SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : Jesus Christ, An Offence To ‘Westernized Christianity’

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi pastorfrin...

Quote:
I don’t know Chris, why don’t you ask him?

http://www.yesumulungi.com/index.htm

Thank you for including the link.

Please don't misunderstand me: I don't believe that someone shouldn't share their belief that the pre-trib rapture is untrue. I just don't think that a believer should boldly claim something as a "[i]false doctrine[/i]" that is not inarguably certain, or to equate a very old doctrine as if it were the invention of the modern "feel good" church. There are many believers here on SermonIndex who happen to be persuaded that a "rapture" might take place BEFORE the time of God's wrath upon the Earth. They are just as entitled to their conclusions as the people who aren't. In addition, neither side should go around pompously calling the beliefs of the other as false doctrines (particularly since their isn't a clear consensus from the Scripture). Even the most adament researcher of Bible prophecy should at least be able to understand WHY some happen to embrace a contradictory view on such matters WITHOUT labeling them as "believers of a lie" (which has happened from time-to-time in the forums).

The Scriptures are not decidedly clear to our flawed intellects in regards to Bible prophecy. For instance, many Jews are STILL waiting for the Messiah -- simply because they didn't understand the Scriptures that pointed to the first coming of Christ. Likewise, most of us have been persuaded to our beliefs about the "rapture" only following quite a bit of research (and discussion). Even then, some of us are still not completely convinced one way or the other. I do not, however, equate the idea of a pre-trib rapture with "easy believism." The concept of a pre-trib rapture (from my own perspective) is not to be mistaken as a belief that Christians will escape [i]persecution[/i] or worldly [i]tribulation[/i] (or even the wiles of Satan). My understanding of such a belief is that a pre-trib "catching away" will simply allow believers to be protected from the coming wrath of God that will be poured out upon the entire world. There [u]are[/u] verses that seem to indicate at least the [i]possibility[/i] of such an event occurring. Thus, it would be presumptiously and boldly unwise (and incorrect, from my point of view) to simpy dismiss such a notion as "false doctrine" without at least acknowledging the actual rationale behind the belief.
Quote:
He was so bold as to claim:

16) Dominionism, Political Christianity – Christians Taking Over World Governments Doctrine…

So yes, I would guess he is that bold; again though, I would recommend you ask Brother Kato.

I'm not certain that I understand this remark. Is this supposed to insinuate that [u]I[/u] believe in "dominionism?" If that is the assumption and motivation for the remark, it is completely wrong. While I advocate the liberty of believers to become involved in some aspects of government (such as voting, writing their congressmen or even serving in the military), I have never espoused any such belief that even remotely resembles "dominionism." I also think that it would be wrong to point the finger at all believers who "vote" or who do not espouse all of the tenants of "non-resistance" in [u]every[/u] circumstance and then publicly conclude that they believe in "[i]Dominionism, Political Christianity – Christians Taking Over World Governments Doctrine[/i]." If that is the case (and I may be wrong), then you might not truly understand the thoughts of others on the matter.

Again, I did enjoy the article. However, I wish that we wouldn't be so bipolar in areas where there is at least room for discussion. We should never be so limited as to feel that our beliefs are so above discussion that they are the only ones that matter.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/10/14 14:32Profile
theopenlife
Member



Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926


 Re:

As to "OSAS", and speaking as a "five-pointer", I agree with Jim; Eternal Security is intimately tied to temporal obedience. We are not saved by our works, but all who are saved have turned from lifestyles of sin to lifestyles of pursuing holiness and good works. OSAS is a perversion of perseverance of the Saints, and would be better called "Perseverance of God on behalf of those who prayed a prayer."

You are familiar with the four types of soil in the Parable of the Sower? OSAS essentially teaches that the last three types all go to heaven - those choked by the world, those who turn away after trials - and that a perpetual lifestyle of sin does not discredit one's experiential assurance of salvation.

[As to the Pre-Trib Rapture] I must disagree with my brother, Ccchhhrrriiisss. For myself, having come from being deeply rooted in Pre-Trib (raised in Calvary Chapel and four years at their college) I have come concretely to the opposite side. I believe that the scriptures do explicitly refute the doctrine, but that few teachers present their case properly. David Pawson's message on the Rapture is a pretty good starting point, outlining the "popular history" of the doctrine.

His message is on SermonIndex, here.

[url=http://64.34.176.235/sermons/SID11649.mp3]The Rapture[/url]

 2007/10/14 17:29Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re:

Chris,

Please, go into your prayer closet and ask the Lord to deliver you from your persecution complex.
I simple requested you ask the author of the article your questions who is the only one (since he is the author) who can give his motives for what he has written.
I have not attacked you or your motives, why do you throw such insinuations at me? You assume way too much, brother.
Chris, you have taken this article and are attempting to make it an issue with me and I will not go there.
As I requested before, ask Brother Kato and I trust he is well able to answer your questions.

Your opinions are well documented and you have made them very clear to all of us here, again ask Brother Kato.

Again, happy you enjoyed the article. :-?

In His Love
pastorfrin


 2007/10/14 17:57Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi pastorfrin...

Quote:
Please, go into your prayer closet and ask the Lord to deliver you from your persecution complex.

Brother, that is a ridiculous thing to say! But I'll take your comment with a "grain of salt" -- knowing that you probably mean well.;-)
Quote:
I simple requested you ask the author of the article your questions who is the only one (since he is the author) who can give his motives for what he has written.

...and I agreed.

I'm not questioning the author's motives. His website makes it quite clear what he thinks about the notion of a pre-trib rapture. I don't even have a problem with that (like I said). I simply don't think that it is wise to make a claim like was presented in the article. I think that you'll notice that if you read over my post again.
Quote:
I have not attacked you or your motives, why do you throw such insinuations at me? You assume way too much, brother.

I don't think that I threw an "insinuation" at you. In fact, I was simply questioning your remark -- which very much looked like an insinuation. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't even say that they were. You're probably right, but I shouldn't have publicly questioned why you wrote the last remark (the one that hastened my reply).
Quote:
Chris, you have taken this article and are attempting to make it an issue with me and I will not go there.

Wrong. I didn't make this an issue with YOU, and I apologize if it came out that way. Please refer to my first post in this thread. I don't have an issue with the article (for the most part). I simply had a comment about one of the subtle points within the ARTICLE (and not the person who copied and pasted it here). Even looking back over it, I still think that was clear. Forgive me if I needed to articulate that more clearly.
Quote:
Your opinions are well documented and you have made them very clear to all of us here, again ask Brother Kato.

Again, my issue is not about Brother Kato and his beliefs or with your beliefs. Like I said, I agree with nearly every point. I also agree with his right to state his perspective on certain issues with which I might disagree. However, I don't even necessarily disagree with him on THESE issues. I simply hold to a pliable persuasion on the issue of the rapture and tithing – uncertain enough to NOT have a position of certainty. I am very aware that I don’t know the certainty of the issue to merit a final or ultimate conclusion, let alone one that I should offer as "concrete."

My main issue with this and some of the other discussions in the past has been with the manner in which they are presented. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that I am NOT pinpointing any particular person (including you) in this. And let me also be clear: I do not try to “argue for the sake of arguing.” Nor am I attempting to purvey that I am a “victim” in all of this. I just feel that now is the time to voice my concerns with some of the presentations of various doctrinal discussions at SermonIndex. Nor am I trying to play the “devil’s advocate” (I hate that term). I simply want to bring to light the manner of our discussions – even within issues that I fully agree.

Recently, I have responded to several notions of doctrinal belief in the SI forums. I hope that this could be clearly understood: I recognize the right of each person to their respective beliefs, regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree. The problem, in my perspective, is the manner in which things are presented. There is a way to discuss doctrinal issues WITHOUT presenting a bipolar view of a subject. What is the “bipolar view?” It is the view in which we see things in a matter of polar extremes. The Gospel is, of course, "black and white." But God doesn't always deal with some people in such a bipolar manner. He is compassionate and forgiving to David for murder, while forsaking a Saul for his "good idea." Yet believers are often confining our views of God and others with a narrow, bipolar mannerism. We believe in "truth or lie" -- yet forget that our flawed human nature's idea of the "truth" is often somewhere in between. Still, some people present their side as if it is INDISPUTABLE. Some have made remarks as if what they were sharing were the very opinion of God.

This website contains a broad variety of believers from a plethora of doctrinal backgrounds and opinions. We have adherents and non-adherents to doctrinal beliefs ranging from once saved/always saved, tithing, pastoral authority, the gifts of the Spirit, the existence and extent of the five fold ministry in today’s Church, pre-trib, post-trib and mid-trib (and even NO trib) beliefs about the rapture, KJV-only, KJV-flawed, supremacy of the Textus Receptus (and vice versa), required Christian “non-resistance,” required Christian “non-involvement,” Christian rock and roll (good or evil), strict views of Christian modesty, etc… This list could be longer than the 30,000 members of this wonderful SermonIndex fellowship.

In fact, we should all have doctrinal beliefs in which we are persuaded through prayer and research. There are some issues that are obvious (such as those that are listed in Hebrews 6:1-2). But even those issues have diversity of opinion in the application of the beliefs (…like “[i]Should we be baptized in the Name of “Jesus” or in the Name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost[/i]?” etc…). The problem, in my perspective, basically arises when one believer sincerely and honestly presents their belief AS IF IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS.

There are some controversial issues that are amicably discussed because each party respects the integrity of the opposite party’s opinion. I have discussed issues with which I am quite convinced with people who are quite convinced in the other direction. Yet we have ENCOURAGED one another in our efforts to both seek God in the matter and to seek the Truth as revealed in God’s Word. We may not ever reach an agreement, but the presentation is polite and not demanding of adherence or acknowledgement of a “change in belief.”

However, there are some discussions here that are hotly disputed where two separate individuals (or groups united by belief) are so adamant about an issue that they dismiss any need for discussion, if only to “convert” the other side. Typically, the issue is presented in a strong manner (…like “[i]The teaching of ‘tithing’ is a deception of the modern church meant to trap believers into giving[/i]!” etc…). While this presentation of beliefs may possibly be somewhat [u]TRUE[/u], should this be the manner in which we present our beliefs? Should we make such bold discussions that are seemingly already decided before they are presented?

It seems that we have left out the words “[i]I believe…[/i],” “[i]It is my belief[/i]…,” and “[i]I am persuaded that[/i]…” out of too many of our conversations. Instead, we shower them with “statements of fact.” “[i]The Bible says…,[/i]” “[i]God told me[/i]...,” and “[i]This is completely clear from the Scriptures[/i]…” often replaces any possibility of error in our discussions. They also convey to the adherents of opposing beliefs that they are “[i]believing a lie[/i].” In fact, those words have even been [u]written[/u] within some of the posts of various threads.

It is a good thing to have an opinion about Scripture – including those that we fully believe came by the guidance of God. Yet the question begs to be asked: Just HOW CERTAIN are we of our “facts” and “conclusions?” I have noticed some people literally present their beliefs as if they came from the hand of God Himself. Anyone who argues, it seems, must obviously believe a [u]lie[/u]. If there is ANY room for doubt, then this is not the manner in which we should conduct ourselves – even in discussions concerning doctrine.

In my own life, I have watched as some of my views have changed over time. I have seen beliefs of which I was so “CERTAIN” slowly crumble in the light of further study and research. However, an attitude of “I’M RIGHT AND CANNOT BE WRONG” doesn’t allow room for any sort of maturity in others. A good teacher should not FORCE FEED their congregation. Rather, they should lead them to an ability to make up their own mind by a preponderance of the evidence.

How does it help to present a one-sided argument with no room for disagreement?

From my initial post, I meant to express a singular issue [u]within[/u] the article provided at the beginning of this particular thread. I might not have communicated it effectively, and if that is the case, I apologize. My issue wasn’t actually with the author’s belief about the pre-trib rapture or the belief in tithing, but with this statement:
Quote:
This is Clearly ANOTHER GOSPEL and NOT BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY as founded on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS and BOOK OF ACTS CHRISTIANITY.

Do you see how this author leaves NO ROOM for disagreement. He stated as a “clear” fact what is merely his conclusions (most of which, I agreed with).

I don’t agree with the teachings of Calvinism or “once saved/always saved.” However, I would hardly call the teaching ANOTHER GOSPEL. I know some individuals (even some here at SermonIndex) who are sincerely persuaded toward such a belief. Yes, they have studied this issue. And yes, I do believe that the message is Scripturally flawed. However, how should I present my beliefs? Should I immediately dismiss their sincere beliefs in favor of my own supposedly superior beliefs? Should I present my views in a manner which leaves no room for honest discussion or disagreement?

Once more, I am unconvinced about the concepts of a “pre-trib” rapture or “tithing” enough to take a definitive stand. Even though I am somewhat persuaded is the validity of both ideas, I really question the need to teach it (pro or con) without adding a disclaimer about the various views on the issue at hand. Instead, most people tend to bring a “my way or the highway” attitude – even concerning the most controversial and disputable of issues.

So what is the proper way of presenting an issue? Recently, Brother Mike has presented some helpful tips about posting in the forums. They are quick to point out the differences when dividing between fact and presumption. I feel that we should be mindful of our own flawed humanity in every communication. We should present our views on each issue without crossing the line of required [i]adherence[/i] to a particular doctrine that is not universally clear from Scripture. When we present “facts” – they should not be based upon mere presumption (i.e. “[i]The war in Iraq is obviously about oil[/i],” “[i]President Bush deceived Americans about Iraq because he wanted to go to war[/i],” or “[i]Brother Chris is deceived because he believes…[/i],” “[i]The translators of the NIV were attempting to ‘change’ the Word of God to suit their own doctrinal beliefs[/i],” etc…). It is difficult to distinguish between fact and opinion when we feel so “certain” about the rationale behind the issues. We should be careful about separating fact from myth and conclusion (or even conspiracy types of allegations). We should list TRUTH without mingling it with commentary that seeks to influence a conclusion. We should never resort to slander or character assassination.

What was the purpose of my initial post? I wasn’t trying to “accuse” you or play the “victim.” Rather, I wanted to discuss the only “flaw” that I felt might be in the initial article -- the "ANOTHER GOSPEL" conclusion following the list of "doctrines." In my last post, I simply couldn’t seem to understand your response (the quote you included from the article about “Dominionism” and “political Christianity,” and what it even had to do with my previous post). I wasn’t sure if you felt that I somehow espoused such a doctrinal view (which I felt the need to point out that I don’t). That wasn’t an “insinuation.” It was simply trying to address a possible issue in the form of a question WITHOUT accusing you of even holding such a belief. I simply don’t know why you included that statement in your reply.

As for the article, I do agree with much of what is written (with the exception of the claim that I pointed out). Thanks!

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/10/14 22:36Profile
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 OSAS

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

dear saints i do believe that once we are Saved, we are always Saved because Christ was slain from the foundations of the world and at that point is our Salvation. Now to be sure, being Saved requires work on our part also as we are co-labourers with God and we are to work out that Salvation with fear and trembling. For us to work with God to that end requires an Obedience which only He Himself can Supply because it is not to be found in us. So on the issue of Salvation, God provided the Blood for the Sacrifice and the Grace for us to be Obedient, indeed God has furnished everything we need to walk in Salvation so if we are Saved, we are always Saved in that sense. that Jesus was slain before creation says that the enemy can't go back and undo what had been decreed from before by God at that point in Eternity thereby robbing us of Salvation because Salvation depends wholly on God and He is more than capable of seeing us through.

now some people who run around pretending to be of Christ but aren't, are obviously unsaved. They front like they are but aren't. That being said, once one is Saved, one can't remain the same without progressing toward Perfection. the rate at which this happens depends on what our Lord has decreed but there is no staying at the same place as though nothing happened. Even when i would rebel against God after i was Saved, His Holy Spirit always let me know and i was always convicted no matter what and eventually i'd come Home running like the prodigal son after being out in the world a bit and catching all kinds of grief away from Him. That i would say is a mark of someone Saved, that no matter what, he/she repents and presses on into God.

As for the rapture issue, i don't think scripture supports it being pre-trib, especially given that the Revelation is written to the Church and Paul talks about the catching away as being some time after the revelation of the man of sin which is during the trib. bro Chris, the bottom line is that either the pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine or it isn't, there isn't an inbetween discussion/debate about it or not. i think it is a false doctrine calculated to lull the Church into a false sense of security that we will escape fire which is how we are proven. it is easier to be a Christian (or do anything really) under ideal conditions, the true test has always been adversity. i agree with Katz when he said, "crisis reveals and absolute crisis reveals absolutely" my wife said "we're finding out and about to find out if we are Christians in theory or in fact,"

i make no bones about my stance on the rapture, if i am wrong, our Lord will surely set me straight and we will find out soon enough. However if indeed our Lord has spoken, and has been speaking saying that this event is post trib...then we're in for a time of trial unlike anything ever witnessed. to me that makes sense since much more is expected of us, we have the whole canon and 2 millenia plus of testimony and experience concerning God to much more is expected of us i believe...but like i said, if i am wrong, then it will be me who is wrong, but if i have spoken rightly, it will be because it is God who is right, so let Him be shown to be Truthful and every man a liar!

Grace and PEace are ours in JEsus.AMEN.


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2007/10/15 0:19Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 re:

It seems we are all leaves blown about by the storms of our times...let's not kid ourselves and think that a few of us, even if we believe we are prophets, are outside of these winds looking in on everyone else. Even prophets can be carried aloft by the fearful passions of this dark hour. We may be loathe to admit it, but we Christians are still captialists, or marxists, or pacifists, or patriots, Americans or Africans. God help us, we are still humans and not angels...we are still human players, seperated by national and cultural perspectives upon the stage of history in a frightful hour.

Let's not further isolate ourselves into divided camps because of our eschatology. Am I the only one who is weary of the sting of constant denoucements of one another? Do prophets use terms like 'neo-con' and 'right-wing' and then wonder why the 'American Church" is offended? Sometimes it's not the cross that offends others, but our own worldy stains that we refuse to acknowledge.

My question is if we reach the hour of our nuclear purification, can we start being brothers again?

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2007/10/15 11:01Profile
theopenlife
Member



Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926


 Re:

Quote:
i think it [the pre-trib rapture] is a false doctrine calculated to lull the Church into a false sense of security that we will escape fire which is how we are proven.



I agree, with the addition that it is too often a "holiness gimmick"; people are motivated to live upright lives because "who knows when you might get 'caught up'", rather than because of the plain commands and worthiness of God, and the putridness of sin. I speak on my own testimony, and of my friends who were similarly carried by the doctrine of Pre-Trib rapture.

I had no intention of preparing for mass-deceit on that level until I was Post-Trib.

Quote:
My question is if we reach the hour of our nuclear purification, can we start being brothers again?



That's a stark statement, and one that I feel too. There are certain lines that even heavy trials have difficulty smearing - the tortures of the inquisition couldn't bring reformers to congregate with Anabaptists - but I see what you mean. Unity will come more into place when it's a matter of life or death. What will also take place in such dire conditions is the clarification of what the gospel is and is not, at the essentials. Right now it does not cost so much to disagree; then we will pay prettily and will want to know for certain what makes someone a "brother".

 2007/10/15 18:24Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re:

Chris,
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary, your opinions are so very much appreciated.
:-)

In His Love
pastorfrin

 2007/10/15 18:55Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re:

MC wrote:

Quote:
My question is if we reach the hour of our nuclear purification, can we start being brothers again?



In light of the words of Christ, I would say very doubtful.

Matthew 10:17-22
But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; [18] And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. [19] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. [20] For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. [21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. [22] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

John 16:2
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

I believe the term brother is soon to take on a whole new meaning.

Matthew 12:50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


The question then is, what is the will of the Father? Very important to be founded in the Word,
hey.

In His Love
pastorfrin


 2007/10/15 19:10Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re:

theopenlife wrote:

Quote:
Right now it does not cost so much to disagree; then we will pay prettily and will want to know for certain what makes someone a "brother".



Amen, kind of makes one think, doesn't it?

Thanks for the thoughts, Brother.

In His Love
pastorfrin

 2007/10/15 19:20Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy