What do you think qualifies one to be one of Christ's disciples?

bbyrd009 · Mar 21, 2017

That is exactly the problem. The truth is not based on my experience, but God's word. I believe our experiences need to be filtered through God's truth and not the other way around.

to this i can only say that you still believe the Book is the Word, i guess, so we are just going to get mired in another semantics discussion, around the meaning of Word. But regardless, you can read water or wine, and at the subject of "baptism" we are told that the water is a symbol, at least @ "Noah," see, it is left ambiguous enough that a literalist may still insist upon their physical interpretation if they like, even as they admit when pressed that there will be those accepted who never got baptized, all while insisting that "It's what the Bible says, not me." By which they of course mean their approved interpretation of the Bible, since the Bible makes no conclusions. None. Not one. Quote me a conclusion from Scripture, and see, if you think i am wrong there. God is Spirit, and i can only say that i have seen a spiritual baptism, and those who placed their faith in a physical baptism are going to get re-baptized, if they keep seeking God, just like the Book says.

God's unvarnished truth would surely kill us both, in our present state. All are deceived, right? The deception likely only gets reinforced (tares again) we we become convinced that we have the truth, and that we have somehow escaped deception, because we are going to heaven now, because we have Jesus, only all that starts after we die. This is Isaiah's "bargain with death" all over again.
15For you said, “We have cut a deal with Death,
and we have made an agreement with •Sheol;
when the overwhelming scourge passes through,t
it will not touch us,

bbyrd009 · Mar 21, 2017

I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. Its not either or. Why can't we have both genuine faith and baptism? Like I said, I am not arguing for a watered-down form of discipleship that is somehow made legitimate if you add immersion by water. If that is the impression you are getting, you are mistaken. That is not what I believe.

i don't doubt you a bit, but generally speaking that is accurate, or at least let's say that has a broad validity. The impression that a new believer is often left with is that they are "saved" now, now that they have been baptised, salvation is now a done deal, they are completed, and all those parts of the Book that might have spoken to them are now removed to someone else. Because you cannot associate yourself with Cain or Esau if you are convinced you are now one of the chosen, now can you. You will never hear a sermon on "called v chosen" in a church, i reckon; and if you do, the definitions are likely warped. Maybe not, i heard a decent one online the other day, but the conclusion even then was "you aren't doing good enough." Which i might even agree with in a sense, but not as a conclusion. Or rather, a conclusion is drawn there when it likely should not be, perhaps.

Anyway, i believe that is a prevalent dichotomy, even if it is possible to have a genuine faith and a literal baptism. The second might speak more to the new seeker, whose heart is still seeking after he knows not what exactly, but vaguely his "first love;" while the first might describe most of the rest of the congregation, who has, perhaps, had a few of their questions slapped down, or has otherwise swallowed some camel that really didn't suit them, in the name of belonging or getting along, now waiting for Jesus to ride in on a White Horse or whatever, praying for death so they can be like Paul, absent from the body. arg. dissenters are usually chased off, is why i'm pretty sure the characterization holds true. Maybe not in Uni or some other sects, dunno.

bbyrd009 · Mar 21, 2017

I dont know what you are saying here.

the point being that it is Christians now, who have the letter of the law, and quote the Book, and carry Bibles--and are generally also circumcised, to boot.

bbyrd009 · Mar 21, 2017

Since when is the "spiritual" non physical? To be honest, this sounds more like Gnosticism to me. The Gnostics claimed that what a person did made no difference at all. The only thing that mattered was "gnosis" or knowledge. The fact is, genuine faith results in obedience. Whether that obedience is submitting to baptism per the Lord's command, repenting of one's sins, or showing kindness to one's enemies...all these things result in physical acts that are the result of one's internal beliefs. As Jesus said, "Why call me Lord, Lord, but do not do the things I command?"

You are the one who keeps using the word, "ritual" not me. Ritual suggests this is a regular, meaningless act that is given no thought and a person feels they are righteous as a result of performing a rote, mindless duty. First, baptism is not a "ritual." It is done once in a person's life. Second, again you are creating a false dichotomy of a meaningful response of faith vs a mindless, empty ritual. The way I see it, if someone takes the Bible and the commands of Jesus seriously, then a meaningful and serious response of wanting to follow Jesus will include obedience to his commands....including things like forgiveness, repentance, and baptism. I dont know why you are so intent in dividing one from the other.

already answered this once...

it is not that i wish to divide them, but i see how they are generally being divided. Of course every combination is possible, a pastor might be earnestly presenting baptism as a beginning for a new seeker, who is genuinely concerned with seeking Christ and not worried about saving their own souls, out of fear of hell, sure; but that is not the common understanding anymore, i don't think. So, a genuine rite is turned into a ritual, most often. People perish for lack of knowledge, yes? So maybe the Gnostics have that part right. There is an undeniable tension in any spiritual concept; one cannot be righteous enough to be accepted by God, but it is those who do righteousness who are accepted, etc.

You discount or outright deny the other baptisms, of Spirit and Fire; i have to wonder if this is because you have no ritual for them? Yet they are life experiences, just like the first baptism, and i suggest that people will experience them whether they ever identify as Christian or not, and regardless of whether or not their pastor recognizes them, much less can offer any guidance through them. Obviously if you do not, you cannot.

Genuine faith is also channelled away, by those we trust who have ulterior motives, or even just conflicts of interest, too. I see a lot of genuinely faithful people who believe service is proselytizing others into their belief, and who lead into this conversation with "don't you fear hell?" too, so...Saul was genuinely faithful, too, even before he became Paul.

bbyrd009 · Mar 21, 2017

You can't do that by yourself. Anyone who wants to be used of God can only do so by serving others and so, yes, I believe people need to be part of a "form" of Christianity. It isn't a nebulous thing one does by themselves while contemplating their navals. haha

when you carry a cross, you are most often pretty much alone. Imo the Body of Christ is not defined by "Christians," who seem largely to be waiting for the Body to come riding in on the White Horse to save them, even though they proclaim that they are already saved.

That is exactly the problem. The truth is not based on my experience, but God's word. I believe our experiences need to be filtered through God's truth and not the other way around.

i have to agree in spirit with mjr here, and imo the difference is that we are first assured that the Book is the Word, and then that the single interpretation that we are first taught usually becomes the "truth." So a static view of the Book--which after all is not the Book of Truth, that is a different Book--which is God~Breathed and living, and does affirm the Word, ends up filtered through a single pov, and a passage can then mean nothing else to that pov; it has been defined. Disregarding that there is inevitably another passage that presents an opposite pov, and that both should be considered.

If the truth is not based upon my experience, then i have no need to stick my hand in a fire as a baby, to discover what "hot" means. So yes, i believe this concept is upended for a Christian, who is expected to do otherwise, and take as truth the static interpretation of the Book their sect sanctions. And we see this a lot. This mind now cannot be changed, for it is convinced it has found some truth. This one is seven times worse off than he was, imo; but of course even that parable will not avail him now, as it is defined as something else, usually applied to the troubled new seeker who gets baptized and, being assured he has completed his work except for the remaining lifetime of proselytization--Ponzi style--falls away.

And "nebulous" might be the best way to describe the Word; It is a whisper of a suggestion in one ear, upon being presented with a Situation, entirely in the moment, the Right Thing to Do, v the other thing, which is inevitably more attractive or reasonable for whatever reason. If you believe that the Book is the Word, i doubt a little conversation will change your mind, but imo this cannot be demonstrated from the Book while the opposite can, quite easily, so although this is not an easy exercise, and will begin a journey that will surely see one "outside the camp" before they are done, i would say that it is essential to grasp this concept.

The Word is the Truth, and trusting the Word will put you at odds with pretty much everyone, at least quite often. You will come to know what it is to be driven into the wilderness, imo. Insist upon the Book and you will always have plenty of friends, who see like you do; but the Word is not like that, at least in my experience.

Wormwood · Mar 21, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
well, i can only generalize, tares grow with wheat, but the characterization fits with the passage in mind, as well as several others; at least if there exists a "legalistic" Bible-thumper, who teaches that a seeker after Christ might escape a fiery place in some undetermined future by getting washed in water in front of a congregation, and then never has to deal with sin anymore, or worry about fulfilling the Law, because Jesus is going to prolly ride in on a White Horse here any minute and take them...somewhere, not sure where, because heaven is coming to earth, supposedly, and you can't demonstrate that anyone goes to heaven when you try. I don't think any of that can be backed up by Scripture, except by a concentrated willingness to exclude lots of other Scripture.

We obviously practice Law and are raised in it, and pledge allegiance to it, and enjoy it as entertainment, and are attracted to it as Righteous Retribution, even competitive sports, etc, in the world, so imo "killing Jesus" is something that people can still do today, unless one blames "the Jews" for killing Jesus. Imo it is a more serious abuse to imagine that NT verses--or any verses, for that matter--were only applicable to a certain time or place or group. The Book is not written to the lost, and there is nothing new under the sun. So imo one moots 27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision at their peril. Ps, are you physically circumcised, by any chance?

My point is simply that comparing the judgment of a non-believer vs that of a "Christian" is misguided. If you are referring to a legalistic false teacher who rejects grace then I wouldn't consider such a person a Christian. Im not suggesting the Bible was written only to a certain time or place. I am saying most heresy comes by faulty application. Comparing greedy, evil Pharisees who hated the Messiah and attributed his miracles and love to the Devil is not the same as a "Bible-thumper" (which itself begs definition). Dont be so quick to assign the judgments of the Bible on groups of people, especially if the group in question is nothing like those being rebuked in the text. This is not to say that the group you are speaking of isn't wrong or wont be judged by God...but make sure you are comparing apples with apples if you are going to bring God's judgment into the picture, that's all.

So iow we have a notion of going to a "church" on Sunday for an hour to "congregate," believing that we are fulfilling a Scriptural mandate, but we don't know any of our next door neighbors, and our families are spread out all over the country or even the globe? So imo seeking a better understanding of "wherever two or three are gathered" might be in order. Our current notion of church ends up excluding, even if some Grace is sprinkled on top; the premise is "we have got it right, and if you agree with us, you can go to heaven, and if you don't, you prolly won't."

Just seems to me like you are trying to overly complicate things. I agree that this is not what the "two or three" means. Jesus isn't teaching in that passage that wherever "two or three gather" that this constitutes "the Church." The focus on that passage is bringing discipline on someone within the body of believers. It is drawn of the OT concept of a case being decided by two or three witnesses. It certainly is NOT teaching that the church is just two guys hanging out at the coffee shop shooting the breeze about their personal views on Jesus. I dont want to make this discussion unmanageable by engaging in an entire side discussion on ecclesiology. Suffice it to say that a church implies leadership, a right foundation in Christ and a group of believers that meet in a formal way to celebrate, encourage, exhort, teach, disciple, remember, provide discipline, etc.

In reference to most of what you mentioned in the rest of your posts (Im attempting to scale this back a bit so it becomes manageable), I just think you are overly pessimistic. Yes, the church has its problems. There are tares out there, poor Bible translations, poor preachers, misguided evangelistic efforts and misguided churches. Of course this is the case. However, this is nothing new. Read the New Testament. The Church in Corinth was filled with sexual immorality, division, lawsuits and fighting over spiritual gifts. Apparently some also rejected the idea of the resurrection. The churches in Galatia were getting duped by false teaching and legalists and many of the believers John was writing to were being duped and misled by Gnostics (or an early form thereof). People in church in Thessalonica was worried they had possibly missed the 2nd coming or that if they died they would miss it. The author of Hebrews appears to be dealing with Jewish Christians who were starting to turn away from Jesus to head back to the comforts of Judaism. Not to mention some of the rebukes Jesus had for a number of churches in the book of Revelation.

The solution isn't to throw up our hands and make excuses (i.e. What is a church, anyway? Why follow human leaders if they have faults? etc. etc.). Again, in my mind, this is just rationale for some folksj to make themselves the beginning, means and the end of it all. The fact is, the church implies submission, humility, accountability, love and service. None of which can happen for these types who see themselves as the only possessor of truth and superior to all others by virtue of exaggerated self-importance and understanding. They can't lay down their lives for anyone else, because, as they see it, their life and truth is far to valuable and everyone is going to "hell in a handbasket" because they follow man-made...blah blah (insert excuse here). The solution is for godly people to get involved and be a part of the solution and invest themselves into helping others grow and invest in making the Church what it ought to be rather than pointing out faults or complain about all the tares in the Garden of God. I mean, that is what most of the NT is....attempts by godly men to bring correction and instruction to wayward churches and Christians.

In sum, Jesus is still on the throne and the Church wins in the end...in spite of her faults. Jesus dresses her in white and I believe still calls her leaders to "feed his sheep." We all have problems, but the solution is that we all encourage one another to press closer to Christ and challenge each other in love when we believe the other to be misguided or headed down a dangerous road. In the end, God is the judge...and he tells us he will measure us with the same standard we use for others. It doesn't mean we drop our convictions, but it does mean that we treat others we believe are wayward in the same way we would want them to treat us if we were walking toward our demise. Anyway, Ill climb down off the soapbox now.

Thanks for the continued discussion.

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

Just seems to me like you are trying to overly complicate things. I agree that this is not what the "two or three" means. Jesus isn't teaching in that passage that wherever "two or three gather" that this constitutes "the Church." The focus on that passage is bringing discipline on someone within the body of believers. It is drawn of the OT concept of a case being decided by two or three witnesses. It certainly is NOT teaching that the church is just two guys hanging out at the coffee shop shooting the breeze about their personal views on Jesus.

i have gotten this before--that it is i making things complicated--when imo the concept is vastly simplified, when you remove the premise of "body of believers" from the equation, and just take the passage at face value. Of course "gathered in My Name" suggests a couple of guys who fit our Christian definition of "believers," but this is likely because we bring preconceptions to the passage, iow imo two guys talking about their religious views does not qualify, if Christ meant "wherever two or three people come together around a need of someone else, as that need spontaneously arises or presents itself to someone who is willing to help, even after several others have passed by on the other side of the road."

And if that person is identified as a Samaritan rather than a Christian, that does not matter if he is there being selfless and offering to help. Some other valid reflections of the concept might be 2 or 3 people coming together intentionally, yes, but over some issue that requires attention, where the 2 or 3 have no interest in turning the situation to their advantage, and are only trying to solve a problem that has arisen. Real life, iow. Framed from the perspective of the real Church, and not necessarily restricted to whatever our definition of "body of believers" might be, since that is so obviously an objective definition. I'm not sure that the passage is meaning to define the Church, anyway, but where "there I am, also" is.

To someone who identifies as Christian, they are going to frame the passage within the context of their beliefs, and wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name will take on the appearance of a Bible study, perhaps, yes, but i have come to suspect that comparison. And i suspect that bringing discipline to someone deemed "in the body of believers" is not what is meant, either, for essentially the same reason--you first have to judge who is in this body, see, and the Samaritan is definitely not in.

So while that could conceivably have some application, the passage has now been removed from the real world to the confines of an arbitrarily defined set of circumstances, which i could further illuminate by pressing for where the line in determining who these "believers" are even is, see, wherein we would see how fuzzy the logic gets. Who defines this "believer," iow? Someone in authority, of course. So, while the application could, might, maybe, have some association with the passage, see that i could easily present a scenario that adheres to your frame for the passage, yet does not adhere to your definitions for "believer," ie the pope and a cardinal advising.deciding upon the matter of a deacon wanting to get married, say--if you are not a Roman Catholic. Or a Pentecostal preacher and crew helping someone speak in tongues, if you are. Talk about complicated.

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

Suffice it to say that a church implies leadership, a right foundation in Christ and a group of believers that meet in a formal way to celebrate, encourage, exhort, teach, disciple, remember, provide discipline, etc.

suffice it to say that this definition serves you, but no longer serves me, and i'm pretty sure as noted above that i could have you disqualifying certain bodies simply on their merits. I'm not meaning to be fractious or divisive here, but to actually include those you might exclude, in insisting upon your definition of "body." If the point is not yet made, if you would divulge your understanding/sect, i can construct a scenario that, again, fits your criteria strictly, that you might nonetheless dislike rather intensely. See, you assume that i will agree with your def of "believer" when i may not; for all i know they are just some people crying "Lord, Lord."

And again, i don't mean to be judging them, but to point out that others have already been excluded from the outset, if they do not fit this concept of "believers."
Yes, "church" implies leadership, human leadership, like any worldly organization, but this does not apply to the Church, wherein there is no male/female, either, for that matter, and while organic leaders certainly will arise, these are not necessarily the leaders voted in by any ecclesia. The Pharisees and Sadducees were church leaders, too. So see how your argument kind of bends back on itself, and your leaders must now be considered as possibly quite comparable to Pharisees after all. See, if i don't recognize the leaders you have in mind, then i am disqualified myself! So the logic is circular, and self-fulfilling.

Which believe me, i preferred for a long time, as it certainly reinforced my position; but i just came to see that while it is not as comfortable for me personally--because i no longer get to define the parameters--when i allow the passage to be read without my rules in mind, a more inclusive picture emerges, that actually simplifies the understanding, making it more applicable to real life, even if it disqualifies the double-minded (religious; at least around other religious people? oops)

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

The solution isn't to throw up our hands and make excuses (i.e. What is a church, anyway? Why follow human leaders if they have faults? etc. etc.). Again, in my mind, this is just rationale for some folksj to make themselves the beginning, means and the end of it all.

my accountability is to Christ, although i agree that it is through others. Unfortunately our church model only gives this lip-service, and if pressed you would have to admit to some body that you deem "leaders," that someone else would not agree with. If you are Catholic, it would be the pope, i guess. But you and i have as much authority as the pope, under Christ, so i suggest abandoning this insistence on a worldly ruler, and accepting organic leaders as they arise, by all means, i don't mean to abandon them, but to recognize the difference in "ruler" and "leader." Because i'm pretty sure what you mean is "ruler," even though he will be characterized as "leader."

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

The solution is for godly people to get involved and be a part of the solution and invest themselves into helping others grow and invest in making the Church what it ought to be rather than pointing out faults or complain about all the tares in the Garden of God. I mean, that is what most of the NT is....attempts by godly men to bring correction and instruction to wayward churches and Christians.

In sum, Jesus is still on the throne and the Church wins in the end...in spite of her faults. Jesus dresses her in white and I believe still calls her leaders to "feed his sheep." We all have problems, but the solution is that we all encourage one another to press closer to Christ and challenge each other in love when we believe the other to be misguided or headed down a dangerous road. In the end, God is the judge...and he tells us he will measure us with the same standard we use for others. It doesn't mean we drop our convictions, but it does mean that we treat others we believe are wayward in the same way we would want them to treat us if we were walking toward our demise.

see, i can do that last part without being double-minded, IRL, without quizzing them on their religious beliefs at all, see. As long as one identifies the Church as necessarily being composed of those deemed "Christian," then it becomes a simple matter to come up with an (ultimately arbitrary) definition of this "Christian" that is exclusive, wherein the Samaritan is excluded based upon the fact that he does not fit the criteria, even if he is manifesting Christ. However we might like to justify it, "church" becomes our definition of "Church," and the lessons of Scripture all then get appropriated for the double-minded.

If you use a certain vernacular in your church, that would not be understood or appreciated among other peers IRL, you are likely practicing double-mindedness. The point being that real life exposes the often farcical nature of the religious vernacular, when secular language would be more appropriate in illuminating the spiritual principle at hand. This resembles nothing so much as someone who has drank some kind of kool-aid, even to a believer from a different sect. Any minute now, i can't help but feel that you will be able to tell me which religion is the "correct" one, see.

Do you have the notion of a "correct" religion? Then you are double-minded, imo. Now, for what it's worth, i was initially accused of being a narcissist by my own family when i first heard the Word, and started talking like this; but they don't say that any more. I mention this to show that i guess to someone with a set definition of "believer," this concept that i will call "following 1Sam8 out to its spiritual conclusion" does at first seem to be just another self-serving one, and the only reason i can guess that they don't still accuse me of this is that i have no battles to fight in the sense of 1Sam8 now, iow i have no religion to defend, and no ruler to enforce my arbitrary definitions.

See, you might be one of the accepted too, for all i know; you don't have to believe like i do. If you are helping to fill a need that arises in the community, pausing to hear some tale of woe outside the 7-11, and i happen to be passing by and hear part of it, as you are offering a solution (an actual solution; a useful solution. Praying with them would not count here) but it happens to be me who drove while you walked, and so it is i who ends up doing the transporting to serve the need, say, then what do i care if you label yourself a believer or not; that is irrelevant to both me and him, almost surely. So, the parable of The Two Sons, applied, iow.

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

It doesn't mean we drop our convictions, but it does mean that we treat others we believe are wayward in the same way we would want them to treat us if we were walking toward our demise.

See that in this vein i am justified in counselling you that if you believe that you can judge who the "believers" are based upon some criteria, and further if these believers are convinced that they are avoiding some fiery place called "hell" in some life that begins in some undetermined future after they die, assuming that they meet the proper criteria, then there is a train coming, and you are standing right on the tracks.

now, i don't actually believe this, understand; you appear to have more Grace than i do, actually. but understand the point i am trying to make there. By all means hang on to your convictions; but don't expect them to be my convictions, and imo don't limit your perspective of "Church" to only those who hold your convictions in common, or else you are ultimately going to need a king to fight your battles, and you will fall into the pit of 1Sam8.

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

mjrhealth said:
Actually the answer is in the bible anyhow

Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

How many of you wouild be willing to loose all, and be put out in teh backwaters , forgooten by men and called a fool, just waiting till God says, its time , lets go. Just remember moses......Even Jesus teaching at a young age but forgotten for a time till he was 30 than it was His time, So few are willing to wait, wanting to run ahead and expect God to catch up. Doesnt work that way.

yes--we make the bargains, and expect God to honor them, see. The current bargain is "if i get saved, by doing the accepted things as defined by these guys in ties, get baptized, maybe speak in tongues, whatever, give them my money when they ask for "seed," i will go to heaven instead of hell when i die, and God, you have to honor this bargain."

lol. Your bargain with death will not stand, ok? God does not conform to your beliefs, regardless of how many people believe this thing, which even the vast number of them should be a clue that that is "the wide path." I doubt there is a single person left on the planet now who could not describe the Christian concept of hell. But get a single one of them to show it to you, or demonstrate its existence from Scripture, and of course they cannot do this conclusively--or actually even very convincingly--even though many who are called "leader" might hold this belief, and might even have the commendation of other men, and have Doctorates in Theology or whatever.

bbyrd009 · Mar 22, 2017

"There are some Christian ladies who would not know how to act or "be a Christian" if it were not for their outward apparel. Their clothing has become their badge of holiness. Some (but certainly not all) think they are being a witness and a testimony to the world when, in fact, their arrogance turns many would-be Christians away. If these ladies werte to blend in more with the crowds of people as Jesus did in His ministry, they might discover that now their holiness has to come from some place else, and it is not so easy as just fixing up on the outside." - Linda Hopper, False Holiness Standards

Wormwood · Mar 27, 2017

if Christ meant "wherever two or three people come together around a need of someone else, as that need spontaneously arises or presents itself to someone who is willing to help, even after several others have passed by on the other side of the road."

Again, the "two or three" passage is referring to church discipline.

So while that could conceivably have some application, the passage has now been removed from the real world to the confines of an arbitrarily defined set of circumstances, which i could further illuminate by pressing for where the line in determining who these "believers" are even is, see, wherein we would see how fuzzy the logic gets. Who defines this "believer," iow? Someone in authority, of course. So, while the application could, might, maybe, have some association with the passage, see that i could easily present a scenario that adheres to your frame for the passage, yet does not adhere to your definitions for "believer," ie the pope and a cardinal advising.deciding upon the matter of a deacon wanting to get married, say--if you are not a Roman Catholic. Or a Pentecostal preacher and crew helping someone speak in tongues, if you are. Talk about complicated.

Im really struggling to see exactly what your point is.

suffice it to say that this definition serves you, but no longer serves me, and i'm pretty sure as noted above that i could have you disqualifying certain bodies simply on their merits. I'm not meaning to be fractious or divisive here, but to actually include those you might exclude, in insisting upon your definition of "body." If the point is not yet made, if you would divulge your understanding/sect, i can construct a scenario that, again, fits your criteria strictly, that you might nonetheless dislike rather intensely. See, you assume that i will agree with your def of "believer" when i may not; for all i know they are just some people crying "Lord, Lord."

So let me get this straight... you are trying to "include" those I might exclude...meanwhile, my definition of believer is too broad and likely includes those who are hypocrites. Am I being punked? I think you are just trying to argue for arguments sake. Which is it...am I being too inclusive or exclusive? Personally, I dont know how you think you can claim to know based on the short exchanges we have had thus far.

when i allow the passage to be read without my rules in mind, a more inclusive picture emerges, that actually simplifies the understanding, making it more applicable to real life, even if it disqualifies the double-minded (religious; at least around other religious people? oops)

Im not trying to be rude, but these statements just come across as rambling. I have no idea what your point is or what exactly you are arguing for...or against.

see, i can do that last part without being double-minded, IRL, without quizzing them on their religious beliefs at all, see. As long as one identifies the Church as necessarily being composed of those deemed "Christian," then it becomes a simple matter to come up with an (ultimately arbitrary) definition of this "Christian" that is exclusive, wherein the Samaritan is excluded based upon the fact that he does not fit the criteria, even if he is manifesting Christ. However we might like to justify it, "church" becomes our definition of "Church," and the lessons of Scripture all then get appropriated for the double-minded.

This is sheer nonsense. First of all, there was no such thing as a "Christian" when Jesus gave his illustration of the Good Samaritan. He was making a point about loving our neighbors against Pharisees who wanted to exclude them from the Kingdom of God on the basis of their heritage alone. Second, terms imply definitions. According to this argument of yours, a "Christian" can include those who do not accept or believe in the Christ at all. So any person who helps a wounded fellow on the side of the road is a Christian...even if they reject the person and work of the Christ. Honestly, that is like saying, "We can call a cat a dog, because they both walk on four legs and if a cat eats dog food, who is to say we can't call it a dog?

How bout we consult a dictionary to ensure we allow words to have meanings and not just make them empty vessels to fill with whatever nonsense we want...

CHRISTIAN - [SIZE=small]relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. [/SIZE]
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Thus, a person is not a Christian simply because they help a hurt person on the side of the road regardless of whether or not they profess Christianity and its teachings.

Let me just sum it up like this, bbyrd...

By definition, a "believer" is someone who believes Jesus is the Christ and that he died for their sins and rose again from the dead for their justification. That is what it means to "believe" in the testimony of the New Testament. Now, granted, there are people who CLAIM to be believers, but they do not follow Jesus commands and they do not live as those who really believe. I agree with you that such a person is likely NOT a believer, regardless of whether or not they frequent a church on Sunday mornings or whatever. I have never argued that a person is actually a believer merely because they attend a church, or because they claim themselves to be one. I dont know what got you off on such a rant to suggest this is what I was claiming in the first place. Finally, a believer is NOT someone who gives a poor guy five dollars or helps a wounded victim on the side of the road regardless of whether or not they have any faith in the person or work of Jesus. No, a believer implies faith and if a person truly believes, then they will naturally do such good things for others due to their faith and the indwelling Spirit of God in their lives...as the book of James makes pretty plain. Its a very dangerous thing to start qualifying people as "believers" or "Christians" and inheritors of the Kingdom of God merely by an act of benevolence, which, in your mind makes them "manifesting Christ." After all, who determines what "manifesting Christ" actually looks like? I mean, what if I go and start calling a group of folks "blind, whitewashed tombs and full of dead men's bones." Am I manifesting Christ? How bout if I make a whip and start whacking people I dont think are serving God properly? Am I "manifesting Christ" then, or does that only apply to acts of benevolence? If "manifesting Christ" and being a "believer" or "Christian" is really nothing more than helping victims and caring for the poor, then faith in Jesus, the resurrection or the NT really has no value at all. I mean, there are lots of religions out there that teach us to be benevolent souls and do good to other people. Keep the parables of Jesus in their context. Otherwise, all kinds of heretical notions can be imagined.

mjrhealth · Mar 27, 2017

Again, the "two or three" passage is referring to church discipline.

No it is not.

George walks down teh street, Mary cals out, " hey george whats U"
Hi Mary had a vision from te hLord last night , woudl you like to hear??
Yes please.

Now we have 2 gathered in His name

Fred calls out,
Hey Mary whats going on?
Hi Fred, George had a vision fom teh Lord last night, would you like to hear??
Yes please, count me in.

Now we have three gathered in His name,
No church, no $1000 000 building, no expensive sound system, no overhead projectors, no orchestra , no pastor, no plan, no clergy. Just 3 people in love with teh Lord who desire to know Him.

It really isnt so difficult.

bbyrd009 · Mar 27, 2017

if no one is served, i would even doubt that concept, but at least it might be a better model for church than the one that is now abandoned. How the passage has been turned into one about church admin i don't quite get; i guess that is because the passage details the accepted model of forgiveness, and mentions "church?" But i note that the passage is not used for forgiveness, mostly, but rather for shunning, anyway. So i guess it depends upon how one defines ecclesia, the called out. For most people, that seems to be a very narrow definition, that requires first that you belong to their sect. Iow you can always lead them to define "church" in some way that excludes the Samaritan, unless they are Episcopalian or Uni, i guess, while the principle of the passage is mostly ignored. So imo you must first be convinced that you have arrived at a suitable definition of "church" in order to make that passage into a static truth, to suit your definition. See, it is overlooked that "forgiveness" is the subject both before and after the "church" mention, and what is seized upon is

"But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you."

Wherein one is then easily led into treating tax collectors and unbelievers in some different way, namely as inferior somehow. You are invited to imagine an "us" and a "them," iow, thus revealing your heart in the matter. Anyone not "in" this "church" that you have defined is by definition then "out," see, and the passage is then used to justify evil, basically. So i would have to ask if one would interpret the passage the same way if i was the one who got to define "church?"

(Neverminding that v18 likely begins another train of thought anyway)

Wormwood · Mar 27, 2017

mjrhealth said:
No it is not.

George walks down teh street, Mary cals out, " hey george whats U"
Hi Mary had a vision from te hLord last night , woudl you like to hear??
Yes please.

Now we have 2 gathered in His name

Fred calls out,
Hey Mary whats going on?
Hi Fred, George had a vision fom teh Lord last night, would you like to hear??
Yes please, count me in.

Now we have three gathered in His name,
No church, no $1000 000 building, no expensive sound system, no overhead projectors, no orchestra , no pastor, no plan, no clergy. Just 3 people in love with teh Lord who desire to know Him.

It really isnt so difficult.

No, it is talking about church discipline.

““If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”” (Matthew 18:15–20, NIV84)

God is omnipresent. He is always with us at all times. Its not like he only shows up when another believer hops in the car. I mean, Christians have the Holy Spirit, right? Jesus is specifically talking about a matter being "established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." This is about when someone sins against another believer and they need to be confronted. They are confronted by one person, then two or three, and then the church. Jesus is basically saying that the church should settle disputes and bring discipline on the basis of two or three witnesses confronting another believer about sinful behavior. Jesus is basically saying that the church has the authority to "treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector" on this basis and the authority of Jesus goes with them. This same concept is echoed throughout the NT.

“This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”” (2 Corinthians 13:1, NIV84)

“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19, NIV84)

I agree, mj, it isn't difficult. We just have to keep Scripture in its context.

Wormwood · Mar 27, 2017

bbyrd009 said:
if no one is served, i would even doubt that concept, but at least it might be a better model for church than the one that is now abandoned. How the passage has been turned into one about church admin i don't quite get; i guess that is because the passage details the accepted model of forgiveness, and mentions "church?" But i note that the passage is not used for forgiveness, mostly, but rather for shunning, anyway. So i guess it depends upon how one defines ecclesia, the called out. For most people, that seems to be a very narrow definition, that requires first that you belong to their sect. Iow you can always lead them to define "church" in some way that excludes the Samaritan, unless they are Episcopalian or Uni, i guess, while the principle of the passage is mostly ignored. So imo you must first be convinced that you have arrived at a suitable definition of "church" in order to make that passage into a static truth, to suit your definition. See, it is overlooked that "forgiveness" is the subject both before and after the "church" mention, and what is seized upon is

"But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you."

Wherein one is then easily led into treating tax collectors and unbelievers in some different way, namely as inferior somehow. You are invited to imagine an "us" and a "them," iow, thus revealing your heart in the matter. Anyone not "in" this "church" that you have defined is by definition then "out," see, and the passage is then used to justify evil, basically. So i would have to ask if one would interpret the passage the same way if i was the one who got to define "church?"

(Neverminding that v18 likely begins another train of thought anyway)

Well, no matter how you want to look at it, bbyrd, I think you can clearly see that Jesus has a specific group in mind...and this group is to distinguish themselves from others and even cast others out of their group if they are unwilling to repent of sinful behaviors that others in the church confront them about. This is also demonstrated in 1 Cor. 7...

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 5:1–5, NIV84)

So again, whether you like definitions or not, its clear that believers assembled in an official way that included leadership, authority and the ability to remove individuals from the fellowship. Yes, this doesn't work well for people who dont like leadership, submission or the idea that there is something bigger than themselves as it relates to Christianity and salvation. Yet the Bible clearly teaches it. So whether or not we can agree on what actually constitutes the local church, the fact of the matter is, such an entity existed and it was exclusive based on specific doctrines of belief and conduct. Personally, I dont think its a difficult notion and my personal view on the local church includes a broad spectrum of denominations and beliefs as long as they are consistent with essential Christian doctrines that are clearly taught in the NT.

bbyrd009 · Mar 28, 2017

well, i don't mean to say that it cannot mean that, but that you are led into interpreting that way if you like, even though the bit about the admin of a certain ecclesia is not the main them of the chapter. My copy frames it that way, too;

13And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.
14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.
Dealing With Sin in the Church
15“If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d
17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will bee bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bef loosed in heaven.

19“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
20For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.g

but you have to limit vv18-20 strictly to church administration on your own, imo; now, what has been told truly to you has been redefined so as to limit it to the accepted group, and you in fact make these verses null, of no effect, by doing this, because now "there I am, wherever two or three gather in My Name"--which is even started with a "For..." and not a "So..." or a "For this reason..."--is made a servant of the preceding vv, rather than being the spiritual principle that this specific church admin direction comes from, as you have said yourself.

So now it reads, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them, as long as they are discussing the disciplining of another member of the church."
Can you interpret it that way, if you want to? Yes. But that does not mean you know that--those breaks were put in there only quite recently, when beginning v20 with a "For" alone should suggest to you that the preceding depends upon v20, and not the other way around.

bbyrd009 · Mar 28, 2017

neverminding that one must assume some different treatment for tax collectors et al from a "Christian" anyway, when that cannot be justified. For how are we called to treat them any differently? See, that little passage in there, in the middle of a chapter on forgiveness, ends up being sucker bait for people who want to be judgemental, and wadr it all starts with "well, that verse means this, because it follows this verse," when in fact it does not; it stands alone, and the concept of ecclesia admin is built upon it (even though that applies to any group, being an organic concept that even Unions and Hell's Angels follow).

Further, we deem that for 2 or 3 to be gathered in His Name, they must then obviously be talking about Jesus, right? Because after all what else could "in His Name" possibly signify? So this verse, which is not saying that at all most likely, may certainly be interpreted that way by someone who assumes that proselytizing or even "church" is the premise, when the premise is much more likely to be about service to someone who can't pay you back, and isn't interested in joining your club.

So then, the blind lead the blind, many will cry "Lord, Lord," one might often even be seven times worse off after they get religion, speaking generally anyway; but these are the guys who want to tell you what a verse in the Book means, see.

And of course, now being seven times worse off, you can't tell them anything; showing them that "For..." obviously presents a principle from which the preceding passage descends, or showing them this post or whatever will be a complete waste of time, because their mind is made up; they now "know" what the verse means, and if you want to find out how they might treat a tax collector, just keep disputing with them on the matter lol.

I've seen this in many other passages as well; the Bible gets turned into "Word" by the same reduction. "Seed" is now "your money, when you send it to us," and "Tares" are now "Weeds," and heaven and hell are reduced to places that one might go to after they die, assuming that God will honor the bargain with death that they have made. Hooey, all of it.

What do you think qualifies one to be one of Christ's disciples?

Groper

Groper

Groper

Groper

Groper

Chaps

Groper

Groper

Groper

Groper

Groper

Groper

Groper

Chaps

Well-Known Member

Groper

Chaps

Chaps

Groper

Groper

Similar threads