What is a true church?

[livingbygrace]

Originally Posted by cows_chewing_grass

Luke 6:46
"And why call ye me "Lord, lord" and do not the things which I say?"

No matter how much you talk around in circles about how it's wrong to want to obey the teachings of Jesus, in the end it's not really ME you are arguing with.

Paul said he was under Christ's law

Though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law.

1 Cor 9:21

What to Paul was Christ's law?

Carry each others burdens and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ

Gal 6:2

[Red33]

Originally Posted by livingbygrace

I am inmterested to know as I have previously asked whether you consider a saved person has to be a follower of Christ. Only when you say some slip back to their former associations and the cares of this life but still consider themselves to be a Christian, that would seem at odds with you believing that if someone ten years after a conversion experiance beats their wife conmtinually, has multiple affairs, continually gets drunk and doesn't read a Bible they may well be in a saved state.
So I am not sure I understand your above comment. If someone is in a saved state they must be a Christian

All I can say is this... if you do not want (Luke 15) to be in your Bible as part of the whole counsel of God, then take it out and be done with it. Then you will have to explain to the Lord why you did that. Good luck!

[livingbygrace]

Originally Posted by Red33;385585
For some who follow and are commanded to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they will at some point be offended [COLOR=red

they will at some point be offended and turn back [/color]to their former associations and the cares of this life while they still consider thewmselves to be a Christian (Jn 6:53-66). To be a follower of Christ we must always be ready to take the next step that will have us deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Christ (Mt 16:24).

Red if you don't want to answer the question it is probablty best just to ignore it. My following query is nothing to do with Luke 15, I hoped you would have realised that.

The highlighted area above would suggest that you consider such a person to no longer be a Christian, due to them not continuing to follow Christ and turning back to former associations.

Yet at the same time you believe that if someone becomes saved and for the next ten years constantly beats their wife, gets drunk, has multiple affairs and does not read a Bible they may well still be in a saved state

What I sincerely do not understand is how to you the highlighted area says that such behaviour results in someone losing their Christianity, but the behaviour of someone in the above paragraph apparantly does not cause a loss of salvation and they remain in a saved state

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Could you explain please.

Paul said the way of law/commandments is the way of self righteousness

You keep going back to what Paul said. I keep pointing back to what Jesus said.

It's like, every time I point out a verse where Jesus says "I want you to obey my commands" you come back with a verse from Paul which says something like "trying to obey Jesus is no better than self righteousness."

But I don't think that is what Paul is saying at all.

Anyway, I believe the reason you keep hiding behind Paul is not because I have been promoting obedience to the teachings of Jesus per se, but rather, because I have been promoting some PARTICULAR teachings dealing with the love of money.

It's the root of all evil, remember? If our lord and savior gives us instructions on how to confront that evil and you his followers come up with reasons for why they not only don't need to follow those instructions, but that it would actually be self righteous to do so, I think there is fairly good reason to suspect that the root of all evil is showing it's influence.

It's like the one ring from "lord of the rings". The instructions were to throw it into the fire, to forsake it completely. However, anytime someone got close to that they invariably made up excuses about how the ring would not affect them, about how they didn't really need to destroy it.

That is exactly the situation with Jesus and his teachings on forsaking all. Working for mammon (money and the things money can buy) is the ring and his instructions are to forsake the ring. But look at what you've done with that. You don't need those instructions because you have "love" in your heart. Of course, that is NOT what Jesus said to do, but apparently all this "love" in your heart has taught you to know better than Jesus. He can't command you because you have "love" and love is all you need. It's sounds very nice and spiritual, but in the end it's just a convenient doctrine to justify holding on to the ring.

I've been experiencing something similar to this on several different parts of this forum. It's like obedience to Jesus is the ultimate subject to avoid at all costs, even if it ends up making you sound stupid, like when scott tried to explain that he just could not figure out what "call no man on Earth father"; the greatest mystery he had ever encountered, apparently. Of course it's not a great mystery. He just does not want to obey the command. Like your "true love for god means we don't need to obey him because we are not under the law" doctrine, scotts is the "confusion" doctrine where he pretends not to understand and is therefore justified in his continued rebellion.

"Why do you call me lord, but do not obey me?"

[livingbygrace]

Originally Posted by cows_chewing_grass

You keep going back to what Paul said. I keep pointing back to what Jesus said.

It's like, every time I point out a verse where Jesus says "I want you to obey my commands" you come back with a verse from Paul which says something like "trying to obey Jesus is no better than self righteousness."

This is always the accusation. Paul is being put before Jesus. Why is this?
Paul showed us HOW to triuly live as God would have us live and Christ taught but many are offended by the message Christ gave him to preach
The Pharisees and Saducees were were offended too at Christ's message. What did they say to Jesus?
'You are ignoring God's commands, ignoring the law. Why do you think they constanmtly accused Christ of this?
And many today accuse others of ignoring Christ's commands when they speak of victory by faith in Christ and the spirits power. This is rarely fully preached. Yet the first Christians were known as 'the way' they lived their lives by simple faith and a total reliance on the Holy Spirit. But many today stress what the individual themselves has to do.
A message from Jesus of love God love your neighbour would certainly offend the proud
But I don't think that is what Paul is saying at all.

Anyway, I believe the reason you keep hiding behind Paul is not because I have been promoting obedience to the teachings of Jesus per se, but rather, because I have been promoting some PARTICULAR teachings dealing with the love of money.

It's the root of all evil, remember? If our lord and savior gives us instructions on how to confront that evil and you his followers come up with reasons for why they not only don't need to follow those instructions, but that it would actually be self righteous to do so, I think there is fairly good reason to suspect that the root of all evil is showing it's influence.

When I was much younger than I am now I used to say the same kinds of things as you concern ing earning money. Paul(sorry to mention his writings again) encouraged churches to give financial supporet to other churches in need. Why did he do this? Wouldn't God just supply these churchesa needs if you are right.
And where would these churches get the money from to support others if it was not worked for? If no Christian should be in paid employment then the churches Paul was speaking of would have had to rely on non Christians giving them money.
Don't tie up the mouth of an ox when it is treading out the wheat
Tithing is scriptural. How can anyone tithe if they earn no mponey. And if a Christian is to eat, someone has to have some money so they can. So in effect you expecxt non Christians to support Christians to live. As you don't think any Christian shpould work for money. This is not sensible ccg.

I lived at a Christian community twice. Many went there saying that GHod had called them to a life of communityy, not to work as such. The leaders often discerned it was because a person simply wanted to avoid going out to work. This was a regular occurence


It's like the one ring from "lord of the rings". The instructions were to throw it into the fire, to forsake it completely. However, anytime someone got close to that they invariably made up excuses about how the ring would not affect them, about how they didn't really need to destroy it.

That is exactly the situation with Jesus and his teachings on forsaking all. Working for mammon (money and the things money can buy) is the ring and his instructions are to forsake the ring. But look at what you've done with that. You don't need those instructions because you have "love" in your heart. Of course, that is NOT what Jesus said to do, but apparently all this "love" in your heart has taught you to know better than Jesus. He can't command you because you have "love" and love is all you need. It's sounds very nice and spiritual, but in the end it's just a convenient doctrine to justify holding on to the ring.

Paul said. Love fulfills the law
Christ said the law hiung on two commandments. Love God, love your neighbour
Paul again
Carry each others burdens and you will fulfill the law of Christ
Lets turn to John
If our hearts do not condemn us we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.
And this is his command to believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ and to love one another
1 John 3:21-24
I've been experiencing something similar to this on several different parts of this forum. It's like obedience to Jesus is the ultimate subject to avoid at all costs, even if it ends up making you sound stupid, like when scott tried to explain that he just could not figure out what "call no man on Earth father"; the greatest mystery he had ever encountered, apparently. Of course it's not a great mystery. He just does not want to obey the command. Like your "true love for god means we don't need to obey him because we are not under the law" doctrine, scotts is the "confusion" doctrine where he pretends not to understand and is therefore justified in his continued rebellion.

"Why do you call me lord, but do not obey me?"

Paul said obnediance comes from faith.
Christ said without me you cannot do a thing
The disciples said
who can be saved if not a rich man?
Jesus replied
With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible

But oh so many today today do not speak of the true message with the true victory. They simply lay their demands on others of how they must live and give the impression that they must strive in themselves to be worthy and gain victory, And so many give up, crushed by the demands of man, because no-one ever told them the truth
And the crushed, blind, downtrodden, oppressed, are so often shut out of the kingdom because of the demands of man driven by pride.

Jesus said
I only give light burdens.

He does, man does not

[wakeup]

HI CHRISTIAN FRIEND------ GOD IS SPIRIT HIS CHURCH IS NOT MADE OF BRICK AND MORTAR BUT HUMAN SPIRIT . HE DWELLS IN US SO WE MUST KEEP IT CLEAN. JESUS SAID IN JOHN2:19 DESTROY THIS TEMPLE AND IN THREE DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP . THE FLESH IS THE TEMPLE. THE TRUE CHURCH IS INSIDE YOU SOME HAVE THE LIGHT JUUSST BURNING INSIDE SOME BURNING VERY STRONGLY SOME ARE
JUST A LITTLE BIT GLOWING SOME ARE DEAD CHOCKED BY THE CARES OF THE WORLD.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is always the accusation. Paul is being put before Jesus. Why is this?

Umm, because that is what is actually happening here?

I quote Jesus word for word about his own assessment on obedience to his teachings
Luke 6:46
"And why call ye me "Lord, lord" and do not the things which I say?"

And directly in response you say this:
Paul said the way of law/commandments is the way of self righteousness

Jesus said to obey, but YOU say Paul said that is self righteous.

You are pitting Paul against Jesus, whereas I don't think Paul was against obedience to the teachings of Jesus at all.

The Pharisees and Saducees were were offended too at Christ's message. What did they say to Jesus?'You are ignoring God's commands, ignoring the law. Why do you think they constanmtly accused Christ of this?

You use the word "too" in this sentence, indicating that someone else here besides the pharisees and saducees were offended at Christ's message. Based on the context of the sentence I assume you mean me, but that really does baffle me as I've been quoting Jesus all along and promoting a GREATER examination of his teachings. You are the one who has been saying that the teachings of Jesus don't even need to be referred to if you have love in your heart.

Anyway, the pharisees were offended at Jesus "breaking the law". The most common occurrence of this was when he did good works on the sabbath day.

I suspect you are using the pharisees abuse of this rule from God (i.e. you can't even save a person's life on the sabbath day because it's work) as an example of what can happen when people become obessed with the rules. I get that.

But just because some people twist the commands of God does not mean we throw them out altogeher or that there is a problem with the rules themselves. Your logic does not work in that exmaple, if that is what you were trying to suggest.

And many today accuse others of ignoring Christ's commands when they speak of victory by faith

Sorry, what do you mean by "speak of victory by faith"?

Yet the first Christians were known as 'the way' they lived their lives by simple faith and a total reliance on the Holy Spirit.

Can you give us some examples of "the way" the first christians lived? For example, Jesus, John, Peter, James, etc...

But many today stress what the individual themselves has to do.

So you are suggesting that it is the holy spirit who should be telling people "the way" they should be living, and not individuals themselves deciding? Well I don't agree with that 100% but I do agree that people should be listening to the leadings of the holy spirit.

Here is what Jesus said about the holy spirit leading people:
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This follows comments from Jesus about how people who love him will keep his commands. Here is an example...

Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Wow, fancy that. The job of the holy spirit is to remind us and convict us to follow the teachings of Jesus !!!

Why do you keep arguing that it is not necessary to keep the commands of Jesus?

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?

A message from Jesus of love God love your neighbour would certainly offend the proud

Yeah you are probably right about that, but what kind of reaction does a message of "forsake all and go into all the world preaching the gospel full time" bring? I think you've given us a fairly good idea.

When I was much younger than I am now I used to say the same kinds of things as you concern ing earning money.

So, at some point earlier in life you felt it WAS important to consider Jesus' commands about money and possesions? How did that change to "we don't need to refer to those teachings because it means we are being self rightious? What caused you to support the "we're not under the law" doctrine when it comes to Jesus' teachings on money? Could it have ANYthing at all to do with the love of money being the root of all evil?

I'd say that's a fairly convincing argument to explain why any christian would argue against obedience to the teachings of Jesus concerning money.

Paul(sorry to mention his writings again) encouraged churches to give financial supporet to other churches in need. Why did he do this? Wouldn't God just supply these churchesa needs if you are right.

Are you seriously asking why Paul would teach that Christians should share with one another? Is like that thing that scott was doing with "call no man on Earth father" where he pretended not to understand what that means so that he could justify not obeying it?

And where would these churches get the money from to support others if it was not worked for?

Are you suggesting that it is a fear of not knowing where you will get your provision from that stops you from wanting to obey these teachings? Well, yeah it can be kind of scary but that is the whole point of living by faith. We don't always know where our provision will come from, but we trust God anyway. Jesus sent the disciples out without anything. He told them not to take money, extra shoes or a coat or food and sent them out to go preach. They later came back with a glowing report about how God provided everything they needed. Of course, these were rough and tough, honest-to-God Christians who were willing to sleep outunder the stars if that was the only provision God provided for them and not some whiney Christians in chat complaining about where the money will come from.

If no Christian should be in paid employment then the churches Paul was speaking of would have had to rely on non Christians giving them money.

No, they just rely on God and God decides how to provide for them. Is that message really so difficult to understand, lbg? For God's sake just let him do his job! He said he will pay the bills if we step out in faith in him and work for his kingdom FIRST. Why do you suppose he used that word "first", lbg? Any idea, in the context of the teaching, what was meant to be "second"? I'll give you a hint, he was talking about the two masters of matthew 6:24.

Don't tie up the mouth of an ox when it is treading out the wheat

Exactly, Christians who work for God will be fed by god (i.e. their mouths will not be tied)

Certainly you are not advocating that it is the SYSTEM that should be providing for people when they work for it. Once again, who is first and who is second in the equation for who you serve, lbg?

Tithing is scriptural. How can anyone tithe if they earn no mponey.

You are half right. In the old testament there was some teaching abou tithing. But the word "tithe" literally means 10%. Jesus fulfilled the law and bumped it up to 100%. God doenst want your chump change anymore. He wants everything.

But, for someone who can only see things in monetary terms, I understand your confusion. The entire idea of money is totally opposed to the values of the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that we should pray "thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". But they don't work for money in heaven. They work for Love. We can and should do the same down here on Earth. Otherwise we really can't sincerely pray that part of the prayer.

So if there is no money in the kingdom of heaven, what do we give? We give our TIME. We give our time to helping one another just because we want to help and not as a result of some legal wrangling about how much we'll be paid for it.

I think these comments from you really do show that I was absolutely right about your convenient doctrine teaching that we don't need to referr to the teachings of Jesus. It is because of these teachings on money.

Fear is a bully and it will always push you around until you stand up to it.

And if a Christian is to eat, someone has to have some money so they can.

Can you see what is happening here, lbg? Can you see how your faith is in money and not in God? What you are expressing here is that you will die without money. God doesn't come into the picture at all.

So in effect you expecxt non Christians to support Christians to live. As you don't think any Christian shpould work for money. This is not sensible ccg.

You're still not getting it. Trust God. He is the one who will take care of your needs in whatever way he deems fit. That is his responsibility. OUR responsibility is to trust him and obey him. You've got it all the wrong way around. You want to provide for yourself, and you want God to trust that YOU are the loving one and therefore have no need to step out in faith as he so clearly instructed his followers to do.

I lived at a Christian community twice. Many went there saying that GHod had called them to a life of communityy, not to work as such. The leaders often discerned it was because a person simply wanted to avoid going out to work. This was a regular occurence

Yeah okay. That's why Paul told the church, if anyone will not work, he should not eat. If someone comes to a christian community thinking of it as some kind of utopia where they can laze around. Fair enough. As long as they are happy not to eat then they should feel free to relax as much as they want.

But it seems like you've switched back over to work vs non work, when that really isn't the sitaution at all. It's about who we work for. This sounds very similar to what scott was saying over on another thread about how Peter certainly wasn't some wandering bum, because he had paid employment.

The implication being that anyone who would dare work for free is just a dirty bum while those who know the benefits of working for money are smart and sensible. Once again, you've got the values of the kingdom of heaven all mixed up, much like the story you shared about a poor church congregation feeling uncomfortable to have a rich man in their midsts.

If our hearts do not condemn us we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.
And this is his command to believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ and to love one another

In one breath you say you believe in the commandments of Jesus, but when those commands challenge your steady source of income suddenly you throw God out the window and declare that we can't live without money.

Just so much religious jargon...

[livingbygrace]

Originally Posted by cows_chewing_grass

Umm, because that is what is actually happening here?

I quote Jesus word for word about his own assessment on obedience to his teachings
Luke 6:46
"And why call ye me "Lord, lord" and do not the things which I say?"

And directly in response you say this:
Paul said the way of law/commandments is the way of self righteousness

Jesus said to obey, but YOU say Paul said that is self righteous.

You do yourself no credit with this answer.

Obediance comes by faith Rom 1:5

Paul tried to obey the written law of the Ten Commandments, he simply became a worse sinner by trying to do this(Rom 7:7-11) Would you not say that Christ would want those good laws of God kept? But Paul knew he could not be obediant by looking to the letter of what is written.

You are pitting Paul against Jesus, whereas I don't think Paul was against obedience to the teachings of Jesus at all.

Again, you are either deliberately misconstruing what I am saying or you cannot see what is being said

Paul showed us HOW to live as God would have us live.


You use the word "too" in this sentence, indicating that someone else here besides the pharisees and saducees were offended at Christ's message. Based on the context of the sentence I assume you mean me, but that really does baffle me as I've been quoting Jesus all along and promoting a GREATER examination of his teachings. You are the one who has been saying that the teachings of Jesus don't even need to be referred to if you have love in your heart.

Jesus said love God and love your neighbpour, the law hinged on that

Anyway, the pharisees were offended at Jesus "breaking the law". The most common occurrence of this was when he did good works on the sabbath day.

But what was their motive behind their attacks?

I suspect you are using the pharisees abuse of this rule from God (i.e. you can't even save a person's life on the sabbath day because it's work) as an example of what can happen when people become obessed with the rules. I get that.

But just because some people twist the commands of God does not mean we throw them out altogeher or that there is a problem with the rules themselves. Your logic does not work in that exmaple, if that is what you were trying to suggest.

Again you fail to see the basic prinipal here.

Do we then nullify the law by this faith? Not at al! Rather we uphold the law Rom 3:31


Sorry, what do you mean by "speak of victory by faith"?


This is most important. As I have previously said. Paul tried his hardest to obey the written law, he couldn't, he simply became a worse sinner. But by dying to the law and living by faith in Christ he had victory. because sin used the good laws of God to condemn him Read Rom ch 7


Can you give us some examples of "the way" the first christians lived? For example, Jesus, John, Peter, James, etc...

Why do you not mention Paul? To answer you question. They loved God and loved their neighbour.



So you are suggesting that it is the holy spirit who should be telling people "the way" they should be living, and not individuals themselves deciding? Well I don't agree with that 100% but I do agree that people should be listening to the leadings of the holy spirit.

Yes absoliutely. The good laws of God he would have us keep have been written on our hearts and minmds. Who put them there?
Which begs the question, why do we need written laws/commands?

Here is what Jesus said about the holy spirit leading people:
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This follows comments from Jesus about how people who love him will keep his commands. Here is an example...

Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Wow, fancy that. The job of the holy spirit is to remind us and convict us to follow the teachings of Jesus !!!

Why do you keep arguing that it is not necessary to keep the commands of Jesus?

Again you are either misconstruing what I am saying or failing to understand

Who has said that Jesus teachings should not be reflected in a Christians life? Please show me where I have said that? The iossue is how this happens.

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"?

This is the work of God, that youb believe in the one he has senmt




Yeah you are probably right about that, but what kind of reaction does a message of "forsake all and go into all the world preaching the gospel full time" bring? I think you've given us a fairly good idea.



So, at some point earlier in life you felt it WAS important to consider Jesus' commands about money and possesions? How did that change to "we don't need to refer to those teachings because it means we are being self rightious? What caused you to support the "we're not under the law" doctrine when it comes to Jesus' teachings on money? Could it have ANYthing at all to do with the love of money being the root of all evil?

I'd say that's a fairly convincing argument to explain why any christian would argue against obedience to the teachings of Jesus concerning money.

Maybe we should start a thread on whether no Christian should receive any money for any work they do. Some try and hide away from the world due to issues in their life.

It is a fact that if no Christian works(or has ever worked) for money, then ther Christian relies on non Christians to support them. If you can Biblically show me where this is stated I will apologise and accept you are right



Are you seriously asking why Paul would teach that Christians should share with one another? Is like that thing that scott was doing with "call no man on Earth father" where he pretended not to understand what that means so that he could justify not obeying it?

Again my words are being misconstrued. This normally happens when there is no clear answer to give.



Are you suggesting that it is a fear of not knowing where you will get your provision from that stops you from wanting to obey these teachings? Well, yeah it can be kind of scary but that is the whole point of living by faith. We don't always know where our provision will come from, but we trust God anyway. Jesus sent the disciples out without anything. He told them not to take money, extra shoes or a coat or food and sent them out to go preach. They later came back with a glowing report about how God provided everything they needed. Of course, these were rough and tough, honest-to-God Christians who were willing to sleep outunder the stars if that was the only provision God provided for them and not some whiney Christians in chat complaining about where the money will come from.

But if no Christian works for money who will provide for you?


No, they just rely on God and God decides how to provide for them. Is that message really so difficult to understand, lbg? For God's sake just let him do his job! He said he will pay the bills if we step out in faith in him and work for his kingdom FIRST. Why do you suppose he used that word "first", lbg? Any idea, in the context of the teaching, what was meant to be "second"? I'll give you a hint, he was talking about the two masters of matthew 6:24.

Paul said. Those who do not work shall not eat. You are lookiong at this in a naive manner. True, some are called not to work in normal jobs but to preach the word full time, but not all by any means, as most Chrtistians on cc would testify


Exactly, Christians who work for God will be fed by god (i.e. their mouths will not be tied)

Certainly you are not advocating that it is the SYSTEM that should be providing for people when they work for it. Once again, who is first and who is second in the equation for who you serve, lbg?



You are half right. In the old testament there was some teaching abou tithing. But the word "tithe" literally means 10%. Jesus fulfilled the law and bumped it up to 100%. God doenst want your chump change anymore. He wants everything.

Yes he does want everything, but that does not make a point concerning this subject

But, for someone who can only see things in monetary terms, I understand your confusion. The entire idea of money is totally opposed to the values of the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said that we should pray "thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". But they don't work for money in heaven. They work for Love. We can and should do the same down here on Earth. Otherwise we really can't sincerely pray that part of the prayer.

So if there is no money in the kingdom of heaven, what do we give? We give our TIME. We give our time to helping one another just because we want to help and not as a result of some legal wrangling about how much we'll be paid for it.

I think these comments from you really do show that I was absolutely right about your convenient doctrine teaching that we don't need to referr to the teachings of Jesus. It is because of these teachings on money.

How many so far on cc agree with your position of not working for money? Must they all be wrong?

Fear is a bully and it will always push you around until you stand up to it.



Can you see what is happening here, lbg? Can you see how your faith is in money and not in God? What you are expressing here is that you will die without money. God doesn't come into the picture at all.



You're still not getting it. Trust God. He is the one who will take care of your needs in whatever way he deems fit. That is his responsibility. OUR responsibility is to trust him and obey him. You've got it all the wrong way around. You want to provide for yourself, and you want God to trust that YOU are the loving one and therefore have no need to step out in faith as he so clearly instructed his followers to do.

I see no point to replying to any more of these statements conmcerning no Christian working fpor money. In the NT they did and were not rebuked for it. I wonder why you are making so many state,ents on this subject.

Yeah okay. That's why Paul told the church, if anyone will not work, he should not eat. If someone comes to a christian community thinking of it as some kind of utopia where they can laze around. Fair enough. As long as they are happy not to eat then they should feel free to relax as much as they want.

But it seems like you've switched back over to work vs non work, when that really isn't the sitaution at all. It's about who we work for. This sounds very similar to what scott was saying over on another thread about how Peter certainly wasn't some wandering bum, because he had paid employment.

The implication being that anyone who would dare work for free is just a dirty bum while those who know the benefits of working for money are smart and sensible. Once again, you've got the values of the kingdom of heaven all mixed up, much like the story you shared about a poor church congregation feeling uncomfortable to have a rich man in their midsts.



In one breath you say you believe in the commandments of Jesus, but when those commands challenge your steady source of income suddenly you throw God out the window and declare that we can't live without money.

Just so much religious jargon...

Concerning looking to the written commands and striving to obey them. I have been to many churches who pummel this from the pulpit wek after week. They know the literal words of the Bible, but there is so often much lacking. They do not see the power Christ promised. Why not?
Because there is power in the truth

In the western world( I appreciate this does not include you) there are many born again/Evangelical churches, but how many REALLY see the power Christ promised?
And why don't they? They believe in the spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, but they see little of the power. Why is that
Has God chanmged? Never
Has the Spirit who produce thew power changed? Never
Has the message chan ged? NMever
But has peoples perception of that message changed?

I will not venture to speak of anythingexcept what Christ has accomplished in me in leading the Gentiles to OBEY GOD by what I have said and done.BY THE POWER OF SIGNS AND MIRACLES BY THE POWER POF THE SPIRIT Rom 15:18&19

This salvation which was first announced by the Lord was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
God also testified to it by various signms, WONDERS AND VARIOUS MIRACLES and gifts of the Holy Spirit accordiong to his will

Heb 2:3&4

So according to Jesus, Paul and the writers of Hebnrews signs, wonders MIRACLES will accompany the TRUE MESSAGE to confirm the truth thereof.

Anyone with such a ministry would not work in a normal paid job for money. No! But for thjose who do not believe in working for money and working full time to Evangelise the truth of God's word, do they see such power? or signs, wonders and miracles? Any fundamentalist Christian must expect to because it is plainly written in the Bible.
So if they don't masybe they should be working and looking to God for the true Gospel, fpor then the power must Biblically accompany it

[livingbygrace]

[quote=cows_chewing_grass;386091]Umm, because that is what is actually happening here?

I quote Jesus word for word about his own assessment on obedience to his teachings
Luke 6:46
"And why call ye me "Lord, lord" and do not the things which I say?"

quote]

ccg

How do you do the things Jesus asks of you?

By looking to the individual commands of Christ and striving to obey them?

How do you uphold the Ten Commandments? By looking to the literal law and striving to obey it?

What do you think Paul meant here?

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies so that we bore fruit for death
Rom 7:5

What do tyou think Paul meant by the highlighted area?

So tell me honestly

If someone took something of yours, would you in your heart want to demand it back or be happy for them to keep what they took?

Would you give anything to anyone who asked you and in your heart not do it grudgingly and never expect anything back?

If you only had the clothes you stood up in and someone took your coat, would you give him your shirt also without any hint of resentment?

If a total stranger asked you to carry a heavy load for them one mile would you happily offer to carry it two miles without any hint of resentment in you?

Have you ever fasted and told anyone else you are fasting, or wanted in your heart for anyone to know you were fasting? If you have you arte a hypocrite according to Jesus

Have you ever looked at the speck in someone elses eye?

Have you ever looked at a woman with lust in your eye?

If someone slapped you on one cheek would you happily turn the other with nothing but love in your heart for the person who struck you?

If anyone persecuted you and falsley said all kinds of evil against you because you are a Chtristian would you truly in your heart rejoice? Would you leap up and down with heartfelt joy?


Have you ebver been angry with your brother?

Have you ever called anyone a fool?

Do you love people who are unkind to you as much as you love your friends?

Have you ewver given to the needy and in hyour heart ewanted others to know you have? If you have you are a hypocrite according to Jesus.

Have you in your heart ever judged another?

And would you answer all of the above honestly?

Maybe I am just a poor sinner, but I could never hope to live up to these commands of Christ by looking to the literal letter of what was written and striving to obey them. For they could not be obeyed that way. They are all to do with loving God and loving others.
Without God's love you could strive all you want but never obey them.


Hence, love fulfills the law.

[mpaper345]

13Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy(1 Peter 1:13-16).

30By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus(Acts 4:30).

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord(Hebrews 12:14).

God said to be holy as He is holy,and we see that in the man Christ Jesus,and the saints have to have holiness or they will not see the Lord.

That is a great aspect to have in a Church,is holiness,and if they are not preaching that,then their followers will not see the Lord.

There are some denominations that do not preach holiness,but have doctrines that cause the congregation to not have a strict walk with God in holiness,and that is why Jesus said not everyone that calls Him Lord will make it to heaven,but only those that do the will of the Father,which is holiness.

There are millions of people who claim to be with God that do not adhere to holiness.

[livingbygrace]

[quote=wakeup;386082]HI CHRISTIAN FRIEND------ GOD IS SPIRIT HIS CHURCH IS NOT MADE OF BRICK AND MORTAR BUT HUMAN SPIRIT . HE DWELLS IN US SO WE MUST KEEP IT CLEAN. JESUS SAID IN JOHN2:19 DESTROY THIS TEMPLE AND IN THREE DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP . THE FLESH IS THE TEMPLE. THE TRUE CHURCH IS INSIDE YOU SOME HAVE THE LIGHT JUUSST BURNING INSIDE SOME BURNING VERY STRONGLY SOME ARE
JUST A LITTLE BIT GLOWING SOME ARE DEAD CHOCKED BY THE CARES OF THE WORLD.




You missed a few out

And some are hypocrites

And some tie up heavy loads and put them on mens shoulders, but they are not willing to lift a finger to move them

And some shut the kingdom of Heaven in mens faces. They will not enter nor will they let those enter who are trying to.


Amd some have taken away the key to knowledge. They will not enter, nor will they let those enter who are trying to







]

[wakeup]

Originally Posted by Scotth1960

Dear DanuckInUSA, I am persuaded there may indeed be true, real Christians in almost every denomination, as long as they all believe Christ is Lord, and don't deny the Trinity, or salvation by the blood of the Cross and the resurrection of Christ. But that doesn't mean there is not a specific Church that was founded and established by Christ, and that this Church is knowable by its life and teachings, and by its saints and teachers and prophets. The successors of the 12 Apostles and by its bishops in apostolic succession. Following after as bishops from St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. John, St. James, St. Thomas, etc. All real churches, in places like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and in later times in Moscow and other places. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

the doctine of the trinety is a doctrine dreamed up by men it does not explain god ,but only a device to confuse . and it has succesfully accomplish to confuse the multitudes.

here is an honest question to all the triniterian believers,(not to mock or anything) i dont like mockers they like to argue for the sake of making fun and name calling, it is healthy to discuss scribture honestly and with inellegent dialog.

here is my honest question, i know that some trineterians believe in praying to mary and some dont believe in praying to mary. so there is allready a split here. to the ones that maaaaary is the mother of god ,this alone boggels mind. if mary is the mother of god ? then why is she not considered that important(second class?)
why is there only, the fater the son the holy spirit. ? would god now in heavencall
her mother?? would she call him my son? does god ask his mother for permission to do some tasks? for jesus says, obey your parents. dont see this as just trying to mock, i want a true answer that is full of commonsence.
and also this , the word trinety is never found in the bible, o k. you will say but the father the son the holy spirit is mentioned. this is the problem , everytime one add new words into some mystery trying solve it mens way it always end up confusing the flock rather than bringing more understanding.

if mary is the mother of GOD. we should have, the father the son the holy spirit and mary?
to the churcues that dont believe that mary is the mother of GOD but adopted the doct. of the trinity
here are a few scr. 1john5:7. for there are three that bear record in heaven the father the WORD and the holyghost. ---- rev. 19:13. -------- and his name is called the WORD of GOD.

regards to you---------waeup

[Red33]

Originally Posted by livingbygrace

[/color]

Red if you don't want to answer the question it is probablty best just to ignore it. My following query is nothing to do with Luke 15, I hoped you would have realised that.

The highlighted area above would suggest that you consider such a person to no longer be a Christian, due to them not continuing to follow Christ and turning back to former associations.

I was speaking to discipleship and those that leave from following the Lord who still consider themselves to be a Christian. That is their frame of reference because they would never want to be known as one who did not believe or deny that they believed.

Yet at the same time you believe that if someone becomes saved and for the next ten years constantly beats their wife, gets drunk, has multiple affairs and does not read a Bible they may well still be in a saved state

The above in bold are your words and conclusion of what was discussed and you have made that implication because of your owm limited understanding about the righteousness of God and how God deals with sinners through maercy and grace.

What I sincerely do not understand is how to you the highlighted area says that such behaviour results in someone losing their Christianity, but the behaviour of someone in the above paragraph apparantly does not cause a loss of salvation and they remain in a saved state

Again you have come to a conclusion I never stated or made. You are notorious for misinformed conclusions because of your frame of reference and by doing that you are a trouble-maker. If you want to deal with what the scriptures teach and how people respond to the scriptures then have at it.

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Could you explain please.

Remarks are above

[livingbygrace]

Originally Posted by Red33

Remarks are above

Red

I have been to many churches where the literal word was known almost off by heart, but something was missing from these churches.

And I have debated with many on the internet who know the literal word almost off by heart, but do not understand the heart of the Gospel. Why is this?

It comes down to what drives them in my opinion. When you take out the words and pat answers what is it that is most important to people?

If it were the glory of God they would know the heart of the message

If it isn't they never will

[Scotth1960]

Originally Posted by Heremon

It is evident from the letters to the seven churches in Asia (Rev.2:1-3:11), that not every group of people that call themselves a church are indeed a church. Jesus told the church of Sardis that, even though they had a name for being alive, they were dead. Laodicea made Our Lord want to puke, and the most doctrinally orthodox church, Ephesus, was about to lose its status as a church, and later did when God removed their lampstand. I was curious as to what criteria the members of this forum would use to define a true church?

Dear Heremon, Here are seven characteristics of a true church. This is from the history of the true church, the seven ecumenical councils (synods) of the Christian Church, held from 325 AD until 787 AD. "... here is a list of ecumenical councils along with a brief statement on their main topic of focus.
First Ecumenical Council. Held at Nicea in 325 and addressed the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, reiterated the Church's belief about Jesus, and issued a common statement of faith (known as the Nicene Creed).
Second Ecumenical Council. Held in 381 and also addressed the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Additionally, this council established Constantinople as the "New ROme" and conferred upon it equal status as had old Rome.
Third Ecumenical Council. Held in 431 and determined that the Holy Virgin Mary would be called "Theotokos" (the "Mother of God").
Fourth Ecumenical Council. Held in 451 and addressed the Lord Jesus Christ's divine and human natures.
Fifth Ecumenical Council. Held in 553 it reinforced the Church's prior statements regarding the two natures of Christ Jesus -- this was to defeat the schismatic Monophysite sect (cf. 451, included Armenians and Copts in N. Africa as well as Jacobites) that accepted only the divine nature of Jesus.
Sixth Ecumenical Council. Held in 680 to yet again clarify the two natures of Christ; that is, His two natures with two activities, each exercising its own free will.
Seventh Ecumenical Council. Held in 787 it validated the veneration of icons.
"Additionally, many local types of council were held, such as the 397 Third Council of Carthage where the canon of Scripture was finalized." (page 116: WEST OF JESUS: The Bible's Answer to Protestant Departure from Orthodox Belief. By Anthony. Copyright 2006, Regina Orthodox Press, Salisbury, MA. ).
God save us all in Christ Jesus. Lord have mercy. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington