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

Discussion Forum : General Topics : JESUS As "LOVER"??

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Habakkuk3,

It is such a contrast for me as I attend by-weekly meetings in nursing homes where only the old timey hymns are sang. not the old 10 verse Wesleyian hymns, but older ones pre 1960 at that. The message of the songs is so much deeper and richer than what I experience in other more contemporary circles in most cases. I have lots of newer worship and Christian songs I do like, but there is still a sharp contrast and we have lost something in my estimation and I think it has to do often with the peoples' perspective of God.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/3/30 15:15Profile
TS
Member



Joined: 2006/2/12
Posts: 49


 Re:

Annie:

Quote-"but until we've had a true encounter with Love Who became Incarnate ... we legalize His Love back to laws rather than a Father who made those laws because He Loves us."

This is exactly right---we need to protect the Body from legalism---it is so much easier to hold someone accountable to breaking a law than it is to love someone who is not lovable---of which the total human race is of such.

This is a turning into a HOT TOPIC:)---
oh well, I tried to say just one or two things but am being overcome with a need to respond.

side note---those commenting should definitely read the WHOLE thread in order to know where/why/what of this thread.


Quote---Robert

"Consider these lyrics:

DEEPLY IN LOVE

In my life You`ve heard me say
I love you
How do I show you it`s true
hear my heart, it longs for more of you..
I`ve fallen deeply in love with you..

You have stolen my heart
I`m captivated by you
Never will you and I part
I`ve fallen deeply in love with you

You and I, together forever
Nothing can, stand in the way
My love for you, grows stronger
each new day.
I`ve fallen deeply in love with you



I have to say, that this is boyfriend/girlfriend music in the 80's when I was a teenager. I could cite many such songs. Our church sings this as a worship song btw.

Contrast that with:

ROCK OF AGES

1. Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

2. Not the labors of my hands
can fulfill thy law's commands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.

3. Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Savior, or I die.

4. While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee.

I understand everyones concerns not to discourage our youth or get out of balance. Is it not alarming that we have gone from Rock of Ages to Deeply in Love?"

END QUOTE


I cannot but say ---GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER!

Why is it not right to sing of the love our heart has/wants for God? Why must a man twist this into some sexual fleshly desire?

Is the Rock of Ages better becasue it is older?
Is it better because the words agree with you and does not make you "flashback" into the girlfreind/boyfriend days of your youth?

I will say that when I was young the "rock of ages" was used in my dead church that preached the "love" of God yet walked in the hatred of man. LEGALISM. Yet I would not still take away the value of this song...from a dead brother who was doing what the new song is doing; Communing to God thoughts of our inadequacies to make it in the world without Him.

I will say it again....stronger....come sit for a couple hours a day in the Prayer room of this Kansas City phenomena. Listen to groups of kids who have so many choices in life as they give up their time to pray for you and me and the world 24/7. Hear them sing to the Father and speak from their heart. It may not sound like the old organ music and the 200 year old songs song at your church; my thoughts are why should it?

We humans put God in a box....sometimes there are people that come along in history and open this box up to realize He is not in their after all. Such was Martin Luther, Wesley and the Moravians and countless others.

Reread the line of thoughts on this thread from the beginning and say something that lifts God up instead of letting some "OLD" hymn do it for you.

If the Lord tarries should we be singing the Rock of Ages in 1000 years as the acceptable song of praise to the Lord? If you give it enough time Deeply in Love will also be a classic...unless legalism wins and it just dies out...a song of one lone child...seeking to Love her Master more.

Sorry for the heat...but lets be real at the least.

TS


 2006/3/30 15:22Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi TS,

Quote:
I cannot but say ---GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER!

Why is it not right to sing of the love our heart has/wants for God? Why must a man twist this into some sexual fleshly desire?



I see you did exactly to me what you did to Andrew's post. Hmmm. Don't believe I'll respond.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/3/30 15:29Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:


Quote:
TS wrote: This is ridiculous. Andrew Strom is a person that used to be involved in the movement (if that is what you care to classify it as) he is now bent on proving it wrong. He has totally misused the verbage and the context to which he so crudely put the term "jesus's little girlfriends" to. [u]I feel like this is a bully statement typical of someone in elementary school and one who needs a courageous young lad to punch him in the nose for.[/u]



This is one of the most immoderate things I have ever heard from a Christian in these forums. To suggest that someone out to "punch Andrew in the nose" beloved is not the love of Christ or a reaction of the Spirit of God- end of discussion. It is hard for me to grasp how a person could proclaim agapE love and react like this. It only lends weight to the shallowness of the whole concept of God. If the Holy Spirit in his fulness is flowing the fruit of the Spirit also will be present. If we disagree that is one thing. I know the concern is genuine as I know Andrew personally. He is not a 'bully', he is a repentance preacher who longs to see revival come to America in deep repentance before its too late. I have disagreed with Andrew myself, but I believe this statement needs to be challenged.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/3/30 15:55Profile
TS
Member



Joined: 2006/2/12
Posts: 49


 Re:

Ron--I guess I'd be at a loss for words as well. If I wrote anything that was not implied by the WORDS of your message please clarify.



Dorcas: maybe this will help claify what I mean by quoting Andrew's "Jesus's little girlfriend".

You put this quote on your response:

"TS, please take a deep breath. Here is the paragraph which you are misquoting slightly - enough to make a difference, I think, to what is being said by the writer.

Quote:

Incidentally, the 'Bride of Christ' in Revelation is described as a 'holy city' - a "new Jerusalem" coming down from heaven. (Rev 21). So it is clearly a 'CORPORATE' entity that exists at the end of the age. -Not some individualized "girlfriend of Jesus" in the here-and-now. "
END Quote

My response to this is that this is not the complete reference to the "Jesus's little girlfreind" phrase.

This is it in context and more complete:

Quote from Andrews Message:

"But does this mean that we are to approach Him with a sensual "eros" love, like some sexual adolescent schoolgirl, "swooning" and smooching with our 'lover' Jesus? Is that what God's love means? Are we to exchange 'agape' for sensual "eros" and act like Jesus's "girlfriend" here on earth? (-Men as well as women?) God forbid!

Of course we know that in Scripture the corporate body of Christ (particularly at the end of the age) is described as the "Bride" of Christ. But isn't it obvious that this is talking about the 'CORPORATE' Body - not individual Christians? Are we each to become Jesus’ little "girlfriends" here on earth - or is it the "WHOLE BODY" that is to one day be the Bride of Christ? -Clearly it is the latter."

How sick this is. How does one swoon and smooch with the Creator? To imply that that is what is taught at the International House of Prayer is absurd and a loathsome lie. To say that the actions of this ministry is to act like a "sexual adolescent schoolgirl" is off the wall?
I bring these comments to bear because of the fact that I see what goes on and it is not this.
If the references did not imply directly or by association that this Kansas City IHOP was in league with those ministries (IF THERE ARE ANY) that do this is outragous.

Search the organization out for yourself...if one judges another not by what that person or organization is saying/doing but by hearsay then discernment is not being used and the words are but of the devil to sow strife.

I have plenty to talk about of issues that are publicly made by organizations not inventions of someones warped mind based on I do not know what.

Should I take kindly to be "dumped" into a group that based on Andrews message goes around in some sort of heightened sexual state...waiting to climax in worship? AS IS IMPLIED BY HIS OWN WORDS...FOLLOW THE THINKING. It is sick and very much not appropriate to be said or done or even thought of for that matter.

I wish I had not stumbled onto this thread.



Another Quote from Message:


"They point out that today you mostly hear of a Jesus who exists to make you "happy" rather than holy, a Jesus who is always a "friend" but never a Judge, a Jesus who does not any longer hate sin or demand repentance, but only wants you prosperous and 'blessed'. This is a Jesus that utterly suits our selfish Western mindset, but is found nowhere in the Bible.

And the new "Jesus As Lover" doctrine is just another twist in the ongoing tale of modern Christians distorting the character and nature of God."
end quote

The Doctrine of "Jesus As Lover" is not new twisted or modern. It came into view the moment he took the lower form of a human, culminated in the Cross and Resurection and will be shown in its full Glory at the Wedding Supper of the Lamb.

It is not about quick riches, name it claim it, or any such fallacies Andrew claims to associate it with.

Blessings,
TS






 2006/3/30 15:58Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

TS,

In fairness I think it fair to say that he is not taking a direct swipe at IHOP. He is taking on the Song of Solomon philosophy. I have been to IHOP to pray myself as has Greg and others on this site. I conclude that the prayer is a Godsend and we need more of it. I sensed a wonderful presence of God at my times there. No slam on them from me. But I remain concerned with the emphasis on a relationship with God that is akin to human beings courting one another. Not because it goes on at IHOP, but because it is filtering down to my kids and youth group.

Moreover, I do not sense the same level of 'sexual' undertones that maybe the article seems to suggest; but I have not been in some of the prophetic meetings Andrew has. He has a tremendous reach and experience in ministry. I know he is very grieved by some of what he has seen. It may have no connection at all to your experience.

God Bless,

-RObert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/3/30 16:23Profile
640x800
Member



Joined: 2006/3/30
Posts: 2


 Re: JESUS As "LOVER"??

That is ridiculous, have you ever been to the IHOP? If the answer is no then you have no right or reason to bash them. This "movement" shouldn't be that at all, it's something the entire body of Christ should actively be a part of. Songs of Songs is not "Soloman's lovesick poetry" about a woman, it is directed towards Jesus. Jesus is the lover looking for his "beloved," ( the church), take for instance the verse in it that says " I am dark yet lovely." This verse is coming from the beloved, it is saying that even though she (us) sins and does things she regrets, her lover ( Christ) still loves her unconditionally. This paradigm is written all throughout the Bible, in Isaiah 63 it tells us of Jesus coming to claim vengence on the ones who spoiled his bride and turned their backs to him, which is another aspect of this paradigm.
This love is something that cannot be explained easily in words alone. We are brides of Christ, men and women, who are going to spend the rest of eternity with him. So whatever this Andrew guy is meaning to do by saying all this nonsense, I'd like to know what part of it is building anyone up or benefiting the body of Christ.

 2006/3/30 16:51Profile
640x800
Member



Joined: 2006/3/30
Posts: 2


 Re:

Andrew Strom is bullying other Christians who don't believe what he believes, but actually once did himself, making him somewhat of a hypocrite. Did any of that essay build up or benefit the body of Christ in any way? I think not, it merely puts down and demeans a certain "movement" in the church. Also, if he his opinion about Song of Soloman is correct, why is it in the Bible? In Matthew and many, many other places in the Word Jesus tells us that lusting is bad and that we should honor our wives and not commit adultery etc etc. Song of Songs looked at from a sensual and purely secular viewpoint devoid of any knowledge of the bridegroom paradigm would seem like a story of lust in every way. God would not put that in the Bible, so that erradicates Stroms premise right there, the Bible cannot and will not ever contradict itself.

 2006/3/30 17:01Profile
Truthspeaker
Member



Joined: 2006/1/18
Posts: 24


 Re:

I am grieved by some of the replies in this thread.. Note: I said 'some' (meaning: if the shoe fits, dont be afraid to wear it..)

Do we really have to resort to calling names, using strong words like 'bullying', 'hypocrites', and most of all, is this topic REALLY about who is right and who is not..

I wish I'd see a balanced view somewhere in here.. but no, it's turned mostly into taking sides and slinging mud..

That grieves me..
Some of yall oughta know better!

However, I must say that I really enjoy Annie's posts lately. May God give you his abundant blessing!

Now, let's repent of our attitudes and have some edification in this here thread..


_________________
----

 2006/3/30 17:28Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Strom needs to be put in his place, he is bullying other Christians who don't believe what he believes, but actually once did himself, making him somewhat of a hypocrite



This is incorrect. I do not believe Andrew was ever part of what he wrote about. It was this and other things as to why he 'left' the prophetic movement.

Quote:
Did any of that essay build up or benefit the body of Christ in any way?



That depends on whether or not it helps bring clarification on this doctrine. We need to ask if the doctrine is biblical or not.





Quote:
Also, if he his opinion about Song of Soloman is correct, why is it in the Bible? In Matthew and many, many other places in the Word Jesus tells us that lusting is bad and that we should honor our wives and not commit adultery etc etc. Song of Songs looked at from a sensual and purely secular viewpoint devoid of any knowledge of the bridegroom paradigm would seem like a story of lust in every way. God would not put that in the Bible, so that erradicates Stroms little theory right there, the Bible cannot and will not ever contradict itself.



Are you suggesting that if a man and woman in the confines of marriage were to behave as we read in Song of Solomon that it would be sinful behavior?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/3/30 17:42Profile





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