Theology thread.

[MennoSota]

The thinking of some of the Corinthian Christians was "carnal" but they were saints. Paul never called the Corinthian Christians "carnal Christians".

Of course they were saints. Infants and worldly saints.
1 Corinthians 3:1-3
"Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly."

You can read the rest of chapter 3 and 4 to see that the Corinthians were a messed up bunch of Christians. Why would any of us want to emulate them? In both letters Paul has to continuously correct their faulty thinking and practices.
For anyone to read about tongues in Corinth and say "I want to be like that" is pure foolishness. To build a doctrine of tongues from Corinth is just foolishness.

 

[MennoSota]

Woe there friend.

I didn't mean to say I agreed with many strange doctrines that seem to derive from the ancient roman Catholic church. What I meant is that he is quite versed in scripture; and not in the fashion of the parrot, but with some level of understanding. I've also found him to be rather maliable; having a slightly opened mind for different perspectives; regardless of his denomination or the proclamations there of.

You would do well not ridicule any for their denomination. What can be said about the strength or bredth of one's faith who has set in the very midsts and remnants of propagated misdirection by the greed of man, yet too is still devout, discerning, and zealous?

His faith is surely counted for righteousness, as is the faith of all believers. Do you think that upon judgement GOD will hold ones faith against them? Do you think the misdirection of a man, by other men, will be counted against him, or the ones ultimately responsible for the misdirection?

I don't generally agree with morecoffee on some of the finer points of lesser doctrines associated with his faith. I know through observation of the words he posts that his heart is close to the right or rather, good place, regardless of said doctrines. We won't be changing anyone's mind by slandering them or their denomination though.

To give a stern rebuke in the Spirit, for the sake of the member of the body of the Christ will never equate to attempted degradation of the faith or spirit of another who does not deny Christ.

Just to be clear; I do not agree with very much of the tradition of the arcc. That isn't to be misconstrued as me saying I am again any currently practicing catholic.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[Albion]

So...where do you find Mary's perpetual virginity in scripture?
Where do you find prayer beads in scripture?
Where do you find prayer to the saints in scripture?
Where do you find the veneration of bones and artifacts in scripture?
Where do you find indulgences in scripture?
Where do you find sacraments in scripture?
Where do you find sacraments in scripture?
All of those things are man-made traditions that have the illusion of holiness, but do nothing before God to make one holy.
My call is for this community to begin backing up claims with scripture. If you can't back it up, then let's acknowledge it as a mere opinion that is illegitimate as theology.

Baptism & the Lord's Supper certainly are described--and commanded of us--in Scripture. Those are what we call sacraments, but you can call them ordinances if you prefer. Or something else.

Prayer beads are not. But they are just a device like pulpits, microphones, Sunday schools, and printed bulletins, some of which I am sure are to be found in your church as well.

Indulgences, Mary as perpetual virgin, and relic veneration are not scriptural.

What you've done is create a stew of dissimilar religious artifacts and beliefs, and then proceed to demand that they all be thought of as one package. No, that's not going to fly.

 

[MennoSota]

Baptism & the Lord's Supper certainly are described--and commanded of us--in Scripture. Those are what we call sacraments, but you can call them ordinances if you prefer. Or something else.

Prayer beads are not. But they are just a device like pulpits, microphones, Sunday schools, and printed bulletins, some of which I am sure are to be found in your church as well.

Indulgences, Mary as perpetual virgin, and relic veneration are not scriptural.

What you've done is create a stew of dissimilar religious artifacts and beliefs, and then proceed to demand that they all be thought of as one package. No, that's not going to fly.

What I am trying to do is to call all posters to verify the reasons for their beliefs by showing scripture that can justify the belief. I merely provided examples.
My observation as a new poster is that a lot of opinion is being shared with little to no biblical support. Those who provide biblical support for their views should not feel offended. Those who neglect the scriptures to present an unverified opinion as spiritual should consider their tactics and begin to share scripture. The Bible is our spokesman which God uses to reveal himself. It is our standard of measurement to discern truth from deception.

 

[Albion]

What I am trying to do is to call all posters to verify the reasons for their beliefs by showing scripture that can justify the belief. I merely provided examples

Well, if you had indeed only given examples, I would agree. Unfortunately, you went ahead and wrote more.

 

[tango]

If we study the Bible we see that Yeshua is revealed over and over again before he ever condescends to earth.

Yes, but until he actually walked the earth it would be perfectly true to say God had never done anything like that before. Besides, it couldn't have happened because God couldn't have created the heavens and the earth, having never done that before, right?

 

[tango]

No fish ever bite. They have to be caught in a net.

Not true at all, I've seen several fish landed by simply reeling in a line with them on the hook at the end of it. No nets needed.

 

[tango]

God doesn't care where you go. He cares that you obey. Our task is to preach the gospel of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5). God will adopt and save his children with or without you. The Bible says that we were chosen from before the foundation of the world. There is no mystery in who will or who won't be saved from God's point of view. All the mystery is on our finite end where we don't have a clue.
If God wants you in Bangladesh, God will put you there. No questions asked. It's a shame we spend so much time fretting over the silly stuff and not just walking in step with God in the moment.

If God wants me in Bangladesh I am unlikely to simply wake up one morning wondering where I am and where my house went, and then come to realise I got teleported to Bangladesh because that's what God wanted of me. If God wants me in Bangladesh and I take a leaf from Jonah's book and run away then I imagine God would care about it, just as he cared when Jonah disobeyed.

Likewise to use Paul's analogy of the body, which is mentioned in some book or other, if God is calling me to be an eye but I'm too busy insisting that I'm a really good hand, I'm not obeying. But there isn't a verse anywhere in the whole of Scripture that will tell me that I, as an individual, am supposed to be an eye rather than a hand. God can show me what he expects of me, and the only way he can do that is by speaking in a way that could be written off as personal experience.

The crucial distinction is that I can conclude what God might be leading me to do based on personal experience, validated against God as revealed to us in Scripture (e.g. he may call me to a ministry in prison visitation but a calling to abandon my wife and go and live with nubile young ladies in the tropics is unlikely to be anything to do with God). What God is leading me to do is potentially of no interest to anyone else (with the possible exception of my wife, who is probably going to want to tag along) and any experiences God may send my way don't form a universal theology. If they contradict what God has already given us in the Bible they don't form a sound theology at all, because they can safely be assumed to not actually be from God. If they align with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture then it is ultimately down to me and me alone to decide what, if anything, I am going to do about the perceived call.

How do you suppose some felt called into full time ministry, some felt called to be missionaries, some felt called to be evangelists? Can you show me the Bible verse that says Billy Graham was to be an evangelist? If not then unless you want to say he shouldn't have done what he did perhaps personal experience can carry more weight than you are giving it right now. But despite what Billy Graham did, your calling and my calling may be something that, in human terms at least, looks much more mundane.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, but until he actually walked the earth it would be perfectly true to say God had never done anything like that before. Besides, it couldn't have happened because God couldn't have created the heavens and the earth, having never done that before, right?

Is God bound by time?

 

[MennoSota]

Not true at all, I've seen several fish landed by simply reeling in a line with them on the hook at the end of it. No nets needed.

Perhaps you are missing the metaphor.
I repeat, no fish ever bite. They always run away. Fish are always caught intentionally and with purpose by the fisherman.

 

[MennoSota]

If God wants me in Bangladesh I am unlikely to simply wake up one morning wondering where I am and where my house went, and then come to realise I got teleported to Bangladesh because that's what God wanted of me. If God wants me in Bangladesh and I take a leaf from Jonah's book and run away then I imagine God would care about it, just as he cared when Jonah disobeyed.

Likewise to use Paul's analogy of the body, which is mentioned in some book or other, if God is calling me to be an eye but I'm too busy insisting that I'm a really good hand, I'm not obeying. But there isn't a verse anywhere in the whole of Scripture that will tell me that I, as an individual, am supposed to be an eye rather than a hand. God can show me what he expects of me, and the only way he can do that is by speaking in a way that could be written off as personal experience.

The crucial distinction is that I can conclude what God might be leading me to do based on personal experience, validated against God as revealed to us in Scripture (e.g. he may call me to a ministry in prison visitation but a calling to abandon my wife and go and live with nubile young ladies in the tropics is unlikely to be anything to do with God). What God is leading me to do is potentially of no interest to anyone else (with the possible exception of my wife, who is probably going to want to tag along) and any experiences God may send my way don't form a universal theology. If they contradict what God has already given us in the Bible they don't form a sound theology at all, because they can safely be assumed to not actually be from God. If they align with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture then it is ultimately down to me and me alone to decide what, if anything, I am going to do about the perceived call.

How do you suppose some felt called into full time ministry, some felt called to be missionaries, some felt called to be evangelists? Can you show me the Bible verse that says Billy Graham was to be an evangelist? If not then unless you want to say he shouldn't have done what he did perhaps personal experience can carry more weight than you are giving it right now. But despite what Billy Graham did, your calling and my calling may be something that, in human terms at least, looks much more mundane.

God always has a person exactly where God wants them. Jonah didn't run away from God. God sent the storm and the fish. God caused the fish to cough up Jonah. All things work for good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.'

What do you make of the above passage?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Most of (MC's) posts, based upon what I read, are comments from (the Catholic) church rather than from scripture.

So you're suggesting that the Mennonite tradition doesn't influence your Christian theology and worldview? You do know that the Mennonite name-sake was around at the time of Luther, right? I would suggest that if you study Mennonite history, you might be surprised how traditional you really are.

 

[MennoSota]

So you're suggesting that the Mennonite tradition doesn't influence your Christian theology and worldview? You do know that the Mennonite name-sake was around at the time of Luther, right? I would suggest that if you study Mennonite history, you might be surprised how traditional you really are.

If you read my post in another thread you would see my path. My path has been guided by scripture, not denomination.
However, show me what you are referring to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wonder if Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.' is worth discussing in this thread. Menno was asking for bible passages that teach a theological lesson. What's the lesson in that passage?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I wonder if Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.' is worth discussing in this thread. Menno was asking for bible passages that teach a theological lesson. What's the lesson in that passage?

The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of GOD, now, at this time, as far as man is concerned.
Or was that not your point?

 

[Albion]

If you read my post in another thread you would see my path. My path has been guided by scripture, not denomination.
However, show me what you are referring to.

Lots of people say that. All they mean is that they accept someone else's interpretation of scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of GOD, now, at this time, as far as man is concerned.
Or was that not your point?

I wondered how folk interpret what Jesus said. He said it to his disciples (apostles and others) about their mission to preach the gospel in the Locale of Galilee. But is that the limit of the assurance that what is taught by the Lord's disciples is what the Lord himself teaches? Is it time bound so that only the disciples to whom it was said are given that assurance?

 

[MennoSota]

Lots of people say that. All they mean is that they accept someone else's interpretation of scripture.

Show what you are referring to.

 

[MennoSota]

I wonder if Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.' is worth discussing in this thread. Menno was asking for bible passages that teach a theological lesson. What's the lesson in that passage?

Start a new thread. Bring in all the verses surrounding so we can see context.