Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

TheSword

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Scriptural Election?   
    Since we're talking about election, I think an important point to establish is whether or not it is the cause or result of salvation (or neither). There are 23 instances in the New Testament in which elect/chosen (eklektos) is used. Contextually, some are clearly not referencing truly saved Christians as has been noted above. Of the ones that clearly are, only one passage has anything to say about the cause/effect/time sync relationship between election and salvation:
    1 Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
    Here, election is preceded by foreknowledge and accomplished through sanctification of the Spirit (which is a salvation-specific event). According to this passage, election must be viewed as the result of salvation rather than its cause. In order to maintain Scriptural integrity, any passage that does not specifically mention the elect, but commonly believed to reference it, must read in light of this one.
  2. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to OLD fashioned preacher in Avoiding burnout   
    As noted above -- #3 and #4 can be flexed and swapped to a degree in various areas. # 1-3 can many times be integrated, blended and coordinated -- take note, however, when integration is not possible NEVER swap the priority order of 1,2 and 3!!
  3. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to OLD fashioned preacher in Reverend?   
    Even in first person, it is proper to say: "I loved Mary (or appropriate female name) so much that I married her." It does not imply that you no longer love her.
  4. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Near Confrontation During House To House   
    I agree with everyone else, you did the right thing. If someone is so vehemently opposed to the Gospel, Jesus said simply dust your feet off and walk away; take it to someone who's heart hasn't been so hardened. There's no use standing there to argue with someone like that because it just would have gotten worse from there.
  5. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from wretched in Reverend?   
    ​You completely missed the entire point about your focus on past/present tense being self-defeating. If you're going to play that game, then you have to do it in every instance, otherwise you're just cherry-picking based on what you want to believe. Also, if you're going to hang your belief system on the minutia of grammar, you should probably take more care to understand the grammar. The "loved" word you're unwisely focusing on is in the aorist tense, which is an undefined action that normally occurs in the past and not in the imperfect tense which is a completed action that normally occurs in the past. If God wanted to communicate to us that His love for the world was only during a finite window and came to an end at a particular time, it would be in the imperfect tense, but it's not. Once again, your premise fails. Please study harder.
  6. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from ThePilgrim in A more Biblical Theology.   
    Mike,
    While I agree that people tend to overcomplicate the Bible and especially in trying to put together a systematic theology, I think it's unwise to completely dismiss the idea or study of hermeneutics, especially for those of us who preach/teach the unlearned. Everybody engages in hermeneutics whether they realize it or not. Simply put, it's a fancy word for "interpretive principles" which guide the way we understand what we read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel fairly confident in assuming that when you sit down to read one of the New Testament epistles, you don't take much of it figuratively or prophetically like you do when you read Isaiah and you assume the original readers had more familiarity with Jesus Christ than they did with the Assyrians. I'm assuming that you take those factors into account and it affects the way you understand the passage of Scripture you're reading. I also assume you read the entirety of the Bible in light of divine inspiration as opposed to a collected work of various men writing for their own purposes.
    Whether stated or not, these are interpretive principles that drive your understanding of the text. Where we seem to have so much error is when people either have a faulty set of interpretive principles or apply them inconsistently. New/unlearned and spiritually immature Christians are the most prone to misinterpret their Bible and come way with false and even heretical conclusions because they just read a passage and took it in whatever way that made them feel good about it. When you boil down the problem, most major doctrinal deviations or cults are a result of poor hermeneutics. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are prime examples of how apply a bad interpretive lens leads to spiritual blindness.
    I'm not saying every Christian needs to pick up a hermeneutics textbook and get busy, but we ought to teaching them the principles which means we ought to know and understand them ourselves. Everyone who reads the Bible is going to employ some type of hermeneutic and so it is important that we're using the right one.
  7. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in A more Biblical Theology.   
    Mike,
    While I agree that people tend to overcomplicate the Bible and especially in trying to put together a systematic theology, I think it's unwise to completely dismiss the idea or study of hermeneutics, especially for those of us who preach/teach the unlearned. Everybody engages in hermeneutics whether they realize it or not. Simply put, it's a fancy word for "interpretive principles" which guide the way we understand what we read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel fairly confident in assuming that when you sit down to read one of the New Testament epistles, you don't take much of it figuratively or prophetically like you do when you read Isaiah and you assume the original readers had more familiarity with Jesus Christ than they did with the Assyrians. I'm assuming that you take those factors into account and it affects the way you understand the passage of Scripture you're reading. I also assume you read the entirety of the Bible in light of divine inspiration as opposed to a collected work of various men writing for their own purposes.
    Whether stated or not, these are interpretive principles that drive your understanding of the text. Where we seem to have so much error is when people either have a faulty set of interpretive principles or apply them inconsistently. New/unlearned and spiritually immature Christians are the most prone to misinterpret their Bible and come way with false and even heretical conclusions because they just read a passage and took it in whatever way that made them feel good about it. When you boil down the problem, most major doctrinal deviations or cults are a result of poor hermeneutics. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are prime examples of how apply a bad interpretive lens leads to spiritual blindness.
    I'm not saying every Christian needs to pick up a hermeneutics textbook and get busy, but we ought to teaching them the principles which means we ought to know and understand them ourselves. Everyone who reads the Bible is going to employ some type of hermeneutic and so it is important that we're using the right one.
  8. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from wretched in A more Biblical Theology.   
    ​I both agree and disagree. The differing conclusions are usually a result of pre-understandings or prior commitments to philosophical/worldview issues. When one comes to a passage of Scripture with a blank slate, as one should always strive to do initially, there shouldn't be much disagreement at all about the meaning because there can be only one meaning (though there may be many principles or applications drawn from that). After original intended meaning is discerned, then it can be used to illuminate other passages of Scripture or be illuminated by other passages of Scripture and then either confirm, deny, or update the larger theological system. When people work in reverse and use a theological system to interpret the meaning of a passage of Scripture, that's when error creeps.
    As an extreme example, consider someone with a Darwinian worldview reading and interpreting Genesis 1. One of 3 things will happen:
    1 - The person will accept the Creation account as a literal event and abandon evolution and deep time.
    2 - The person will reject the Creation account and declare the Bible inaccurate.
    3 - The person will attempt to harmonize the two opposing worldviews and use Darwinism to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that fits the evolutionary timeline.
    Sadly, in many cases the otherwise committed Christian goes for option 3 and end up either inserting time/events between verses or spiritualizing the account so as to make it a non-literal event. However, when taken in its own context and examining its grammatical structure, a reader can come away with only one conclusion: God created everything that exists within the span of 6 consecutive 24-hour days as we currently understand them.
    So, while those 100 students may come up with 100 different interpretations of Genesis 1, there is only one correct interpretation. A person's inability to be objective does not negate the need to try. There isn't as much ambiguity in the Bible as many people like to believe. What I find more often than not is that most people are simply too lazy to do the study and investigative work themselves and lean one someone else's theological system to tell them how they should interpret something. One should always be willing to completely abandon or update whatever theological system they assent to any time they encounter a portion of Scripture that is out of sync in its historical, cultural, grammatical contexts.
     
  9. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Covenanter in A more Biblical Theology.   
    Mike,
    While I agree that people tend to overcomplicate the Bible and especially in trying to put together a systematic theology, I think it's unwise to completely dismiss the idea or study of hermeneutics, especially for those of us who preach/teach the unlearned. Everybody engages in hermeneutics whether they realize it or not. Simply put, it's a fancy word for "interpretive principles" which guide the way we understand what we read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel fairly confident in assuming that when you sit down to read one of the New Testament epistles, you don't take much of it figuratively or prophetically like you do when you read Isaiah and you assume the original readers had more familiarity with Jesus Christ than they did with the Assyrians. I'm assuming that you take those factors into account and it affects the way you understand the passage of Scripture you're reading. I also assume you read the entirety of the Bible in light of divine inspiration as opposed to a collected work of various men writing for their own purposes.
    Whether stated or not, these are interpretive principles that drive your understanding of the text. Where we seem to have so much error is when people either have a faulty set of interpretive principles or apply them inconsistently. New/unlearned and spiritually immature Christians are the most prone to misinterpret their Bible and come way with false and even heretical conclusions because they just read a passage and took it in whatever way that made them feel good about it. When you boil down the problem, most major doctrinal deviations or cults are a result of poor hermeneutics. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are prime examples of how apply a bad interpretive lens leads to spiritual blindness.
    I'm not saying every Christian needs to pick up a hermeneutics textbook and get busy, but we ought to teaching them the principles which means we ought to know and understand them ourselves. Everyone who reads the Bible is going to employ some type of hermeneutic and so it is important that we're using the right one.
  10. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in A more Biblical Theology.   
    ​I both agree and disagree. The differing conclusions are usually a result of pre-understandings or prior commitments to philosophical/worldview issues. When one comes to a passage of Scripture with a blank slate, as one should always strive to do initially, there shouldn't be much disagreement at all about the meaning because there can be only one meaning (though there may be many principles or applications drawn from that). After original intended meaning is discerned, then it can be used to illuminate other passages of Scripture or be illuminated by other passages of Scripture and then either confirm, deny, or update the larger theological system. When people work in reverse and use a theological system to interpret the meaning of a passage of Scripture, that's when error creeps.
    As an extreme example, consider someone with a Darwinian worldview reading and interpreting Genesis 1. One of 3 things will happen:
    1 - The person will accept the Creation account as a literal event and abandon evolution and deep time.
    2 - The person will reject the Creation account and declare the Bible inaccurate.
    3 - The person will attempt to harmonize the two opposing worldviews and use Darwinism to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that fits the evolutionary timeline.
    Sadly, in many cases the otherwise committed Christian goes for option 3 and end up either inserting time/events between verses or spiritualizing the account so as to make it a non-literal event. However, when taken in its own context and examining its grammatical structure, a reader can come away with only one conclusion: God created everything that exists within the span of 6 consecutive 24-hour days as we currently understand them.
    So, while those 100 students may come up with 100 different interpretations of Genesis 1, there is only one correct interpretation. A person's inability to be objective does not negate the need to try. There isn't as much ambiguity in the Bible as many people like to believe. What I find more often than not is that most people are simply too lazy to do the study and investigative work themselves and lean one someone else's theological system to tell them how they should interpret something. One should always be willing to completely abandon or update whatever theological system they assent to any time they encounter a portion of Scripture that is out of sync in its historical, cultural, grammatical contexts.
     
  11. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from DaveW in A more Biblical Theology.   
    ​I both agree and disagree. The differing conclusions are usually a result of pre-understandings or prior commitments to philosophical/worldview issues. When one comes to a passage of Scripture with a blank slate, as one should always strive to do initially, there shouldn't be much disagreement at all about the meaning because there can be only one meaning (though there may be many principles or applications drawn from that). After original intended meaning is discerned, then it can be used to illuminate other passages of Scripture or be illuminated by other passages of Scripture and then either confirm, deny, or update the larger theological system. When people work in reverse and use a theological system to interpret the meaning of a passage of Scripture, that's when error creeps.
    As an extreme example, consider someone with a Darwinian worldview reading and interpreting Genesis 1. One of 3 things will happen:
    1 - The person will accept the Creation account as a literal event and abandon evolution and deep time.
    2 - The person will reject the Creation account and declare the Bible inaccurate.
    3 - The person will attempt to harmonize the two opposing worldviews and use Darwinism to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that fits the evolutionary timeline.
    Sadly, in many cases the otherwise committed Christian goes for option 3 and end up either inserting time/events between verses or spiritualizing the account so as to make it a non-literal event. However, when taken in its own context and examining its grammatical structure, a reader can come away with only one conclusion: God created everything that exists within the span of 6 consecutive 24-hour days as we currently understand them.
    So, while those 100 students may come up with 100 different interpretations of Genesis 1, there is only one correct interpretation. A person's inability to be objective does not negate the need to try. There isn't as much ambiguity in the Bible as many people like to believe. What I find more often than not is that most people are simply too lazy to do the study and investigative work themselves and lean one someone else's theological system to tell them how they should interpret something. One should always be willing to completely abandon or update whatever theological system they assent to any time they encounter a portion of Scripture that is out of sync in its historical, cultural, grammatical contexts.
     
  12. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from DennisD in Finding a Church - Church Directories   
    I've used this one before but like most online listings, it can be hit and miss as far as how complete it is.
    http://fundamental.org/fundamental/churches/index.php3?action=listchurchesincountry&countryname=United%20States%20of%20America
  13. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from 20JC12 in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    ​Don't be sorry, it's a great, and important question. In short, they have always been the same person and "son" is descriptive of the relationship and essence rather than physical offspring. Consider John 1:1 
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
    This one beautifully packaged verse boldly declares that Jesus (the Word) was God. In the Greek it's actually a little more emphatic and a woodenly literal translation would read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word."
    Reading on to verse 3 - "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If we go back to the original Creation account in Genesis 1:1, we see this:
    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Every verse after that declares the acts of creation as an action taken specifically by God. Moving forward a little bit to Genesis 1:26 when God created man we find this:
    "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" So now we have a singular God referring to Himself in the plural, which shows the wonderful truth revealed in John 1.
    There are many passages throughout the Bible I could reference for you to show that Jesus claimed to be God and His disciples believed Him to be God, but the above should give you a good starting point.
    Regarding your question about Matthew 27:46, there are two things I want to point out. First, Jesus is directly quoting Psalm 22. The second thing is that even though Jesus is God, He is not the same person as the Father. God's three-in-oneness is a divinely complicated concept that we'll always have a little trouble finding the right words for; but the essential truth that the Bible teaches is the God the Father is God, God the Son (Jesus) is God, and God the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three distinct persons existing in a single entity. God is the perfectly complete being who has always had love and fellowship within Himself and we, being made in His image, are a reflection of that which is why we have the innate need to relate with others.
    The critical thing to understand though, is that Jesus is God and that is the only reason He had any power to save us from our sin. Only an infinite God could pay for the infinite amount of sin of humanity. Only a sinless Jesus could have atoned for the sins of others, and only God is sinless.
  14. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Salyan in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    ​Don't be sorry, it's a great, and important question. In short, they have always been the same person and "son" is descriptive of the relationship and essence rather than physical offspring. Consider John 1:1 
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
    This one beautifully packaged verse boldly declares that Jesus (the Word) was God. In the Greek it's actually a little more emphatic and a woodenly literal translation would read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word."
    Reading on to verse 3 - "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If we go back to the original Creation account in Genesis 1:1, we see this:
    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Every verse after that declares the acts of creation as an action taken specifically by God. Moving forward a little bit to Genesis 1:26 when God created man we find this:
    "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" So now we have a singular God referring to Himself in the plural, which shows the wonderful truth revealed in John 1.
    There are many passages throughout the Bible I could reference for you to show that Jesus claimed to be God and His disciples believed Him to be God, but the above should give you a good starting point.
    Regarding your question about Matthew 27:46, there are two things I want to point out. First, Jesus is directly quoting Psalm 22. The second thing is that even though Jesus is God, He is not the same person as the Father. God's three-in-oneness is a divinely complicated concept that we'll always have a little trouble finding the right words for; but the essential truth that the Bible teaches is the God the Father is God, God the Son (Jesus) is God, and God the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three distinct persons existing in a single entity. God is the perfectly complete being who has always had love and fellowship within Himself and we, being made in His image, are a reflection of that which is why we have the innate need to relate with others.
    The critical thing to understand though, is that Jesus is God and that is the only reason He had any power to save us from our sin. Only an infinite God could pay for the infinite amount of sin of humanity. Only a sinless Jesus could have atoned for the sins of others, and only God is sinless.
  15. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    What I believe she is talking about is that the Mormon concept of Jesus is completely different from the Jesus that we know. The thing you have to keep in mind is that while Mormons and Christians use many of the same terms, we have vastly different definitions for those terms. In a sense, we're not even speaking the same language. For example...
    When we reference the Trinity and the Godhead, we're talking about the three-in-oneness being (Father, Son, Holy Ghost/Spirit). He is three persons in one entity. When Mormons reference the Trinity and the Godhead, they're talking about three completely distinct and separate persons that occupy an office and are not at all the same and the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are two completely different things.
    We believe Jesus is God incarnate. Mormons believe that Jesus is a child born as the result of a physical relationship between God and Mary.
    The reason we say that the Mormon Jesus is different is because we believe He is actually God, whereas Mormons do not. Therefore, they are not the same Jesus. That is why I say our two faith systems cannot both be right. Jesus is either God, or He is not.
  16. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    ​Don't be sorry, it's a great, and important question. In short, they have always been the same person and "son" is descriptive of the relationship and essence rather than physical offspring. Consider John 1:1 
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
    This one beautifully packaged verse boldly declares that Jesus (the Word) was God. In the Greek it's actually a little more emphatic and a woodenly literal translation would read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word."
    Reading on to verse 3 - "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If we go back to the original Creation account in Genesis 1:1, we see this:
    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Every verse after that declares the acts of creation as an action taken specifically by God. Moving forward a little bit to Genesis 1:26 when God created man we find this:
    "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" So now we have a singular God referring to Himself in the plural, which shows the wonderful truth revealed in John 1.
    There are many passages throughout the Bible I could reference for you to show that Jesus claimed to be God and His disciples believed Him to be God, but the above should give you a good starting point.
    Regarding your question about Matthew 27:46, there are two things I want to point out. First, Jesus is directly quoting Psalm 22. The second thing is that even though Jesus is God, He is not the same person as the Father. God's three-in-oneness is a divinely complicated concept that we'll always have a little trouble finding the right words for; but the essential truth that the Bible teaches is the God the Father is God, God the Son (Jesus) is God, and God the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is God but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three distinct persons existing in a single entity. God is the perfectly complete being who has always had love and fellowship within Himself and we, being made in His image, are a reflection of that which is why we have the innate need to relate with others.
    The critical thing to understand though, is that Jesus is God and that is the only reason He had any power to save us from our sin. Only an infinite God could pay for the infinite amount of sin of humanity. Only a sinless Jesus could have atoned for the sins of others, and only God is sinless.
  17. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Covenanter in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    It's not at all strange, and I truly do understand where you're coming from. I have a man in the Bible study class that I teach who is from a Mormon family. We talk about the challenges of witnessing to them often. Truly, it's a common theme I've notice about pretty much every other faith from Islam to Jehovah's Witness to Catholicism. A faith lived out intentionally defines a person's personal and social life, and completely changing that is incredibly difficult.
    One thing you have to keep in mind about a life lived following the real Jesus Christ: it's going to be hard leaving the old life behind, but it's going to be worth it. Jesus knew that when people chose to follow Him it would cause anxiety among friends and family:
    "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law." (Luke 12:-51-53)
    But He also promised even greater reward:
    "Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, house, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." (Mark 10:28-30)
    The truth is, following Jesus naturally sets you at odds with your previous faith. That doesn't mean you have to stop loving them or seeing them altogether; but it does mean you are set on two completely different paths: one toward heaven and the other toward hell. What should drive you is to lovingly win them over to the path leading to heaven.
    Another thing to consider, is that God expects you to definitively leave the Mormon church:
    "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for hat fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Cor 6:14-17)
    Here's the thing, you absolutely can't be a part of both faiths because they are set completely against one another and they cannot both be correct. You must make a choice, even though it feels like a hard one. When it really comes down to it, you have to decide whether you love Jesus or your old friends/church family more (Matt 10:37-40). Once you've decided on Jesus, you should embrace the love that you have for those in your former life and go win them to Christ.
     
    edit: spelling errors
     
  18. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from 20JC12 in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    It's not at all strange, and I truly do understand where you're coming from. I have a man in the Bible study class that I teach who is from a Mormon family. We talk about the challenges of witnessing to them often. Truly, it's a common theme I've notice about pretty much every other faith from Islam to Jehovah's Witness to Catholicism. A faith lived out intentionally defines a person's personal and social life, and completely changing that is incredibly difficult.
    One thing you have to keep in mind about a life lived following the real Jesus Christ: it's going to be hard leaving the old life behind, but it's going to be worth it. Jesus knew that when people chose to follow Him it would cause anxiety among friends and family:
    "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law." (Luke 12:-51-53)
    But He also promised even greater reward:
    "Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, house, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." (Mark 10:28-30)
    The truth is, following Jesus naturally sets you at odds with your previous faith. That doesn't mean you have to stop loving them or seeing them altogether; but it does mean you are set on two completely different paths: one toward heaven and the other toward hell. What should drive you is to lovingly win them over to the path leading to heaven.
    Another thing to consider, is that God expects you to definitively leave the Mormon church:
    "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for hat fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Cor 6:14-17)
    Here's the thing, you absolutely can't be a part of both faiths because they are set completely against one another and they cannot both be correct. You must make a choice, even though it feels like a hard one. When it really comes down to it, you have to decide whether you love Jesus or your old friends/church family more (Matt 10:37-40). Once you've decided on Jesus, you should embrace the love that you have for those in your former life and go win them to Christ.
     
    edit: spelling errors
     
  19. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from wretched in Reverend?   
    ​That's not an example of plain and careful reading. That's an example of eisegetical reading (i.e. reading your assumptions into it) while ignoring the rest of Scripture. You're quibbling over past and present tense when it makes no contextual sense to do so. As mentioned above, if we take your method of reading with Romans 5:8, then God still hates you and you're going to hell. You see, it says that Christ died, which is past tense. It also says that He died while we were sinners so unless you were born and living in Rome in the first century then Paul wasn't talking to you. You weren't born yet so you couldn't have sinned yet. That's all past tense, so I'm sorry to tell you, you're not one of the elect.
    Furthermore, Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21 make clear that anyone can call on Jesus and they will be saved with certainty. Unfortunately for your point of view, 1 John 2:2 says that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. That's an all-inclusive term, so you either have to admit that limited atonement is false, or you have to say that since it was past tense He isn't the propitiation for sins now, just back then, which means once again...you're not one of the elect because that was past tense and you're in the present almost 2000 years later.
    Your reading is not plain and careful. It's sloppy and based on your own preconceived notions.
  20. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Alan in Reverend?   

    ​I was going to say something like this, but Mike beat me to it. I'll just piggyback with another verse...
    John 15:13 - "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"
    Perhaps I need to read the Gospels again, but I don't recall Jesus ever going around telling people that He hated them. If you actively read and taught the Bible, you'd have compassion for the lost instead of disdain. You sound more like a Westboro member than you do a Christian.
  21. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from John81 in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    It's not at all strange, and I truly do understand where you're coming from. I have a man in the Bible study class that I teach who is from a Mormon family. We talk about the challenges of witnessing to them often. Truly, it's a common theme I've notice about pretty much every other faith from Islam to Jehovah's Witness to Catholicism. A faith lived out intentionally defines a person's personal and social life, and completely changing that is incredibly difficult.
    One thing you have to keep in mind about a life lived following the real Jesus Christ: it's going to be hard leaving the old life behind, but it's going to be worth it. Jesus knew that when people chose to follow Him it would cause anxiety among friends and family:
    "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law." (Luke 12:-51-53)
    But He also promised even greater reward:
    "Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, house, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." (Mark 10:28-30)
    The truth is, following Jesus naturally sets you at odds with your previous faith. That doesn't mean you have to stop loving them or seeing them altogether; but it does mean you are set on two completely different paths: one toward heaven and the other toward hell. What should drive you is to lovingly win them over to the path leading to heaven.
    Another thing to consider, is that God expects you to definitively leave the Mormon church:
    "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for hat fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Cor 6:14-17)
    Here's the thing, you absolutely can't be a part of both faiths because they are set completely against one another and they cannot both be correct. You must make a choice, even though it feels like a hard one. When it really comes down to it, you have to decide whether you love Jesus or your old friends/church family more (Matt 10:37-40). Once you've decided on Jesus, you should embrace the love that you have for those in your former life and go win them to Christ.
     
    edit: spelling errors
     
  22. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from DaveW in Reverend?   

    ​I was going to say something like this, but Mike beat me to it. I'll just piggyback with another verse...
    John 15:13 - "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"
    Perhaps I need to read the Gospels again, but I don't recall Jesus ever going around telling people that He hated them. If you actively read and taught the Bible, you'd have compassion for the lost instead of disdain. You sound more like a Westboro member than you do a Christian.
  23. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Salyan in Reverend?   
    ​Ah...I hadn't actually read that one. Makes sense now. I guess none of us are going to heaven then since Rom 5:8 used the past tense. We weren't born and therefore not sinners yet when Christ died for us. He must've only died for people who were sinners back then...
  24. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in In a Dilemma   

    ​I agree with NN (as well as the others) here. I work full-time, study at seminary full-time, and also have three small children (ages 3, 19 months, and 1 month) that demand every spare moment I have (which I gladly give them!). I still manage to teach every Sunday, do the occasional sermon, sing, go out soulwinning at least once a week, and disciple a young man trying to turn his life around after prison.
    He either needs to learn to better manage his time or he's not trying. I honestly think that needs to be fixed before any relationship is pursued because if he doesn't have time to work now, he certainly won't have time to meet your needs.
  25. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Miss Daisy in Mormon with IBC Pastor friend... feeling confusion and guilt   
    It's not at all strange, and I truly do understand where you're coming from. I have a man in the Bible study class that I teach who is from a Mormon family. We talk about the challenges of witnessing to them often. Truly, it's a common theme I've notice about pretty much every other faith from Islam to Jehovah's Witness to Catholicism. A faith lived out intentionally defines a person's personal and social life, and completely changing that is incredibly difficult.
    One thing you have to keep in mind about a life lived following the real Jesus Christ: it's going to be hard leaving the old life behind, but it's going to be worth it. Jesus knew that when people chose to follow Him it would cause anxiety among friends and family:
    "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law." (Luke 12:-51-53)
    But He also promised even greater reward:
    "Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, house, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." (Mark 10:28-30)
    The truth is, following Jesus naturally sets you at odds with your previous faith. That doesn't mean you have to stop loving them or seeing them altogether; but it does mean you are set on two completely different paths: one toward heaven and the other toward hell. What should drive you is to lovingly win them over to the path leading to heaven.
    Another thing to consider, is that God expects you to definitively leave the Mormon church:
    "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for hat fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Cor 6:14-17)
    Here's the thing, you absolutely can't be a part of both faiths because they are set completely against one another and they cannot both be correct. You must make a choice, even though it feels like a hard one. When it really comes down to it, you have to decide whether you love Jesus or your old friends/church family more (Matt 10:37-40). Once you've decided on Jesus, you should embrace the love that you have for those in your former life and go win them to Christ.
     
    edit: spelling errors
     
×
×
  • Create New...