He returns? Do you believe that there is one God (essence) and He is of 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that these were not created but always existed? If you believe this and that the Bible is the word of God, preserved for us through the years, then we are united in Christianity. The other issues are secondary and shouldn't be allowed to become such distractions.
Quite frankly, I think your group is reading too much into the biblical references of "the church of". I think you are inserting a theology when none was intended. The writers are just referring to the group they are speaking to or of in the most simple way available. It's not a theology but a simple product of how the gospel was spread by the early Christians in ancient times.
I'd like to know what you are defining as "total depravity". It sounds like you are saying that Dr. Zacharias is calvinist, which would be incorrect. The theology of Dr. Zacharias is pretty much consistent with other notable Christians such as WLC, Norman Geisler, Erwin Lutzer, JP Moreland and Gary Habermas, just to name a few.
Even if he was a calvinist I don't think that would justify labeling him a false teacher. I'm not a calvinist but I do know of some that I consider great Christians.
Of course you don't see all that you said here as unbiblical, because you have been brainwashed and don't trust in God's Word. God said don't divide the body of Christ by denominations. So this is your sin you are unwilling to repent from and shall reap the consequences. There is no ordination in the Bible to a denomination. These are man's vain attempts.
So who's to say that what you believe is right and all these others are wrong? Only God could judge that fully. The Baptist have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. The Methodist have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. The Lutherans have Jesus as the head of the Church and the Bible as the main authority. Your denomination claims that Jesus is the head of the Church and I assume that you would also claim that the Bible is the main authority. I'm sure you would object to me calling your group of believers a denomination but that is just what it is...simply a group of people that are united in their beliefs and practices. These denominations I have listed, as well as some others, believe they are worshipping in the proper manner as instructed in the Bible. We also recognize that there are primary beliefs and secondary issues. The primary beliefs can be summarized by the Apostle's Creed. I'm sure you are familiar with it so I won't list it.
Do you believe that the historical Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, that He lived a sinless life and was crucified to pay for our sins, that on the third day the tomb was empty as He had been raised by God the Father, that on His departure from this earth He sent the Holy Spirit to minister to us until He returns? Do you believe that there is one God (essence) and He is of 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that these were not created but always existed? If you believe this and that the Bible is the word of God, preserved for us through the years, then we are united in Christianity. The other issues are secondary and shouldn't be allowed to become such distractions.
Quite frankly, I think your group is reading too much into the biblical references of "the church of
Zacharias is a false teacher, for he teaches total depravity, but there is no total depravity in the Bible. Man is fallen, certainly, thus depraved, but not totally depraved otherwise, God would have to select some arbitrarily and not provide others the opportunity for salvation.
I'd like to know what you are defining as "total depravity". It sounds like you are saying that Dr. Zacharias is calvinist, which would be incorrect. The theology of Dr. Zacharias is pretty much consistent with other notable Christians such as WLC, Norman Geisler, Erwin Lutzer, JP Moreland and Gary Habermas, just to name a few.
Even if he was a calvinist I don't think that would justify labeling him a false teacher. I'm not a calvinist but I do know of some that I consider great Christians.
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 04, 2009, 11:21:37 PM »Until a Christian can say the universal church is comprised of the churches-localities of believers-rather than this or that group by denomination, non-denomination or congregation, then the problem persists in that person's heart. And though God does not judge a person for that which he does not know, now that you know the truth about this, if you don't abide in it, there is judgment. This addresses all Christians.
But as to the workers, there are many false teachers who don't abide in this, don't know any better or simply can't see the truth. Whereas the true Apostle knows his regional work to appoint Elders of a locality and the true Elder of a locality knows his work to approves Elders of meeting places. This is called Biblocality.
But as to the workers, there are many false teachers who don't abide in this, don't know any better or simply can't see the truth. Whereas the true Apostle knows his regional work to appoint Elders of a locality and the true Elder of a locality knows his work to approves Elders of meeting places. This is called Biblocality.
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 04, 2009, 10:59:30 PM »Craig wrote: Woah! im confused..I thought Parture was arguing against "church" being something to attend or an event or building...
I totally agree with FHG on the definition of church in the NT.
You can agree with FHG, but you would be wrong. The proof was given, church is not something you attend which you could find no fault with, so why keep teaching falsely? You can go to a church meeting, but the meeting itself is not the church. It is the place, rather, where some members of the church can meet. The church is a locality of believers only! Once you realize this you no longer give into the deception that is perpetrated all these centuries.
It is the subtely of the change of usage that has given all these denoms ground to operation, as well as non-denoms and congregationizing. The reason why the locality is the proper usage is because if there is a problem it is contained and does not spread like a wildfire across a denomination, nor can it turn into a cult by Jim Jone's with too small a size.
Think of it this way. People keep voting in the same old politicians from the same old parties, getting the same old problems. But if people stopped doing that and did not vote at all, this would providing opportunity for real change. In the same way, if you stop going to these buildings of these places of dividing, you will provide opportunity for Scriptural locality to take place.
I think Parture is stressing the importance of Christ's church and Christ's bride. All believers are apart of Christ's church and body. The Body of Christ is the Church and everyone in the Body makes up the Church...not all the churches make up the body (some people in church are not saved and some churches are not really Christian churches) Church is just a term for the gathering of individuals who share the same faith. It is not a building or an event. But once we are born again, we are grafted into the "Church" that Christ calls his. We are his sheep and he is the Shepherd. Something like that perhaps..otherwise im confused like a dog when they twist their head!
I am not stressing the universal Church, which the Bible does of course make clear, but the locality of the church. All the churches make up the body because all the believers in a city are the church. There is not one person in the church that is an unbeliever. Satan's church has unbelievers it. Let that be the sign it is not the church. If church is just a term for the gathering of individuals who share the same faith then why is it that in your church there are people who don't share your same faith? Sounds like a contradiction. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.
. Understand why it is easy to be confused, because if the wool has been put over peoples' eyes to make them think the status quo is the way, then you have no reference to think otherwise if you don't read the Bible correctly.
Correctly read, the Bible says the church is not a meeting place but the church can meet at meeting place. The church is a locality of believers, the body of Christ at that locality. The universal Church is all believers. The local church is a locality of believers. Do draw the distinction between the meeting place which is not the church and the church which can have many meeting places.There is no such thing as house churches, but rather it is the locality of believers (church) meeting at a house or wherever.
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 04, 2009, 10:49:35 PM »forhisglory wrote: According to Harper's Bible Dictionary, "In the nt, ‘church’ always denotes a group of people, either all the Christians in a city (Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) or those gathered for worship in a particular house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19) or all Christians in all the churches, the whole church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22). It never signifies a building or a ‘denomination.’"
"They had ordained them elders in every church" (Acts 14.23). A church is all the Christians in a city: "church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1.2); "church of God which is at Corinth" (2 Cor. 1.1). The church comprises all believers in a city and no non-believers in that city. The church must start some place, so naturally it begins with the church at a particular home for the church of that city, but after that it takes on the air of that city only and never goes back to becoming just the church of that home. So God's way is the universal church of all localities of believers. There are no denominations, no non-denominations and no congregationalism. To overlook this is to create problems and not place the locality of believers as the key description of the unit for the church. When the locality is not the unit, what have you but competing groups. Once Christians learn this, to return to this first love, then Christ will return, but not before.
Now, I agree, that I'm sure God is not pleased with the number of denominations and the divisions it can cause. But Paul is clear that there are essential doctrines of Christianity and there are disputable matters. I don't think the use of the word "church" in the one sentence Bill used is an essential doctrine worth causing division over. Eph. 5:23 says, "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." Also, Eph. 5:29 says, "After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church..." Also, Col. 1:24 says, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." Now, according to 1 Cor. 12:27-28, the church is the full body of believers (or the "community of believers" if you will), for it says, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed..."
It depends on how you define essential. If essential means saved or not saved, I think there can be some people saved in some denominations but they will lose their reward of reigning with Christ during the 1000 years. The mistake you are making is to call the church a community of believers which is too narrow a view. the church is well defined in Scripture not as a community segment of a city, but the whole city of believers. You even yourself admitted this, but they changed it without warrant to a community only. I live in a city with several communities which most people do. Therefore, you have contradicted yourself. Is this matter disputable? No it is not, because the Bible is quite clear on the matter. Since you can't justify your position, you ought to reject it and let it be put to nought.
As usual, the word "church" has multiple meanings as my Harper's quote noted. I would also point out that church can refer to those gathered in worship in a particular place. Rom. 16:5 says, "Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia." 1 Cor. 16:19 says, send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla[a] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house." This is the commonly used definition that Bill was referring to originally. In fact, the #1 definition in the MW Collegiate Dictionary is, "a building for public and esp. Christian worship." We understand that that is not the way the word is used in the Bible, however, in our English language and culture, it is a word that has significant meaning, and context is everything. Yes, theologically, no one can "join" the church, as in the body of believers. But, someone can certainly attend a church, whether that is meeting in a home or a building up the street, or in Cambridge.
We are not so concerned with Harper's but what the Bible says which is the universal Church comprised of church locality of believers. The only reason church of a home is mentioned is because that is the beginning which grows into the church of that town. This is very specific and attempts to make it vague by saying there are several different uses of church actually is an attempt to misrepresent the organizing of the church. "The churches in the province of Asia" (1 Cor. 16.9). Each of these churches are cities or towns or rural areas of believers, not congregations, denominations or non-denominations.
Romans 16.5 reads, "Please give my greetings to the church that meets in their home. Greet my dear friend Epenetus. He was the very first person to become a Christian in the province of Asia."
Notice the clear language. The church is that particular city of believers that is happening to meet at their home. They are the firstfruits of believers at Achaia, so naturally they are first mentioned at this home.
"The churches here in the province of Asia greet you heartily in the Lord, along with Aquila and Priscilla and all the others who gather in their home for church meetings" (1 Cor. 16.19).
The churches are the towns of believers, not regions. For example, there is the church of Edmonton, but not the church of Alberta. Where do they meet? Not in the air, but in homes. These are the church meetings that have no affiliation to a denomination, non-denomination or exalted congregation. All believers in a locality recognize they are the church of that city and they have an Elder or Elders ordained or appointed by the Apostles who work in the region of those churches. You don't go to church, but you can have a church meeting. The reason you don't go to church is because if you are saved, you are already the church. And if you are not saved, you can't go to that which you are not allowed in.
The MW Collegiate Dictionary is quite wrong. Satan's culture has simply created confusion and people accept it. Even Christians accept it by their flesh. So it is quite clear according to the Word of God a church is not a building. Since the church is not a building, you can't enter the church. There is a church meeting place which a non-believer can come to. At a church meeting place are all the believers who can invite some non-believers.
To reiterate with absolute clarity. You can't attend or go to church. By thinking you can go to church, you bring in denominations, cults, sects, non-denominations and congregationalism, thus propagating false teaching. But you can go to a church meeting. A church meeting is a place of meeting for the city of believers (the church). Praise the Lord for this discernment!
Again, the main point is that this is not an issue that should cause division, as the definition of "church" is not essential to salvation in this context, IMHO. Thanks!
It does cause division otherwise there would not be denominations that teach falsely and lead people into never being saved. The very reason people join or prefer one "church" (today's unbiblical terminology) over another quite often is because they are unsaved. For example there may be a denomination that teaches non-OSAS or amillennialism. The person prefers this teaching of salvation by works in non-OSAS and non-accountability, that is no millennial kingdom. These things are more a sign of unsalvation than anything, though some people could be saved if they truly believe, but are carnal believers. They are symptoms. They are not the way to be saved, but they certainly are a sig
n there something wrong in that person's heart and possibly a sign of unsalvation.
Posted by: Craig
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:44:21 PM »Woah! im confused..I thought Parture was arguing against "church" being something to attend or an event or building...
I totally agree with FHG on the definition of church in the NT.
I think Parture is stressing the importance of Christ's church and Christ's bride. All believers are apart of Christ's church and body. The Body of Christ is the Church and everyone in the Body makes up the Church...not all the churches make up the body (some people in church are not saved and some churches are not really Christian churches) Church is just a term for the gathering of individuals who share the same faith. It is not a building or an event. But once we are born again, we are grafted into the "Church" that Christ calls his. We are his sheep and he is the Shepherd. Something like that perhaps..otherwise im confused like a dog when they twist their head!
I totally agree with FHG on the definition of church in the NT.
I think Parture is stressing the importance of Christ's church and Christ's bride. All believers are apart of Christ's church and body. The Body of Christ is the Church and everyone in the Body makes up the Church...not all the churches make up the body (some people in church are not saved and some churches are not really Christian churches) Church is just a term for the gathering of individuals who share the same faith. It is not a building or an event. But once we are born again, we are grafted into the "Church" that Christ calls his. We are his sheep and he is the Shepherd. Something like that perhaps..otherwise im confused like a dog when they twist their head!
Posted by: forhisglory
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:19:12 PM »Hello Parture, and welcome. In reference to a comment about the "church" referring to the community of believers, you said:
According to Harper's Bible Dictionary, "In the nt, ‘church’ always denotes a group of people, either all the Christians in a city (Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) or those gathered for worship in a particular house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19) or all Christians in all the churches, the whole church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22). It never signifies a building or a ‘denomination.’"
Now, I agree, that I'm sure God is not pleased with the number of denominations and the divisions it can cause. But Paul is clear that there are essential doctrines of Christianity and there are disputable matters. I don't think the use of the word "church" in the one sentence Bill used is an essential doctrine worth causing division over. Eph. 5:23 says, "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." Also, Eph. 5:29 says, "After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church..." Also, Col. 1:24 says, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." Now, according to 1 Cor. 12:27-28, the church is the full body of believers (or the "community of believers" if you will), for it says, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed..."
As usual, the word "church" has multiple meanings as my Harper's quote noted. I would also point out that church can refer to those gathered in worship in a particular place. Rom. 16:5 says, "Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia." 1 Cor. 16:19 says, "The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla[a] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house." This is the commonly used definition that Bill was referring to originally. In fact, the #1 definition in the MW Collegiate Dictionary is, "a building for public and esp. Christian worship." We understand that that is not the way the word is used in the Bible, however, in our English language and culture, it is a word that has significant meaning, and context is everything. Yes, theologically, no one can "join" the church, as in the body of believers. But, someone can certainly attend a church, whether that is meeting in a home or a building up the street, or in Cambridge.
Again, the main point is that this is not an issue that should cause division, as the definition of "church" is not essential to salvation in this context, IMHO. Thanks!
Actually, there is no such usage in the Bible as you put it. Church is only described as a locality of believers. Period. I encourage you to search out every use of the term "church" in the Bible to see that it is so. Man's inventions to change the term subsequently don't count. Satan uses this to twist and malign to produce denominations by describing church as something to attend rather than already be in. May the Lord shed light on your heart to see this.
According to Harper's Bible Dictionary, "In the nt, ‘church’ always denotes a group of people, either all the Christians in a city (Acts 14:23; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) or those gathered for worship in a particular house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19) or all Christians in all the churches, the whole church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22). It never signifies a building or a ‘denomination.’"
Now, I agree, that I'm sure God is not pleased with the number of denominations and the divisions it can cause. But Paul is clear that there are essential doctrines of Christianity and there are disputable matters. I don't think the use of the word "church" in the one sentence Bill used is an essential doctrine worth causing division over. Eph. 5:23 says, "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." Also, Eph. 5:29 says, "After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church..." Also, Col. 1:24 says, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." Now, according to 1 Cor. 12:27-28, the church is the full body of believers (or the "community of believers" if you will), for it says, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed..."
As usual, the word "church" has multiple meanings as my Harper's quote noted. I would also point out that church can refer to those gathered in worship in a particular place. Rom. 16:5 says, "Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia." 1 Cor. 16:19 says, "The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla[a] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house." This is the commonly used definition that Bill was referring to originally. In fact, the #1 definition in the MW Collegiate Dictionary is, "a building for public and esp. Christian worship." We understand that that is not the way the word is used in the Bible, however, in our English language and culture, it is a word that has significant meaning, and context is everything. Yes, theologically, no one can "join" the church, as in the body of believers. But, someone can certainly attend a church, whether that is meeting in a home or a building up the street, or in Cambridge.
Again, the main point is that this is not an issue that should cause division, as the definition of "church" is not essential to salvation in this context, IMHO. Thanks!
Posted by: Troy Brooks
« on: February 04, 2009, 03:38:28 PM »billclute wrote: I understand what you are saying about "church" - it is the community of believers. But another common usage is also referring to the meeting place of these believers. It is not improper to say that someone attended a church. It is a different usage of the same word but not improper.
Actually, there is no such usage in the Bible as you put it. Church is only described as a locality of believers. Period. I encourage you to search out every use of the term "church" in the Bible to see that it is so. Man's inventions to change the term subsequently don't count. Satan uses this to twist and malign to produce denominations by describing church as something to attend rather than already be in. May the Lord shed light on your heart to see this.
Also, regarding division, or denominations, etc. I don't agree that it is unbiblical. Of course, each denomination believes it has it right but as Dr. Zacharias points out, unity does not require uniformity. We (the Christian Church) are united in our belief and committment to the risen Jesus Christ, our saviour. That is what is important. I attend a Methodist church. WLC attends a Baptist church. Dr. Zacharias is ordained in the Christian and Missionary Alliance church. We have some differences in how we worship but we are united in our worship of the one true God, the risen saviour, Jesus Christ.
Of course you don't see all that you said here as unbiblical, because you have been brainwashed and don't trust in God's Word. God said don't divide the body of Christ by denominations. So this is your sin you are unwilling to repent from and shall reap the consequences. There is no ordination in the Bible to a denomination. These are man's vain attempts. I wouldn't assume so many people are born-again as you do. Zacharias is a false teacher, for he teaches total depravity, but there is no total depravity in the Bible. Man is fallen, certainly, thus depraved, but not totally depraved otherwise, God would have to select some arbitrarily and not provide others the opportunity for salvation. That would be plain evil and contradictory because God does in fact plead with all and die for all so whosoever is willing may receive Him. The unity of the Church is its universal nature. That is not the aspect I am referring to, but the locality which precludes any denominationalism, non-denominationalism or congregationalism.
Obviously, you are ignoring the quote that I provided earlier that was, in fact, included in the link that you provided. I'll provide it again for your convenience: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?". This quote is from the end of chapter 8 of "A Brief History of Time" - after the quote that you claim is evidence that Hawking believes in God.
I am not ignoring it at all, but said it is a hypothetical, whereas Hawkings is not stating a hypothetical when he said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)
Let's be clear, I do not believe Hawkings believes in God, for if he did, he would accept Christ. What then does Hawkings believe? He believes in his own representation of an uncreated Creator, but rejects God's plan for salvation in Christ.
QuoteHawkings said he does not believe such hypotheticals.
Really? Can you provide a reference to back up that statement? I really find it difficult to believe that the man would spend the past 20 years researching and developing these hypotheticals if he already presupposes that they are false. It would make his work very unconvincing.
I could only find the quote he believed there is an uncreated Creator. I can't find any sentences of him saying he believed otherwise. Nor have you been able to do so. He is not presupposing, but comes to the conclusion there is an uncreated Creator. Why does this offend you from his plainly stated words?