The gospel is not christian....
-
then I will have to change course again ya? Life is all about the journey, and at least i take the journey... Life in Yeshua is all about growing in Him and getting to know the mysteries of Yahweh's word. Does not the bible also say if you ask it shall be given? Seek and you shall find, so I am confident that as I seek, Yahweh will show me.Originally posted by ben1xy:some food for thought... u know how i'm Catholic and stuff, so of course solar scriptura and solar fide is not something i adher to. I always think tht a problem occurs when a person goes through different phases of his life and speaking to some of my friends, they too agree that the messages that Pastors preach do vary (i know a person from my church formerly from NCC felt really strongly on this) and even contradict their earlier teachings when certain verses gives them certain insights. but how can truth contradict truth since it's all inspired by the Holy Spirit? this is not an attack on Protestants per say, but rather, what happens if one day while searching for the deeper truths (liek u said) you find that the earlier insights weren't actually correct? r u following my train of thoughts? but yah... it was juz something that i thought of.
cheers -
fair enough.Originally posted by breytonhartge:then I will have to change course again ya? Life is all about the journey, and at least i take the journey... Life in Yeshua is all about growing in Him and getting to know the mysteries of Yahweh's word. Does not the bible also say if you ask it shall be given? Seek and you shall find, so I am confident that as I seek, Yahweh will show me.
-
shalom! and God bless!Originally posted by ben1xy:fair enough. -
Hi to both Brey and Laoda...
I read through the entire thread already. To be fair, it seems to me that the theology both of you hold onto are in fact more similar than they are different.
Can I say, that both of you agree that
1) Salvation is by faith alone. We are not justified by works.
2) After being saved, we are still required to keep the law. Do we sin more so that grace may increase? May it never be!
3) We cannot keep the law completely.
All due respect, I think laoda you have misunderstood brey's point. He believes in salvation by faith only...yet insists on the necessity to keep the law as far as we could. This is certainly biblical. I do not understand what you two are really arguing about...
The real contention, I feel, is minor. And Chin Eng has spelt it out nicely for us. They are more to do with Christian cultural 'inventions' like Christmas. The question is, do such cultural inventions undermine our salvation, and are they an abomination to the Lord? I feel this is what Brey calls the 'Christianity' we believe in. My stand is that, doctrinally wise, the Christianity today is no different from the first century. -
wow, that's a really big statement to make. r u really sure that doctrinal wise, there's no difference??
My stand is that, doctrinally wise, the Christianity today is no different from the first century.[/b] -
The only differences are in the Catholic Church.Originally posted by ben1xy:wow, that's a really big statement to make. r u really sure that doctrinal wise, there's no difference??
Ironically, from another perspective, the doctrines of the Word-Faith churches are resembling the early church .. with all the miracles, healings and such. -
I am not arguing with laoda... just putting across a point. But his bias is based on his mis-assumption that I have a legalistic stand point and that I advocate for keeping the law as a requirement for salvation, which I do not.Originally posted by SocialOutcast:Hi to both Brey and Laoda...
I read through the entire thread already. To be fair, it seems to me that the theology both of you hold onto are in fact more similar than they are different.
Can I say, that both of you agree that
1) Salvation is by faith alone. We are not justified by works.
2) After being saved, we are still required to keep the law. Do we sin more so that grace may increase? May it never be!
3) We cannot keep the law completely.
All due respect, I think laoda you have misunderstood brey's point. He believes in salvation by faith only...yet insists on the necessity to keep the law as far as we could. This is certainly biblical. I do not understand what you two are really arguing about...
The real contention, I feel, is minor. And Chin Eng has spelt it out nicely for us. They are more to do with Christian cultural 'inventions' like Christmas. The question is, do such cultural inventions undermine our salvation, and are they an abomination to the Lord? I feel this is what Brey calls the 'Christianity' we believe in. My stand is that, doctrinally wise, the Christianity today is no different from the first century.
The point here being are we to accept these so called christian cultural inventions? Whether they are an abomination to Yahweh has to be based on Yahweh's standard, not the excuses that christians today proffer for their acceptance. Ie the focus is different, i use it as an opportunity to talk about Yeshua etc... what does the Lord say about the human heart? It is decietful above all things. How easy it is for us to push for the easier more well accepted route. Did the early christian fellowship accept easter? did they keep the wrong day for the sabbath? Do we know the real reason why we keep the sabbath on a sunday rather than sundown friday to sundown saturday. But then which day did Yahweh make holy?
If these cultural inventions are minor, then why did Shaul say in 2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Concerning the date of Dec 25, do you know who is claimed to be born on this date? The sun god Tamuz. Ask yourself a simple question. Should those who claim to be Christian take the Bible seriously? In Jeremiah 10:2, God declared to His people through the pen of the prophet: "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles." He went on to state that "the customs of the peoples are futile," that is, they are utterly empty and useless. God wants His people to follow His instructions, not to look at pagan practices and seek to copy them. What kind of empty, pagan customs was Jeremiah talking about in Jeremiah 10? The specific example in that chapter involved going out into the woods, cutting a tree and bringing it home to set it upright and decorate it (vv. 3–4). Does this sound amazingly like putting up a Christmas tree? It should.
Easter sunday is the day that culminates the forty days of lent, but where did we get these numbers from? the 40 days are taken from the ordered time of remeberance for Tamuz who was supposedly killed in his fortieth year, a day for each year of his life. Easter sunday also celebrates the birth of the pagan goddess of sexuality isthar.
It is a well documented fact that the roman catholic church advocated for these pagan celebrations to be incorporated into main stream belief so as to facilitate the conversion of pagans to christianity.
I have to agree with ben, are you really sure that doctrinally, the christians today do not differ from the first century? I beg to differ on this point. I think that today doctrinally the church has moved very far away from Yeshua's original intention.
Personally, i think that these issues are but a starting point and are by no means minor, they are very easily points which ha sa tan uses to corrupt the church as we know it today. There is more spiritual significance behind all these so called pagan cultural melds than first meets the eye. The battle here is not in the physical realm, but in the spiritual. That is why we are warned to be on guard and test the spirits all the time.
We are asked to worship Yahweh in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). What does this mean?
My main contention here is yes our lives are saved by faith, but what next? How do we grow from faith to faith as the bible so speaks about? How do we learn the mysteries of the bible which has been given to us? There must be a deeper walk with Yahweh than just salvation by grace. Even Shaul admonishes that we are to progress on to eating of solid food and not milk. But this is where I feel that the church today has failed, we have been only getting milk or worse! -
I agree with u 1/2/3 but I do not think Brey will agree with u point no.3. His insistence that we must keep the law to have salvation is not orthodox in any sense.
My stand is that, doctrinally wise, if we want to go back to the roots, reformed perspective is a better option than becoming Jewish.Originally posted by SocialOutcast:Hi to both Brey and Laoda...
I read through the entire thread already. To be fair, it seems to me that the theology both of you hold onto are in fact more similar than they are different.
Can I say, that both of you agree that
1) Salvation is by faith alone. We are not justified by works.
2) After being saved, we are still required to keep the law. Do we sin more so that grace may increase? May it never be!
3) We cannot keep the law completely.
All due respect, I think laoda you have misunderstood brey's point. He believes in salvation by faith only...yet insists on the necessity to keep the law as far as we could. This is certainly biblical. I do not understand what you two are really arguing about...
The real contention, I feel, is minor. And Chin Eng has spelt it out nicely for us. They are more to do with Christian cultural 'inventions' like Christmas. The question is, do such cultural inventions undermine our salvation, and are they an abomination to the Lord? I feel this is what Brey calls the 'Christianity' we believe in. My stand is that, doctrinally wise, the Christianity today is no different from the first century. -
you blind blind man. Since when in any of my posts have I ever said that keeping the law is a REQUIREMENT to have salvation? Please do not add or twist my words.Originally posted by laoda99:I agree with u 1/2/3 but I do not think Brey will agree with u point no.3. His insistence that we must keep the law to have salvation is not orthodox in any sense.
My stand is that, doctrinally wise, if we want to go back to the roots, reformed perspective is a better option than becoming Jewish.
As a human alone without Yeshua, I cannot keep the law completely, but with His help and in His strength, I can and so can all of us who call upon the name of Yeshua.
Since when did I say become a jew? The reformed perspective is still off the mark.
And one of the leading advocates for reformed christianity luther gave hitler the excuse he needed to cause the holocost in the second world war. So how can that person say that he is a christian and a follower of Yeshua when in his writings, luther condemned the jewish people, the very people that Yahweh calls His firstborn, who will be saved. -
Laoda, let me make it very very very very clear to you.Originally posted by laoda99:I agree with u 1/2/3 but I do not think Brey will agree with u point no.3. His insistence that we must keep the law to have salvation is not orthodox in any sense.
My stand is that, doctrinally wise, if we want to go back to the roots, reformed perspective is a better option than becoming Jewish.
I do not advocate that keeping the law is a requirement for salvation. Salvation is by FAITH IN YESHUA.
However, once we have our salvation, we will desire or should desire to know the commandments as these are our guides as to how we should live so that our lives are pleasing to Yahweh. -
-
May all believers of God practice Self control and watch the words in their thoughts, lest giving themselves to devil's dominion?
-
Agreed.Originally posted by M©+square:May all believers of God practice Self control and watch the words in their thoughts, lest giving themselves to devil's dominion?
As I'd said before, evidently such threads evolve from strong opinions about one's stand. Superficially, it is about "honouring God". I suspect deep in, it's really how strong we feel about an issue.
If one really looks around, one can always find things that may offend one's understanding of Scripture and how one views God. However, dare we say that our understanding of Scripture and our understanding of God is perfect?
My advice to brey: if orthodox Christian is paganistic to you, you've made your point. Whether the rest of the folks here agree with you are not, I guess this is quite obvious. If the views of orthodox Christian (as well as that held by the world) offends you, then perhaps you might want to start your own forum and take it from there. NOTE: this is not to say that you are not welcome, it's just that if one feels vehemently about a particular issue that does not agree with the general opinion of a given environment, than continual exposition on this topic is not helpful to promote fellowship among Christians (and in some ways, some friendly non-Christians as well) (and I apologise to you for the term "Christian" that may offend you). I have said this to other folks who do not agree with the mandate and the life-choice of the Christians in EH. In some ways, now, you are no different from, say, the agnostics or atheists who turn up at EH to rant.
My advice to laoda: please refrain from name calling lah! Not helpful. -
is that true? the early Christians were pretty much confused, with different sources / people saying different things. They had no clear idea on many things and some of their rituals were also pagan in nature.Originally posted by Icemoon:The only differences are in the Catholic Church.
Ironically, from another perspective, the doctrines of the Word-Faith churches are resembling the early church .. with all the miracles, healings and such.
and also, due to the culture and literacy back then, they relied on oral tradition more, no? -
today Christians also pretty much confused .. with different churches/pastors saying different things. They have no clear idea on non-essential things of the Christian faith and some of their rituals are also pagan in nature (as confirmed by Brey).Originally posted by ben1xy:is that true? the early Christians were pretty much confused, with different sources / people saying different things. They had no clear idea on many things and some of their rituals were also pagan in nature. -
No, they rely on oral instructions. It is much agreed in conservative Christian circle that most of the gospels and the Pauline epistles were already in circulation within one generation of Jesus.Originally posted by ben1xy:and also, due to the culture and literacy back then, they relied on oral tradition more, no? -
that's y u need the Catholic ChurchOriginally posted by Icemoon:today Christians also pretty much confused .. with different churches/pastors saying different things. They have no clear idea on non-essential things of the Christian faith and some of their rituals are also pagan in nature (as confirmed by Brey).
jokes aside, with different churches saying different things, etc. is that a good or bad thing in the eyes of protestant. From my frame of reference, i would think that wouldn't it be better to have consistency? but then again, i'm Catholic thereby explaining my biasness -
my bad, i meant oral instruction not tradition. even then, solar scriptura wasn't practised among the early Christians. and that's a huge difference wouldn't u say?Originally posted by Icemoon:No, they rely on oral instructions. It is much agreed in conservative Christian circle that most of the gospels and the Pauline epistles were already in circulation within one generation of Jesus. -
Ideally, this is a good scenario - one church, one doctrine.Originally posted by ben1xy:jokes aside, with different churches saying different things, etc. is that a good or bad thing in the eyes of protestant. From my frame of reference, i would think that wouldn't it be better to have consistency? but then again, i'm Catholic thereby explaining my biasness
Unfortunately due to the difference in opinion on how one sees scripture, plus the ability to convince (and sometimes confuse), church leaders had taken the liberty to emphasize different interpretation of teachings in the Bible. Many of such church leaders are suppose to be mature Christians who may see themselves being closer to God than others. As such, such perceived closeness will lead to a misconception that whatever they see (or assume to see) is a vision from God. More often than not, such interpretation is a reinforcement of person beliefs that may not have been formed spiritually.
At the end of the day, the battle is not for God, but for which doctrine is perceptively more superior (and perhaps more righteous in the eye of "God") -
my personal opinion is, both are just as guilty.
Brey, on theological stance point, is not totally wrong, even though at times, the way he put forward his intentions are both confusing and also provocative as well.
But, when think deeper, he is not totally wrong. That's why the very begining, when he started this thread, my msg to him is to simplify and make clear his meaning and purpose, which is
1) Salvation by faith in Christ alone
2) Live a life pleasing to God
Point 2 is where the real debate should be and its more on the "How?" question.
Laoda, on the other hand jumps in and starts debating on step 1 instead, also known as barking up the wrong tree, hence the frustrations and name calling.
back to Step 2,
There is no right or wrong answer to this question, if one were to think it through natural logic.
Its like a Father and his children relationship (natural). The older son wants to please the father by following all the house rules set by the father (following the commandments).
The second son wants to please him by going around showing interest and doing what he is doing (bible study and good works).
The third son just simply do it by putting his entire trust in him and just rest in his goodness (faith of a little child).
....etc (you can think of more examples yourself....)
To the Father, he is equally please with them, why? its the heart attitude that counts, its why they are doing what they are doing that's more important.
Personally, the same is with God, Its our heart attitude towards Him that more important to Him, and not just what we do.
cheers... -
but those oral instructions were biblical.Originally posted by ben1xy:my bad, i meant oral instruction not tradition. even then, solar scriptura wasn't practised among the early Christians. and that's a huge difference wouldn't u say? -
On following the commandments.
Are we expected to follow/obey? what then is the attitude when doing so?
yes.
When I give an instruction to my daughter, I expect her to follow/obey. so I guess, the same is with God do expect us to follow them.
When I give an instruction to my daughter (like "go wash your hands before you eat"), when her response is a cheerful, "yes, daddy", I am already pleased before she even actually go do it, why? because it shows that she trusted me.
What happens if she make a mistake, like forget to turn off the tap in this case (she have yet to be able to turn it off fully yet). I will just finish the job for her, the part where she is willing is enough for me.
Personally,
1)the same is with God, He is our loving Father (not a horrible tyrant), when he gives instructions (commandments) to us, can we like that of a little child trust that what He have for us is good for us? can we trust that He have our best interest at heart? personally I believe our response shows how we see Him.
2) Having a willing heart and a right attitude is already pleasing to God, whether or not we managed to do it right or perfectly is not really the issue
3) Where we falls short (and we will most likely falls short), know that there is grace through Christ, and there will be enough grace to help us through (or in some case, fills the gap for us).
To conclude: In my humble personal opinion;
Our Heart Attitude towards God is more important than the things we wants to do for Him. Having a Right Attitude is more important than just doing the Right Thing.
cheers
-
practises like confession and the Eucharist were wide-spread then. doesn't that seem a tad Catholic?Originally posted by Icemoon:but those oral instructions were biblical.
also, Paul wrote so many letters to correct the different communities? surely that was because what they were doing was unbiblical right? -
The points 1 and 2 are good, pure and simple.Originally posted by vince69:my personal opinion is, both are just as guilty.
Brey, on theological stance point, is not totally wrong, even though at times, the way he put forward his intentions are both confusing and also provocative as well.
But, when think deeper, he is not totally wrong. That's why the very begining, when he started this thread, my msg to him is to simplify and make clear his meaning and purpose, which is
1) Salvation by faith in Christ alone
2) Live a life pleasing to God
The provocation on the part of brey stems from the fact that in his preferences to use the more traditional name of God and the implication that this is the right way (plus the use of more traditional names like Shaul instead of Saul), plus the insistence of returning to Hebraic (Yeshua-ordained) roots. This stand, for a start, irks people who may have a less traditional inclination. Does it shake any's faith if I choose to use "Pao Luor" instead of "Paul"?
Having said all that, I do not think that brey's theological stand point is merely the points 1 and 2 stated here.
-
this is what sometimes scares me and accounts for some of the Christian terrorist grps in the statesOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Many of such church leaders are suppose to be mature Christians who may see themselves being closer to God than others. As such, such perceived closeness will lead to a misconception that whatever they see (or assume to see) is a vision from God. More often than not, such interpretation is a reinforcement of person beliefs that may not have been formed spiritually.
At the end of the day, the battle is not for God, but for which doctrine is perceptively more superior (and perhaps more righteous in the eye of "God")