heresy... top three that we find here

[Henry]

Shana

You lack of concern for false teaching is scarry, I am in fear that more Christians have been numbed by UR teachings.

smaller

One, those who judge others for sin denigrate the work of Jesus on the cross, and two, they judge false judgment to others and themselves because of error number one.

Again pointing out heresy is not juding people.

And your point is what? How are we to trust you or any other man with sin indwelling.

First of all I never said to trust any mans ideas, too many people putting words into my mouth here. I do in fact think that we need to test all things against the scripture, I listed several historic heresys, and instead of anyone talking about those, I am being insulted and accused of having said things I did not say.

What of the heresys that I listed, can you at all test them and let me know what you think?

And you are merely presenting your own biased view of what you consider heresy

Utter nonesence, the heresies that I listed are HISTORIC heresy, that have been tried and condemned by the Church a very long time ago. UR was also condemned as heresy not very long ago, but MANY Christian leaders.

These are not MY veiws, these are things which I have learned, that are found in history.

And as for being biased, well that is true. I am biased to the fact that these teachings I have listed DO NOT line up with the bible, the same is true of UR.

Anyways, your notion that I am some sort of loner that just decided for some abstact reasoning that these things are heresy, is just nonesence..

If you think I am wrong, and as you say we should turn to the bible, Well then do that. Open the bible and lets see why our FATHERS of the early church condemned these things.HMMMM

Anyways, just saying "You are biased" is really nothing but a cop out.

Eve777

So Henry, if you feel more righteous than the rest of us, then Son, have a field day.

WOW, you really do not know me at all, I am the last person IF YOU KNEW ME, that you would think of as thinking of myself as rigthouse then any one else. And I am not your Son, that is offensive to be sure.

Anyways, if you think that I am wrong them show me according to the scripture all you can do is attack me personaly, always pointing your finger in my face and accusing me of being this and that.

Then LOL you want to talk to me about judging others??? That is cute... I have merely addressed doctrines and teachings, you have ONLY attacked my character. HMMmmmmm

suggest instead of telling others what is wrong with their belief, you might want to make sure you are not deceived in what you believe.

Uhmm HELOO this a forum for debating such things, why are you so amazed that some of us here actually come here to do what this forum is set up for. I do not go about talking about this to people in the streets, I come here and do it were it is what we do.

It also helps me to fine tune my beliefs, becuase this forum certainly enourages study. Well encourages me to study anyways.

Oh, and I did learn that I was being decieved, and I left the Oneness Church. Shesshhhh, do you realize that IF what I believe is wrong that the majority here are also decieved, I beleive in the historic teachings of the Church, I did not make this stuff up after all.

You have an incomplete doctrine, Henry. There is so much more...you are still drinking milk when you could be feasting on meat and more....

Who says I have incomplete doctrine, you ??? And you can say that and not be 'judging' me? Lets see you say that I am decieved and have incomplete doctrine, but If I say that you are decieved and what you teach is not biblical, I am accused of being hard hearted, judging, and what not??? Can you see the hyprocracy in that ????

The fact is this:

I beleive the orthodoxed and hostoric doctrines of grace, as have been taught for the last two thousands years. The same as a greater majority here also beleive, and if there for I am decieved as you say, they they are as well. And if that is the case you need to show US all according the scripture our error, but IF the case is that we are all right and you are wrong, then dear you need to be willing to look at our presentations of the scriptures.

Are you ever going to be willing to REALLY study the bible, or does attacking those that do not agree with you enough. Becuase then dear you would have to also tear the characters of those very men that wrote the text you say you learn from, becuase you do not agree with them either.

 

[smaller]

Greetings Henry

Again pointing out heresy is not juding people.

Pointing to the "cause" of various heresies is OK. To the determination of eternal damnation is not OK because by doing so the accuser condemns you as well, hence another heresy is formed in "you" as well eh?

smaller prior:
And your point is what? How are we to trust you or any other man with sin indwelling.

First of all I never said to trust any mans ideas, too many people putting words into my mouth here. I do in fact think that we need to test all things against the scripture, I listed several historic heresys, and instead of anyone talking about those, I am being insulted and accused of having said things I did not say.

This little ditty between us started when I cited a position of an inexcusable position, that of condemning another person. Yet this is "common and accepted practice in the church" and you deny this is a heresy because it is such a common practice.

What of the heresys that I listed, can you at all test them and let me know what you think?

You could have every doctrine right and correct and without Love you would still have "nothing." So what is "more important?"

smaller prior
And you are merely presenting your own biased view of what you consider heresy

Utter nonesence, the heresies that I listed are HISTORIC heresy, that have been tried and condemned by the Church a very long time ago. UR was also condemned as heresy not very long ago, but MANY Christian leaders.

And my continual response here is that the practice of heresy pointing is that the pointers also have sin indwelling them. Without Love the practice of pointing out "heresy" unto "eternal condemnation" of others in itself is a "heresy" that is "inexcusable" no matter how bad the "original heresy" is. It's a viscious circle/cycle.

These are not MY veiws, these are things which I have learned, that are found in history.

Well obviously "historical heresy" missed a big one eh? The "inexcusable one" is and has been common practice for a very long time. So how right were the historical heresy finders in the light of their own "inexcusable heresy???"

And as for being biased, well that is true. I am biased to the fact that these teachings I have listed DO NOT line up with the bible, the same is true of UR.

The position of UR has a much longer legitimate history than that of eternal torment.

Anyways, your notion that I am some sort of loner that just decided for some abstact reasoning that these things are heresy, is just nonesence..

My protest was your insistence that only the things on your personal hit list are legitimate heresies and that there are some that remain common practice that are inexcusable and as such all the other heresies are somewhat irrelevant in the light that falls upon the "judges" of heresy.

If you think I am wrong, and as you say we should turn to the bible, Well then do that. Open the bible and lets see why our FATHERS of the early church condemned these things.HMMMM

I cited a biggie and you do not consider it a heresy. Why? Because it is a heresy that you personally practice isn't it??? That is why you protest the citing of it as heresy.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Shana]

Shana

You lack of concern for false teaching is scarry, I am in fear that more Christians have been numbed by UR teachings

The fact is Henry, you have made incorrect statements about UR beliefs and this tells me that you have prejudged. I am all for correct teaching but I pray for God for wisdom and direction. I am not quick to judge others because they may disagree with my belief and understanding of something. I believe that as we trust in God, He will reveal in His time what is true and what is not true. As someone said, we may be doing more damage than good in condemning a belief that people may have based, instead of realizing that not all people are out here to change the word of God. Some have legitimate reasons for their belief and just because we may not agree, does not mean that we are condemning towards them. The attitude that we should display is one of love and concern without condemning. We point out what we believe to be error , our reasons for this, and trust that God will lead them to the truth or lead us to the truth, as we continue to seek His truth. I use to be very judgmental of the belief of people. Anyone who did not see as I saw, I labeled as being in error although I did not label the belief as heresy or label folk as heretics. I saw it as incorrect understanding and that it was my duty to enlighten them. I was very adamant about showing them the true way. Low and behold, the Lord opened my eyes. On the other hand there are others out there who are deliberate teaching for false gain, but trust that God will reveal the truth. If we are all seeking His truth, seeking His will, He will guide us in the correct way. God bless.

 

[Eve777]

do you realize that IF what I believe is wrong that the majority here are also decieved

And if they all jumped in front of a car, would you do the same thing because it is in the majority way of thinking to do that?


"Few there be that find it"....the narrow path that leads to salvation....no majority there....you might want to be in the minority......

Luke 13:24: Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Matthew 7:14: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


As for "Son" in my part of the country we use this expression a lot..for instance...."Son", I mean to tell you it is hot"....I tell you "Son" that car almost hit me. Just a word...nothing more. I can't believe you never heard the expression...

 

[Henry]

smaller

My protest was your insistence that only the things on your personal hit list are legitimate heresies

My hit list?? Sorry buddy these heresies are historic. Not mine, and this other thing you are talking about, I have no idea what you are saying. And these are only a few, I instisted on nothing.

Near as I can tell you are UR and think that anything other then that is heresy.

But I can not be too sure of that, you are just not making sence.

Shana

I do not visit the UR thread for a reason and would like it if this thread did not become a second UR thread, else wise I will not return to this thread.

Eve777

Same old stuff with you. You just can not talk, have to attack me.

 

[smaller]

Hi Henry

Paul said there is a specific doctrinal belief in the mind that is inexcusable. I say that as such it is a very real and very commonly practiced "heresy."

Of course you practice this belief so you say it is not a heresy. Can you spell s-p-i-n or b-i-a-s?

Bottom line?

If you want to make the claim "your" practice is not "doctrinal heresy" then lay your practice next to "doctrine of eternal judgment" found in Hebrews 6 to determine the validity of "eternal judgment" as a doctrine, and then lay what you practice next to Paul's "inexcusable position" and voila, a heresy is revealed.

See how easy that is???

Turnabout is "fair" play. UR is not a heresy, and look who is practicing a heresy! The one who calls UR a heresy.

Go figure.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Eve777]

I didn't attack you personally Henry. JUst your beleif that if the majority believes it, it must be so. That type of thinking is what got you where you are and will probably keep you there. It is safe there. What you haven't realized yet, is your safety is found in reaching out for more and not in staying lukewarm and safe.

 

[Shana]

Shana

I do not visit the UR thread for a reason and would like it if this thread did not become a second UR thread, else wise I will not return to this thread.

:D Henry, if you will reread my first post you will see that I did not bring up UR. You brought up UR in your response to me. Is this thread open to all Christians? Was I not suppose to share simply because I believe in UR? I was speaking to the topic at hand. I brought in UR when incorrect statements or assumptions were made by others about the belief when they brought it up.. Thanks and God bless you.

 

[guibox]

Jason


Oh no, looks like you are saying that ones mans orthodoxy is anothers mans heresy. This is just the thing that we have to fight. This entire nonesence that what is right for me might wrong for you....We have to fight heresy PERIOD, if you do not the devil gets over on us and people are lost. Heresy is a lie, and why would we exuse and even encourage a lie?

And who considers what heresy? The church? IMO, the church has done more to further heresy than denounce it, but because the church says what is and isn't heresy, that makes it something that needs to be squashed out?

If it disagrees with the clear teaching of the scriptures, than it is heresy in my book. By that definition I believe that immortality of the soul, eternal torment and Sunday worship are all heresies because they cannot be legitimately supported by the Bible.

However, because the church believes in these doctrines, anything believed contrary to that is considered heresy? How incredibly tolitarian and elitist that thinking is!

 

[cj]

If it disagrees with the clear teaching of the scriptures, than it is heresy in my book. By that definition I believe that immortality of the soul, eternal torment and Sunday worship are all heresies because they cannot be legitimately supported by the Bible.

Guibox,

The real problem lies in our inability to maintain consistency.

You mentioned three "doctrines" of belief within the majority of the Christian camp as being heresies because, in your understanding they cannot be legitimately supported by scripture.

The problem with this statement is that it is really just a smoke screen. The truth is, according to some respected saints, the scripture clearly and legitimately supports them. Additionally, if what you believe is true, what about a definate and outright rejection of these doctrines by scripture? Does one exists within the covers of the bible? Does scripture say that the soul is not eternal? Or that eternal torment is not of God, and Sunday is nothing special in God's books?

The fact is, it does not.

There is one thing I know from scripture though.... God holds man's natural thoughts a foolishness and of no value.

Guibox, these teachings are in scripture and supported by scripture, one just needs to know where to look.

Eternal life...... God is eternal, and those who are born of Him share in His divine nature and eternal life.

Eternal torment...... God can sustain any aspect of creation while at the same time separating Himself from it...... "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is interpreted, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Sunday worship..... Matthew 28:1, "Now late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,......", Mark 16:2, "And very early on the first day of the week,.....", Mark 16:9, "Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week,........", Luke 24:1, "Now on the first day of the week, at early dawn,....", John 20:1, "Now on the first day of the week,.....", John 20:19, "When therefore it was evening on that day, the first day of the week,....", Acts 20:7, "And on the first day of the week,.....", 1 Corinthians 16:2, "On the first day of the week.....".

From the above we can see that the first day of the week held some importance to the early church-life of a believer. This pattern was set and according to Paul, should be kept.

Additionally, the first day of the week is connected to worship by the content of verses such as John 20 : 19 - 20, "When therefore it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and while the doors were shut where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace be to you. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced at seeing the Lord.

And why did they rejoice?  Because this was a fulfillment of the Lord's promise in 16:22. Now they rejoiced because they saw the newborn child (16:21), who was the resurrected Lord, born in His resurrection as the Son of God (Acts 13:33). The Lord fulfilled His promise and came back to His disciples, bringing them five blessings: (1) His presence, (2) His peace, (3) His sending, His commission (v. 21), (4) the Holy Spirit (v. 22), and (5) His authority, with which they could represent Him (v. 23).

The "first day" is in typology the day of resurrection. Even more, just the reality of the word "first" is of extreme significance to the relationship between God and His creation.

Jesus Christ represents and embodies the reality of the "first day". He not only rose up on this day, fulfilling His promise, but He is in Himself the actual first day. Jesus Christ, as the Spirit, is the full reality, content and experience of the first day of the entire new creation.

The early believers understood this, remembering it by gathering together and rejoicing over what God had accomplished in the Son.

Now this is not to say that what has taken place in Christianity (ie religion) is not akin to taking on the form but having no substance. Sunday worship has become, like so many other things, just one more idol within the believing body. But this degradtion is on man's side, not God's. The first day is still signifcant in our outward living, but as with all things of God, it must be approached from a disposition of a pure heart.

In love,
cj

 

[Charlotte]

To be quite honest with you, I think we are all heretics.

In my dictionary it says, "A heretic is one who professes any heresy; esp., a Church member who holds beliefs opposed to the official Church doctrines.

I bet there is not one person who doesn't have a different opinion from the original doctrines of the Church. Most people don't even know what those doctrines are today. Even the word "CHURCH" shouldn't even be in the Bible, it should be "EKKLESIA", OR ASSEMBLY, CONGERATION. You would have to go back to the apostles writings and start from there to get the correct doctrines. Go back to the basics, if you are looking for truth.

Charlotte

 

[guibox]

The problem with this statement is that it is really just a smoke screen. The truth is, according to some respected saints, the scripture clearly and legitimately supports them. Additionally, if what you believe is true, what about a definate and outright rejection of these doctrines by scripture? Does one exists within the covers of the bible? Does scripture say that the soul is not eternal? Or that eternal torment is not of God, and Sunday is nothing special in God's books?

Ah yes, the old "Scripture doesn't outrightly reject it therefore you cannot say it's not true" argument. By that definition I could assume that little green men from outer space are true because the Bible doesn't say they are not. My philsophy teacher said "Show them what is right and what is wrong becomes self-evident." When you study the whole scripture in context, you will find that it supports the wholism of man's nature, not the immortal. By that token, if I show that man dies, sleeps and is resurrected, you cannot fit an immortal soul into that context. Ah, but some always try to...

When I go into the scriptures with the preconceived idea that man has an immortal soul, I can twist the scriptures to fit that theory even the texts that explicitly teach that man is a wholistic being (ex: Yes, those texts are talking about the BODY not the soul" which is the most overused excuse by traditionalists to explain blatant texts to the contrary)

Sure. You can go in the scripture and find support for whatever you want. I could probably go in the scriptures and find texts that would give the idea that pantheism or arianism is true. The Bible may not explicitly contradict them so they could be true.

There is one thing I know from scripture though.... God holds man's natural thoughts a foolishness and of no value.

I know. That's why we have these erroneous doctrines to begin with. Because the church is "teaching in vain the commandments of men instead of the commandments of God"

Guibox, these teachings are in scripture and supported by scripture, one just needs to know where to look.

I know they are because, again, 1) many go with their preconceived ideas, 2) Many take one or two verses and base a theology around it, 3) Many garner philosophies to explain their theories without biblical support - for example your argument on keeping Sunday:

The "first day" is in typology the day of resurrection. Even more, just the reality of the word "first" is of extreme significance to the relationship between God and His creation.

Jesus Christ represents and embodies the reality of the "first day". He not only rose up on this day, fulfilling His promise, but He is in Himself the actual first day. Jesus Christ, as the Spirit, is the full reality, content and experience of the first day of the entire new creation.

The early believers understood this, remembering it by gathering together and rejoicing over what God had accomplished in the Son.

First of all, nowhere in scripture is it mentioned that the first day is a typology of the resurrection. Yet the Bible mentions that the sacrificial system is a typology of the sacrifice of Christ. The first day of the week in the NT is given NO significance other than being the first day of the week just like any other week. If you look over all your Bible texts again, you will see NOTHING special about the first day, never mind any command to treat it as a Holy Sabbath day. As a matter of fact, Mary and the disciples 'rested on the seventh day according to the commandment" then came to finish the work on Jesus' body. Christ not only showed himself on the resurrection day, but on numerous days after that before his ascension. Where does it say that he appeared every Sunday to them, nevermind etablishing a new day of worship? Paul met not on Sunday but on Saturday night which by Jewish reckoning was the beginning of the first day. Paul preached until Midnight (Still Sunday) and then traveled on Sunday. Strange thing to do on a new Sabbath. They broke bread because they ALWAY got together to break bread. You assume they only got together on a Sunday but it says they got together frequently. You also assume that they were breaking bread in a religious service. This is not mentioned in the Bible. Paul asked them to take up a collection because he was passing through, not because this was a regular occurance. If course you'd want to lay aside your money on the first day. By the sixth day you probably would have spent it all. John 20 shows that the disciples gathered for 'fear of the Jews' not to get together to worship. They rejoiced because Christ was risen. Wouldn't you if you abandoned your savior, thought he was dead for good and then say him and realized that he was giving you a second chance? All these 'first day texts' are ambiguous at best and completely misinterpreted at the least. Yet everyone tries to use these to do away with the Sabbath. You cannot get that out of these texts at all. To do so is compelete erroneous heurmenutics.

You ASSUME that just because he resurrected, that is enough of a reason to treat the day like a Sabbath. Such ecclesiological reasoning is not a biblical mandate.

To say that Christ is the first day realization is still a far cry from doing away with or replacing the Sabbath. First of all, where is your biblical support for this? Second, amazing that Christ followers from Paul to John to the head Christian church in Jerusalem to the 4th century still observed the Sabbath day stands your argument on its head that Christ abolished the Sabbath.

Eternal life...... God is eternal, and those who are born of Him share in His divine nature and eternal life.

No they don't. Another assumption. 1 Timothy says that only God has immortality. John 6:40-47 shows that Christ believed eternal life was granted at the last day. The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 re-emphasies that life is only realized in the hope of the resurrection.

Eternal torment...... God can sustain any aspect of creation while at the same time separating Himself from it...... "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is interpreted, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"[/quote]How this text explains eternal torment is beyond me. Acts 2 shows that Christ's hope spoken by David was that Jesus wouldn't be forsaken in the grave and see corruption. He was saved from the second death, not from burning eternal torment.

I have much more info in the form of a paper I wrote about this subject. If you are honestly interested in looking at what the Bible says rather than creating interesting theories around a few ambiguous texts, send me a private message.

In Christ

Guibox

 

[Charlotte]

Hi All,

Here is an article that fits this discussion.


The Wisdom of the Pharisees by Chip Brogden


"This man cannot be from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath day" (John 9:16ff).

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).

I have made the statement several times that most churches would not
recognize the Lord Jesus even if He walked down the aisle on Sunday
morning and sat on the altar. This statement is largely designed to shake
people out of their complacency. It is highly unlikely that Jesus will
actually go to church this Sunday. I do not believe Jesus attends many
religious meetings, and this belief has a Scriptural basis: "He does
not keep the Sabbath day." For that matter, He does not keep any day,
for every day is His Day and He cannot be contained within a particular
twenty-four hour period.

When you read the Gospels two things become quite clear. First, Jesus
is undeniably, unquestionably GOD IN THE FLESH, Wholly Other. Second,
the more religious you are, the less likely it is that you will see,
recognize, and appreciate Him for Who He really is.

Sinners, on the other hand, had little trouble recognizing Him. The
Samaritan woman may have been a despised outsider to the Jew's system of religion but it only took her a few minutes to realize that she had found the Messiah. The Roman centurion, an unworthy Gentile, nevertheless knew where to go when his servant was sick, and Jesus said this man's faith was greater than anyone in Israel. The Syrophoenician woman had enough faith to ask Jesus for only a few crumbs from the table, and even though she was not technically not a Jew, Jesus gave her everything she asked for. Yes, Jesus was indeed a friend of sinners, publicans, tax collectors, and women caught in adultery.

But look at His own people, the Jews. Listen to the religious leaders,
the spiritual teachers of Israel, the professionals and the experts of
prophecy and the Law. What is their verdict? How do they read Him?

* * * *

"This man cannot be from G_d." Cannot be? Are you sure? This man is
opening the eyes of the blind, casting out devils, making the lame to
walk, raising people from the dead, multiplying food, walking on water
and teaching people to love one another - even love their enemies. This
man cannot be from G_d? Why not? On what grounds are we going to
reject him? We cannot deny that this man is performing powerful miracles
and signs.

"This man cannot be from G_d, because he does not keep the Sabbath
day." Well, I suppose that settles it. Y'shua cannot be from G_d, he
cannot be a prophet, he cannot be the Messiah or the Son of G_d, or even a good Jew, because he does not keep the Sabbath day! Yes, it is all
very clear now. How could we have missed that?

You know, I was almost swept away by this man. For a moment there I
really was beginning to believe. He is very, very persuasive. But if he
doesn't keep the Sabbath then he cannot be from G_d. And if he doesn't
keep the Sabbath then he probably doesn't tithe, either. Does he pay
the Temple tax? We should check on that, I bet he doesn't. You know,
that reminds me, his disciples don't fast twice a week either. Even
John's disciples fasted. Y'shua told his disciples there was no need to
fast as long as He was with them! Oh, didn't you know? He eats and
drinks with sinners - a little too much eating and drinking, if you know
what I mean.

Something else I noticed, too... he doesn't wash before he eats. It's
true! He said the outside of the cup doesn't matter, it's what's
inside. Are you sure Y'shua is really a Rabbi? He hasn't been to any of
our schools. I'm not sure where he comes up with his teachings. Get
this. Y'shua was preaching in Capernaum and told them he came down from heaven! Not only that, but he said if they eat his flesh and drink his
blood they will live forever! Strange, very strange. Many of his
disciples got right up and walked out. I don't blame them. It's all very
strange and very sick.

So where does Y'shua get his power? If He doesn't keep the Sabbath
then whatever power he has can't come from G_d. If the power doesn't come from G_d then it must come from Beelzebub. How else can you explain it? That's why it's so easy for him to cast out demons!

Fellow Pharisees, this man Y'shua must be stopped. Not only that, he
deserves to die. First, because he calls G_d his father. Y'shua also
says he has the power to forgive sins. No one but G_d can forgive sins,
so he is obviously guilty of blasphemy. Second, he does not keep the
Sabbath. Now the Law of Moses says if anyone does not keep the Sabbath they must be put to death. Third...

* * * *

Friends, you are witnessing the wisdom of the Pharisees in action.
Jesus called them fools, blind leaders of the blind, snakes, and
hypocrites who will not escape the damnation of hell. Amen, we say. How easy it is to look back on this evidence today and condemn the Jews for failing to recognize their Messiah and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

However, I suggest that the sect of the Pharisees is alive and well
today, only it is no longer a sect within Judaism, it is a sect within
Churchianity that continues to differentiate people based on external
religious rules and customs. The names and customs have changed, but the same old "wisdom" prevails:

"You cannot be a Christian if you don't go to church."

"God will not bless you unless you pay your tithes."

"You cannot know the truth unless you get it from the 1611 King James
Version."

"If you leave the church you lose your spiritual covering."

"If you don't submit to authority you have a Jezebel spirit."

"Submission means never asking questions."

"A true prophet always encourages and never judges."

"Women be quiet."

"Jesus' real name is Y'shua."

"God's real name is G_d."

"Saturday, not Sunday."

"Sunday, not Saturday."

When you take all these things and add them up, what do you get? What
is the result? Pride, spiritual elitism, narrow-mindedness, dullness,
and darkness. In a word, I describe these people as DISTRACTED FROM
THE SIMPLICITY OF CHRIST!

Religion is the result of becoming consumed, absorbed, vexed, and
stressed out over the "many things" while completely overlooking that only
One Thing is needed (cf. Luke 10:41,42). It is the scrupulous,
agonizing work of straining out gnats and swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24). Taken to its absurd conclusion, it actually feeds that Spirit of
Antichrist that is always fighting against the Testimony of Jesus.

In Acts 18 we find Paul preaching Jesus in Corinth. As is always the
case, whenever you decide to preach JESUS AS HE IN FACT IS, it will
attract the ire of the local religious establishment:

"When Gallio became governor of Achaia, some Jews rose in concerted
action against Paul and brought him before the governor for judgment.
They accused Paul of "persuading people to worship God in ways that are
contrary to the law" (Acts 18:12,13, NLT).

You see? There it is again - the Law of Moses, Torah, the traditions
and customs of the elders. Paul was always ready to debate the Jews.
Being a Jew and a Pharisee for many years, Paul enjoyed the arguments
and usually won them. Yet something different happened that day...

"Just as Paul started to make his defense, Gallio turned to Paul's
accusers and said, 'Listen, you Jews, if this were a case involving some
wrongdoing or a serious crime, I would be obliged to listen to you. But
since it is merely a question of words and names and your Jewish laws,
you take care of it. I refuse to judge such matters.' And he drove
them out of the courtroom" (Acts 18:14-16, NLT).

Hallelujah! Thank God for Gallio! If an unbelieving Roman judge has
enough discernment to confound the wisdom of the Pharisees, what about
us? I pray God will give us the gift of single-mindedness in our
pursuit of Christ and Christ alone. May God give us the courage to say, "If it is a question of Christ and His Kingdom I would be obliged to look at the issue more closely. But since it is merely a question of words
and names, Sabbath days and holidays, religious rules about outward
things, Bible versions and denominations, you take care of it yourself. I
refuse to argue over such matters."

His yoke is easy! His burden is light! Come to Him and learn of Him.
Repudiate the wisdom of the Pharisees and embrace this Man Who does not keep the Sabbath, because this Man is the Son of the Most High God, and there is therefore now NO condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus!

===========================

For more information:

ONE THING IS NEEDED
http://www.watchman.net/articles/onething.html

CHURCHIANITY TODAY
http://www.watchman.net/articles/churchianity.html

THE SIMPLICITY OF CHRIST
http://www.watchman.net/audio/ts102.html


I am your brother, Chip Brogden


Charlotte

 

[cj]

You would have to go back to the apostles writings and start from there to get the correct doctrines.

It takes a humbled person to admit this in truth, out of a pure heart.

Go back to the basics, if you are looking for truth.

Charlotte

But this concluding statement needs to be carefully considered, as it bears the taste of prideful knowledge.

A truly defeated man falls to his knees in dejection, bows his head in shame, and hunches over his back in fear. The position is something similar to a fetal position, but inwardly there is nothing left of that which once was. A truly defeated man has very little if anything to say.... about anything.

This is what the killing work of the cross does to the old creation; it subdues it, terminates it, and then flushes it out so that it is no more.

When one experiences this, and God knows it can only happen in very small doses, and over a period of time, this one has no more to say or be.

The book of Revelation tells us that in the tribulation, men will want to hid under rocks and beg to die. It can be a terrible thing to fall into the hands of God. The cross was/is a terrible thing.

The life -relationship of a believer is found in typology in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Taken together, the life experiences of these three men of God are actually types of what a believer today must themself experience. And concerning being humbled, there is no beter example than that seen in Jacob.... by the end of His life Jacob spoke only blessings over other men, even over one as evil as a Egyptian Pharaoh. This was because Jacob had come to a point in his living whereby he did nothing of himself, he only did what was according to God. Even his rejoicing over the truth of his son Joseph being alive, was not outward but inward, and he had nothing to say to his other sons about what they had done. Why, because he had come to know that it was what God allowed.



All that is really necessary concerning our growth in God, is for us to know that we have this need. God will then have a way to do what only He is able to do, and that is give the growth. And the proper ministry of the apostles, which is the one ministry of God, is a crucial part of our receiving God's growth.

It is not so important that we tell people what to do.... it is more important that we do what is needed and by doing so become a living pattern to others.

The scripture never really tells us that people need to know that God has saved them.... but it most surely tells us that we need to live the reality of our salvation before men, in order that they might be saved, and even more important... that God might have His desired Bride.

This is why neither universal reconciliation nor any other "ation" or "ism" or "ity" or whatever, is important. The only thing of value is Christ Himself expressed in the living and being of each member of the Body.

And the truth is, no doctrine accomplishes this in men.... only life, the very resurrection life that raised Christ, is what can accomplish this.

Jesus declared "I AM the bread of life.... I AM the living water..... he who eats and drinks of me shall surely live."

The only way to be assured of living is to eat and drink the Lord. Every moment of every day, eat and drink the Lord.

This is how we are saved, and will be saved.

In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Long, butI believe well worth reading......

I have much more info in the form of a paper I wrote about this subject. If you are honestly interested in looking at what the Bible says rather than creating interesting theories around a few ambiguous texts, send me a private message.

You should have warned me of this at the beginning of your other post. Then I would have better understood your motive in initiating this discussion.

Yet, the Spirit knows all things. Amen.

I said....

Eternal torment...... God can sustain any aspect of creation while at the same time separating Himself from it...... "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is interpreted, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

You responded....

How this text explains eternal torment is beyond me. Acts 2 shows that Christ's hope spoken by David was that Jesus wouldn't be forsaken in the grave and see corruption. He was saved from the second death, not from burning eternal torment.

The question is.... how was he saved?

Who is it that raised Jesus from death? What raised Jesus from death?

Its not hard to quote scripture, but it requires deep humility and belief to understand and possess it.

And therein lies the principle and thus answer to the first two questions.

Ah yes, the old "Scripture doesn't outrightly reject it therefore you cannot say it's not true" argument. By that definition I could assume that little green men from outer space are true because the Bible doesn't say they are not.

In all honesty you really can have no valid thought concerning little green men from anywhere. You simply don't know..... much along the lines of the point I was trying to make regarding the mystery of a man's soul.

In fact, your use of the word "legitimately" tells me that you yourself already know this.

You can "Ah yes" me until the Lord returns.... the truth is the truth. And the truth is, you just don't know.

When you study the whole scripture in context, you will find that it supports the wholism of man's nature, not the immortal. By that token, if I show that man dies, sleeps and is resurrected, you cannot fit an immortal soul into that context. Ah, but some always try to...

Useless youthful human reasonings.... let me know when we're beyond this point.

When I go into the scriptures with the preconceived idea that man has an immortal soul, I can twist the scriptures to fit that theory even the texts that explicitly teach that man is a wholistic being (ex: Yes, those texts are talking about the BODY not the soul" which is the most overused excuse by traditionalists to explain blatant texts to the contrary)

More of the same.... is there a point you want to make?

Sure. You can go in the scripture and find support for whatever you want. I could probably go in the scriptures and find texts that would give the idea that pantheism or arianism is true. The Bible may not explicitly contradict them so they could be true.

Ditto my above response.... forgive me for jumping over more of the same....

First of all, nowhere in scripture is it mentioned that the first day is a typology of the resurrection.

Indication number 1 (as in first) that you lack proper biblical understanding.....

The first day of the week, or the day after the Sabbath, signifies a new beginning, a new age. In Lev. 23:10-11, 15, a sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest was offered to the Lord as a wave offering on the day after the Sabbath. That sheaf of the firstfruits was a type of Christ as the firstfruits in resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). Christ resurrected on precisely the day after the Sabbath. By His all-inclusive death He terminated the old creation, which had been completed in six days, after which was the Sabbath day. In His resurrection He germinated the new creation with the divine life. Hence, the day of His resurrection was the beginning of a new week  a new age. This day of His resurrection was appointed by God (Psa. 118:24), was prophesied as "this day" in Psa. 2:7, was predicted by Himself as the third day (Matt. 16:21; John 2:19, 22), and later was called by the early Christians "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). On this day Christ was born in resurrection as the firstborn Son of God (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5) and the Firstborn from the dead to be the Head of the Body, the church (Col. 1:18).

Indication number 2 (as in second) that you lack proper biblical understanding.....

You cannot get that out of these texts at all. To do so is compelete erroneous heurmenutics.

You ASSUME that just because he resurrected, that is enough of a reason to treat the day like a Sabbath. Such ecclesiological reasoning is not a biblical mandate.

To say that Christ is the first day realization is still a far cry from doing away with or replacing the Sabbath. First of all, where is your biblical support for this?

The first day of the week, or the day after the Sabbath, signifies a new beginning, a new age. In Lev. 23:10-11, 15, a sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest was offered to the Lord as a wave offering on the day after the Sabbath. That sheaf of the firstfruits was a type of Christ as the firstfruits in resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). Christ resurrected on precisely the day after the Sabbath. By His all-inclusive death He terminated the old creation, which had been completed in six days, after which was the Sabbath day. In His resurrection He germinated the new creation with the divine life. Hence, the day of His resurrection was the beginning of a new week  a new age. This day of His resurrection was appointed by God (Psa. 118:24), was prophesied as "this day" in Psa. 2:7, was predicted by Himself as the third day (Matt. 16:21; John 2:19, 22), and later was called by the early Christians "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). On this day Christ was born in resurrection as the firstborn Son of God (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5) and the Firstborn from the dead to be the Head of the Body, the church (Col. 1:18).

1 Corinthians  15 : 20, "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Christ was the first One raised from among the dead, becoming the firstfruits of resurrection. This was typified by the firstfruits (a sheaf of the firstfruits, including Christ with some of the dead Old Testament saints, was raised at the Lord's resurrection  Matt. 27:52-53) in Lev. 23:10-11, which were offered to God on the day after the Sabbath, the day of resurrection (Matt. 28:1). Christ as the firstfruits of resurrection is the Firstborn from among the dead that He might be the Head of the Body (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:20-23). Since He, the Head of the Body, has been resurrected, we, the Body, also will be resurrected.

Hebrews 4 : 1 - 11, "Let us fear therefore, lest, a promise being left of entering into His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had the good news announced to us, even as they also; but the word heard did not profit them, not being mixed together with faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter into the rest, even as He has said, a"As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter into My rest!'' although the works of creation were completed from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken somewhere concerning the seventh day thus, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.'' And in this place again, "They shall not enter into My rest!'' Since therefore it remains that some should enter into it and those who formerly had the good news announced to them did not enter because of disobedience, He again designates a certain day, today, saying in David after so long a time, even as He has said before, "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.'' For if Joshua had brought them into rest, He would not have spoken concerning another day after these things. So then there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For he who has entered into His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His own. Let us therefore be diligent to enter into that rest lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience."

This Sabbath rest is Christ as our rest, typified by the good land of Canaan (Deut. 12:9; Heb. 4:8 > Heb. 4:8). Christ is rest to the saints in three stages: (1) in the church age, as the heavenly Christ, the One who rests from His work and sits on the right hand of God in the heavens, He is the rest to us in our spirit (Matt. 11:28-29); (2) in the millennial kingdom, after Satan is removed from this earth (Rev. 20:1-3), Christ with the kingdom will be the rest in a fuller way to the overcoming saints, who will be His co-kings (Rev. 20:4, 6), sharing and enjoying His rest; (3) in the new heaven and new earth, after all the enemies, including death, the last enemy, have been made subject to Him (1 Cor. 15:24-27), Christ, as the all-conquering One, will be the rest in the fullest way to all God's redeemed for eternity. But the Sabbath rest mentioned here and typified by the rest of the good land of Canaan covers only the first two stages of Christ's being our rest; it does not include the third stage. The rest in the first two stages is a prize to His diligent seekers, who not only are redeemed but also have enjoyed Him in a full way, thus becoming the overcomers; whereas the rest in the third stage is not a prize but the full portion allotted to all the redeemed ones. Therefore, in the first two stages, and especially in the second, Christ as our rest is the Sabbath rest mentioned here, the rest that remains for us to seek after and enter into diligently. It is in the second stage of His being our rest that Christ will take possession of the whole earth as His inheritance (Psa. 2:8; Heb 2:5-6 > Heb. 2:5-6), making it His kingdom for a thousand years (Rev. 11:15). All His overcoming followers who seek and enjoy Him as their rest in the first stage will participate in His reign in the millennium (Rev. 20:4, 6; 2 Tim. 2:12). Moreover, they will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5; Psa. 37:11), some having authority over ten cities, some over five (Luke 19:17, 19), and will partake of the joy of their Lord (Matt. 25:21, 23). That will be the kingdom rest, which is typified by the rest of entering into the good land of Canaan. The rest of the good land was the goal of all the children of Israel, who had been redeemed and delivered from Egypt; likewise, the rest of the coming kingdom is the goal of the New Testament believers, who have been redeemed and saved from the world. We are now all on the way toward this goal.

God's full salvation, which He intended for the children of Israel, included redemption through the Passover lamb, the exodus from Egypt, feeding on the heavenly manna, having their thirst quenched by the living water from the cleft rock, and partaking of the good land of Canaan. All the children of Israel shared in the Passover lamb, the heavenly manna, and the living water, but only Joshua and Caleb, out of those who shared the exodus from Egypt, entered into the good land and partook of it; all the rest fell in the wilderness (Num. 14:30; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). Though all were redeemed, only the two overcomers, Joshua and Caleb, received the prize of the good land.

The Passover lamb, the heavenly manna, the living water, and the good land of Canaan are all types of different aspects of Christ. According to what is depicted by the experiences of the children of Israel, not all believers who have been redeemed through Christ will partake of Christ as a prize, as their rest, their satisfaction, in both the church age and the coming kingdom; only those who, after being redeemed, seek Christ diligently will partake of Him in such a way. This is why the apostle Paul, though fully redeemed, was still pursuing toward the goal that he might gain Christ as the prize (Phil. 3:10-14). In Phil. 3 Paul told us that he had been in Judaism but that for Christ's sake he had given it up (Phil. 3:4-9). Here, in this book, the writer held the same concept, encouraging the Hebrew believers to forsake Judaism and press toward Christ so that they would not miss the prize.

Second, amazing that Christ followers from Paul to John to the head Christian church in Jerusalem to the 4th century still observed the Sabbath day stands your argument on its head that Christ abolished the Sabbath.

The first fact that you need to recognize is that, by God's law to the Jews, none of these could keep the Sabbath according to the letter of the law..... how could they once the temple had been destroyed?

Additionally, God had officially terminated the old covenant, under which the old way of keeping the Sabbath was carried out, when John the Baptist started preaching the gospel and baptising Jews.

Tell me, where does the old covenant speak about being baptised in the Jordan river? And just in case you have doubts about this...... remember, even Jesus went to John.

Concerning some mixing Judaism in with their Christian belief..... men are weak and hold onto familiar things.

Scripture is clear..... the Sabbath keeping of the old covenant is no longer required. Now there is a "new" Sabbath, the true Sabbath and not a type, which is what the seventh day under the law was (and also remember, scripture tells us that the law was a shadow only..... ah yes, but a shadow of what? Try Christ in Person).

No they don't. Another assumption. ....... The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 re-emphasies that life is only realized in the hope of the resurrection.

You just agreed with me and contradicted yourself........

"REALIZED IN THE HOPE......... of the resurrection."

When we believe we come into possession of "the hope", and thus come into possession of the reality of this hope.

A believer possesses eternal life.... punto finale..... Praise God.

In love,
cj

Note..... The majority of the text presented is from the notes found in the Recovery Version bible, which can be found here.....

http://online.recoveryversion.org

My reason for using them is because I find that they do the truth of this matter complete justice in content and eloquence.

 

[Henry]

I am amazed at the many excuses for heresy, come uase we al ldon ot agree. What a big fat cop out that is.

The bottom line is the BIBLE I do not care in the slightest what anyone thinks, or how many 'logical' arguements someone may conjure up, all that matters is DOES THE BIBLE TEACH IT CLEARLY!!!

Oh and this none sence about "that is just your interpretation" another cop out.

What I have learned here is that heretics will go to great leanghts to excuse their false teachings. I pray that the body at large is more decerning and careing about truth then some here.

 

[guibox]

First of all, nowhere in scripture is it mentioned that the first day is a typology of the resurrection.

Indication number 1 (as in first) that you lack proper biblical understanding.....

Forgive my impulsiveness. What I meant to really say is that there is no biblical support for linking the establishment of Sunday, the first day of the week to be considered a holy day to the resurrection. That is why we have Easter.

The first day of the week, or the day after the Sabbath, signifies a new beginning, a new age. In Lev. 23:10-11, 15, a sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest was offered to the Lord as a wave offering on the day after the Sabbath. That sheaf of the firstfruits was a type of Christ as the firstfruits in resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). Christ resurrected on precisely the day after the Sabbath. By His all-inclusive death He terminated the old creation, which had been completed in six days, after which was the Sabbath day. In His resurrection He germinated the new creation with the divine life. Hence, the day of His resurrection was the beginning of a new week  a new age. This day of His resurrection was appointed by God (Psa. 118:24), was prophesied as "this day" in Psa. 2:7, was predicted by Himself as the third day (Matt. 16:21; John 2:19, 22), and later was called by the early Christians "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). On this day Christ was born in resurrection as the firstborn Son of God (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5) and the Firstborn from the dead to be the Head of the Body, the church (Col. 1:18).

You have a few problems with trying to link this verse with a new Sabbath being instituted:

1) Trying to use a Sabbath keeping culture to show how the Sabbath is going to be abolished and yet still keep and promote the Sabbath as for all generations and a sign of God is fairly circumspect. Even more so considering that the prophet Isaiah prophecied that in the new heaven and earth at the end of time, the Sabbath would still be kept (Isaiah 66:22,23) They understood the Sabbath and its meaning. It was a memorial of creation, a sign that God was their God and that He was their redeemer. It was eternal and everlasting for His people.

2) It is a big assumption without biblical mandate that waving the first fruits on the 1st day of the week prophecying the resurrection is akin to abolishing the Sabbath and instituting a new Sabbath day. The Messiah wouldn't come to change all that but to fulfill it (i.e. to make it meaningful). Yes, Christ is our salvation rest but that doesn't negate a human need for physical rest. The Sabbath was also a pointing to the future rest at the end of world. These typological functions of the Sabbath in no way do away with it, rather it points us more to God. The NT links God resting on the seventh day and admonishes us to 'rest as God has rested'. This is not promoting some eternal 'sabbath rest' in Christ but linking it directly to Creation week and God's example.

As for your interpretation of Hebrews, there are numerous references to the seventh day rest and that 'a sabbath rest remains behind for the people of God'. The word used here for sabbath rest is used to mean literal sabbath keeping. I strongly encourage you to read this link from Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's book "The Sabbath Under Crossfire" where he talks about the WCG and Dale Ratzlaff's interpretation of New Covenant theology and Hebrews 4.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... fire/3.htm

The discussion on Hebrews is about 3/4 of the way down.

 

[smaller]

Calling Henry!

An heresy was observed crossing your path on the last page. hello.

Specifics are the mother of dialog.

 

[Shana]

Henry, many religious leaders in the day thought that they understood what the scriptures were teaching, but then the Lord had to enlighten them to the real meaning. Jesus Himself asked people how they read the scriptures and then He revealed the true meaning. Just because many are not quick to label just about anyone who disagrees with them as a heretic, does not mean that people don't love the truth. Just because what there are differences in understanding doesn't mean that people are intentionally trying to distort the word of God. Hopefully, we are all seeking and trusting God in our studies of His word. If we are truly trusting Him, He will bring it to light in His own time. God bless.

 

[Henry]

smaller

An heresy was observed crossing your path on the last page. hello.

Really what was that my friend.

Shana

You are fastly proving how undecerning and easily decieved many have become, and how important it is that we ( I mean pastor like myself ) teach our people that fundemental never changing truths of the bible, so they will be able to decern heresy..

At that you have not shown one way or the other why any of the heresies that I listed are not, you merely say "that is just the way you read it" which is exactly what mormons say, when I tell the bible says there is only ONE God, not many as they teach.

Keep you excuses, SHOW me BIBLICAL and we can talk.

Oh, and not UR becuase that one really gets to me and it turns my stomache, there is nothing worse then the lie of UR. Give me a moons or ONeness person any day over that. I am refereing ONLY to those which I listed. OK OK then .