Maybe Walt meant intellectual assent, an act of the fleshy mind and not a response of the human heart? I think in the contemporary world people equate faith with intellectual assent.
Thanks Abigail. I think it's possible to find a church in the business of ministry instead of popularity, money, entertainment and catering to the youth and popular culture. Such believers do exist. They are few and far between but they can be found. Good correlation between 1 John and the Corinthians passage.
We also have this verse, in regard to teachers: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abid in him." 1 John 2:27
Maybe this is what Abigail is referring to. It sounds quite similar to the Lord's promise about the Holy Spirit leading into all truth(Verses quoted by Abigail). The only infallible teachers and interpreters of God's word and Christ's doctrine are the Apostles. Everyone else is subordinate and worthy to be examined and if need be, rejected as no teacher or a false one.
Abigail, It's recorded in Acts that the Bereans sought to see if the testimony of the Apostles was true. They searched the scriptures and reasoned about the matter. But it's interesting to note we have no letter from the Bereans to us. I agree with you concerning the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures. And of course there are plenty of false teachers in the pulpits too, void of the Holy Spirit and reproducing empty vessels under their teaching, so if you're not in a place of worship with others, I'd understand. However, I'd encourage you to find a body of fellow believers for the sake of edification of yourself and others you meet. I'm sure you could find a fellowship with similar basic doctrinal emphasis. Christianity is not me-God-Bible-nobody else kind of arrangement. We are part of a body and need one another. The body cannot operate with separated members. You probably already know this, so I apologize if I sound redundant. We can still meet corporately even if we have the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit as our ultimate teaching authority.
Actually, Jim, it's scriptural, not political, or maybe it's scriptural politics. How? The Apostle Paul denounced division and the Anglicans are obeying this and leaning more toward the traditional Christian view of the matter. They are seeking to maintain unity based on the Biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage. This is correct even if it's political. Scriptural politics, evidently. The Anglicans get my full support for opting to obey God instead of man on this matter.
Walt, the Apostle Paul testifies: Therefore, being justified by faith.... So how is it that you say faith does not justify?
CBC, why should Abigail go to church? Well, it says so: "Forsake not the assembling..." It's also a tradition in those historical books too(also the Epistles), people gathering to worship God, edify one another, and hear what the Spirit is telling the churches, etc. I think Abigail has made it clear enough in previous posts to show she is not higher than anybody. She testified before that without faith or the Holy Spirit we're powerless.
CBC, Two important differences in my thinking from yours(and possibly Abigail's, if she insists on absolute holiness before being blessed with the Holy Spirit). 1. I don't regard the Gospels and Acts as simply historical and unworthy of doctrine for the present church age. The Apostle Paul said all scripture is worthy of doctrine and teaching and I do believe that includes those historical books of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is given to those who repent and ask(Luke 11:13, Acts 2:38, Acts 8, Acts 19). That's how the Spirit is received, to answer your question. 2. Regarding absolute holiness, I don't believe one needs absolute holiness to receive the Holy Spirit. There's no scriptural warrant where the Apostles insisted on absolute holiness prior to receiving the Holy Spirit. Besides, how could one live in holiness or sanctification without the Holy Spirit(Romans 15:16)? The Apostles did however command repentance and said such who repent would receive(Acts 2:38).
There's an immense reading into scripture to force the Calvinist Limited Atonement doctrine upon the simple-minded laity, when the Bible confesses of Christ's atonement as "not only for our sins, but the sins of the whole world." Why the accusation against Abigail when her opponents do the same, reading into scripture something that isn't there? A similar problem arises with Irresistible Grace.
Not necessarily so, CBC, regarding your opinion about Abigail and works. God doesn't just automatically send the Holy Spirit in all cases(Acts 10 being an exception), but it's given to those who ask(Luke 11:13). The Holy Spirit is given to those who repent(Acts 2:38). The people asked "What must we do?" and were told to repent(Acts 2). If that's "works" then so be it, it's works, but it's scriptural work, this asking to receive and asking what to do and repent according to the command. The Bible is less condemnatory of apparent "works" than many theological books are. Good quote, Abigail, Deuteronomy 30. God commands to love, he doesn't make them love. He sets two choices not forcing one choice. Calvinism needs to be reformed.
Jesus says the Holy Spirit is given to those who ask(Luke 11:13), so Abigail is correct even if she can't fully put this important truth into words. We have people today saying it's not proper to seek or ask for the Holy Spirit. Can this opinion be reconciled with the Lord's word about asking to receive? I don't think so. It's simply wrong. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him(Hebrews 11).
Abigail, It's also dependent on what exactly is an "early period." Using the word "an" is very vague. Evidenlty there is not "the early period" but whatever anybody thinks is an early period to help propagate their views. For many the Bible is too early, so they opt for philosophical reasonings which came later yet call it early thinking this makes it correct. There are many early periods depending on who you ask and what's the theological issue. Ver relative and not concrete.
Thanks Abigail. There is a stream of thought in the church today which would basically render 1 John 1:9 as saying "We need not confess our sins because he was already faithful and just to forgive us our sins--past, present, future, and premeditated---for all time." Thankyou for shedding light on a very obvious error polluting the church .
I see we're on the Rapture again. It's post-tribulation. Two verses in the Gospels talk about Jesus coming back after(post) tribulation(Matthew 24:29-31 & Mark 13:24) and also Revelation 2:9-10 acknowledges tribulation, but is silent on being raptured prior to or during this tribulation. The clearest rendering is that reward and rapture occur after or post tribulation.
So, even Calvin didn't promote Limited Atonement.The Apostles didn't either. But humans trying to figure it all out instead of just believing it have contrued up a most confusing doctrine--Limited Atonement, yet the Bible says "And He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not ours only, but the sins of the whole world." Nothing about covering the sins of a particular continent, or a particular race or a some here and some there. Rejecting the Limited Atonement does not equate to accepting universalism. One must repent and believe if the benefits of Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the whole world are to be grasped and applied.
Yes, we hear much about prosperity. How about sanctification by faith? It's almost a foreign idea these days, yet....Acts 26:18, 1 Thess. 4, 1 Thess 5:23...etc., just to name a few. A lot are after physical and temporal blessings instead of eternal and spiritual blessings in their life.
10/2/07 2:01 AM
9/30/07 11:48 PM
.
