Reformed Overview of Evangelism

[Anon68,10 (68.10.127.165)]

To nonotone

My purpose for writing on the crutial subject of evangelism is primarily to clarify some things for myself. This is why it has taken me so long to respond to you. I do not see myself as a committed Calvinist, per se, but there is alot in reformed thinking on this subject that is both helpful and admirable. Much of the following are my own somewhat disconnected observations, and some is the intellectual property of others whom I have cited along the way. I hope there might be something of interest for you in this imperfect version of what I understand to be a Reformed view of evangelism.

GOSPEL : "I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for salvation ..." (Rom1:16)
"...In his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil, or fade - kept for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power unto the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." (1Pet1:3-5)
"So, if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John8:36)
The goal of the gospel is freedom in Christ to the glory of God. Kingdom struggle centers on believers who desire to worship in spirit and in truth.It is not a battle for control [for the purposes of empire building] but for conversion (Michael Horton). This is the bottom line. It is unlikely that many Christians can say this today with integrity (let alone exoerience it!) while operating in ministries that have a different agenda.

EVANGELISM : "But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luke 11:20)
"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." (1Cor1:18-21)
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power." (1Cor4:20)
The bottom line in evangelismis to proclaim the "good news" of the gospel and to point the way for God's people to enter the kingdom. It is at once the special "gift" of some who are skilled in methods of apologetics (evidential and presuppositional), and a "command" given to all born-again Christians in general. (Matt28:19; Act1:8).
The "kingdom of God", in my assessment, is an eschatalogical event in history that "creates" the church. Its origin is from above, not from below. It has in one sense already been realized in terms of "the powers of the coming age" (Heb6:5;Gal5:22,23); but it is still future regarding its consummation at the Second Coming. For this reason the kingdom of God can never be truly identified with any rational system of thought that "creates" an institutional religion.

According to Reformed thinkers the gospel involves three crutial elements :
1. THE NATURE OF GOD AS SOVEREIGN KING AND JUDGE. As sovereign king, what God does is just because he wills it. He does not will something because it is just in itself (John MacArther). God predetermines "whatsoever comes to pass" (Westminster Standards). As judge, God holds every man accountable for his own decisions in life.
2. THE CONDITION OF MANKIND. As a totally depraved sinner, man is unable to do any spiritual good (Gen6:5; Rom3:10-18; 8:7,8). Therefore he needs a Savior.
3. NATURE OF THE GOSPEL. The gospel is the saving work of Christ on behalf of those sinners for whom he died. It involves the proclamation of the kingdom of God to ALL who are invited to enter the kingdom through repentance and profession of faith in Jesus Christ (2Cor7:10; Acts17:30; 20:21; 26:20). The gospel entails both the wrath of God directed at mankind for having broken the law, and his mercy which brings reconciliation. It is the only cure for man's hopeless and helpless condition.

Both Arminians and Calvinists often attempt to strike a balance between God's "sovereign will" and man's human "free will", but the truth of the matter is that you are either on one side or on the other. You cannot just accept the paradox and call that a position because it always leaves you uncertain and therefore undecided in the end. Traditionally, reformers argued that reality is under the directive will of a sovereign Lord who superintends everything : he chooses our circumstances and anticipates our personal decisions which he has always intended should happen as part of his eternal plan. Unlike fatalism, this arrangement (known as personal determinism) in no way interferes with human free will but merely directs it toward a desired end. (By contrast, the so-called libertarian freedom of the Arminians which exists outside God's complete superintendance is nothing more than undifferentiate chaos or the brute facts of "possibilty", making it illusory - Van Til). God then (as judge) holds all men responsible for their own decisions in life - despite their total inability to respond to the gospel. This is justified, in part at least,through the free universal offer of the gospel itself. While it is true that men and women (of themselves) are spiritually incapacitated, they nonetheless reject the gospel "freely' by what Calvin described as "voluntary necessity'. Unlike mechanical determinism, it is a purely moral choice emanating from a fallen state (Rom3:10-12).

What this means for evangelism is that the believer, by his own devises, is under no obligation to "convert" the world on its own terms (despite what evidentialists like Francis Schaeffer and R.C. Sproul say!) "Making disciples of all nations" is not something accomplished through pragmatic marketing techniques (as ends in themselves) or lofty philosophical arguments designed to silence all protests, but is strictly a matter of presenting the person of Christ, who alone (through his Spirit) raises the dead, Our job as "witnesses" is to point the lost to a living Christ and invite them to trust in him. Simply put, they are summoned to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who died for their sins and now offers himself as their savior (Packard). God does the rest. It is not biblical to hold ourselves responsible for the impossible task of securing converts! The Word of God as our sole "rule of faith and practice", along with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, provide the proper authoritative basis for proclaiming the gospel. Everything else - legitimate and illegitimate - is extra-biblical.

Jesus's method of evangelism was not one of manipulation or "technique" but simple, straight forward "command" given to all to repent and believe, based on his own role as Messiah (in fulfillment of Scripture) and a clear grasp of the Father's sovereign authority to do what he will (John4:34; 6:44). In Mark1:15 he says, "The time has come. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" He was not afraid, of course, to use rational persuasion, but never did he entice people to the point of intimidation to say a quick prayer in order to give God "permission" to save them - and this without repentance! Many modern evangelicals, however, do this very thing (and with the best of intentions) on the ground of "common grace", inferring from this that God loves all people indiscriminately and therefore makes salvation POSSIBLE to all,if only they would "choose" to believe it. After all, Christ died for everyone! This not only wrongly implies the unbelievers ability to accept the gospel apart from God's predeterminate will to elect them to salvation, but suggests (at the same time) that Christ's Atonement on the cross is powerless, that it actually saves no one because of its contingency upon the arbitrary decison of the unbeliever. (NOTE: God's "common grace" does come to both the "just" and the "unjust" alike, and there is the free unuversal offer of the gospel. But for conservative Reformers, this is only part of the truth, since God, in fact, does NOT love all men indiscriminately when it comes to special or SAVING grace that makes redemption ACTUAL for some (as opposed to possible for all). There are many verses and passages in the Bible to support this view : Ps135:14; MT16:18; Lk4:17ff; Jn6:37,44; 15:16; Acts13:48; Rom8:29ff; Rom9; Eph1; 2Thess2:13,etc.

While on earth, Jesus both procalimed the kingdom of God was at hand in fulfiilment of the Scriptures (Isa61:1,2;Lk7:22;4:18,19)and engaged the lost in dialogue (Jn4,etc); yet he always allowed them to choose for themselves which kingdom they would inherit. After his resurrection, Peter and Paul did much to persuade with argument as well (1Pet3:15; Acts17:17), yet, again, without any manipulation of any kind. It was God's work to convict sinners and draw them into the kingdom; for it was thriugh hid Spirit that Christ would build his church (Mt16:18). These Apostles had a clear grasp of the gospel of grace in which the idea of sovereign "election" played an important role and was essential in understanding the nature of the church- in fact, divine "election" was the very identity of the church and thus profoundly informed evangelism (MacArther). Neither man was under pressure to meet "quotas" because each knew very well that only God could raise the dead. Nor was either one double-minded when it came to storing up treasues on earth (Mt6"19). Unlike Laodicean type Christians of today, Peter and Paul were committed followers of Christ, as those who were "walking between the ages". Their hearts were absolutely "fixed" on the eschatalogical kingdom of God where the real treasure was to be found. At once free in Christ and slaves to his righteousness, they were powerfully motivated to win souls because of a personal coviction that Christ was coming back,(and in the case of Paul, within his own lifetime!) Soul winning was not drudgery for them but a matter of urgency. They considered it pure joy to share in the sufferings of Christ. Paul, remember, may have been a master-builder, but his foundation was always and decidedly Christ! He was not imterested in building religius empires in order to gain recognition for himself.

When we barter the gospel through the use of popular marketing techniques and pressure tactics designed to draw people into the church, irrespective of what God himself may be doing, both the gospel and our call to be witnesses of Christ are trivialized. The cross, itself, ceases to be an "offense" as it was originally meant to be (Gal5:11), and is made into a status symbol instead. Tampering with the gospel in this way exchanges the cross for an acceptible (and therefore unbiblical) "lifestyle" that literally promises "the world" to anyone who embodies the right conduct and belongs to the right group. Everything becomes a complicated affair since the ogiginal intent of the gospel (repent and believe) as preached by Jeus and the Apostles is replaced by a subtle subversion of biblical truth that imposes a moralistic burdem where none is required. The result, again, is a gospel without power because of a failure to discern the human condition for what it is outside Christ - tragic. T.S.Eliot said it best : "Certain saints found the following of Jesus Christ very hard [in terms of the narrow gate], but modern methods have facilitated everything." Note the ironyhere!

The idea of catering to "populal taste" in order to mold reality to fit a particular moral and religious agenda reveals the worldliness of the church. One enduring example of this kind of worldliness is the "need" to believe that salvation is a real POSSIBILITY outside the enabling power of God. The very idea of a sovereign Lord who would actually "pass over" anyone at all is seen as offensive. It is better to think of God as "limiting" himself in some way in order to lessen the offense and place the burdem of saving souls sqarely on the backs of individuals themselves, some of whom will take it to geat lengths, in accordance with their gifts and temperament. Hence, the strong motivational messages to go soul winning given by those with "spiritual authority". It is driven into the hearts and minds of believers that it is their responsibility to get people saved, and (hopefully), in many cases, to get them to fill the pews. In the meanwhile, the true character of the gospel (as the power of God for salvation)with its free invitation to enter God's kingdom through repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ, is effectively obscured.

(It must be kept in mind that "confrontational" soul winning does have a place in a ministry and is usually the domain of those who are "gifted" in that area. This is not to say that other "less" gifted people are not commanded to soul win. We need to understand what evangelism means in general terms (as well as in the more specific sense). Generally speaking, I believe the Great Commission of Mt28:19 is defined by our personal witness of Jesus Christ (Acts1:8) and by the demonstration of the fruit of tha Holy Spirit (Gal5:22,23)in our lives. Obviously, if people cannot see the the freedom of Christ in us by the way we live, our witnes means little, and our effectiveness in making disciples is minimized. Soul winning, as you well know, is not a matter of cleverly drawing in the crowds but of the witness of Christ's love being piured out into our hearts in all of its outward manifestations (Rom5:1-5) - as vividly portrayed in Jesus, himself, and in the Apostles after him.)

A problem occurs, however, as the believer unwisely tries to coax another to say a prayer "by faith" in order to give God permission to save him. It is deemed as much the soul winner's resposibility to save an unbeliever as it is the unbeliever's responsibility to get saved! It will be said, of course, that the unbeliever is the one ultimately responsible. Unfortunately, this is obscured by the gnawing feeling at the back of the believer's mind that if he doesn't do something in the moment, that individual may never have another opportunity to make a decision for Christ, thus making him (the believer) just as responsible! In the final anaysis, both sides feel uneasy with the whole affair. (I remember going through this many times, characteristically making a fool out of myself trying to get people to say a prayer, not because of a genuine interest in their spiritual welfare, but to lessen the burden of guilt!)

It would be helpful to point out here that I am not saved "by faith" but by the Finished Work of Christ on the cross as it is applied to me personally. Faith, itself, is only the means of responding to that grace. In other words GRACE is the ground of my salvation NOT FAITH. Without grace, and more specifically withoput God's predeterminate free election , I am unable and unwilling to accept my fallen state at all. It is God's SOVEREIGN ELECTION that puts into motion the process of my salvation, with Christ dying specifically for my sins in particular and not everybody else's in general. Since salvation therefore is NOT in their power to control, these diehard advocates of power evangelism would do well to abandon their futile attempts to do God's work for him; it would save them (not to mention their victims) a world of frustration and embarrassment.

Undergirding much that is wrong with present day evangelism is the false philosophical notion of Arminian self-determinism (autonomous freedom) which invariably teaches God's dependence upon the individual. It is part and parcel of the huge controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism over the sovereignty of God verses human free will. Neither side (for the most part) denies that God operates through two wills: his DECRETIVE sovereign will (or secret will involving special grace for salvation - what God does directly and what is always accomplished - Rom9:18ff; Eph1:5,9,11) and PRECEPTIVE will (or revealed will involving common grace - what God does indirectly through men (often disobeyed), circumstances, etc - Rom10:8). In the first of these, God determines what HE will do, and in the second God reveals to us what WE must do (rule of life). The real difference of opinion, however, is seen in their ultimate purpose : with Arminianism's emphasis on free will (the latter), the ultimate goal is self-determinism in which all my personal choices become the sole property of my own will outside of God's superintendance. For Calvinism, with its own emphasis on God's sovereignty (the former), the ultimate goal is the glory of God toward which ALL the details of life and creation are directed, INCLUDING the destinies of men and angels.

Arminianism is a SYSTEM OF REALITY APART FROM GOD in which everything exists in a state of uncertainty. Calvinism, on the other hand, is a SYSTEM OF MAKING GOD KNOWN IN REALITY THROUGH HIS WILL. In the first reality, God foreordains my salvation because he foreknows what "I" will choose. I have a problem with this view logically speaking : how can God have a certain knowledge of an uncertain future? If my choice is "absolutely" free (that is, apart from God's directive influence) then it is UNCERTAIN, not certain. But if that choice is already known, then it can no longer be free because it is now CERTAIN (Wright). Thus, it is not that God foreordains my salvation because he foreknows my "uncertain" choice; rather God foreknows my choice because he has foreordained it - that is, it is a CERTAIN THING and has been from the beginning. In short, God, once again, is sovereign and my very freedom to choose at all is because of that sovereignty. As a matter of fact, MY FREEDOM AS A BELIEVER IS ESTABLISHED IN GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY! Discovering God's will - especially when it comes to salvation - is not some elusive "possibility" that MIGHT be true according to an arbitrary choice, but is something definite and clear in terms of biblical mandates, promises, and a realistic view of the Scriptures. My specific choices made "by faith" simply ARE the will of God because the future as "fixed" is worked out in the power of the Holy Spirit (Phil 2:12,13; Eph2:10). In terms of salvation itself, it is all by grace alone through faith alone as a pure gift from God (Eph2:8,9).

The Arminian position (also identified with Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism) is the basis of a driving legalism since the believer has to decide at every moment (and without assurance) which kingdom he is going to live in. He never really knows where he stands with God in his will because he is never able to define what that will is except as it is interpreted and legislated through whatever arbitrary system of authority he happens to be under. But the point is I am either in one kingdom or the other TO BEGIN WITH ! If I am truly saved, I am in God's kingdom, and it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that I remain there, not by my power. All my choices within the kingdom are empowered by God! If I am to have any assurance of my salvation - if I am to have any genuine confidence in soul winning - it must be rooted in an almighty sovereign Lord. God does not meet me half way. For God to need my permission in an absolute sense implies a NEUTRAL GROUND wherein I negotiate with him regarding my own eternal destiny, and that of others. (This gives rise to the concept of NATURAL THEOLOGY : the idea that I have access to truth outside of, or independently of, God that somehow puts me on a level playing ground with him, resulting in mutual dependence). This flatly denies God's absolute sovereignty in his dealings with men, effectively rendering him ipotent - as if God's hands were tied behind his back waiting for me to do something so he can go on with his plan of redemption.

The capstone to all of this Arminian legalism is that I must endure in my faith or my faith will not endure -Zaine Hodges. There is a flip-side also - namely, the "carnal" Christian who doesn't have to endure in his faith at all!-Charles Ryrie. (But this antinomian tendency undermines the Christian's responsibility to walk worthily of his calling). In either case, such obscuantism does nor ensure freedom in Christ but rather guarantees its demise. Everything is either held in rigid control or it is allowed to dissolve into chaos. Regarding evangelism, the message is clear : unless I win souls according to the dictates of my "spiritual" leaders, I am a failure as a Chrisian. This is very different from directly experiencing the love of the Holy Spirit being poured out into my heart to the end that my identity in Christ is established and I am motivated and empowered to actually want to be a witness of these things to a lost world.

How we see ourselves as evangelists and live our lives as Christians rests entirely on our understanding of the breadth of God's Lordship over his creation, with its focus on eschatalogical redemption. We cannot reduce God's sovereignty and man's free will to a paradox and assume that as a position. Either we are on one side or we are on the other. There can be no middle ground. To believe that God depends on me to build his kingdom is, in the final anaysis, like putting the proverbial cart before the horse - it is self-defeating. Instead of God sovereignly "leading" me in such a fashion that I experience real freedom in making real decisions in a normal way, I end up manipulating him (and others), or I end up being manipulated myself. More likely it is both. Calvinism teaches true freedom of enablement in soul winning, while Arminianism (with its distorted view of a gospel that is all by grace BUT at the same time dependent on me) is neither free nor empowered since what I choose to do, ultimately, is left up to me alone. Many evangelical ministries are influenced by the Arminian philosophy. It is a poor substitute for reality as it actually is in the presence of a God who controls and determines all things.

[nonotone (24.211.177.206)]

Thanks Anon68,10!

[Anon68,10 (68.10.127.165)]

Nonotone
I just read over my post and noticed alot of spelling errors. Sorry about that. Luckily, the words should be easy to figure out. The writing is also a bit complicated in places, but if you are patient with it, it will make sense. Thanks for your interest.
Anon68,10

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Everybody needs to read this.

[nonotone (24.211.177.206)]

Friends,

The above discussion on Biblical Evangelism is one of the most liberating that I've read in a long time. I've spent many, many years in GGWO, "TRYING" to win souls. In previous posts, I've shared how I prayed on my knees for hours to God to get a "burden for souls" and be "the kind of soul winner that Pastor Carl H. Stevens is".

Progressively, I simply got weaker and weaker - to the point where going out to knock on a door or confront someone on the street, literally made me nauseous and weak-in-the-knees (remember this was AFTER much training at MBC&S and hour-upon-hour of prayer).

The interesting thing about all this is tat in prior years, I REALLY LOVED sharing the gospel. I would stop for the poor man whose beat up car was stalled on the side of the road, give him $20 and share briefly that Jesus Christ love him was seeking him for His kingdom. In another instance, God allowed me to notice the swollen, cracked hands of a homeless man, in the middle of the New England winter, without any gloves - and was able to give this main a pair of high-quality, yet used, ski gloves that I was not longer wearing. With this gift, a brief word about the Jesus' gospel.

These kinds of "divine encounters" filled me with so much joy and sense of purpose in God's plan. However, the "right-wing" tirades on "soul winning" that I heard regularly for many years at GGWO Baltimore simply destroyed this joy. What was even more disheartening was that Pastor Carl H. Stevens would actually "mock and bait" people from the pulpit who would not "soul win" his way - that is through door knocking or some other weekly outreach aimed at direct confrontation.

I participated in MANY of these weekly outreaches, but invariably would gravitate toward buying food for a homeless man or simply listening to him for 15 to 20 minutes, then sharing the gospel with him in brief. I remember nearly everyone of these fine people - created in God's image, yet disenfranchised in a fallen world.

I know that GGWO has a heart for the homeless and downtrodden -there is no doubt about this. However, what has always confused me is that Pastor Stevens cannot seem to QUALIFY his statements about "soul winning" by simply sharing that in God's sovereign design for the universe He has "made people to differ" regarding their gifting in the realm of evangelism.

I've heard Pastor Stevens say that the "heart vision" he received that yielded the message "Last Looks, Last Thoughts, Last Words" is what motivated him to preach this way. It is my observation that much of this is based on the very Ariminian view of the following scriptures:

Ezekiel 3:18-19 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezekiel 33:8-9 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 9Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

It is also my observation that this kind of motivation to soul win permeates many areas of GGWO theology - especially the teachings on "Bema Seat" rewards, and the GGWO take on "Election" (i.e. that Jesus Christ was the ONLY one that God ever predestinated that He foreknew who would make a decision to receive Him in time and thus elected those who would choose Him as their savior). I've actually heard more than one GGWO Pastor say that to agree with the Calvinistic view of election is to eliminate confortational evangelism. This is interesting, because Church History records that many of the greatest "soul-winners" were Calvinist (e.g. Whitefield, Studd, Spurgeon, etc.).

ANON68 - thanks once again for the "liberating" view on God's Sovereignty in Evangelism!

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Anon 68, nonotone, Cordell...

Perhaps the missing ingredient here is 1Co 2:4 -

"....and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.."

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Reformed evangelism is best describe by this:

John 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

We get to participate in God's work.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

That is a great principle, Cordell. However, you did not directly answer my statement. And how would you put the practical application of Jn 3;8?

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

The practical application, my dear brother, is that God is sovereign in salvation. Practical means that you do something...the only thing you do is preach, in and out of season--the Word belongs to the Holy Spirit (he inspired it) and he uses it in regeneration. The Word and Spirit work together, sovereignly--as HE wills. Hence, "so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." You don't get to tell the Spirit when and where to work or not work--He goes where He wants to.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Yes, Cordell. That all was understood, my dear, dear, DEAR brother. Yet you have not answered my question, so I'll rephrase it:

(Before, please try to understand that I basically agree, I am just trying to clarify something.)

1. How in parctice, do you know ehen and where the Spirt blows?

2. How do you deal with the Scripture I gave?

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

1. You don't at the time.

2. You do in retrospect (or you are an apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit.)

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Brother, the verse says "you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going"

Do not know means do not know.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Ah yes! The glorious doctrine of cessation!

[ss (24.131.172.186)]

:0

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Cessation? This is the age of the work of the Spirit! Regeneration is miraculous! It is wholly not a work of man or anything to do with what man does. John 3 is all about regeneration. It has nothing to do with the "gifts."

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

"these signs shall follow THEM THAT BELIEVE"

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Note the absence of the word "all" in that verse.

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

....so is everyone who is born of the Spirit

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

I don't know what your point is PG, are you saying that signs follow everyone born of the Spirit?

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

no point...just completing the verse (Jn 3:8)

[Just Thinking (4.244.186.122)]

To NoNoTone:
Spurgeon was a great soul winner. He commented once: "If God had placed a stripe on the back of all the elect than I would walk daily through the streets of London simply lifting their shirts. But, since He has not I preach 'Whosoever will come'."
There is a mystery between the election of God and the free will of man. I like what Swindoll said. "Outside the gates of heaven there is a sign that reads, 'Whosoever will, come'. Inside the gates of heaven there is a sign that reads, 'elect before the foundation of the world'.
All I do is extend the invitation because the bride and the Spirit say come.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

And Spurgeon, like all the greatest evangelists, was a Calvinist.

[Sam Spade (24.131.172.186)]

Paul was a Calvinist??? Did he also read the KJV?

So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 1:7,8]

"Tongues recur in Christian revivals in every age, e.g., among...the early Quakers, the converts of Wesley and Whitefield, the persecuted Protestants of the Cevennes, the Irvingites, and the revivalists of Wales and America." 3 The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1949 ed, vol 22, p. 283.

Justin Martyr (died 165) "For the PROPHETICAL gifts remain with us, even to the present time."
Dialogue with Trypho, LXXXII, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Roberts and Donaldson, vol. 1,

Irenaeus (died 202) "In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess PROPHETIC gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God." Against Heresies, V.

Tertullian (died 220), replying to Marcion, a Gnostic: "Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some PROPHETS, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer - only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy; that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him...Now all these signs are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator..." Against Marcion, V,8, Ibid., vol.3, pp. 446,447.

Novatian (died 257) "This is He who places PROPHETS in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus makes the Lord's Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed."

Cordell said: [Re: Mr 16:17] "Note the absence of the word "all" in that verse."
That is a very dubious method of interpretation, called the negativistic fallacy. You can mean "all" without actually saying it. The weight of Scripture and church history prove you wrong. Imagine applying the same method to all soteriological verses! Ack!

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Anon 68...Fascinating discourse that I have enjoyed enormously. Thanks!

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

So Sam, do you read the word "all" into the verse?

I am saying it is not there and it isn't.
That signs and wonders do not follow all the saints is evident by simple common sense.

This is not an exegetical fallacy. The word "all" IS presumed in Rom.8.29ff. That is why I am a Calvinist.

Everytime you guys see the word "gift" in the scriptures you think modern tongues and charismatic experience--this is an anachronistic imposition of your experience again.
Your view of church history is skewed by your anachronistic view of the experience of the ancients. In addition, ancient is not necessarily correct.

Most modern heresies have ancient roots--Sabellianism, Nestorianism,Arianism etc. Just because an experience is ancient does not make it biblical. Do you really want to align yourself with the Quakers? The Anabaptists? The Irvingites and the Montanists? Is it because of their experience alone?

Prophesy declaring the mysteries of God is just as easily preaching the Word as it is a confirmation of your experience.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.165.67)]

I kinda think that the holy Spirit's idea is that He's in control and not us; even if we think we are. He equips us with 'gifts'. But I don't feel any distinction from Him between 'natural' gifts and 'spiritual' ones. I consider precise intelligence to be a gift from Him, as well as creativity, musical predispositions, ability in art, administrative skills, etc. I'm not really much interested in defining His gifts, although I don't have any problem with discussing the way things work for me. I find some similarities in others and do learn things from them. But I think trying to school people in 'the gifts' ends up limiting their expectations by too closely defining them. Our interaction with the Spirit has a personal flavor to it. He treats us as individuals. He doesn't drag out the cookie cutter. His presence within us brings aspects of Christ's image to light for those around us. When Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, it wasn't impressive by 'pentacostal' standards. There weren't visible angels in the room applauding. He was just washing feet. But emotionally and psychologically it was very deeply profound and illustrative of the character of God. Mother Teresa reflected this same kind of light in her actions and attitude. We have the option of being open to God, of letting out the light He has for us today and walking in it. Jesus was the express image of God the Father. Collectively we are meant to be the image of Christ. We lift Him up by being one with our Head. Submit to Him in the details of today. Love, Bob

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

Great thought Bob,

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Does God as he wills give pastoral gifts (in your reformed theology)to one seperate and apart from the pastoral office?

And can the pastoral office be rightly bestowed upon men who are not given a pastoral gift, as he wills?

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

"29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?" from 1 Cor. 12


4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; 7 if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; 8 or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
From Romans 12

Let's go here first.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Roberta wrote:
"And can the pastoral office be rightly bestowed upon men who are not given a pastoral gift, as he wills?"

Answer: Rightly? No.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

Ah; but men will sometimes appoint them as such in opposition to the Spirit. Bob

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Roberta wrote:
"Does God as he wills give pastoral gifts (in your reformed theology)to one seperate and apart from the pastoral office?"

Answer: I would need to know what you are calling "pastoral gifts" in order to adequately answer that.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Bob, it happens everyday.

See James 3:1
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

pther uncomfortable thought, Cordell; but at the same time you have to teach if that's what the Lord gives you to do. Disobedience is not an acceptable alternative. You are teaching here; and I appreciate your many contributions. God bless, Bob

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

The above was meant to start out, "That is a rather... I don't know why it posted the way it did.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

And even if you do teach, your hearers should really be like the Bereans--to keep you in line--"examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

For Cordell

Pastoal gifts: those gifts of the Spirit given to individuals that include revelation of the Holy Spirit in the Word, Spirit filled homilies/sermons, Spirit led "word in season" to those who come to you...leadership in prayer, comapssion for the hurting, true humility...the gift of comfort to the confesser, the wounded, the confused etc. with a Spirit filled love for God's people who have sought you out for Him.

I know people who have been the pastor and show few if any of these qualities. I have seen others that posses them all. On the pretext that Carl Steven's is not himself qualified to ordain a pastor...that is my conclusion at least...I can only say tht I am glad God is in control and can use even bad men to preach.

What about the man who has all these gifts I mentione, or a woman, but because of the literal application of the Bible is not allowed to use them? I know women who possess all the pastoral gifts...I am not referring to myself, who have not been given place to preach...I know many men who are pastors who never even come close to having what it takes to pastor God's people, yet because of the literal translation are allowed due to gender the pastoral office.

Is it your theology that pastoral gifts, such as I mentioned, are seperate from the pastoral office? God gives the pastoral gifts to men and women who for what ever reason are not allowed to share them as they are perhaps meant to be shared and I find that doesn't seem to be in accordance with his character....have I made this clear as mud?

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Yes.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Gifts are given for the edification of the body of Christ.

If you have been given gifts, you are to use them for that purpose.

God defines the offices in the church in 1 Tim. 3, and confines them to males (in my and most other conservative evangelicals' positions).

If you have been given a gift, whatever it is, it is for use in a local assembly, not as an individual--I base this on 1 Cor. 12-14. We can't do without each other is one of those messages in ch.12.

More later

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

Cordell, Perhaps Roberta's physical limitations and the advent of the internet and email somewhat changes the dynamics of what constitutes 'the local assembly'. Also, her definitin of pastor/pastoral is very likely different than yours. We should be very careful not to shut her off from what she is given by the Lord to do. He sometimes works outside the lines even He has established. Her heart is really beautiful, and she seeks to help the wounded and helpless. I know we want to aim for absolute truth, to the degree that that is possible; and I don't want you to compromise; but don't hinder her from giving herself. I don't at all think that that is what you're trying to do. Bob

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

I believe that a women can posess the gifts of a pastor. She can lead, guide and care for God people in a variety of ways.
Paul however restricted the office to males.
That's not a problem.

Women who think they can only serve to shepherd people in the office of overseer, or elder severely limit God's ability to use them. Since He has defined the boundaries very clearly, we can trust He knows best and move forward with confidence that we are gifted (still).

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Bob,
If you were guided more by the Word than by your own "feel good" ideas, your posts would not be so wishy-washy. I don't want to be unkind but I really can't stand it anymore.
The Word defines the local assembly, and the internet and email does not change that, nor does anyone's physical limitations. The Word defines what a pastor is, not Roberta's definition. God never "works outside the lines even He has established", which is His Word.
No matter how beautiful you think someone's heart is, if they contradict the Word then their contradiction is not of God. If you would just grasp that simple yet crucial truth, we would all be spared your sentimental ramblings.

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

what became of pastor canon's (mary jo's spouse) first wife; i remember her from the "mother's room?"

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Someone asked me some time ago my reasons for believing that the Bible does NOT say women can't preach. I realize that the men here are literalists, fundamentalists, reformed...from mostly the non-inclusive side of the question.

I also realize before I post this that you will not agree. It is not necessary for me that anyone does or doesn't. Truly I am very comfortable with how I believe, and am not out to change anyone. But, I did think I might post this anyway as so many have asked.

Please...do not crucify me here. *s* I know you disagree and I am not posting this to cause strife. I am comfortable that reasonable people can do disagree and still love and serve God together as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would also like to day to Anon 200 that your post about Bob Brinton is not fair. He is far from a wishy washy Christian. He has a beautiful walk with God and you mustn't chastise him for caring about people. I have been fortunate to have known him, God is well pleased with his servant's heart and judging him is not fair nor is it wise. Please be kind to your brother in Christ. He is one of the few who really serve quietly and with abundant grace.

Thanx.

Here you are...

God called and used women preachers in the Old Testament.

a. Deborah - Judges 4:4-5. Deborah was a Judge for both civil and criminal cases. The children of Israel came to her for judgment. She was the chief ruler of Israel for 40 years, giving orders to the Generals and all the army. She did the work of an evangelist, prophetess, judge, and preacher. God gave her authority over the mighty (Judges 5:13).

b. Miriam - Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4. She was a Prophetess and a Song Leader in Israel.

c. Huldah - 2 Kings 22:14. Five men went to Huldah and communed with her. She spoke to a congregation of men concerning the book of the Law. A female preached to a man's congregation, and her message was taken to the nation.

d. MaherShalalHashBaz's mother - Isaiah 8:3. She was a prophetess.

God called and used women preachers in the New Testament.

a. The first message of the Resurrection of Christ was spoken by women to a group of men. (Why were the women at the tomb believing while the men were hiding out?)

b. Anna - Luke 2:36-38. She must have prophesied in church, because she did not depart from the temple.

c. Phillip had 4 daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:9.

d. Priscilla assisted Paul in his revival meeting and even taught Apollos in the way of the Lord more perfectly.

e. Phebe - Romans 16:1-2. Paul commended Phebe to the Church at Rome and requested that they assist her in her business. She was one of Paul's assistants in the work of the Lord and delivered the Book of Romans to the people from the hand of Paul.

Some say God will not use a woman to preach, because "The woman was deceived," but remember Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world." Adam was just as guilty as Eve in the fall of man. If anyone should be kept from preaching because of sin, it would be Adam. But God does not forbid anyone from preaching, because of Adam's or Eve's sin.

1 Cor. 14: 34-35 does not say anything about women preachers. If Paul intended this verse as a general rule to restrict all women from speaking in church, then they cannot teach Sunday School, testify, pray, sing, or even get saved and this would contradict the rest of the Bible (Acts 2:4; Acts 2:16-18).

Paul was dealing with a particular problem in the church. Women were not educated as were the men in that day; therefore the women would talk back and forth to their husbands in church and ask questions concerning the sermon. Paul said, "If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." If they want to talk things over let them wait until they get home.

If a woman cannot speak in church, then she cannot speak in prayer meeting, young people's service, etc. Christ's Church is not a building, but rather it is found where two or three are gathered together in His name, whether at a street meeting, in a tent, a home, church, classroom or anywhere else.

1 Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket rule for all women of all churches. If it were, then the women could not speak at all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be silent.

If all women had to keep silent in church, then that would be promoting disobedience to God, for they could not pray, testify, sing, exhort, do personal work, or even get saved.

Whenever an interpretation to a verse contradicts the rest of the teaching of the Bible, we know this interpretation is incorrect, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict His own Word.

This is the chief verse that is used to oppose women preaching and yet it says nothing about preaching, nor does it say anything about a public worship or church service. This verse is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now he states in 1 Tim. 2:12 that the woman should learn in silence, and should not usurp authority over the man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem than a church problem.

Some have used Titus 1:6-7, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children...", but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. A bishop/elder is an overseer, and pastors generally are not (nor should they be)


The Bible often speaks of "man" when it refers to both men and and women inclusively. The word "mankind" also includes both men and women. For an example of this word usage see 1 Cor. 13:1 - "Though I speak with the tongues of MEN and angels...." This word "MEN" includes women as well, for we do not have one language for men and another for women.

I believe it is wrong to condemn women preachers because God has stamped His approval on them by His Spirit over and over again, and who is man to fight against the Spirit of God?

To condemn women preachers is to claim they are doing wrong and committing sin...and all those who support them and listen to them are having a part in that sin.

To do this, you must condemn approximately 99% of all the Spirit-filled believers and the vast majority of all of Christianity.

"Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons..." (Acts 10:34).

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Excuse me...meant to address Anon 205

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Well Roberta,
You're right. I disagree. And I have been through all of this before. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I will allow anyone who wishes to go to the other thread to see my argument.

You said one thing I will address briefly:

but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. A bishop/elder is an overseer, and pastors generally are not (nor should they be)


The office is "elder" or "bishop." Peter as an elder commands other elders to "feed the flock of God," which is the function of an elder. So elders are by function to manage the household of God--a pastoral duty.

1Peter5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

And see 1 Tim. 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

So my dear folks, elders are by necessity pastors because of the duties the Word of God imposes on them. And by necessity of the scriptures elders are male. That's the story I'm sticking with. Color me tired of this argument

And Bob, with all due respect brother, the scriptures command the Church of God to meet together, to preach the gospel faithfully and to administer the sacraments (or ordinances for our Baptist friends.) This last command implies discipline in the church. These people meet together in a locality. That is church. This is not. We are part of the 'universal' church, but we need to see one another to be called a church in the local sense, because communion requires eating together.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

And Roberta I love you dearly and hold you in highest esteem. I can do that and still disagree with you on this point.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Cordell, I did not mean to tire you, and I know we agree to disagree about women preaching. As I say I am very comfortable with that.

However, I would like to comment about your words to Bob about local assemblies.

I am, and know many people throughout the country in similar circumstances to my own, who are unable to attend local assemblies. There is no local church in my area that I am led to join. This is not unusual. That is not to say that joining together in worship is not wonderful, it is. But I believe God's heart is also to minister to those disenfranchised of us who are not able. I do understand your point of view, but would suggest that God is bigger than the "church on the corner" box when needed. He has given me so much with the portion I am able to give and recieve, and I am content.

My multiple diabilities have hindered my walk not at all and I would never despise the garden meetings with Him in my heart, the spot on the shore where we commune together alone in my prayers. The physical "communion", the wafer and wine are not necessary to fellowship with Him....His blood and broken body are everyday remembered very clearly in my pain without the outward symbols.

For others I know this is also true. We keep each other uplifted, encouraged and the sweet fellowship of comfort and grace is magnificent.

No one can argue your "correctness". And though I don't consider you a Pharisee, I might gently challenge you to see more of God than the rules...especially for those of us that are unable to keep them to the letter. For to sit at His feet is what I want...my afflictions have given me a larger understanding of grace and the communion I have goes beyond the eating together.

If God has allowed the afflictions, (and to answer anyone who might wonder if I were afflicted before or after I renounced GGWO...I have been ill all my life, and became increasingly worse while in Lenox at SSB)I know they must be for my good. His was are not our ways and so often beyond understanding. I love his mystery.

I love you dearly also, Cordell...this you know, and I respect your walk with God. Your walk differs from mine, and that is as it should be. Right or wrong...really isn't the issue. That we can love him and each other as his children, is a blessing some people ever get. I have a life full of blessings as do you.

Peace

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

I am wondering what Jack and Lee might have to say on this issue...I think they mentioned their church has women preachers.

Interesting.

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

Imagine...by Mercy Me

I can only imagine
What it will be like
When I walk
By Your side
I can only imagine
What my eyes will see
When Your face
Is before me
I can only imagine

[Chorus]:
Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel
Will I dance for You Jesus or in awe of You be still
Will I stand in Your presence or to my knees will I fall
Will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all
I can only imagine

I can only imagine
When that day comes
And I find myself
Standing in the Son
I can only imagine
When all I will do
Is forever
Forever worship You
I can only imagine

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

God giving David Saul's wives is working outside the lines. So is asking one of His prophets to marry a prostitute. These things were both done under the old covenant.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

Cordell, I attend a local church that has a man as pastor. I also gather in other settings 'outside the camp' with other believers. There are many in the local area that are deeply wounded from years of spiritual abuse and find it difficult to even go into churches or to trust other believers. I want these people back. If we have to go outside the camp and use other methods, then it's worth it for those people. There is a kind of health that is found through believers from different churches coming together for worship and ministry.

There also are people who can't leave where they are to attend churches. These are the kind of people Roberta reaches out to. And the truth is that local churches don't always do a very good job of reaching them. Roberta sees the need and has vision for it.

I definitely believe in local churches, but I think gatherings outside of them and beyond their authority are healthy. That said, I also believe each one of us needs to have authority over us. No lone wolf here. Bob

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

I understand your argument Roberta and by the way appreciate your desire to serve Jesus Christ by preaching the Gospel.
The ladies you mentioned above were part of the Nation of Israel, and were used mightily during their generations.

Paul has left us with very precise standards with regards to the office of the Pastor and/or the elder.
I think you may have the ability to shepherd, nurture and care for people in a very tender compassionate way. But since God in scripture limits the OFFICES to males, I would not attend a church that has either a Pastor, Elders or Deacons that are females, based upon the verses I mentioned and those Cordell mentioned.

None of the women listed above served as priests in the tabernacle or temple. That's because God defined that office very precisely also.
No, I do not think Pastors are the NT priest, just using that to show that God gave boundaries to that office as well.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Roberta,
That folks who are "shut-ins" are neglected by the local church is a sad commentary on the church. I know of many churches that extend their ministry to folks like that bringing the sacraments with them. My Dad's pastor visited him at home and brought communion to him. This situation does not preclude the necessity of the local congregation. The exceptions do not negate the norm. The "times" do not impose on a God who changes not.

Scripture is not just "rules about stuff I gotta do." Scripture reveals the character of Christ and compels us to follow Him. He chose to die, to lay down his life for the church. It is catholic or universal, it is both visible and invisible, it is both triumphant and militant--it is also local with skin on. Dare I quote Calvin and draw fire? Aw heck, why not: we desert the church "at our peril." She is our "mother." And if you think you have "God as your Father you MUST have the church as your mother." How's that for feminine?

And Bob, I don't, and I think it would be obvious, discount Christian meetings outside the Church activities. But let's not call it "doing church." Because it isn't. Wherever two or three are gathered he is there, yes, but that is not the only ingredient to "Church."

The Mercy Me song is one of my family's favorites.

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Boundaries, boxes, rules, regulations, conformity and restrictive structure. Oh Constantine, you foolish emperor...we have a Roman concept of the Galilean's message and I fear that men will always see it thus. Your political use of the Nazareen has led the world so far from his heart. They now "conquor the world for Christ" every bit as regimentally as the men of southern Italy conquored the world for Rome. The Roman Jewish Pharisee and the Councils of Romans have elected the Canon of Scripture to be so restrictive as to make this narrow path too narrow for larger hearts. Why did Jesus pick corn on the Sabbath anyway?

Oh Constantine, your clever use of the religions of men for politial gain was a mastrer stroke that Machiavelli himself delighted in. Pontiff after corrupted pontiff, exclucivity of the ruling classes, the patriarchial typology, the protestant stranglehold of religious piety as they use and misuse the scripture for power...all too restrictive to hearts who see a gentler God. We are told he doesn't exist, odd, huh?

Constantine, I would applaud you for your cleverness, but for those who have burned at the stake, for those who have been manipulated , judged and left for dead, condemned to hell for being female, unusual, blind, deaf, reclusive, kind, giving and innocent....I withhold my praise for the tears are too many.

This history of the church is as appaling as the refusal of todays man to see beyound the books and letter of law.

Absolutes are cunning in that they offer comfort while restricting the fredom in the spirit. Too bad really. GGWO is a classic case in point.

I know, I know, my dear Emperor Constantine...you did what you had to do, as emperors will. From wherever your spirit dwells...for they have changed a few rules since your weilded your bloody sword in the name of Christ...I hope your hindsight is indeed 20/20...I wouldn't want you to miss this. Your fellow partriarchal types continue to weild the sword and people still bleed.

No worries, Emperor C...for no matter what they say, no matter how the letter killeth, the spirit gives life...yup, even now.

(Psssssst, Emp C...now watch the pyre they will assemble and the effigy will be half female, half weak male, and their crime is something called "wishy washy new age"...the fire will be the Word and the flames are God's consuming fire....sound familiar? Remember the Flavian Amphitheater? Pay close attention, Conni. You're gonna love this.)

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.137)]

Cordell, I don't call the things done beyond the local church 'doing church'. I have no intention of withdrawing from the local church and considering the things beyond it in place of it. I'm not in the same place as Roberta. I'm just choosing to not judge her in this. And I love the character of what she is doing. Only she knows how difficult it would be for her to go looking for a local assembly that she'd consider suitable. There is a church that meets in Pittsfield with a pastor named Don Roche that I've heard good things about; but my understanding is that getting out has become increasingly difficult for her over the years. If she were interested, even for communion, perhaps Don would visit her; but she has her husband Scott to consider as well. Her position is rather complex. Bob

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

get in a good non-denominational church follow Jesus not man

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Bob, my friend. It may just be an exercise in futility to speak of these matters here. Many are determined not to understand, and that is a choice they make. My issues and situation are complex, too complex for their theology, but certainly not for God. I am secure in him, and not so bothered the opinions and intepretations of men.

I am inspired by Amy Carmichael the missionary to India. She was such a powerful woman for God when she physically rescued thos children from the temple where they were to become prostitutes. Then she became ill and spent over 30 years bedridden and writing letters to those who were in need...she had no email, internet, no church other than her "family" and she remains one of the brightest Lights in God's Kingdom...still reaching outward giving God to us. I admire her, pray to be like her and hope that in some small way I give what I have been given to the church universal.

My husband is the love of my life and I would not hurt him for anything. His love for God is beautiful and his private walk is rich. His disdain for churches is something I do understand. I wouldn't pain him for the world.

Thank you for trying Bob. I am blessed that you understand. Your family is truly blessed to have your sweet spirit to cover it.

Remember me to them?

[Cara (205.188.117.20)]

Roberta.. your writings remind me of Amy Carmichael. Men and women alike read A.C. and receive from her, but she is not a threat to the men because she is dead!

You can't tell me if she was bedridden during this cyber-age, she wouldn't be using her laptop to minister to others across the the world!


(ps.. I am on a continual quest for her out-of-prints books, have you read any yourself?)

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I have read them all. I used to own them all but lent them to too many people over the years and have very few left.

My favorite is Rose from Brier. Chet Farmer gave me a copy almost 20 years ago that I read and reread until it all fell apart. I am looking for a copy of her poem "Climb or Die" at the moment. I used to have it but it too was sent to someone in need and I never got it back. Do you have it? I would love it if you could somehow type it out and send it to my email?

Amy C is my hero in the faith. Her wisdom and close fellowship with God as she endured horrible pain is my inspiration. I haven't the words to explain how much those books and her words meant to me...I will have them all back again I hope someday.

Everytime I am sent back to the hospital I take something she has written with me. It always helps.

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

Roberta?????!!!!!

Absolutes are cunning in that they offer comfort while restricting the fredom in the spirit. Too bad really. GGWO is a classic case in point.

This is a terrible mistake.

Is the fact that Christ is the ONLY way to salvation restrictive?
What are you saying???
Real freedom is found in discovering truth. And truth by definition is often exclusive.

I have a rather large back yard. It has a fence. It keeps the bad guys out and the little one's in it safe. Nothing wrong with boundaries.

Sex before marriage is a boundry that is constantly bypassed...look at the consequences in this country.

God defines (in the Word) marriage as the union between a male and female - is this also too restrictive?

I am really praising God for the beautiful boundaries He has given me. There is such security in this.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

AMEN PG!!!!!

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I am happy that you are glad with your understanding and walk with God. Not everyone is included in the church due to rigidity, unbending bars and chains. I know too many people who have been beaten by the bars and chains, disenfranchised by the misuse and rigid adherence to the fundementalist God in a box. This is what I mean. The ancient Romans were the most rigid military power of the ancient day. The Roman elite may have been hedonists, but the military was a rigid system that conquered the world. When Constantine grasped onto the Galilean worship to control his empire, along with his control of empire came also the addition of the rigid militaristic forms. I see this historical perspective as a totally patriarchial, military and Judeo stamp pressed upon the Holy Spirit. Yes...I know...God has used it to help and save many. But I am not convinced that the end product we call Christianity is what Jesus himself had in mind.

He came to free the Jews from the confines of form, so that they might understand the Spirit and be given it. They didn't get what he was saying. Neither did the Gentiles. The miliaristic forms...these are not what he brought. Paul did. The Romans did. The scholars did. I don't believe Jesus would recognize much of his message anymore in American churches that demand and say "God requires"? If we are free from the Levitical laws of food, why are we still not free from the additional catholic traditions, pagan traditions, ancient traditions still used today?

No need to chastise me for my "heathen" "new age" "heretical" views. I have already heard it. I mean...I still believe that women should be preaching in churches. So....

[PG (69.67.254.38)]

Roberta,

If you want to preach, preach!
If the only boundary that gives you heartburn is the 'women in ministry' debate, that's fine too.

But, equating those of us who espouse the pastoral office view as being male - to the Roman empire..... yu lost me

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

PG,
Are you a man or a woman?

After the JD Skeets revelation, it would be nice to be clear on this

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I am sure I have lost you, PG. My Roman studies are very dear to me, and do wish I could articulate them better. It is the cultural impact of the past in it's evolution upon the present day exercise of religions that I was referring to.

"If you want to preach, preach!
If the only boundary that gives you heartburn is the 'women in ministry' debate, that's fine too."

I am not asking anyone to think the way I think, but I do think one might at least be respectful, no? Heartburn?

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

Did not our hearts burn within us when He spoke?

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Anon 152....be ye male or female?

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

FEMALE (not a pastor)

[Just Thinking (65.65.194.176)]

Roberta,
I apprectiate your love for children and your concerns. I am not attacking you and this is the only time I will offer my 5 cents. You are wrong in your understanding of the office of pastor. Even if for personal reasons, etc...But, I am w/Cordell on the office of pastor. How many times can we kick a dead horse? Here is one more kick. You said, "He came to free the Jews from the confines of form, so that they might understand the Spirit and be given it. They didn't get what he was saying. Neither did the Gentiles. The miliaristic forms...these are not what he brought. Paul did. The Romans did. The scholars did. I don't believe Jesus would recognize much of his message anymore in American churches that demand and say "God requires"? If we are free from the Levitical laws of food, why are we still not free from the additional catholic traditions, pagan traditions, ancient traditions still used today?"
I am concerned for any beleiver who will belittle or discount the Word of God. I don't think you are getting what He said. For instance, The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) (a breakaway moderate group of disgruntled former Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) members and churches said, in matters of the ordination of women we defer to the example of Jesus rather than the teachings of Paul. A decade later, at their annual meeting the issue of homosexuality, i.e. samesex marriage and church membership, etc. was brought to the floor. The supporters of this error said in the matters of homosexuality we defer to the example of Jesus rather than the teachings of Paul. Observations:
1. The words of Paul, even if they do not agree with your theological straw man are still God's word. When I drift a little I open the door to a flood of errors. What we tolerate our childern embrace. Think of the United Church of Christ. They have drifted.
2. It is easier and more palatable, though still wrong to accept the ordination of a woman than a homosexual into church membeship. The CBF is adrift in personal opinion because they wrestle the scripture to their own demise.
3. When we elevate our opinions over the Holy Spirit's written word by discounting the writings of Paul because they don't fit into our understanding of feminism we err. To say I am free in the spirit while ignoring His Words is unacceptable. All Scripture is God-breathed.
4. Do you know if Amy Carmichael was ordained? I would guess not.
5. I love Beth Moore, Ruth Graham Lotz and the deceased Lottie Moon (Missionary to China). Beth and Ruth would never be ordained, but they sure have a great portion. Lottie trained the locals and turned the leaderhip over to the men. They understand 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. I am sure I will travel uptown in New Jerusalem to visit them along with my wife and many other beautiful women of faith.
6. Remember, before you beat me up, J.D. thought I was a woman! In Christ we submit to one another, we prefer one another, we love one another, but we still reserve the office of pastor/elder/bishop and the office of deacon for men. I think your Seminary owes you a refund.
7. This is my five cents, I won't address it again. We agree to disagree.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Dave...I have no reason to beat you up...your beliefs are important to you and mine are to me. Your post however still has the same "belittling" tone that I have heard from many right wing Christians...it's nothing new.

Never once have I suggested that those men ordained by GGWO should ask for their money back, and your remark that I might ask that of my schooling shows a resounding lack of manners and humility...also something noticed in other correspondences from the right wing Christian faction. There seems to be little respect from that side of the issues to any other view. I find that terribly sad and wonder still why it is necessary...but no matter.

I am quite used to being a disenfranchised Christian due to my beliefs. I wonder how the Christian right would react if the shoe were on the other foot? With grace? Love? Understanding?

I haven't seen than very much, but am glad to say thatI have seen it here and there. Personally I am expecting email any day that will ask me to be less "strident, harpish, inflammatory" because I am angering too many people here...that I am being a bully by proclaiming to be different. It has happened already, and you have no idea how that pained me. Once I thought that good people could love each other and respect each other no matter the differences. I do now wonder if that is true.

So many already have turned away in disgust from the hardline here that has been so non-inclusive. One young woman I know personally was so wounded by the harsh, unbending voices here. She needed to be helped not rebuked because she was married by a woman who wore symbols of other faiths in respect for them.

Please understand...I am a believer and have had much education from both extremes and find both too harsh, too exclusive too tough for the millions who suffer. That is exactly why so many still do and always will suffer.

Your spiritual life is obviously a blessing to you. You need not agree with me, but mine also is a blessing to me. My Muslim friends find their beliefs a blessing as do my friends who are Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish etc. I love them all and will always love their hearts for God no matter the name they call him.

I remember you Dave Drago though you do not remember me. I wish you peace, every blessing and great good health.

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

Roberta,
You do believe that Muslims and Buddhists and also Jews are lost without Christ, don't you? That "their hearts for God no matter the name they call him" will not get them into heaven.
Only one name will do that. "Nor is their salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12

[PG (69.67.254.39)]

Sorry Roberta,
I meant to convey that if the "boundaries, boxes rules. regulations..." you are referring to is the gender/pastors and not those other absolutes I mentions and ones like them are what you are referring to by the above quote...then we have a minor disagreement only.
'heartburn' - not said to minimize your position or degrade your thoughts....sorry sorry sorry

PG
(by the way - male pastor)

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

PG,
We learned today that only women apologize!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Pastor Graziano?

[Just Thinking (65.65.194.176)]

Roberta,
I remember you very well in the bookstore. I pray for your health. I do not intend to belittle you in my posts. I have tried carefully not to attack. Agreed, the school refund was below the belt. I am passionate for truth. That shot was at your school not at you. I almost deleted it, but I could not resist. Forgive me! Reread my posts you will see I am consistent. I have questioned many areas and pointed out shortcomings from many posts. I have criticized hearsay and stated stick to the facts.
May I gently suggest, that you speak of harshness in posts and some of yours have been extremely belittling towards leaders in GGWO. If they were inclined to listen to you your tone would turn them off. See how easily I got a reaction from you regarding the school. Perhaps, I baited you a little. There is a certain degree of hypocrisy in all the posts, mine included. Some of our complaints are us doing the same thing. For instance, when I jumped on Cordell the other day he compared me to GG supporters. Because, I disagreed with him and used sarcastic humor. However, I also lampooned myself. When he realized what I was attempting he understood better. Cordell and I do not know each other, but I am sure we would enjoy each other’s company tremendously. We worship the same God and agree on the essentials of the faith. In the essentials unity, in the nonessentials diversity, in all things charity. Roberta, I do love you. I just disagree. Sometimes, I don’t know why I bother to post and read here. I don’t want to destroy GGWO, I speak as a pastor hoping they will change. I pray for the leadership daily that they will have the courage to make the hard decisions. I pray for healing for the hurt and all to move forward by grace. I know this will take time. I am not your enemy, I am your friend. So is Christine..do you remember her? I have four children; your desire to protect and expose predators is right on. I applaud you. I would die for my children.
As a friend, some of your doctrines are unusual. And, I am not rehashing the pastor stuff. I am speaking of your all ideas are equal and all roads lead to heaven line of thinking. In the market place of ideas all ideas are tolerated but all are not equal. Your remarks smack of universalism. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. The Buddhists, Muslims and Jews do not know the way. No one comes to the Father but through Jesus. I pray you have not left that idea stranded on the rocks of a shipwrecked faith. You have the truth through the Words of Jesus, and His words are absolute truth. And I will contend for the faith. If that is what it means to be a Right Winger, I wear the label with honor and I thank you. Also, the Christian Right was disenfranchised for years. They handled it with grace, without compromising.
Roberta, let me give you some perspective. FACTNET, for me, makes me feel like the little boy who looked at Shoeless Joe Jackson and said, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” I love Pastor Stevens. I am 39 years old and I am realizing that all my heroes have feet of clay. Be patient with me.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

I believe that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and everyone else has the right to exercise his or her own conscience on the matter. I am not now, nor ever have I been comfortable with confrontational/military style evangelism. I would not want a Muslim to assault me with his fundamentalism so I do not think anyone should insult him with theirs. Half the problems we see now in the Middle East today are the direct result of American/Christan intolerance and religious hubris.

Confrontational evangelism has turned more people away from Christ than ever led to him. It is by example, by love and true humility and caring that people understand the Christ. Washing the feet of the poor, rather than demanding that they believe or else, helping to find them shelter and ask nothing in return, the Good Samatian is the type of the Christ that wins more to God...I refuse to assault my friends with the terror tactic of no heaven without Christ. I will however bless them with my love, compassion, the food on my table, the roof over my head and the beautiful graciousness that Jesus himself displayed to those who knew him.

My friends are well aware of my beliefs, and I know they respect them. They are respectful and interested in my beliefs because I do not demand from them, call them heathen, tell them they are going to hell, and tell them that my God is the only true God. This is what has caused so much strife in our world. This is why the Roman empire fell...this is why America will someday fall...the hubris that we are the greatest country in the world...not everyone thinks so...that Chrstianity is the only true religion...so many hate us for this and will kill our children if they get a chance. We have so belittled the peoples of the world with out right wing chest pounding that their ears have become deaf to us.

I will not treat my friends, no matter their religion with anything but the utmost respect, as I have you for your beliefs. They are fascinated that I have not browbeaten them for Christ. They joke that I may be the only Christian they have known who actually is at peace with my religion, and they ask questions. The more questions they ask, the more of Him I can share. The more relaxed and nonconfrontational I am, the more they are curious. I have shared Christ with many in this fashion...if they came to Him is God's business. I am not going to interfere and make enemies of people for God. I do not in any way believe that is what the great commission is about.

Just my stance on the matter...nothing more.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Are the same Dave that is so close to Scott and Diane?

If you are, I plead with you to convince Scott to let go of the enabling and get Pastor into the hospital and make things right in our church.

He has the power to do it. Why won't he?

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

"I don’t want to destroy GGWO, I speak as a pastor hoping they will change. I pray for the leadership daily that they will have the courage to make the hard decisions. I pray for healing for the hurt and all to move forward by grace. I know this will take time. I am not your enemy, I am your friend. So is Christine..do you remember her? I have four children; your desire to protect and expose predators is right on. I applaud you. I would die for my children."

I understand that you want them to change. I too for many years have prayed that they would. Personally I don't think it can happen, but God is bigger than one woman's opinion and miracles do happen..*s*

Yes I remember Christine, do remember me to her? And four kids! How adorable they must be!!!

"Roberta, let me give you some perspective. FACTNET, for me, makes me feel like the little boy who looked at Shoeless Joe Jackson and said, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” I love Pastor Stevens. I am 39 years old and I am realizing that all my heroes have feet of clay. Be patient with me. "

I so totally get you here. This is exactly where I was for a long long time. I am 49 years old and am coming to terms with issues myself. I have been hurt, angry, frustrated, etc over the years and am still in a state of evolving and changing...FactNet has helped me see other ways of thinking, helped me come to terms with my understanding...I am growing and changing all the time...I will ask also for patience. The early posts here from myself and others may not be an indicator of where we are now. Always learning is a good thing (did I just quote Martha Stewart???)

Love to you and yours
Your friend
Roberta

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Roberta,
Why does it have to be confrontational or offensive? Why does it have to make enemies? The truth is that no heaven without Christ is a reality, not a "terror tactic"....the real terror will be if they die without realizing that, and then they will probably wish someone had confronted them a little more.
Jesus didn't worry about offending anyone when He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me". I'm sure some were offended by that, but He told the truth anyway. He also said things like "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" because He knew that His message would divide people also. It is not a comfortable message but a radical one.
A witness by your life is wonderful but we are still told to tell people and to compel them to be saved.

[Just Thinking (65.65.194.176)]

To Anon 205.188.117.20
I love Pastor Scott Robinson. Do you remember the movie Dances with Wolves? In a scene that best illustrates true friendship, Kevin Costner (a former Army Lieutenant) has to leave the tribe because he is being pursued by the Calvary. His Lakota friend Wind in the Hair stands on top of a hill and shouts to him, “I am Wind in the Hair. Dances with Wolves, I am your friend. I will always be your friend.” I am Dave Drago. Scott Robinson is my friend. I will always be his friend.
You asked:Are the same Dave that is so close to Scott and Diane? If you are, I plead with you to convince Scott to let go of the enabling and get Pastor into the hospital and make things right in our church. He has the power to do it. Why won't he?
To answer your question:
I cannot speak for him. If you know who I am than you know my love for him and Pastor Stevens. I desire what you desire. However,you need to ask Pastor Robinson that. Your pleadings will not fall on deaf ears. He is the greatest listener I know. And, here it goes...for those who criticize him, try putting on his shoes. And, for those who criticize Jack & Lee Leonard, Roberta J, Daine Ackley,Neil Carrick,Louise Connelly, nonotone,Cordell, et al try wearing their shoes. None of you could handle it. At least they are trying to settle things. I beg for reconciliation and righting wrongs.I also beg for patience and to seek understanding before being understood. Who knows, maybe God knows the end after all! I am believing God for the best. No matter how painful the process is.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Just Thinking (65.65.194.176)]

Roberta,
I will give your love to Chris. And always learning is a good thing. Saving 30,000 dollars on insider info. was not! However, we have benefitted on some good sales since. LOL
For Him,
Dave

[RJ isTired (141.154.144.33)]

Then by all means do as the spirit leads you. I said "I" was not comfortable with it, it does nothing but antagonize people anytime I have been on the "blitz" bus or whatever. If it is your gift I say go for it. It is not everyone's gift however. I say Billy Graham was THE great evangelist in this modern era. I always loved the words he chose...he always brought people to God...always.

I recall hearing him for the first time after I was introoduced to Jesus by a friend. She understood me enough to know that confrontation would not work with me. She met me right where I was at and gave me the truth that met my need. The same day, Billy Graham was on television. I had heard him a hundred times, but never really heard him. It was sweet, amazing and perfect.

Her gentle sweet manner with me was so Christlike and astounding. I didn't know it till after I was saved but she was a woman who's daughter had been raped by a pastor in the ministry, and they left at the time of the church split in the 70's. She was a wounded spirit, but gave me more of Him than I ever encountered again. it is from her example that I speak of a nonconfrontational evangelism. Billy Graham was "confrontational" in the most beautiful of ways...my friend was beautiful in her pain in the most gentle of ways.

There is place for both, but I think some people who engage in the evangelical side are not always as well suited to the task.

I hope I explained that as well to you as it sounded in my head...my hands can no longer type so I think I had beeter get out the splints and stop.

I have enjoyed the conversation. thank you.

roberta

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

PG if you are from Maine, will you please email me?

somebonus@yahoo.com

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

And I can tell by the way it's going you don't need me in here.

[RJInsomniac (141.154.144.33)]

They are keeping to your position well you mean?

[Anon Brief (64.12.117.20)]

Oh, the people one meets in the middle of the night.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

RJ,
Not necessarily precisely exactly, but I'm sure you'll have some healthy banter.

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

I will still be the Resident Heretic if I banter or not, so...why not, eh? *LOL*

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Here's something to banter about, then:
From Institutes of the Christian Religion, by that terrible, tyrannical, dastardly, puritanical (and in my view much maligned) Calvin, Book 4.Chap.1,Sec.4:

"But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Mt. 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, <FONT COLOR="ff0000">beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for</FONT>, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). To their testimony Ezekiel subscribes, when he declares, "They shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:9); as, on the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true piety are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason it is said in the psalm, "Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance" (Ps. 106:4, 5). By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the <FONT COLOR="ff0000">abandonment of the Church is always fatal."</FONT>

Gotta love him.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Have funnnnnnn!

[RJ (141.154.144.33)]

It isn't any fun without you.

[Dave (4.156.84.33)]

Let's see,

Rome calls the Church, Holy Mother the Church.

Rome teaches that all of the elect are found in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Did Calvin believe in the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Dave

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the <FONT COLOR="ff0000">mother of us all</FONT>.
Ga 4:26

[Dave (4.156.84.33)]

Calvin said:

>>>
But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church,
let us learn, from her single title of Mother,
how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is,
since there is no other means of entering into life
unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth,
unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short,
keep us under her charge and government,
until, divested of mortal flesh,
we become like the angels
>>>

Calvin is not talking about Jerusalem above,
he is talking about the visible church,below,
and trying to learn,
from her single title of Mother.

Dave

[daheretic (141.154.144.33)]

This may be the mother of all debates.....

[margo (152.163.253.102)]

mother mac cree!

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to <FONT COLOR="ff0000">make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace</FONT>

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but <FONT COLOR="ff0000">fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone</FONT>; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

"What God has thus joined, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9): to those to whom he is a Father, the <FONT COLOR="ff0000"><U>Church must also be a mother</U></FONT>. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; <FONT COLOR="ff0000">since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem</FONT> <FONT COLOR="119911"><U>(Gal. 4:26).</U></FONT>" Reference added by Calvin, not Cordell.
Institutes, Calvin, book 4, lookidupyerseff

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Look, kids, Cordell read the directions.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

<FONT COLOR="119911">SLOW</FONT><FONT COLOR="0000ff">BUT</FONT><FONT COLOR="ff0000">SURE.</FONT>

[margo (152.163.253.102)]

cordell you are so fancy with your colors!

[Bob Brinton (141.154.184.203)]

Cordell, Maybe I've just drunk too much, but I feel like things are a little too complicated. I'm not blaming you or Roberta or anyone in particular; but I don't have enough time to read every post, never mind all the off the board stuff. I don't know how you can simplify, but I'd appreciate it if you can. On one of these threads Roberta started talking about not threatening people in witnessing to them. If you or someone else could do the digging to find out who Jesus was talking to when He brought up hell (disciples, pharisees, 'lost'), it might give a little perspective on that particular issue. Roberta doesn't like to be confrontational, and I don't much care for that approach myself. But at the same time, I think the Spirit does sometimes lead that way. I do appreciate the work you put into finding out what you believe. I don't take it lightly. Love, Bob

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

this topic WAS about evangelism .

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

and the command to MAKE DISCIPLES WAS GIVEN TO THE CHURCH--IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ONE YOU CAN'T REALLY ACCOMPLISH THE OTHER.

Ever hear an evangelist say, "we're not asking you to join a church...Just accept Jesus."

That is like telling your newborn child, "We're not inviting you into our family..."

Jesus didn't command us to <FONT COLOR="ff0000">"go out and get people to make decisions."</FONT>

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Bob,

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">"Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."</FONT>

Imagine hearing that after 9/11!

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.103)]

Cordell, Do you think that God might still honor the old covenant; with the understanding that it still is Christ's death which provides the way? Bob

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

There are two covenants. One of obedience required personally, perfectly, perpetually. This was given to Adam in the garden and codified at Sinai. The other is the covenant of grace--this appeared as soon as it was necessary--when sin appeared--"he will crush your head, but you will bruise his heel." He that will be under the law must do all those things required of the law--in commission without omission--in thought and word and deed--personally, perfectly, perpetually. Thus far only one human has been able to accomplish this. And he was God.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.103)]

When Christ died, His death saved many Jews who had been under the Law. Could a Jew today be saved in the same way, not having rejected Christ as such, and believing toward the Messiah he/she doesn't realize has already come? I expect your answer to this to be no, but I'm asking anyway. Bob

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

Bob, the gospel in the OT is prospective in the NT it is retrospective--Hebrews points out that the blood sacrifices have been fulfilled once for all in Christ--so to look forward to an event which has taken place already in Christ is "turning back."

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.103)]

So if the nation of Israel is to suddenly turn to God the Father (as you hear or have heard on some fronts will happen), then why this idea of rebuilding the Temple and beginning again to make sacrifices? Just curious. I'm not planning to go anyplace particular with this. But what good would that do anyone? Bob

[Yaakov (12.8.126.145)]

Ahhh...some Orthodox Jews and Messianic Christians have this idea that if the Temple is rebuilt, that it would hasten the Messiah to show up.

Odd that these two groups are cooperating, one thinks it would be the Messiah's first appearance, the other thinks it would be the second. Let alone their wildly different opinions of what actions the Messiah is supposed to accomplish.

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

EVANGELISM ???? this cult don't evangelize.... only advertises their church on their tracts that they pass out ,and the door knocking

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

do something Satan doesn't want you to do tonight....PRAY

[clingon (clingon)]

I believe the Bible teaches two General covenants.

1. The first covenant is a covenant that God made with Adam in the Garden of Eden. It is a covenant of works or Law. If you do this you will live, if you do not do this you will die! Man's first representative failed the test and sinned against God. When Adam fell all mankind fell. In Adam all have sinned.

2. The second covenand is a covenant of grace.
This covenant began with the sacrifice of the son of God on the cross at calvary. Jesus instituted the covenant by purchasing those who God elected for salvation. He was able to do that because he was the second Adam. He came and fulfilled the first covenant of works or law. Having fulfilled God's covenant by being obedient to God all the way to the cross. God is able to make him the new Adam who becomes the new representative of those in whom God calls and draws to Christ. A new race of people whom God has elected from the foundation of the earth. Those who a called by God and drawn to Jesus for salvation become members of his body. Those who are in Christ are a new creation. They have been taken out of the first Adam and have been placed into Christ. This is not the work of man because man was dead in sin and could not save himself. Salvation from beginning to end is the work of God.

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Rom 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.


The question is not whether you have chosen God but whether God has chosen you!

[eleos (eleos)]

I couldn't agree more, Clingon
Anon68,10