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

[H. Richard]

What was hidden was the fact that gentiles would be joint heirs with the Jews. People tend to confuse this with fact that gentiles would be receiving joint blessings with the Jews. Being joint heirs had to be a secret because this would have given Jews a perfectly good reason to reject Jesus' message. Paul then points out to the gentiles being converted that they too will lose out if they think they can follow their Jewish brethren and be disobedient. There is only one gospel. There isn't one for Jews and one for Gentiles. The gospel is for the Jews first then the gentiles. If anyone thinks that God tells one that it is an abomination to eat pork and shellfish while telling another that it is perfectly okay, then they are worshipping a capricious god. If anyone thinks Peter told his gentile brethren to pass their pork to him while he sat there and feasted on it himself, they're insane.

So, in your opinion, the only thing HIDDEN IN GOD was that the Gentiles were to be included. Since you say this was hidden then why are there so many references that the Gentiles would be included in the O.T. It was told to Abraham that the Gentiles would be blessed (included).

There is another problem you will have with your opinion. The words ""BEFOREHAND", meaning "something revealed before its time and "would afterward" meaning after something else has happened.

Gal 3:22-25
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

The scripture above shows clearly that there were two time frames, one under the law and the other under grace. But you seem to want to ignore it.

Gal 3:8-9
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
NKJV

1 Peter 1:11-12
11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which "NOW" have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven — things which angels desire to look into.
NKJV

2 Peter 3:17-18
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
NKJV

 

[bbyrd009]

nice. The error of the wicked might be that they act out the sins of those they have not forgiven, blindly, unawares, and we call this "not forgiving yourself," because it is you that is the one suffering. The formula is "forgive others, and you will be forgiven," not "be forgiven (in baptism, even), and then you can forgive others." We actually forgive ourselves all too easily, in that sense.

 

[Wormwood]

bbyrd,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the dialogue.

so, i can't disagree with any of that, but i would like to expand on it. The passage

27 The man who is uncircumcised physically but who keeps the Law will condemn you who break the Law, even though you have the written Law and circumcision.

comes to mind, even if many would insist that the distinction there is Jew/Gentile only. And there are several, many passages that reinforce the concept. So, although i have a different concept of "people in heaven" than you do--if you believe that souls are going to heaven only after they physically die--a central point might be that you admit to some attaining heaven who have not been baptized in water, which we can witness that many Christians would argue with, so this is almost like a marginal concession, or an afterthought, when imo it should be much more central.

I strongly disagree that there is a distinction between Jew and Gentile. Paul explicitly teaches there is no such distinction in Galatians and we also see this in Acts 10-11. Moreover, the passage you cite really has nothing to do with salvation. In fact, In Romans 2-3, Paul is building to the conclusion he makes in 3:20 where he says, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20, NIV84) The point Paul is making in Romans 2 is that the Gentiles have worshipped idols and have become guilty of all kinds of depravity. The point he makes in Romans 3a is that the Jews are no better off because though they know the Law, they do not keep the law. The passage you cite is simply saying that the Gentiles are often more righteous than the Jews because some of them are better at keeping the Law they dont even have then the Jews who know better! So, Paul certainly isn't making an argument that the Gentiles can be saved apart from the Gospel or baptism, etc. I am not sure if that is the point you were trying to make, but that is how it seemed to me. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

I do believe there will be people who were not baptized in heaven because for many branches of Christianity, they do not baptize, or they baptize infants (which, in my mind, is not a biblical baptism). I do not think God condemns people who are trying to be obedient but simply do not know any better. However, I dont believe it is what God intends and that we have a responsibility to abide by what the Word teaches. Baptism is powerful. I dont have time to go into all the rationale behind why I believe it is so powerful right now, but suffice it to say that we do ourselves a great disservice by not emphasizing it. Moreover, I do believe baptism is the moment at which a person is saved.

I agree with you it should be much more central. Ulrich Zwingli, in the 1500's, introduced the idea that baptism was a "work" and salvation did not occur at baptism. He developed this doctrine ex nihilo. This was contrary to what Christians had believed for 1500 years up to that point. It is a real tragedy. In fact, many people today believe that if you believe baptism is part of the salvation process that you are teaching "works based" salvation. This is sheer nonsense and displays a lack of understanding about what "salvation by works" actually means, imo.

And, we have many or most Christians who have done the water part, but could not describe any knowledge or experience of the other two baptisms, although Pentecostals make a pretty good show of the spirit one--if one accepts glossololia as spirit baptism anyway. But the baptism of fire, who can witness? Who even gets a sermon on these concepts? I haven't heard one yet, not in 40+ years. So i see the same thing going on as with the foundation being re-layed, over and over; Christianity is turned into discussing sin and death--or death and sin, your choice--even as half or more of the Book is made spiritually unavailable to a "baptized" Christian immediately, as they are encouraged to disregard the passages that would most allow them to grow in Grace--the lessons of Cain, Esau, two men in a bed, on and on--because they now apply to the "unsaved."

Some interesting points you make here. First, I would say that the Bible does not speak of multiple baptisms. There is "one faith, one Lord, and one baptism..." IMO, the Bible is pretty clear that baptism is a sacrament. That is to say, that the physical and the spiritual take place at the same time. Nowhere do we read that there is a spiritual baptism that is to be distinguished from a physical baptism. As I have shown above, the texts suggest that the coming of the Spirit takes place in the physical baptism. A few other verses to consider:

“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13, NIV84)

“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.” (Acts 19:1–3, NIV84)

“Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”” (Acts 8:35–36, NIV84)

A few comments on the above passages. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 12 that we are "baptized by one Spirit" and that in this baptism we are made part of the body and are given the Spirit with the gifts as the Spirit determines. There is no reason to think Paul is speaking of a mystical baptism that is unconnected with physical baptism. Also, we seen in Acts 19 that when Paul learns these men did not have the Holy Spirit, he immediately asks them about their baptism. Finally, we see Philip sharing the Gospel with this Ethiopian, and apparently in the midst of this short presentation of the Gospel, he mentions baptism.

Usually the two passages people point to to try to distinguish physical baptism from a work of the Spirit is Acts 8 and Acts 10. However, these are very unusual circumstances. First, the Samaritans do not receive the Holy Spirit when they are baptized OR when they believe! In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit prior to their physical baptism. Whats up with that?

Well, first, we should be cautious using narratives to determine what is normative in the Christian life. Certainly I haven't heard anyone conclude that the only way to receive the Holy Spirit is if an Apostle lays his hands on you...because belief and baptism are insufficient (which is the case in Acts 8). IMO, the reason for these unusual circumstances is that these are the first times the Gospel has been shared to non-Jews. We see in Acts 1, that the structure of the book is based on Jesus command to take the Gospel from Jerusalem and Judea to Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. When the Gospel goes to the half-Jews of Samaria, Peter has to go and lay hands on the people for the Sprite to come. And when the Gospel goes to the Gentiles, Peter is apparently unwilling (see Acts 11) to baptize Cornelius and his household, to God has to send the Spirit first so he will concede to baptizing Gentiles. So, the point here is that Peter, as the pillar of the Church, is being sent to personally welcome in these outsiders into the life of the Church. As for the didactic teaching of the NT, it is clear that the promise is that the Spirit comes at the moment of water baptism.

I find it unfortunate that some charismatic circles have used these passages as well as some instances where people were "filled" or empowered with the Spirit to do miraculous works as rationale for teaching that there are two baptism that are independent of one another. We see no such teaching in the NT. God's empowering people to do miraculous works has nothing to do with the salvation or sanctification process and should not be expected to be normative in the Christian life. In fact, Paul makes it clear that miracles are not indicators of spiritual maturity, but rather love is. Unfortunately, I have heard many Charistmatics use tongues as the litmus test for spiritual maturity, when Paul is making the exact opposite argument in 1 Cor 12-14.

I agree with you whole heartedly that obedience and growing in grace is much more important and is a much more important topic as it relates to maturity than any particular spiritual gift.

In the Early Church, water baptism literally marked a person as "other" to the Jews, and no doubt even predicated many deaths. Now, the one baptized considers the unbaptized "other," even as they advocate and finance the deaths of others. So to me, it has become chiefly--although not wholly--associated with the oppressors, and used as a yardstick to judge others, at least by the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christianity, many or most of whom would not be as generous as yourself, at least it seems to me.

I am not sure I am following you here. Are you suggesting that organized churches that practice water baptism are oppressors? I certainly disagree that baptism should be done in secret. Baptism was a public act by which a personally openly declared their allegiance to Christ and death to their old self so they could be raised to live a new life in Christ. While there are certainly some bad churches our there, I certainly believe there are also a lot of good ones. I certainly wouldn't call them "oppressive." Yes, Id agree thats a bit over dramatic. However, I also agree that if someone is being baptized merely to fit in, and not because they truly want to surrender their lives to Christ, then there is a problem.

Thanks again for the conversation. Sorry for the lengthy post.

 

[tabletalk]

nice. The error of the wicked might be that they act out the sins of those they have not forgiven, blindly, unawares, and we call this "not forgiving yourself," because it is you that is the one suffering. The formula is "forgive others, and you will be forgiven," not "be forgiven (in baptism, even), and then you can forgive others." We actually forgive ourselves all too easily, in that sense.

I think it is right to say "forgive others, and you will be forgiven". But, we would not even know what forgiveness means (although only partially known) unless we had been forgiven by God first. Conviction of sin comes before the understanding of the forgiveness of that sin. So, when I understand something about forgiveness I must surely extend that to the act of forgiving others, even if they do not accept it, or understand what it means. Sorry to ramble so much!

 

[bbyrd009]

The passage you cite is simply saying that the Gentiles are often more righteous than the Jews because some of them are better at keeping the Law they dont even have then the Jews who know better!

no reason the passage could not be applied as Gentile/Heathen now though too; being as how Gentiles have the NT. Yes it may have been written with Jew/Gentile in mind, but it is a spiritual principle that holds true regardless of the labels iow. It could even be rephrased "A humble guy down at the bar may end up judging you, a Bible thumper."

 

[bbyrd009]

I do believe there will be people who were not baptized in heaven because for many branches of Christianity, they do not baptize, or they baptize infants (which, in my mind, is not a biblical baptism). I do not think God condemns people who are trying to be obedient but simply do not know any better. However, I dont believe it is what God intends and that we have a responsibility to abide by what the Word teaches.

imo you are limiting the saved to those in some form of Christianity here though, when God does not judge like that.
We do have a responsibility to abide by the Word, which is not the Bible; this is possibly how Zwingli got to where he did.

 

[bbyrd009]

Baptism is powerful. I dont have time to go into all the rationale behind why I believe it is so powerful right now, but suffice it to say that we do ourselves a great disservice by not emphasizing it. Moreover, I do believe baptism is the moment at which a person is saved.

me too; but now we are talking about two different experiences, i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree with you it should be much more central. Ulrich Zwingli, in the 1500's, introduced the idea that baptism was a "work" and salvation did not occur at baptism. He developed this doctrine ex nihilo. This was contrary to what Christians had believed for 1500 years up to that point. It is a real tragedy. In fact, many people today believe that if you believe baptism is part of the salvation process that you are teaching "works based" salvation.

if you believe getting washed in water at a church will save you, but you don't grasp that you have to forgive all first, then you are just whistling Dixie. You will end up being the guy who is forgiven a huge debt, and then throws a debtor into prison over a trifle. Ritual baptism will not avail you at all, if you do not change your mind; and when you have changed your mind, the symbolic nature of the ritual is made evident.

Of course this rarely/never comes out to a new seeker, pre-baptism. The Christians guiding them are preoccupied with other agendas, so common that i don't even need to repeat them here. Mostly anxious for the ego-affirmation that having another tither in the fold provides, to put it one way. So yes, as the Christian model is understood today, if you believe baptism is part of the salvation process that you are teaching "works based" salvation. If you do not forgive, your sins are not forgiven.

 

[bbyrd009]

Some interesting points you make here. First, I would say that the Bible does not speak of multiple baptisms. There is "one faith, one Lord, and one baptism..." IMO, the Bible is pretty clear that baptism is a sacrament.

well imo of course there is also a baptism of the Spirit, and one of Fire, it's just that these never come up in the Christian model anymore, except for the stumbling attempt made by Pentecostals @ the Spirit one, in which they also try to shoehorn a physical ritual into a baptism.

That is to say, that the physical and the spiritual take place at the same time. Nowhere do we read that there is a spiritual baptism that is to be distinguished from a physical baptism. As I have shown above, the texts suggest that the coming of the Spirit takes place in the physical baptism.

imo the text is written in such a way that you may come to your own conclusions, and i do not believe that the physical part matters a whit; the flesh profits nothing. The spiritual part is all that matters, imo, and it is wishful thinking, tares, to hope that the spiritual is manifested by ritual; similar to how sins are not forgiven in penance, or "ritual rebound," or asking God in prayer to forgive you of a sin that you have not confessed one to another, however you wanna put it.

None of those work. Now, this does not mean that physical, ritual water baptism is meaningless, either, imo; it is a public profession, and surely it is usually undertaken from pure motives, even as it is surely not fully understood by the new seeker, being directed by those who do not understand, as they generally are. The blind leading the blind, iow.

I would even go so far as to say that this is why we have an account of rebaptism, although that is usually misinterpreted also. The passage is not meaning to refer to a different ritual, but to the Spiritual aspect of baptism. We instruct that a new seeker get baptized as an end, unto salvation, when it is strictly a beginning, so that they may go on to find baptism, if they seek it. But see, if you take the tares, and accept ritual baptism as an end, and you think you are "saved" now, you won't even seek the spiritual meaning of "baptism," just like you now get to disconnect yourself from all of the passages in the Book about "bad guys," that really apply to you, the new believer. Or else the Book was written with the expectation that the lost would read It, which is of course ridiculous. Get comfortable with the idea that you spend a lot of time plowing your own ground, in the manner of Cain, and the lesson of Cain is meant for me and you, as believers.

 

[bbyrd009]

A few other verses to consider:

“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13, NIV84)

“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.” (Acts 19:1–3, NIV84)

“Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”” (Acts 8:35–36, NIV84)

(see that you witness here how it is Gentiles who have the letter now)

 

[bbyrd009]

There is no reason to think Paul is speaking of a mystical baptism that is unconnected with physical baptism.

mystical, shmystical. "Spiritual" does not mean "mystical." It is actually thinking that the proper code words need to be said as you perform some ritual physical work that would be "mystical" imo.

i understand that this is all a challenge to the accepted way of understanding baptism, ok. But one can read water or wine, and it is the blind that seek to lead, the blind.

 

[bbyrd009]

Also, we seen in Acts 19 that when Paul learns these men did not have the Holy Spirit, he immediately asks them about their baptism.

zing. They did not even know there was a Holy Spirit, huh.

 

[bbyrd009]

I am not sure I am following you here. Are you suggesting that organized churches that practice water baptism are oppressors?

i would not have put it that way, but yes. If we are the Church, made of Living Stones, then the sectarian churches we then most often end up congregating in are more akin to secret societies, with their own languages and beliefs that separate one from the proper understanding of community. Exactly what Paul said would happen has happened, iow; the wolves are completely in control. Which is even witnessed by the fact that you surely do not have much community with those in your local church, even though it is local and it is supposed to be your church, lol. Some, maybe, some limited outside social, community interaction with them, perhaps--but for many or most people, their "church" is a completely sequestered group of people that they spend ezackly one hour a week with. So it is only oppression if you accept it, i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think it is right to say "forgive others, and you will be forgiven". But, we would not even know what forgiveness means (although only partially known) unless we had been forgiven by God first. Conviction of sin comes before the understanding of the forgiveness of that sin. So, when I understand something about forgiveness I must surely extend that to the act of forgiving others, even if they do not accept it, or understand what it means. Sorry to ramble so much!

ha, i agree that we "must, surely," but there is the guy who is forgiven the huge debt, and then goes and oppresses a debtor over a trifle; so that becomes something that we must do, but most maybe don't do. At the end of the day, i really don't care what you believe, see; i care whether or not you are a hypocrite.

 

[bbyrd009]

mystical, shmystical. "Spiritual" does not mean "mystical." It is actually thinking that the proper code words need to be said as you perform some ritual physical work that would be "mystical" imo.

i understand that this is all a challenge to the accepted way of understanding baptism, ok. But one can read water or wine, and it is the blind that seek to lead, the blind.

see that it is the religious that is the more mystical, although we have just gotten used to it, and no longer think of it that way. The Spiritual is the practical, where you need it; where you need to practice forgiveness and apologies and grace, which you could go to church for 20, 40 years and never have to say you are sorry to anyone even once, see. Of course many baptized Christians also never say they are sorry IRL either, for the same reason that Sheldon doesn't, that being that he is never wrong. So, what does it matter if you are baptized, if you don't understand baptism, see.

 

[Wormwood]

no reason the passage could not be applied as Gentile/Heathen now though too; being as how Gentiles have the NT. Yes it may have been written with Jew/Gentile in mind, but it is a spiritual principle that holds true regardless of the labels iow. It could even be rephrased "A humble guy down at the bar may end up judging you, a Bible thumper."

Well I think we need to be cautious with those kinds of applications. Paul is writing to people who are under the Law about how both they and Gentiles are in equal need of grace. In my opinion, its a serious abuse of Scripture to equate devote, "Bible-thumping" Christians with legalistic Pharisees who rejected and killed Jesus.

imo you are limiting the saved to those in some form of Christianity here though, when God does not judge like that.
We do have a responsibility to abide by the Word, which is not the Bible; this is possibly how Zwingli got to where he did.

Well, I dont know your background or your views, but if you proposing a kind of individualistic, anti-church notion of Christianity that is popular today, I strongly reject it. Jesus didn't come to save a bunch of individuals. He came to build a Church and create a community where believers "love" each other. The modern, Christian-bashing, elitist forms of individualistic Christianity popular today that basically says, "I dont need the Church, I'll just have my own personal faith with Jesus" is, in my view, anti-Christian. There is nothing loving in such an approach but is generally very arrogant and rejects any leadership but its own. Love is displayed in acts of submission, surrender, self-sacrifice, service to others, and considering others before one's self. Personally, I think many reject formal church settings because they are too self centered to be a part of something bigger than themselves.

Im not saying this is you, but its a trend I see today. In any event, as Christians, we are called to be a part of a body that serves others and loves others. 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

me too; but now we are talking about two different experiences, i guess.

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.

if you believe getting washed in water at a church will save you, but you don't grasp that you have to forgive all first, then you are just whistling Dixie. You will end up being the guy who is forgiven a huge debt, and then throws a debtor into prison over a trifle. Ritual baptism will not avail you at all, if you do not change your mind; and when you have changed your mind, the symbolic nature of the ritual is made evident.

Of course this rarely/never comes out to a new seeker, pre-baptism. The Christians guiding them are preoccupied with other agendas, so common that i don't even need to repeat them here. Mostly anxious for the ego-affirmation that having another tither in the fold provides, to put it one way. So yes, as the Christian model is understood today, if you believe baptism is part of the salvation process that you are teaching "works based" salvation. If you do not forgive, your sins are not forgiven.

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.

imo the text is written in such a way that you may come to your own conclusions, and i do not believe that the physical part matters a whit; the flesh profits nothing. The spiritual part is all that matters, imo, and it is wishful thinking, tares, to hope that the spiritual is manifested by ritual; similar to how sins are not forgiven in penance, or "ritual rebound," or asking God in prayer to forgive you of a sin that you have not confessed one to another, however you wanna put it.

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.

(see that you witness here how it is Gentiles who have the letter now)

I dont know what you are saying here.

 

[mjrhealth]

and rejects any leadership but its own.

Actually that is not rue, it makes them obedient to Jesus and only Jesus nad not men, for as posted before,

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

And yet here we are putting men between man and God,

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

we are supposed to be led by the spirit not man, it was teh whole reason Jesus sent us the holy spirirt, doesnt make anyone better than anyone else, we have a choice men or God, who do you choose to please???

Heb_3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
Heb 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

And what was it that Jesus said,

Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

So many seek Christ but religon so often gets in te hway, be like children and run to Him, no one else can save you, no one...

wants to be used of God can only do so by serving others

Not true, when we allow God to use us and put our own lives in the back burner, than he can use us when we do these things to be aproved by men we receive our reward but its not from God.

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.

Thats back to front, God teaches by experience, teh only way to know God is to experience hIm, than you will see teh truth knowledge counts for little in God kingdom, experience is everything, te hschool of Hard knocks like Job.

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

and that is how it must be,

God I know nothing, teach me a foolish man.

 

[mjrhealth]

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.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well I think we need to be cautious with those kinds of applications. Paul is writing to people who are under the Law about how both they and Gentiles are in equal need of grace. In my opinion, its a serious abuse of Scripture to equate devote, "Bible-thumping" Christians with legalistic Pharisees who rejected and killed Jesus.

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?

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, I dont know your background or your views, but if you proposing a kind of individualistic, anti-church notion of Christianity that is popular today, I strongly reject it.

well, what is your definition of "church?" See, there is no building that you can point to and say "Church." The individual is the Church. Whose borders i see presently expanding, btw, even as the accepted definition of "church" is witnessing implosion; 60 million + have abandoned that model now in the West. So imo regardless of one's opinions, there are other signs to indicate truth there. BAM forsake not gathering yourselves together; but we can witness that our notion of "community"--which i believe is our current vernacular for the best understanding of this concept--is completely exploded now.

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."

Fyi, saved baptist, then went through free will, charismatic, messianic jew, prosperity, and pentecostal. Prolly forgot a couple. Learned some at each one, no horror stories about leaving any of them.

Jesus didn't come to save a bunch of individuals. He came to build a Church and create a community where believers "love" each other.

Amen. A Church made of Living Stones, in a community separate from the world, called earth, perhaps. At the very least imo it is ok to question the definition we have been given, whose borders are shrinking.

The modern, Christian-bashing, elitist forms of individualistic Christianity popular today that basically says, "I dont need the Church, I'll just have my own personal faith with Jesus" is, in my view, anti-Christian. There is nothing loving in such an approach but is generally very arrogant and rejects any leadership but its own. Love is displayed in acts of submission, surrender, self-sacrifice, service to others, and considering others before one's self. Personally, I think many reject formal church settings because they are too self centered to be a part of something bigger than themselves.

Im not saying this is you, but its a trend I see today. In any event, as Christians, we are called to be a part of a body that serves others and loves others. 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

well, i note that in the accepted model of church i am encouraged to dwell on getting myself in shape somehow to be acceptable to spend Eternity in Heaven, generally by proselytizing others into the same belief, which is what passes for "service" now, i guess, similar to how "money" is now "seed" etc, and most or at least many messages from the accepted pulpit seem to concentrate on fixing guilt or placing blame, which imo was not worked out pre-baptism, so that it becomes a club afterward, forevermore, to beat people with. So i suspect this definition of "service," as well as the one of "church," and prolly most of the other important ones, too.

Tares are suddenly "weeds" now, that has happened in my lifetime, can't even find any mind-altering properties in Tares anymore. Not even in the new Strong's anymore, lol. http://biblehub.com/greek/2215.htm see? "worthless." no mention of them still being cultivated and sold, right now today, for their mind-altering effects. Even our translations say "weeds," most of them. "Wine" has equally been obscured, and Distilled Wine, the detergent, well, that is completely gone now. The old wine is better, they say. Of course that is just a reference to some alcoholics, there in a Book for believers in God, meant to impart a closer walk. Prolly has no other meaning, almost certainly probably.

You are going to die alone, and you are driven into the wilderness alone, so imo there is a time for being alone. Where two or three gather in His Name describes no congregation that i have ever been a part of, even if the passage is abused for that--pretty sure that is not what the passage is referring to. You walking out of somewhere, say a store--if you go to stores--and running across someone who needs help, is in distress, say, and you stop to listen for a minute, perhaps, because everyone else is maybe ignoring them, and then someone else materializes at a certain point in the transaction, encouraged by seeing you there listening, or maybe appearing at a crucial juncture in the story, or even at an impasse in the transaction, when you are maybe close to a solution but stuck at some detail--i have had it occur in all these ways--but this is likely the best illumination of wherever two or three gather in His Name, at least imo.

i see the same trend you do, and imo it is because people are done with the hypocrisy and legalism. And i don't mean to blame pastors there, as they are forced into a box imo, of giving the people what they want, which happens step by step, and i think pastors get drawn in. Get put on a pedestal, get swept along by the system, and get forced into positions of having to administrate a church as well as pastor. Signing a 501c3 is de rigeur, right? No one even questions it. Of course you are going to sign, lol, are you crazy?

So pastors end up selling what people want to buy, mostly; because telling them the truth, that no one knows where they go when they die, or telling them to actually follow some of Christ's directions to the 12, or the 70, "you wanna follow Christ? Drop your nets, and leave town in the morning; stay in one place, and eat what they feed you while you are there." See, none of that is very conducive to a large, tithe-paying congregation now, is it. And "churches" have mortgages to pay, these days, right? You don't see any conflict there?

Another thread has already suggested that a believer be "outside the camp," so i might build on that by saying that we mistakenly believe we need to find a group of people who believe just like we do, when experience can show anyone that this is not even possible; that is not what gathering together is for imo. Or it might be, but when you are not of one accord on a matter, that does not translate as "you are in the wrong, and just need to have faith--in your pastor," but rather "no one has it right," most likely. Because everyone will agree with the "right" perspective, without having to be coerced. Or listen to the ones who do not agree; their disagreement will tell you where they are coming from, anyway.

When you go out two-by-two, see--which i am not even talking to Christians now, am i; i am talking to those who want to follow Christ--see that you are going alone, the two men that you are, in a bed. Or by all means take someone if you like, and try the missionary concept first; but you will miss some things, and you haven't really experienced the concept properly, just you alone, trusting God, guided by the Spirit--at least imo. BAM try them both.