What is a true church?

[cows_chewing_grass]

The definition given gives, as I read it, no room for the true church to waver and it gives God no ability to forgive his true church.

Ehh, I think you may be protesting a bit too much, contemplative. The question is, "what is a true church" and broerns response was a church who obeys Jesus.

I don't see anything in that comment negating forgiveness. Jesus himself said "if you love me you will obey me" and then for good measure he said it the other way around, too, "those who obey me are they who love me".

Obviously Jesus felt that obedience was extremely significant. At the end of the sermon on the mount he told a parable about the wise and foolish. Both groups heard his teachings, but only the wise obeyed him.

In a world where words like "obedience" and "discipline" are synonymous with dirty words the last thing we need is people coming up with arguments that poopoo calls to obedience on the basis that it implies a, how did you put it? Inability of God to forgive the church if we fall short in some areas?

I mean, look at the apostles. They made HEAPS of mistakes through the gospels and yet they did not see the potential to fail as a reason not to continue promoting strict obedience as the standard to aim for.

There will always be room for us to "waver" but that doesn't mean we stop expecting Christians to try their best to obey.

 

[contemplative]

Ehh, I think you may be protesting a bit too much, contemplative. The question is, "what is a true church" and broerns response was a church who obeys Jesus.

The definition says more, actually. The true church obeys, emphasis mine, "all the teaching and commands of our Lord Jesus Christ." The identity of the church is predicated on its ability to obey all the teachings. The definition doesn't give any room for deviation.

I don't see anything in that comment negating forgiveness.

Let me spell it out, then. If the true church disobeys even one minor commandment, it is no longer the true church. It has been stripped of its identity and cannot be forgiven as the true church; it has to be reinstated from the ground up. In the meanwhile, what is it? A false church? It isn't obeying all the commandments, so it has to be something other than the true church.

This is not what I read in the Bible. A husband is still a husband if he requires forgiveness for having ignored a commandment as it concerns his wife. No reasonable person would define a true husband as someone who follows all the teachings and commands about marriage. They would leave room for human error. Of course, they could say that he's not a perfect husband or even a good husband.

Again, this is the problem with using "true" when we really mean something like "perfect," "exemplary," or even "good." Because the alternative to "true" is usually "false," we come up with odd definitions, like a church which follows 99% of the commands being false.

In a world where words like "obedience" and "discipline" are synonymous with dirty words the last thing we need is people coming up with arguments that poopoo calls to obedience on the basis that it implies a, how did you put it? Inability of God to forgive the church if we fall short in some areas?

What we read above is not just a call to obedience. It is the conflation of identity and obedience. Obedience, as I've said before in this thread, is one hint at identity. It is not the means by which the identity of the church can be defined, but it does help with recognition.

To me, again, the true church is one which has a particular relationship with God. This can involve major sin and subsequent punishment. The true church might be going through a purification through fire and, to an outsider, look as though it hasn't the slightest interest in following God's commands. Despite our confusion and inability to recognize the essence of the relationship, God knows who his people are, where they are in their walk, and where they will end up.

 

[cows_chewing_grass]

This is not what I read in the Bible. A husband is still a husband if he requires forgiveness for having ignored a commandment as it concerns his wife. No reasonable person would define a true husband as someone who follows all the teachings and commands about marriage. They would leave room for human error. Of course, they could say that he's not a perfect husband or even a good husband.

I think you are mixing up the examples. You talk about a true husband who is still a true husband even if he makes mistakes, but then you switch over to saying that the true church cannot still be the true church if it makes a mistake. The examples are not consistent.

In the same way that we are not talking husbands who need to be perfect in order to still qualify as the woman's true husband, the true church does not need avoid all mistakes in order to still qualify as the truth church.

I don't thin there is any problem using the word true or perfect because I think the spirit is the same with both. I don't believe that "perfect" in this context means without fault of any kind ever, but more like a kind of spiritual maturity that recognizes a need to continue striving for and promoting excellence despite failure. I believe it is more consistent with the idea of overcoming or never giving up in TRYING to obey ALL the commands of Jesus as best we can, despite mistakes along the way.

It is the conflation of identity and obedience.

Conflation? lol don't try to distract us with jargon about the economy!

It is not the means by which the identity of the church can be defined, but it does help with recognition.

Helps with recognition? Like how?

To me, again, the true church is one which has a particular relationship with God.

How do you see that relationship fitting in with Jesus' comments about a need to obey him?

Despite our confusion and inability to recognize the essence of the relationship, God knows who his people are, where they are in their walk, and where they will end up.

To some degree I agree with you but I also feel that people who try too hard to argue against obedience are probably NOT just lounging around in "confusion and inability to recognize the essence of the relationship".

If there is one thing people of today do NOT like, it's being told what to do and then having someone actually expect them to do it, especially if they can claim that they don't NEED to do it because god "knows their heart".

 

[contemplative]

I think you are mixing up the examples. You talk about a true husband who is still a true husband even if he makes mistakes, but then you switch over to saying that the true church cannot still be the true church if it makes a mistake. The examples are not consistent.

PRECISELY!

I'm saying if we take his definition of following all commandments, the true church would be invalidated, but that's clearly not the way real relationships work; see, for example, the way we would classify a husband who doesn't follow all the commandments as it concerns marriage. We don't say he's not a true husband. Why would we say it's not a true church?

By a comparison with the marriage relationship, I'm showing that if we take the definition at face value it would have strange consequences. I'm telling you this, not vice versa.

In the same way that we are not talking husbands who need to be perfect in order to still qualify as the woman's true husband, the true church does not need avoid all mistakes in order to still qualify as the truth church.

Then you agree with me that his use of "all" makes the definition questionable. It's a little word but it has big consequences and I don't think I'm being too picky in pointing that out.

I believe it is more consistent with the idea of overcoming or never giving up in TRYING to obey ALL the commands of Jesus as best we can, despite mistakes along the way.

Then "trying to" would be a good addition to the definition.

To some degree I agree with you but I also feel that people who try too hard to argue against obedience are probably NOT just lounging around in "confusion and inability to recognize the essence of the relationship".

If we see anyone around here like that, we should probably tell them. As it stands, though, I don't think it's particularly pertinent in this conversation.

 

[cows_chewing_grass]

I'm saying if we take his definition of following all commandments, the true church would be invalidated, but that's clearly not the way real relationships work;

Sure, whether it's in a christian relationship with God or a marriage relationship with a spouse we won't keep all the rules for what it takes to have a perfect relationship, but that doesn't mean we stop expecting the other person to try to keep all the rules. We'll always hit lower on the dart board than what we actually aim for so why not aim for the very tippy top? I don' think all is too extreme an expectation; that's what grace is for, to help us in areas where we fall short in our efforts to obey all. If we take away the all, then there is less need for grace.

for example, the way we would classify a husband who doesn't follow all the commandments as it concerns marriage. We don't say he's not a true husband. Why would we say it's not a true church?

Hrm, I'm not sure if there has been a mix up or what but I've been saying all along that mistakes do not negate the "trueness" of the church or the marriage relationship even if one is attempting to be perfectly true in the relationship (i.e. the "all" you referred to earlier).

On the other hand, you said earlier

Let me spell it out, then. If the true church disobeys even one minor commandment, it is no longer the true church.

I don't think that is implied in what broern said in the same way that it is not implied if a husband sins against his wife. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are getting at here.

Then you agree with me that his use of "all" makes the definition [of a true church] questionable.

No, the exact opposite. I would find his LACK of the word "all" questionable. Who wouldn't? What husband or wife would be satisfied if the partner said "errr well actually I can't say that I will be all faithful to you, but I can say that I will be mostly faithful to you". It's like, even if we know that there will be mistakes and problems along the way, we still want to know that the other person is at least committed to the idea of trying for all.

Then "trying to" would be a good addition to the definition.

Fair enough.

If we see anyone around here like that, we should probably tell them. As it stands, though, I don't think it's particularly pertinent in this conversation.

ha, people arguing against obedience is always pertinent to a discussion about obedience!

 

[contemplative]

Hrm, I'm not sure if there has been a mix up or what but I've been saying all along that mistakes do not negate the "trueness" of the church or the marriage relationship even if one is attempting to be perfectly true in the relationship (i.e. the "all" you referred to earlier).

I agree with you on this. However, I think we both disagree with the original definition as actually written, because without something like the "trying to" that we seem to believe would be a helpful addition, it is unnecessarily strict.

What husband or wife would be satisfied if the partner said "errr well actually I can't say that I will be all faithful to you, but I can say that I will be mostly faithful to you".

Er... my wife and I? I have promised to my spouse as much fidelity as I can muster but know that I will occasionally waver. I know that out of weakness or loss of perspective that I will occasionally ignore her, etc. A promise of perfect fidelity sounds nice, but it flies in the face of Christ's message of the necessity of forgiveness.

Why? Are you planning on lying to your spouse?

It's like, even if we know that there will be mistakes and problems along the way, we still want to know that the other person is at least committed to the idea of trying for all.

Again, if "trying for" had been in his definition, I wouldn't have minded with it so much. It wasn't. I hope after this point that's clear. I've made it clear I'm discussing what he actually wrote, not whatever modifications you'd like to see to it, and that I wouldn't have much to say if we added, say, a "trying to." I'm not sure why this isn't getting across.

ha, people arguing against obedience is always pertinent to a discussion about obedience!

As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing about the necessity of obedience. We are discussing, however, whether obedience is the sine qua non of a true church. Whether obedience should be the way we define the true church.

At this point, though, I've repeated myself a couple of times and taken up way too many lines in this thread. Ta.

 

[cows_chewing_grass]

Again, if "trying for" had been in his definition, I wouldn't have minded with it so much. It wasn't. I hope after this point that's clear. I've made it clear I'm discussing what he actually wrote, not whatever modifications you'd like to see to it, and that I wouldn't have much to say if we added, say, a "trying to." I'm not sure why this isn't getting across.

In the end I think it's an opinion issue, really, whether it would have been better to add "trying to" to the original statement or just leave it as "obey all" since I think the spirit is the same with both.

For example, Jesus didn't say "try to obey me". He just said "obey me" and yet, even with the "unnecessarily strict" wording grace is still there for us if we need it.

Perhaps a better discussion, rather than this stuff about trying to do all verses doing all, would be something more like WHAT are we doing.

How about it contemplative? What's new for you in the realm of trying to obey the commands of Jesus?

 

[contemplative]

Perhaps a better discussion, rather than this stuff about trying to do all verses doing all, would be something more like WHAT are we doing.

How about it contemplative? What's new for you in the realm of trying to obey the commands of Jesus?

I don't want to be rude about it, but I sort of liked the original discussion and don't think that my personal practices are really important in this thread. This is another tangent I'm going to, with apologies, avoid.

 

[livingbygrace]

To some degree I agree with you but I also feel that people who try too hard to argue against obedience are probably NOT just lounging around in "confusion and inability to recognize the essence of the relationship".

If there is one thing people of today do NOT like, it's being told what to do and then having someone actually expect them to do it, especially if they can claim that they don't NEED to do it because god "knows their heart".

I have lately discussed on another website how the teaching/commands of Christ are to be obeyed
Many from the more traditional churches say that we must look to the literal words of Christ in the beatitudes say and strive to obey them. I tend to disagree with this approach.

In the OT the law was not obeyed by striving to obey the literal commands. In effect they made a persion concious of their sin. Rom 3:20

And when the law was ghiven sin increased Rom 5:20 the law did not just reval the sin.

Jesius said that if a person loved God and the neighbour the law would be fulfilled in their life. Love fulfills the law

If we truly loved someone we wpould not want to steal from them, murder them, lie about them or covet what was theirs etc.
This would not be achieved by looking to the literal command, b ut by love. The literal command would not have to be refered to at all if the individual is loved.


I would say it is the same kiind of thing for obediance to Christ's commands, but something else is vital too.


In Rom 1:5(I love Romanms) Paul spoke of obediance

Through him and for his namesake we received grace and Apostleship to call people from among the Gentiles to the obediance that comes from faith

Now Paul had been a strict Pharisee, but to him now obediance did not come from looking to the literal command/law but by faith. And Paul said
All we need is faith working through love.

So I would say it all depends on how much we love God and will trust in his Son
If we do not love as we should we can strive mightily to obey Christ's commands bu cannot succeed

But if we really love God with all our heart and look to Christ and trust him, the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us will more and more take over our lives. And the Spirit who in effect spoke the words of the beatitudes will lead us to follow them. Not by looking to the literal commands, but by trusting Jesus because we love him and his Father.

Jesus said
Apasrt from me you cannot do a thing, but in priode do we sometimes try and do it ourselves?

I would say the commands of Christ would be harder to keep than much of the OT law, Christ upped the law as it were. But no-one fully obeyed the OT law, didn't Jesus know that? So why did he give us even more demands where it mattered than they had in the OT?
I believe we are to see how much we need him. We in ourselves can do nothing, but he will do it in us if we trust him and rely on the power of the Spirit for sanctificatkion
I wonder if looki g to those individual commands and striving to obey them may not be doing what the Israelites tried to do with the OT law. It didn't work.

In him(Jesus) all things are possible. But will we trust him, or strive to do it ourselves?

 

[cows_chewing_grass]

I don't want to be rude about it, but I sort of liked the original discussion

But the original discussion didn't really say anything practical as far as what ARE these commands that we are so emphatically discussing as to whether it should be "obey all" or "try to obey all".

It just occurred to me that perhaps a more meaningful discussion could revolve around what Jesus asked us to do as his followers, and then how it is that we are applying those teachings.

By the way you finished you last post it seemed that you felt the original discussion we were engaged in about the clause "trying to" was finished, but now you are saying that you prefer that discussion over the new one I've suggested. Sounds a bit confusing to me but hey there is plenty of other stuff to discuss besides the nitty gritty of what it is that Jesus actually said to do so I won't hold it against you too much.

see ya around.

 

[contemplative]

By the way you finished you last post it seemed that you felt the original discussion we were engaged in about the clause "trying to" was finished, but now you are saying that you prefer that discussion over the new one I've suggested.

Sorry, when I mean the original topic, I don't mean the definition posted above, but the original question from the original post which led to that definition: how do we define a true church? The definition we discussed was one possible answer but as far as I can tell it has been thoroughly played out. There are other answers out there, however.

 

[cows_chewing_grass]

Jesius said that if a person loved God and the neighbour the law would be fulfilled in their life. Love fulfills the law

Fair enough, but the all the rest of the commands of Jesus tell us HOW to show that love in practical ways. It's not so much about obeying a "law" so much as it is about following our leader.

I just finished a debate about something similar to this with scott over on the divine interpretation thread. If anyone has not seen what was happening in our discussion you really should go have a look at it. I think it's a classic example of what happens to varying degrees with all of us when it comes to obeying the commands of Jesus. It's just that scott's example is quite extreme.

Something slightly similar just happened between contemplative and me on this very thread. We got into a debate about wether broern's comment should have been worded "obey all the commands of Jesus" or "try to obey all the commands of Jesus". In the end I realized that either way was fine; the point is to obey Jesus.

But when I suggested slighly shifting the topic to what Jesus actually told us to obey, as opposed to a technicality about obeying all or trying to obey all, he said he would prefer not as that was not the topic of this thread.

however, that WAS the topic of broern's comment, i.e. that the truth church is one who obeys all of Christ's commands so obedience DOES fit within the context of the discussion. It's just that generally speaking people don't like to follow orders, especially when those orders dictate that we do something as extreme as forsaking all and preaching the gospel full time. Such teachings are indeed extreme, but that's what it takes to confront the root of all evil.

The literal command would not have to be refered to at all if the individual is loved.

I think there is a flaw in your logic here about literal commands. would you say that "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is a literal command or a figurative command?

When Jesus says "repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" is that a literal command or a figurative command?

Is salvation literal or figurative? See, anytime people promote arguments against taking Jesus literally problems immediately arise, and most often the arguments against taking Jesus literally deal almost exclusively with his commands about discpline or other teachings which somehow ask something from us or make us feel uncomfortable, like scott did with the "call no man on earth father" teaching. In the end it seemed he felt it was too rediculous not to be able to call grandpa "grandpa" and so he convinced himself that he really did not understand what "call no man on earth father" meant and until god reavealed to him the "mystery" of that teaching he would just go on calling grandpa "grandpa".

Obvioiusly there ARE times when Jesus gives a very literal command with the intention of people actually doing what he said as is the case of "love your neighbor".

I would say it is the same kiind of thing for obediance to Christ's commands, but something else is vital too.

This is in reference to your comment that you feel the literal command would not even need to be referred to if people just loved. Once again a very concerning approach to the teachings of Jesus.

If the only command we needed to hear was "love your neighbor" then why did Jesus bother to go to so much effort to give all those other commands? At the end of the sermon on the mount, after Jesus finished give a very long list of commands, he gives the parable of the wise and foolish. He says both groups heard his sayings, but only the wise obeyed him.

The word "sayings" here is plural, i.e. not just a command about love, but ALL his commands. His teaching about what is the greatest command is not included in the sermon on the mount and yet he gives this admonishment about obeying his teachings Why would he do that if the literal command does not need to be referred to?

Now Paul had been a strict Pharisee, but to him now obediance did not come from looking to the literal command/law but by faith.

The same guy also said this

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Paul never taught against obedience to the commands of Jesus. He taught against believing that laws could save people. Only God can save, but why would he want to save someone who does not "referr" to his commands for how we should live?

All we need is faith working through love.

What about Jesus' teachings on living by faith in his provision rather than trusting in the systems of man?

In matthew 6:24-35 he said that we cannot work for God and money without hating one or the other. He said that we should consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the fields because they do not work for money, and yet God is able to provide for them what they need.

He commanded that we should not allow fear/worry for things like food and clothing to stop us from acting on his teachings to stop working for money, because God can take care of us.

He said that all the world runs after these things, but that we should NOT be like them. Instead, our NEW job is to seek FIRST the kingdom of Heaven and God will take care of the things we need.

We don't always know HOW God will provide, but that's why it's called living by faith.

So if you are sure that faith is all you really need, why not act on it? Here is your chance to show the values of the kingdom of Heaven as Jesus described it. You don't even need to do it alone. Sell what you have, buy a plane ticket and come over here to Kenya. I've got several friends over here where we live as a Christian community helping people 7 days a week. There is a lot you could do to help.

So I would say it all depends on how much we love God and will trust in his Son

Ah, but talk is cheap. It's very easy, especially here on a Christian forum, to talk about all kinds of nice things about love and faith and trust, but what happens when the rubber hits the road?

The point of Jesus commands is that it's a guage to SHOW our trust in him. Yes, indeed we must PROVE our love. That's why Jesus said "those who love me obey me" and then again a few verses later "those who obey me are those who show they love me". John14

How much trust are you willing to put on the line for your savior?

Not by looking to the literal commands, but by trusting Jesus because we love him and his Father.

You trust him, but not enough to look to his literal commands. I've still not heard any convincing explanation from you about why we should NOT look to those literal commands. Only some nice flowerly speech about how trusting him means we don't need to.

It really just boggles my mind. It seems reasonable that trust is exactly the very thing that will lead you to look at what he said and act on it. It's only people who do NOT trust him who would not want to act on his teachings.

I would say the commands of Christ would be harder to keep than much of the OT law, Christ upped the law as it were.

Ok good, NOW we are getting somewhere. The literal commands of Jesus are "hard". I think THAT is what this is really all about. All that other stuff about not referring to the literal commands by trusting in him is just a sugary coating to get us past the truth that this is really about skirting the disciplines of Christ.

No doubt that following the teachings of Jesus brings about some fairly stong discipline. That's what the word "disciple" means; one who is disciplined. But we don't pretend like it's not necessary just because something may be hard for us. That's like looking in the mirror and seeing egg on your face, but rather than wiping the egg off you break the mirror instead. Sure, you don't see the egg anymore, but it's still there.

The same things is happening with your arguments about trusting God for the purpose of not refering to his commands. You've created a doctrine where you don't need to look at the literal commands anymore (i.e. not refer to them, as you put it) but they are still there waiting for you.

So why did he give us even more demands where it mattered than they had in the OT?

Once again, the real issue here isn't that Jesus gave commands, but are you able to BE commanded? To a certain degree I think God appreciates that we question him because it shows we have a desire to know more about him, but at some point the questioning just becomes rebellion in disguise. At some point we need to stop dilly dallying around with uncertainty and just do what he said to do just because he said to do it.

I wonder if looki g to those individual commands and striving to obey them may not be doing what the Israelites tried to do with the OT law. It didn't work.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.

Be careful, lbg, that you are not expressing some kind of hidden shame for the spirit of God expressed through the teachings of Jesus with this doctrine of not "referring" to them for the sake of love.

 

[livingbygrace]

Fair enough, but the all the rest of the commands of Jesus tell us HOW to show that love in practical ways. It's not so much about obeying a "law" so much as it is about following our leader.

I just finished a debate about something similar to this with scott over on the divine interpretation thread. If anyone has not seen what was happening in our discussion you really should go have a look at it. I think it's a classic example of what happens to varying degrees with all of us when it comes to obeying the commands of Jesus. It's just that scott's example is quite extreme.

Something slightly similar just happened between contemplative and me on this very thread. We got into a debate about wether broern's comment should have been worded "obey all the commands of Jesus" or "try to obey all the commands of Jesus". In the end I realized that either way was fine; the point is to obey Jesus.

But when I suggested slighly shifting the topic to what Jesus actually told us to obey, as opposed to a technicality about obeying all or trying to obey all, he said he would prefer not as that was not the topic of this thread.

however, that WAS the topic of broern's comment, i.e. that the truth church is one who obeys all of Christ's commands so obedience DOES fit within the context of the discussion. It's just that generally speaking people don't like to follow orders, especially when those orders dictate that we do something as extreme as forsaking all and preaching the gospel full time. Such teachings are indeed extreme, but that's what it takes to confront the root of all evil.



I think there is a flaw in your logic here about literal commands. would you say that "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is a literal command or a figurative command?

When Jesus says "repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" is that a literal command or a figurative command?

Is salvation literal or figurative? See, anytime people promote arguments against taking Jesus literally problems immediately arise, and most often the arguments against taking Jesus literally deal almost exclusively with his commands about discpline or other teachings which somehow ask something from us or make us feel uncomfortable, like scott did with the "call no man on earth father" teaching. In the end it seemed he felt it was too rediculous not to be able to call grandpa "grandpa" and so he convinced himself that he really did not understand what "call no man on earth father" meant and until god reavealed to him the "mystery" of that teaching he would just go on calling grandpa "grandpa".

Obvioiusly there ARE times when Jesus gives a very literal command with the intention of people actually doing what he said as is the case of "love your neighbor".



This is in reference to your comment that you feel the literal command would not even need to be referred to if people just loved. Once again a very concerning approach to the teachings of Jesus.

If the only command we needed to hear was "love your neighbor" then why did Jesus bother to go to so much effort to give all those other commands? At the end of the sermon on the mount, after Jesus finished give a very long list of commands, he gives the parable of the wise and foolish. He says both groups heard his sayings, but only the wise obeyed him.

The word "sayings" here is plural, i.e. not just a command about love, but ALL his commands. His teaching about what is the greatest command is not included in the sermon on the mount and yet he gives this admonishment about obeying his teachings Why would he do that if the literal command does not need to be referred to?



The same guy also said this

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Paul never taught against obedience to the commands of Jesus. He taught against believing that laws could save people. Only God can save, but why would he want to save someone who does not "referr" to his commands for how we should live?



What about Jesus' teachings on living by faith in his provision rather than trusting in the systems of man?

In matthew 6:24-35 he said that we cannot work for God and money without hating one or the other. He said that we should consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the fields because they do not work for money, and yet God is able to provide for them what they need.

He commanded that we should not allow fear/worry for things like food and clothing to stop us from acting on his teachings to stop working for money, because God can take care of us.

He said that all the world runs after these things, but that we should NOT be like them. Instead, our NEW job is to seek FIRST the kingdom of Heaven and God will take care of the things we need.

We don't always know HOW God will provide, but that's why it's called living by faith.

So if you are sure that faith is all you really need, why not act on it? Here is your chance to show the values of the kingdom of Heaven as Jesus described it. You don't even need to do it alone. Sell what you have, buy a plane ticket and come over here to Kenya. I've got several friends over here where we live as a Christian community helping people 7 days a week. There is a lot you could do to help.



Ah, but talk is cheap. It's very easy, especially here on a Christian forum, to talk about all kinds of nice things about love and faith and trust, but what happens when the rubber hits the road?

The point of Jesus commands is that it's a guage to SHOW our trust in him. Yes, indeed we must PROVE our love. That's why Jesus said "those who love me obey me" and then again a few verses later "those who obey me are those who show they love me". John14

How much trust are you willing to put on the line for your savior?



You trust him, but not enough to look to his literal commands. I've still not heard any convincing explanation from you about why we should NOT look to those literal commands. Only some nice flowerly speech about how trusting him means we don't need to.

It really just boggles my mind. It seems reasonable that trust is exactly the very thing that will lead you to look at what he said and act on it. It's only people who do NOT trust him who would not want to act on his teachings.



Ok good, NOW we are getting somewhere. The literal commands of Jesus are "hard". I think THAT is what this is really all about. All that other stuff about not referring to the literal commands by trusting in him is just a sugary coating to get us past the truth that this is really about skirting the disciplines of Christ.

No doubt that following the teachings of Jesus brings about some fairly stong discipline. That's what the word "disciple" means; one who is disciplined. But we don't pretend like it's not necessary just because something may be hard for us. That's like looking in the mirror and seeing egg on your face, but rather than wiping the egg off you break the mirror instead. Sure, you don't see the egg anymore, but it's still there.

The same things is happening with your arguments about trusting God for the purpose of not refering to his commands. You've created a doctrine where you don't need to look at the literal commands anymore (i.e. not refer to them, as you put it) but they are still there waiting for you.



Once again, the real issue here isn't that Jesus gave commands, but are you able to BE commanded? To a certain degree I think God appreciates that we question him because it shows we have a desire to know more about him, but at some point the questioning just becomes rebellion in disguise. At some point we need to stop dilly dallying around with uncertainty and just do what he said to do just because he said to do it.



Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.

Be careful, lbg, that you are not expressing some kind of hidden shame for the spirit of God expressed through the teachings of Jesus with this doctrine of not "referring" to them for the sake of love.

My mother is dying of cancer. I love her dearly. My wife and I have spent much time with her lof late. When I am with her I don 't want to murder her, steal from her, lie about her or covet what is hers, neither do I seek to dishonour her. Why is this? Because I look to the literal commands of the Ten Commandments? Or is it because I refer to Christ's teachings? No! it is because I love her.

We lived with her for three months of her illness. During this time my pleasure was only in doing things to make her happy. My joy was driving her to see her friends or bringing her friends to see her. Also she loved her church meeting and going to a fellowship for the older people in the church. My joy was seeing her happy doing these things. I waited on her hand and foot, and it was a pleasure
Am I saying this to blow my own trumpet? No! All too many times in life I have fallen short of acting towards others as I should. Biut you know, during that three months I kept thinking.
'There has never been a time in my life I have acted more in line with the heart of the Gospel or Christ's teachings'
And why was this? BECAUSE I LOVED MY MOTHER GREATLY
Never once did I have to refer to any of Christ's teachings to act that way.


I could go over each individual comment you have made, but will put one point to you.

Someone who was known world wide saw tremendous healings in her services. Healings that were backed up with medical evidence of the patients former condition. This person said and I quote

'Anyone can see the power in their services I have seen, but it costs everything.'

CCG

You speak of us all following all of Christ's commands( to the letter and giving up work and forsaking all to work full time for God.

Jesus said

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves
I tell you the triuth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing and even greater things than these because I am gloing to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the son may bring glory to the Father

CCG

If you have forsaken work and money and are following all of Christ's commands and are working full time for God is God doing greater miracles through you than were done in Christ? Because Christ promsed it would happen in his followers. And if this is not happening in your life why isn't it? Is the spirit raising the dead in your ministery and making the blind see?

I don't say this to be unkind but rather to make a point.

You say the way I see things is because I may not wish to obey or forsake all. If you have in your heart forsaken all and given up everything for Christ including job and money I mean this sincerely.

Why are you not raising the dead and giving sight to the blind(not you but the spirit in you)

And if you have not given all is it because you don't in your heart truly want to obey? Or cxould you be going about it the wrong way?
Or maybe you are expoecting more from yourself than Christ wants in the work he is asking of you

 

[Red33]

ccg

Though I accept that in a true church a beggar would not for long exist as the church would care for his needs and fiind him a home among the congrtegation, the poiont I was making (rather extremely) was that class/background would be irrelevant in a true church.
But for the first time we do see things sdlightly differently. Although I fully accept what the disciples were called for and we should all take up our cross and follow Christ, I do not believe all are called to be Apostles in the sense they give up family and homes and have no place tro rest there head. Many are, and many do not follow the leading of the Holy Spirits convictipon in this.
But I do believe that others are simply called to have a family, witness to those at work and , help in a church and with the money God has helped them earn to support their fellow believers.


Not all are called to be Apostles, preachers, teachers. etc

Those are gifts that you mention that God gives to the church (Eph 4:8-15). However, we are all called to be disciples and in that calling we follow Christ. Many love Jesus Christ because their sins were paid for and they have been forgiven and cleansed, but are they disciples? A disciple is one that loses his own life for Christ's sake so that he can find it (Mt 16:25). A disciple does not consider his own life dear to himself (Acts 20:24). Many who are called never leave and forsake those things that keep them from being a disciple who follows Christ (Lk 14:33).

If we are following Christ He is making us fishers of men (Mt 4:19). If we are following Christ we are laying our life down for one another and for those that deserve it the least (1Jn 3:16, Jn 15:13). If we are following Christ we walk by faith and live by the promises of God (Rom 1:17, 2Cor 7:1). If we are following Christ we will always be ministering to others and esteeming them better than ourselves (Phil 2:3). If we are following Christ we will suffer and be persecuted because He is leading the way (2Tim 3:12, Phil 1:29). If we are following Christ we will not love the world nor anything that is of the world that involves the lust of the flesh, the yes and the pride of life (1Jn 2:15,16).

For some who follow and are commanded to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they will at some point be offended and turn back to their former associations and the cares in this life while they still consider themselves 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).

 

[Rob_Chapman]

I am in agreement with many of the ideas expressed here. I read scripture and see that Jesus taught while traveling, he sat on hillsides or sat around tables with his friends or spoke to the people while walking through towns and so the "church" is really the earth, and to me that is greater than any gaudy building decorated with fancy things. I feel these things go against what Jesus was teaching and what God wants for us. I don't believe He has any need for decoration and ceremony. The two most important commandments of Love God and Love your Neighbor are all that we need. I have my Bible and I have Jesus and I have God and that's all I need. That is my church. We are told we will find the Kingdom of God within us.

 

[livingbygrace]

Those are gifts that you mention that God gives to the church (Eph 4:8-15). However, we are all called to be disciples and in that calling we follow Christ. Many love Jesus Christ because their sins were paid for and they have been forgiven and cleansed, but are they disciples? A disciple is one that loses his own life for Christ's sake so that he can find it (Mt 16:25). A disciple does not consider his own life dear to himself (Acts 20:24). Many who are called never leave and forsake those things that keep them from being a disciple who follows Christ (Lk 14:33).

A serious point. I cannot disagree with the generality of the above statement, but if a person is not a disciple are they saved? I ask this because I know from what you have said ypou believe many even years after a conversion is claimed may still commit the same sins on a regular basis.
ie wife beating,
drunkeness,
affairs,
not reading the Bible
. As you appear to believe that someone who constantly lives like this may be in a saved state I assume you see a difference between being in a saved stae and being a dsisciple, because surely anyone who lives as I have just described could not be a disciple according to what you have written

If we are following Christ He is making us fishers of men (Mt 4:19). If we are following Christ we are laying our life down for one another and for those that deserve it the least (1Jn 3:16, Jn 15:13). If we are following Christ we walk by faith and live by the promises of God (Rom 1:17, 2Cor 7:1). If we are following Christ we will always be ministering to others and esteeming them better than ourselves (Phil 2:3). If we are following Christ we will suffer and be persecuted because He is leading the way (2Tim 3:12, Phil 1:29). If we are following Christ we will not love the world nor anything that is of the world that involves the lust of the flesh, the yes and the pride of life (1Jn 2:15,16).

If a person lacked even one of these characteristics you mention above, are you saying they cannot be a follower/disciple of Christ? Because you say thst a follower will always esteem others as better than themselves for example. So if anyonme in their heart did not truly always esteem others as better than themselves could they not be a follower of Christ?

For some who follow and are commanded to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they will at some point be offended and turn back to their former associations and the cares in this life while they still consider themselves to be a Christian (Jn 6:53-66). (Mt 16:24).

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

 

[cows_chewing_grass]

Am I saying this to blow my own trumpet?

You could have just said that it was the experience of a close personal friend of yours. That way you would have kept your treasure in Heaven and still made the point about trying to love others.

I know that may sound harsh, but I think it touches on the exact point. The literal teaching is keep it secret. There may be times when we feel it is worth losing our treasure in heaven for the sake of using our good example to further the Kingdom of heaven (like someone who altruistically donates a kidney talking about it in the media for the sake of promoting more altrusitic kidney donation) but generally speaking there are ways to make the point without exposing ourselves.

Someone who is dead serious about following the teachings of Jesus would be very conscious about such things, and I feel your attempts to downplay the importance of loyalty to those teachings has caused you to over look that in your example.

Never once did I have to refer to any of Christ's teachings to act that way.

But in your original letter you made it sound like it was counter productive to refer back to the literal commands, NOT just a simple matter of being able to love without doing such. You talked about it as though it was the law that people look to if they are trying to save themselves, rather than the list of practical application son HOW to show love.

Are you now suggesting that you were wrong about that?

Someone who was known world wide saw tremendous healings in her services. Healings that were backed up with medical evidence of the patients former condition. This person said and I quote

Is she known for anything else besides her miracle crusades? See, Jesus never taught that people should do miracles and he did not teach that people should teach others to do miracles. He said that miracles would happen as a result of people obeying him. So what was this person teaching?

If what was meant to be the RESULT of the teachings overshadowed the teachings themselves, then one really must wonder why God would grant her the power to do miracles in the first place, considering that even in your example of the miracles of Jesus, they were meant to be a testimoney to back up the authority of his TEACHINGS. So what, besides miracles, was this woman teaching?

By the way, can you point me in the direction of this medical evidence? There have been so many abuses of miracles in the world recently that you really cannot trust 3rd or 4th or 5th or 100th party evidence.

If you have forsaken work and money and are following all of Christ's commands and are working full time for God is God doing greater miracles through you than were done in Christ? Because Christ promsed it would happen in his followers. And if this is not happening in your life why isn't it? Is the spirit raising the dead in your ministery and making the blind see?

What miracle can you think of that is greater than healing blind people and raising people from the dead? Any particular miracle that you can think of, which may happen when we preach to people about following the values of the kingdom of Heaven? Any particular miracle which wasn't happening BEFORE Jesus' death?

As far as those other miracles you mentioned, well that really is up to God to decide. If he tells me to raise someone from the dead then surely I will do it but are you really certain that Jesus taught people that they should STOP following him if God doesn't start raising all the dead around us? I think that is a fairly serious hole in your logic, lbg. It will always happen when you argue against obedience to Jesus.

You say the way I see things is because I may not wish to obey or forsake all. If you have in your heart forsaken all and given up everything for Christ including job and money I mean this sincerely.

Why are you not raising the dead and giving sight to the blind(not you but the spirit in you)

And if you have not given all is it because you don't in your heart truly want to obey? Or cxould you be going about it the wrong way?
Or maybe you are expoecting more from yourself than Christ wants in the work he is asking of you

The bold is mine. I use it to emphasize the fact that I WAS asking you about your motives, but rather than explain those motives according to the response I gave, you side stepped that and got stuck into me about what miracles I am seeing in my life.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone looking for miracles as the sign of spiritual authenticity will almost certainly be deceived, simply because that is NOT what Jesus taught as the corner stone of his Kingdom.

 

[livingbygrace]

You could have just said that it was the experience of a close personal friend of yours. That way you would have kept your treasure in Heaven and still made the point about trying to love others.

I honestly have not looked for treasure in Heaven for looking after my mother as I did, it was pure joy.
And I have admitted that many times in my life I hacve failed to love others as I should. I simply gave that as an example of what I believe is the true way to be obediant. Faith working through love

I know that may sound harsh, but I think it touches on the exact point. The literal teaching is keep it secret. There may be times when we feel it is worth losing our treasure in heaven for the sake of using our good example to further the Kingdom of heaven (like someone who altruistically donates a kidney talking about it in the media for the sake of promoting more altrusitic kidney donation) but generally speaking there are ways to make the point without exposing ourselves.

Someone who is dead serious about following the teachings of Jesus would be very conscious about such things, and I feel your attempts to downplay the importance of loyalty to those teachings has caused you to over look that in your example.




But in your original letter you made it sound like it was counter productive to refer back to the literal commands, NOT just a simple matter of being able to love without doing such. You talked about it as though it was the law that people look to if they are trying to save themselves, rather than the list of practical application son HOW to show love.

Are you now suggesting that you were wrong about that?



Is she known for anything else besides her miracle crusades? See, Jesus never taught that people should do miracles and he did not teach that people should teach others to do miracles. He said that miracles would happen as a result of people obeying him. So what was this person teaching?

I haven't played down loyalty to Christ's teachings, quite the opposite, there is no other way to be faithful to them

If what was meant to be the RESULT of the teachings overshadowed the teachings themselves, then one really must wonder why God would grant her the power to do miracles in the first place, considering that even in your example of the miracles of Jesus, they were meant to be a testimoney to back up the authority of his TEACHINGS. So what, besides miracles, was this woman teaching?

This woiman had many of the leading ministers in the US sitting in her meetings willing and humble enough to learn from her preaching.

And not all see miracles in their services, but to Paul it was a gift given

By the way, can you point me in the direction of this medical evidence? There have been so many abuses of miracles in the world recently that you really cannot trust 3rd or 4th or 5th or 100th party evidence.

The criteria for a miracle to be put in one of her books was as follows
The healing had to have been over five years old with no occurence of the illness during this time

Two copies of the original diagnosis of the illness had to be priduced by consultants doctors to be allowed into the books.
I would say that if this were falsified in the US it would have come to light

What miracle can you think of that is greater than healing blind people and raising people from the dead? Any particular miracle that you can think of, which may happen when we preach to people about following the values of the kingdom of Heaven? Any particular miracle which wasn't happening BEFORE Jesus' death?

With respect I find this answer a bit of a cop out, and no offence meant

As far as those other miracles you mentioned, well that really is up to God to decide. If he tells me to raise someone from the dead then surely I will do it but are you really certain that Jesus taught people that they should STOP following him if God doesn't start raising all the dead around us? I think that is a fairly serious hole in your logic, lbg. It will always happen when you argue against obedience to Jesus.



The bold is mine. I use it to emphasize the fact that I WAS asking you about your motives, but rather than explain those motives according to the response I gave, you side stepped that and got stuck into me about what miracles I am seeing in my life.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone looking for miracles as the sign of spiritual authenticity will almost certainly be deceived, simply because that is NOT what Jesus taught as the corner stone of his Kingdom.

Jesus said

He who speaks on his own does so to gain honour for himself, but he who works for ther hoonour of the one who sent him is a man of truth and there is nothing false about him

John 7:18

Paul said

Not having a righteousness of my own(self righteousness) that comes from the law/commandmenmts but that which is by faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith

Phil 3:9

In NT times the persecution concerned supposedly ignoring the law

Christ was harrassed as a lawbreaker, by religious people
Steven weas dragged before the Sanhedrin and stoned tro death, by religious people. One of the reasons? He was ignoring the law

Paul said
'Brothers if I'm still preaching circumcision(ie law) I would not be attacked, in that case the offence of the cross has been removed.

Gal 5:11

Phil 3( explains why the law was the offence of the cross.

It came down to pride. Peiople in their hearts wanted the credit for attaining heaven. The Pharisees were a proud people, they had to believe they could attain Heaven by their own personal goodness.

Today many stress the commands of Christ, as many in those days stressed the commands of the law. And I wonder if sometiomes it is not because many still cling to a righteousness of their own
People may say it is not a salvation issue, but that is not in effect always believed in the heart.

The law was fulfilled by love, I believe that is how Christ's commands are fulfilled also.

If a person loves God with all their heart they will not need to focus on the written commands for the spirit who in effect spoke thiose commands will be mightily at work in their life.

The glory must be all God's He demands it.
How can anyone in their heart gfive God all the glory if they have a mindset of
I have obeyed, I have been faithful

Rather say. It is what God did in me by faith in Christ and the sanctification of the spirit. Then you can give God all the glory and He will be pleased

 

[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.

 

[livingbygrace]

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.

The difference between us is not whether Jesus teachings should be followed but how.
I have never got anywhere in my life by looking to wrtitten commands and striving to obey them, in effect they have simply made me concious of my sin Rom 3:20

However, when I have stopped striving in myself and looked to Jesus and trusted him I have seen victory in my life.

I truly believe this is the dividing line in Christianity.

Not infant baptism, not whether baptism is required for salvation, not tongues or a variety of other things. It is simply does the Christian want God to have the glory in their heart or do they in their heart want it themselves.

Paul said the way of law/commandments is the way of self righteousness
Human effort can make a Pharisee, only God can make a saint

I don't know who said that, b ut a very true quote

Because if someone loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind they will want with all their heart to live as He would havew them live, and they in their heart will want no praise from man, no credit for what has been achieved in their life because they love God so much.
They will live to bring glory to God and from the bottom of their heart seek none for themselves. There is no better way to know a true Christian than that