FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


sidetrack-split from main topic





redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
Christians (some sects) have no problem with this. If you are Catholic, for example, you can sin your little head off for as long as you like. As long as you perform a sincere act of contrition on your deathbed then all is forgiven and you get a pass through the gates....
There again, some sects believe you die without actually knowing which direction you are heading and, in any case, you couldn't have done anything about it because, damned or saved, it has nothing to do with how you lived, what you did, or even which God you grovelled to. It was all decided before you were born - before the Earth was created in fact on criteria that are unknown to everyone but God and which, in any case, are not related to what you did whilst alive. (That would be the Calvinists)
Then some take a midway position - you can damn yourself once saved, but not earn salvation in the first place since you are a worthless pile of human garbage (the Arminian sects).

Morality? What a larf that is Smile Even Christians can't explain Christian 'morality' without either revealing that 've vere only following orders, mein Grupenfuhrer.' - like William Lane Craig and his excuses for genocide - or getting into all sorts of tangles and contradictions about whether God is really moral or not.


don't be too distracted with calvin and arminius. The more I read the threads here the more I see how constricted the residents here with calvin and arminian. and catholic illiteracy as well. perhaps it's due to how the moderators discriminate "faith" posts?

like Descartes, start again from scratch. calvin, arminian, catholic are not "official" teachings of christendom, like philosophy, there is no "perfect" theology.

There are a lot more to discover if you just open your Bible and venture in church history.
Bikerman
LOL...I've forgotten more about Church history than you will ever know & I probably know the bible better than you aas well. Your comments about Catholicism are sim[ply ignorant bigotry and your assertion that Calvinism and Arminians, are nor oddicial teachings of the Christendom displays your usual problem with words and meanings.
Christendom is the total collection of Christians and since they belong to a huge number of different curches and sects then oif ciyrse there IS NO OFFICIAL teaching of Christendom and the notion is incoiherent. There are, however, many hundreds of official teachings WITHIN Christendom, depenfing on which sect you beling to. The notion you seem to have od Christians doing it for themselves by using the bible is not one that has any reality, outside a few evangelical Jesus bunnies who, a bit like Tom and Barbara, have dropped out and are living the religious version of hippydom.
Your comments on Christianity are ignorant bigotry, and your comments on Calvinism/Arminianism are exactly 100% wrong, since that is exactly what they are - official teaching of various Christian churches/sects. Pretty much ALL Protestant denominations follow either the Armenian or Calvinist doctrine with regard to salvation- either conditional or unconditional election.
Now, you may have your own theology which you have workef-up for yourself a DIY version of Christianity - Christianity Lite maybe?
The huge majority of Christians, however, take their doctrine from their Church and don'r invent their own from scratch. That includes Catholic dogma for the Catholics and Calvinist/Arminian dogma for the Protestants. The rest have their own versions of what is 'correct' and what is not. These are simply the facts and if you want to comment sensibly on the issue then you need to know these basic realities......
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...I've forgotten more about Church history than you will ever know & I probably know the bible better than you aas well. Your comments about Catholicism are sim[ply ignorant bigotry and your assertion that Calvinism and Arminians, are nor oddicial teachings of the Christendom displays your usual problem with words and meanings.
Christendom is the total collection of Christians


exactly.
"Christendom is the total collection of Christians"
that is why calvin and arminus are not official teachings of christendom since they are rather official teachings of their respective sects. also the reason why I said that posters here are somehow constricted to these teachings when there are multitudes of valid teachings within christendom.

I believe I never expressed any bigoted words concerning catholicism in this thread AFAIK, what have you been smoking?

Quote:

and since they belong to a huge number of different curches and sects then oif ciyrse there IS NO OFFICIAL teaching of Christendom. There are, however, many hundreds of official teachings WITHIN Christendom, depenfing on which sect you beling to.


you don't have to lecture me about christendom and the many sects formed based on their corresponding teachings, if I did misused the term, then you should do so, but since I can't find any misusage, except for your fantasy that I am not knowledgable of the term, I recommend you lose the notion as you are making yourself look rather weak.

Quote:

The notion you seem to have od Christians doing it for themselves by using the bible is not one that has any reality, outside a few evangelical Jesus bunnies who, a bit like Tom and Barbara, have dropped out and are living the religious version of hippydom.


I said you open your bible and even go through church history, that's not what I would call doing it yourself.

I don't know who your friends Tom and Barbara are.

Quote:

Your comments on Christianity are ignorant bigotry, and your comments on Calvinism/Arminianism are exactly 100% wrong, since that is exactly what they are - official teaching of various Christian churches/sects.


excuse me, I never said any bigotry towards christianity, all I said was that posters here, including you, are constricted with your chosen doctrines namely calvin and arminian.

Quote:

Pretty much ALL Protestant denominations follow either the Armenian or Calvinist doctrine with regard to salvation- either conditional or unconditional election.


and protestantism is just one of the major groups of christianity. which brings us to the question whether you are addressing my post correctly, as I have clearly mentioned and identified christianity as a whole.

Quote:

Now, you may have your own theology which you have workef-up for yourself a DIY version of Christianity - Christianity Lite maybe?
The huge majority of Christians, however, take their doctrine from their Church and don'r invent their own from scratch. That includes Catholic dogma for the Catholics and Calvinist/Arminian dogma for the Protestants. The rest have their own versions of what is 'correct' and what is not. These are simply the facts and if you want to comment sensibly on the issue then you need to know these basic realities......


starting from scratch doesn't mean you will arrive at a new set of product completely different from what you had. The reason to start from scratch may be to rediscover what you had, but on a deeper and more effective way. My concern is that some people, to be precise, you, may have already overused your chosen doctrine to believe for christianity when there are a lot other official teaching which are not completely invalid. But I would really recommend to refer to the source, which is the Bible, and early church history.
Bikerman
Bigotry.? Sure
Quote:
constricted the residents here with calvin and arminian. and catholic illiteracy as well.
Sounds like it to me...
Quote:
ere are somehow constricted to these teachings when there are multitudes of valid teachings within Christendom.
Wow, I look forward to hearing about it from you
Quote:
I said you open your bible and even go through church history, that's not what I would call doing yourself.
That's because you have problems with some simple concepts. If you derive a dogma, or even a theology, by opening the bible and studying it, then you have, by definition, done it yourself, and not simply accepted a third-party theology and/or dogma imposed on you.
Almost NO Christians actually do this, of course, - too much like hard work.
Quote:
My concern is that some people, to be precise, you, may have already overused your chosen doctrine to believe for Christianity when there are a lot other official teaching which are not completely invalid. But I would really recommend to refer to the source, which is the Bible, and early church history.
How do you 'overuse' a dogma? If too many people accept the notion of the Trinity does that mean it will somehow wear out, or stop working? Perhaps it will degrade into a duality with the Holy Spirit put on a temporary contract? You do write some amazing nonsense. *
In my opinion, the plain and simple fact is that you know didly squat about most of this stuff and little more about other important related issues like good use of English, intellectual honesty and critical self analysis.
To talk of Christendom as if that were a coherent body of people is a nonsense - Christians are so diverse and contradictory in their beliefs that they often hate each other more than the other religions. That us why I gave three specific examples for the 3 largest beliefs on one issue for Christians, the issue being a very important one - how to get saved - and the answers being very different, requiring totally different outlooks, behaviours and understandings of God. My point was relevant, and serious, and it was accurately and coherently made.
I still don't know what your point is.

Here is a simper test - Give me a definition of WHAT a Christian is Can you do that for me? Is it someone who has been baptised? Or someone who says they follow Jesus? O is surely no problem for a man of your abilities and broad intellect? Just a simple definition of what makes a Christian and, therefore, who ISN'T one, even though they claim they ARE, You seem happy to declare who are and are not Christians, so back that up by telling me what you need to do or believe to be a real Christian...I await in anticipation (and, I predict, in vain).

* I will say, however, that if English is not your first language then my comments about poor use of English are, of course, withdrawn and should be ignored with my apology. If English is a second or third language for you then I have no desire, and no real authority to criticise it, since I speak almost no other langues outside schoolboy Franchisor.
nickfyoung
Bikerman
Quote:
It was all decided before you were born - before the Earth was created in fact on criteria that are unknown to everyone but God and which, in any case, are not related to what you did whilst alive. (That would be the Calvinists)


You got that partially right, although on another read it sounds pretty good. Well done. Exactly how it should be, God in charge and the boss and in control of everything including his creation. He couldn't really be called God now could he if didn't have full control.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
Bigotry.? Sure
Quote:
constricted the residents here with calvin and arminian. and catholic illiteracy as well.
Sounds like it to me...


I think I may have been unclear, what I mean by "catholic illiteracy" is being unaware of catholicism, not illiterate catholic residents. just like "computer literacy", which measures people's knowledge with computers.

Quote:
Quote:
ere are somehow constricted to these teachings when there are multitudes of valid teachings within Christendom.
Wow, I look forward to hearing about it from you


sure.

Quote:

Quote:
I said you open your bible and even go through church history, that's not what I would call doing yourself.
That's because you have problems with some simple concepts. If you derive a dogma, or even a theology, by opening the bible and studying it, then you have, by definition, done it yourself, and not simply accepted a third-party theology and/or dogma imposed on you.
Almost NO Christians actually do this, of course, - too much like hard work.


church history involves known (or lost) theologies, it's what we call in the Bible "teachings of the apostles"
we can't just pull a new doctrine out of the Bible without referring to the apostles.

Quote:

Quote:
My concern is that some people, to be precise, you, may have already overused your chosen doctrine to believe for Christianity when there are a lot other official teaching which are not completely invalid. But I would really recommend to refer to the source, which is the Bible, and early church history.
How do you 'overuse' a dogma?


if you love to use it, again and again. just like a closed minded calvinist who is unaware of other theologies.
honestly, I find you more religious than most calvinists I know.

Quote:

If too many people accept the notion of the Trinity does that mean it will somehow wear out, or stop working? Perhaps it will degrade into a duality with the Holy Spirit put on a temporary contract? You do write some amazing nonsense. *


no

Quote:

To talk of Christendom as if that were a coherent body of people is a nonsense - Christians are so diverse and contradictory in their beliefs that they often hate each other more than the other religions.


The very reason why the term christendom is made because there is a body of people who has the same belief. What you are suggesting is like disqualifying the term "human" because we have diverse type humans.

Quote:

That us why I gave three specific examples for the 3 largest beliefs on one issue for Christians, the issue being a very important one - how to get saved - and the answers being very different, requiring totally different outlooks, behaviours and understandings of God. My point was relevant, and serious, and it was accurately and coherently made.
I still don't know what your point is.


my point is you are missing the smaller (christian) beliefs which are equally valid to their larger counterparts, just because their the largest doesn't mean we should treat it as the right one, the only basis that we can be safe of is the Bible, the pure Word of God.

calvin had a very good and important revelation, but his followers went too far.
arminian belief, they also went too far and have misused God's chastisement of His children in the epistle to the Hebrews

it's like modalist and trinitarian beliefs.
modalist like the oneness pentecostals are right when they said that God is only one person
yet we cannot say that the trinitarian belief of 3 persons is false.

both are right and both are inadequate. even the most mature and well known doctrine of the trinity is inadequate, because they missed the inseperability of the 3 persons even in their personhood.

Quote:

Here is a simper test - Give me a definition of WHAT a Christian is Can you do that for me? Is it someone who has been baptised? Or someone who says they follow Jesus? O is surely no problem for a man of your abilities and broad intellect? Just a simple definition of what makes a Christian and, therefore, who ISN'T one, even though they claim they ARE, You seem happy to declare who are and are not Christians, so back that up by telling me what you need to do or believe to be a real Christian...I await in anticipation (and, I predict, in vain).


I don't really try to think too much outside what the Bible says, we don't really need a huge brain to know what a christian is, all we need is a submissive heart, and good comprehension skills with knowledge in hermeneutics.

What does the bible tells us about a christian? a christian is someone who has Christ in him. in Greek, christian is Christ-man, "ian" denotes a man, it's not merely a follower of Christ, but someone who belongs to Christ and is mingled with Christ.

Quote:
* I will say, however, that if English is not your first language then my comments about poor use of English are, of course, withdrawn and should be ignored with my apology. If English is a second or third language for you then I have no desire, and no real authority to criticise it, since I speak almost no other langues outside schoolboy Franchisor.


please do criticize, but with basis and clear explanation.
Bikerman
redhakaw wrote:
I think I may have been unclear, what I mean by "catholic illiteracy" is being unaware of catholicism, not illiterate catholic residents. just like "computer literacy", which measures people's knowledge with computers.
In that case you are not simply wrong, you are also dishonest. I know more about catholicism that you will EVER know.
Quote:
church history involves known (or lost) theologies, it's what we call in the Bible "teachings of the apostles"
we can't just pull a new doctrine out of the Bible without referring to the apostles.
Your reveal your ignorance yet again.Lost theologies and teachings are the APOCRYPHA. What you are incorrectly trying to describe is the 'apostolic tradition'. As I said, you are embarrassingly ignorant about things you claim to know.
You may be able to con the Jesus-bunnies who don't seem capable of critical thought, but when you post your nonsense here you are quickly revealed as an ignorant con-merchant who knows almost nothing and should not be taken seriously.*

* Now, of course, one can say that this assertion should be evidenced, but there is ample evidence in previous threads, and I have better things to do than simply reiterate. If anyone seriously doubts that this poster is ignorant and dishonest, and doesn't find satisfactory evidence in this forum, then feel free to pm me and I will provide links. I do not intend to allow this poster to distract threads with this continual bull.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
redhakaw wrote:
I think I may have been unclear, what I mean by "catholic illiteracy" is being unaware of catholicism, not illiterate catholic residents. just like "computer literacy", which measures people's knowledge with computers.
In that case you are not simply wrong, you are also dishonest. I know more about catholicism that you will EVER know.


good for you,
but we'll see...
Quote:

Quote:
church history involves known (or lost) theologies, it's what we call in the Bible "teachings of the apostles"
we can't just pull a new doctrine out of the Bible without referring to the apostles.
Your reveal your ignorance yet again.Lost theologies and teachings are the APOCRYPHA. What you are incorrectly trying to describe is the 'apostolic tradition'. As I said, you are embarrassingly ignorant about things you claim to know.


church history denotes only the NT, apocrypha are lost sources from OT or between OT and NT.

apostolic "tradition" are the KNOWN and accepted teachings of the apostles.
what I refer to LOST teachings are those available during the early churches and the patristic writings, lost not because it was considered heretic, but buried just for the convenience of the clergy. These includes practices and beliefs that are not commonly known or practiced by your average christian
example: Theosis

Quote:

* Now, of course, one can say that this assertion should be evidenced, but there is ample evidence in previous threads, and I have better things to do than simply reiterate. If anyone seriously doubts that this poster is ignorant and dishonest, and doesn't find satisfactory evidence in this forum, then feel free to pm me and I will provide links. I do not intend to allow this poster to distract threads with this continual bull.


you assert publicly, you should give your evidence publicly
otherwise it's unfair.

I'm just trying to follow the rules in this forum.
Bikerman
redhakaw wrote:
church history denotes only the NT, apocrypha are lost sources from OT or between OT and NT.
WRONG.
Quote:
The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments or as an appendix after the New Testament.

source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
Quote:
apostolic "tradition" are the KNOWN and accepted teachings of the apostles.
what I refer to LOST teachings are those available during the early churches and the patristic writings, lost not because it was considered heretic, but buried just for the convenience of the clergy. These includes practices and beliefs that are not commonly known or practiced by your average christian example: Theosis
Bull. You said'it's what we call in the Bible "teachings of the apostles". Lost teachings are not, by definition, in the bible. If you had meant 'lost teachings" then presumably you would have said so. This is just your usual attempt to con your way out of being revealed as an ignoramus.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
redhakaw wrote:
church history denotes only the NT, apocrypha are lost sources from OT or between OT and NT.
WRONG.
Quote:
The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments or as an appendix after the New Testament.

source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
apostolic "tradition" are the KNOWN and accepted teachings of the apostles.


yes the apocryphas are usually inserted between the OT and NT and in some versions like the ESV, in the appendix of the NT.

so you mean to say that the timeline of the DCs was AFTER the timeline of John when he wrote the Revelations if the Bible version has the apocrypha insterted after the NT? and then it is BEFORE Christ's birth if it were insterted in the middle?

Quote:
Quote:

what I refer to LOST teachings are those available during the early churches and the patristic writings, lost not because it was considered heretic, but buried just for the convenience of the clergy. These includes practices and beliefs that are not commonly known or practiced by your average christian example: Theosis
Bull. You said'it's what we call in the Bible "teachings of the apostles". Lost teachings are not, by definition, in the bible. If you had meant 'lost teachings" then presumably you would have said so. This is just your usual attempt to con your way out of being revealed as an ignoramus.


Lost teachings are teachings DERIVED from the bible which the church decided to give less emphasis, and which resulted to your common christian not knowing about them.
what you are trying to describe are the lost BOOKS or SCRIPTURES. (if there were any), which obviously are not in the Bible, even the Apocryphas are in some versions of the Bible so why on earth are we talking about them?
nickfyoung
Redhakaw
Quote:
Lost teachings are teachings DERIVED from the bible which the church decided to give less emphasis, and which resulted to your common christian not knowing about them.


Are you talking about stuff like Gnosticism snuffed out by the early church and all the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. If you don't accept labels such as Calvinism, what do you consider the teaching of the Bible to be, ie the teachings of Paul mainly. Do you have a term and what would that be close to. ie reformed teaching, the teaching of Augustine etc.
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:

Are you talking about stuff like Gnosticism snuffed out by the early church and all the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.


sorry but no, gnosticism is considered heresy. The DSS is a great find, but we must understand that they are old writings and not the Scriptures per se. The church went into great deal of criticality to come up with the 66 books that we have.

Quote:
If you don't accept labels such as Calvinism, what do you consider the teaching of the Bible to be, ie the teachings of Paul mainly. Do you have a term and what would that be close to. ie reformed teaching, the teaching of Augustine etc.


why do you ask?
Bikerman
Bull. You still haven't a clue what you are on about.
There are 49 books and they were largely the arbitrary and manipulative choice of one man. You will at least know who THAT is I hope - or do you actually know ANYTHING about this 'church history' you claim is vital knowledge So far you have demonstrated a pretty thoroughgoing ignorance that history, and relied on googling and last minute web searches to give you enough words to cobble answers together (being a teacher, we are really good at spotting this sort of thing, since we see it all the time - students talking crap in words they don't understand, describing concepts they know nothing about, using language that is a bastardised and confused mix of wiki and a few other sites.

I still think you may well be an atheist troll doing a bang-up creationist idiot impression....if so, much kudos is due and given. If not, well, whoah......someone call a nurse.....
nickfyoung
redhakaw
Quote:
why do you ask?


What do call the teachings of Scripture if not Calvinism or Arminianism or reformed etc. Do you have another term that you use and what is it closest to in recognized teaching.

I personally believe that the teachings of scripture as expounded by Paul mainly were faithfully kept until the reformation when they were restored to the original or as close as can be, by the reformers, Luther, Calvin etc and backed up by the teachings of Augustine.

This gives the strict reformed position the most accurate of Biblical teaching, in my opinion, but there are many others of course like Calvinism and Arminianism.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
Bull. You still haven't a clue what you are on about.
There are 49 books and they were largely the arbitrary and manipulative choice of one man. You will at least know who THAT is I hope - or do you actually know ANYTHING about this 'church history' you claim is vital knowledge So far you have demonstrated a pretty thoroughgoing ignorance that history, and relied on googling and last minute web searches to give you enough words to cobble answers together (being a teacher, we are really good at spotting this sort of thing, since we see it all the time - students talking crap in words they don't understand, describing concepts they know nothing about, using language that is a bastardised and confused mix of wiki and a few other sites.


so when did the events in the apocrypha happened? during the NT or OT? Rolling Eyes

and please, the contents of the 49 books are just the same with the 66.

you are free to use google and wiki, but please thoroughly read what you find, we don't want any BS right?
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
redhakaw
Quote:
why do you ask?


What do call the teachings of Scripture if not Calvinism or Arminianism or reformed etc. Do you have another term that you use and what is it closest to in recognized teaching.


what you are asking is the same question in 1 Cor. 1:12

what I follow is what the Bible teaches as revealed by the Spirit.
not one name like Calvin, or Arminus, Luther, have given completely and error free, but they have been used to reveal portions of God's up to date revelation. Even the Roman Catholic church gave a considerable amount of valid teachings profitable to our spiritual upbringing.

but then again, to answer your question, I would say that the closest to what I believe in are the teachings from the Brethren (Plymouth), and from Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

Quote:

I personally believe that the teachings of scripture as expounded by Paul mainly were faithfully kept until the reformation when they were restored to the original or as close as can be, by the reformers, Luther, Calvin etc and backed up by the teachings of Augustine.


I also believe that, these people contributed a great deal to the basic beliefs that we have.
now it's about time for you to take one more step further and look for the up to date speaking. I will not say that where you are is wrong, but I would say that you might be missing a lot.

Quote:

This gives the strict reformed position the most accurate of Biblical teaching, in my opinion, but there are many others of course like Calvinism and Arminianism.


btw, Calvin and Arminus are considered opposite, I am not saying one is right and the other wrong, but what I would say is to go back to the pure Word of God in order to find His riches these men enjoyed.
nickfyoung
Quote:
Brethren (Plymouth), and from Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.


Yes and from Darby. Bit too legalistic for me. Don't you find the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of healings and miracles etc in Scripture.
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
Quote:
Brethren (Plymouth), and from Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.


Yes and from Darby. Bit too legalistic for me.


actually, plymouth is with George Muller, Darby was with the closed exclusive Brethren, there is another one with B. Newton.

while Darby was exclusive, we can also find precious truths with TAS which are less if not legalistic.

Quote:

Don't you find the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of healings and miracles etc in Scripture.

sure, what about it?
nickfyoung
redhakaw
Quote:
sure, what about it?


I couldn't find evidence of Spiritual gifts being part of brethren teachings. Are you saying that they are pentecostal in belief?
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
redhakaw
Quote:
sure, what about it?


I couldn't find evidence of Spiritual gifts being part of brethren teachings. Are you saying that they are pentecostal in belief?


well you asked if it was in the scriptures, and I said yes.
you didn't ask if it was in the brethren teachings
nickfyoung
Ah, but I thought you said the Brethren teaching was the closest to scripture.
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
Ah, but I thought you said the Brethren teaching was the closest to scripture.


what I said is the closest to what I believe in,
every teacher got something special and important from the scriptures, all we have to do is to get from each person the closest to the scriptures. Like in the case of the Brethren, they have recovered the true way of meeting and administration of the church.

But even the Brethren is not exempted from weaknesses.
nickfyoung
OK, They no doubt have many good points.One has to worship where one is comfortable. I suppose that is one good thing about lots of denominations, one can find a place to fit in. I am presently worshiping with a Pentecostal church which is good but I come in conflict with their Wesleyan beliefs.
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
OK, They no doubt have many good points.One has to worship where one is comfortable. I suppose that is one good thing about lots of denominations, one can find a place to fit in. I am presently worshiping with a Pentecostal church which is good but I come in conflict with their Wesleyan beliefs.


It's more like practicality and not comfort.

just because you are the serious type you will join the methodist, or because you are someone who loves to clap and jump for praises you meet with pentecostals.

this attitude is not found in the Bible.


the basis should be the ground of the church.
nickfyoung
Some one once said that the biblical way would be a strict reformed theology combined with a Pentecostal worship style. Does that sound close.
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
Some one once said that the biblical way would be a strict reformed theology combined with a Pentecostal worship style. Does that sound close.


nick, the more we try to figure out what is the correct way of worship, the more we fall to religion.

God is Spirit, those who worship Him must worship in spirit!

It doesn't matter whether the meeting is too formal, or pentecost style.
What matters is that we exercise our spirits.

These practices are just leaves and flowers which are only aesthetics, what is important is the trunk, the trunk should be sturdy and rooted deeply, the trunk is the high peak truths and the up to date dispensing!
Bikerman
This is now clearly more suited to the faith forum ...
topic moved....
nickfyoung
The Pentecostal style would give you more opportunity to worship in spirit while the strict reformed position would give you that rooted ness.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
This is now clearly more suited to the faith forum ...
topic moved....


thanks!

nick wrote:
The Pentecostal style would give you more opportunity to worship in spirit while the strict reformed position would give you that rooted ness.


Can you explain with some detail why you gave such an assertion, also, while you're at it, define to me or explain what is "in the spirit" means?
nickfyoung
In the Spirit, is a state where you are closer to God, God being Spirit, and is sometimes best reached by an act of worship with hands raised in total surrender. Surrender being the optimum letting God have you to do with as he wills. Anything can happen in this stage and usually does while for many, they are too shy to let go to that degree.
As for the strict reformed position, I find that to be the most Biblical of all positions but that is just a personal position.
redhakaw
nickfyoung wrote:
In the Spirit, is a state where you are closer to God, God being Spirit, and is sometimes best reached by an act of worship with hands raised in total surrender. Surrender being the optimum letting God have you to do with as he wills. Anything can happen in this stage and usually does while for many, they are too shy to let go to that degree.
As for the strict reformed position, I find that to be the most Biblical of all positions but that is just a personal position.


you are quite right.

To be in the mingled Spirit has to 2 steps

1.) a person has 3 parts, the body, the soul, and the spirit. The only way to be in the third one is simply to be out of the 1st and 2nd.

2.) after denying your flesh and your soul, you then exercise your spirit by simply calling to God, seeking His presence.


These steps are the only steps, there are no variants, versions and positions other than these.
Related topics
Napoleon Dynamite
Lucifel's art.
Just one thing
How would you personaly define a "quality" post?
Talking about China
Help with PhpBB
Should we be scared?
Please tell me what you think of my idea...
{ENDED}Naming contest!!!!{ENDED}
Oil Peak and Industrial Society
Discussion ABOUT "Which taxes...?" topic
Discussion ABOUT “Political Phil: What is [Not] Fair?” topic
What is the usefulness of religion?
A "General" scripting forum
Can fairness, equality, and freedom coexist?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.