Fraternizing with the enemy.

[Lighthearted]

Well, the word balance comes to mind.

I agree that we should not compromise when it comes to standing in His truth. I just think we need to always chk ourselves in making sure our stance and delivery expresses the grace, humility, and dignity He tells us to extend, hoping to help others see the light. After all, doing anything else, once again, compromises His truth. Our goal should always be efficacious, getting somewhere, and edifying. I don't know about you, but if the delivery and tone of the matter is done with zero respect, lacking humility, showing only excess of arrogance, the credibility of the content is diminished along with the one lacking the self control in his or her approach. I intentionally consider, even tend to pick, the fruits that come from a healthy branch. I'm not suggesting that we tolerate everything or that if something is packaged pretty it is pretty. I just think we should choose our battles wisely, sometimes it is best to walk away and pray about it, before we approach a matter. I just think going in swinging, full of volatility and unkindness, the sound wisdom that goes with a sound mind gets lost in translation.

Well said

 

[Hamilton]

The only thing I would say is beneficial when it comes to particularly name "branded" churches is a basic ability to understand the basics they teach without ever gracing the door....and even then we are starting to see that name means nothing.....I personally know, through a friend, a particular charismatic group that PURPOSELY used a different denominational name so as to attract more people for services....they were in a town big on being a vacation spot with visitors to the town every day......

The bible was clear...the church AT (associated with a town or home met in) and no particular name what soever at all....of course some like to use two sayings in the bible to "SUPPORT" their religious brand....erroneously I might add........

I have seen cases in a similar way, of cessationists mission oriented churches change the name so persons do not see what denomination they really are.

The problem with the contextual naming of the Churches in the Bible is that places were not that big back then. Now a huge city has so many regions, so even if you mention the name of the city, you would probably have to specify the subregion too.

When persons ask about my denomination I tell them I fly the "Jesus Christ" flag, so that makes me Christian, plain and simple, and they are baffled.

I can have koinonia with almost any denomination, but I would not consider myself a member of any. I think most denominations have good things to offer to the world, but I do not see denominationism in the Bible per se.

 

[Hamilton]

Non-denominational Thoughts:


A. A denomination is a group of christians, or churches, with the same doctrinal beliefs.

B. If you are "non-denominational" you still adhere to some set of doctrinal beliefs, of some kind.

C. If you adhere to a set of doctrinal beliefs, then you either AGREE WITH SOME DENOMINATION, or you ARE ESSENTIAlLY A NEW DENOMINATION.

D. So you end up back in the same place... non-denominational churches are still a denomination.



Just something to think about.


...
...

In theory what you have posted makes sense. But then reality kicks in: I am shocked when I read about a denomination and it talks about the founder of it (or founders).

So now human personality enters the picture (cult of personality maybe?), If you ask me who founded the Church, I would immediately say Jesus Christ 2k+ years, and with the Holy Spirit too all under the Father.

Some human founding the church? almost sacrilegious. So it starts... human systems, human teams, human decisions, etc. and they want to call that Jesus' Church? not quite.

 

[Hamilton]

It appears two thirds of Paul's instructions to Timothy in his ministry would be construed as negative and/or combative, especially by today's standards; 2 Timothy 4:2. Take a close look at the definitions of reprove, rebuke, exhort. That really doesn't happen in ministries today, or it is at the very least rare.

It is probably high time with the current status quo to not soften this admonition and imperative of Paul. Christianity isn't a free for all on what you want to believe, nor is Scripture subjective to our own private interpretations that undermine orthodoxy. Positivity isn't the Gospel, the Gospel is the Gospel, not warm fuzzies and niceties.

People want to be told positive things, they want to be made to feel good, and those who preach the truth are frankly not liked. Just look at how the prophets in the OT were treated. Jeremiah for example, told to go preach, did so, was beaten. When he was released he didn't just walk away, he began preaching the same message immediately. So did Paul and other apostles. They were relentless, and I pray God so am I.

Recently I heard a preacher ridicule theology, and mock the fact God had a hidden mystery that was revealed in the NT. He quoted a verse as if that neutralized this truth. Wonder what that says to his flock?

The fact is we live in a watered down, weak, compromising time in the "church." Pews have to be full, don't want to offend anyone, have to keep the money coming in, so they tell the people what they want to hear, exactly what Paul said would come (2 Timothy 4) is here now.

Note also 2 Timothy 3 describing the apostates. Not a "nice" list and I guarantee you if these things were preached, many Christians would be quite upset and see nothing wrong with being "lovers of self," "lovers of pleasure more than God," "boastful" &c. These things were written about professing believers, not the world at large (2 Timothy 3).

I'd be careful in assuming when debate or apologetics is being done in the flesh by others, or that they should walk away, or that it is ugly because we don't happen to like the way it's going. This is why I say this, something for you to consider: I wonder, was Jesus in the flesh in Luke 11:37-54 when invited over for lunch? Was Paul in the flesh in Galatians when he stood, vehemently, against the Judaizers, condemning them to hell, Galatians 1:8-10? There is also Jude, Christ in Revelation (and the OT), then there are Elijah and others. Of course I'm being rhetorical as to the "were they in the flesh" statement.

My apologies to you if my stance, methods, manners have offended you or made you feel I'm in the flesh. I do however know what is at stake, and will defend the Gospel and Scripture against assaults. I was at one time influenced by a false truncated gospel and new something was not right, and God took me on quite a journey.

Taking a look around just on here we see all this; assaults on the Gospel, on the character of God, on Scripture, denial of the Triune God, denial of Christ's Deity, propagation of hyper-grace heresy, Universalism, works salvation, and the false gospel of free will yourself into heaven. Some of these, not all, who teach these outright heresies are frankly not believers. Scripture will back that up.

I'm probably going to make certain, as long as the LORD is willing, to combat all those teachings with contextual and exegetically interpreted Scripture. Probably over and again as a warning to others. It might get hairy at times.

Nice write up, much to think about but then I look at Scripture and wonder:

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

Where has the power of God gone? if it was present, maybe the world would pay more attention.

 

[Hamilton]

Well, most women are of a gentler spirit.

Something else along these lines that is biblical. The gentler approach appears directed at those outside who oppose themselves. Biblically, those professing to being believers received the rebukes, the reproofs, the seemingly harsher treatment. I get it though, they should.

There was not a gentler spirit than that of Jesus, yet Being at the same time the very Commander in Chief of the Hosts of God. Revelation 6:2, Revelation 19:11.

 

[Hamilton]

My definition of a cult is when you claim everyone else is wrong and is on that slippery slope to hell. We are the only true path...
Nothing there about what that path is , just what everyone else is not on it.

I have read mainline denominations affirming the following: "The Church is the hope of the world", also "the sheep hear the shepherd and follow him, you Pastor are the shepherd, and the sheep have to follow you".

Then I have read groups on the very fringe of the orthodoxy envelope in the way of: The only nonnegotiable in Christianity is:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Then explaining that only Jesus Christ is the hope and savior of the world, and only Jesus Christ is the Shepherd to be followed.

If we look closely, the ones fostering lies and encouraging cult of personality are the ones in the former case.

Then the latter seem to be advocating for the narrow way, and do seem in light of Scripture to be showing the true path.

Just an observation for further research, reflection and comment.

 

[Hamilton]

'Love" Was Not The Core of Jesus' Message
Sadly, the average person thinks Jesus' main message was about love. While it is true that love figured prominently in His message, it was not the core of his proclamation and certainly wasn't what got Him crucified. Neither the Romans nor the Jewish authorities would have been particularly bothered by a Jewish prophet who ran around telling people to love God and love people.
In a nutshell, Jesus' message is summarized in Mark's description of His ministry. (Emphasis Added)

• Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15 NASB)

In fact, Jesus never stopped talking about the "kingdom of God", which phrase is used over 50 times in the four Gospels alone. Matthew, however, used it only four times, apparently preferring the synonymous "kingdom of heaven", which occurs 32 times in his book. This coming kingdom was not only at the heart of many of Jesus' parables (likened to a mustard seed, a pearl of great price, a banquet given by a king, etc), but He even said that the proclamation of the Kingdom was the reason He was sent to earth.

• But He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose." (Luke 4:43 NASB)

Unfortunately, most people, including most Christians, are absolutely in the dark about what the Scriptures mean by the phrase kingdom of God/Heaven.

Churinga, can you elaborate on what you understand Kingdom of God / heaven is, entails, means, etc.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

SCIENTOLOGY is a cult. Totally outside of ANY Christian doctrine it focuses on saving the world through lifestyles...and by force if necessary. Their 'god' is Xenu, a sort of space creature who put men on this earth.

Their "bible" are the writings of L Ron Hubbard which can end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to his followers.

The founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, began his "career" as a science fiction writer, and was know to say that the way to get rich is to found a religion. And so he did, and so he became rich.

This particular cult is evil to the core, abusing both adults and children, calling it "disiplin

 

[GraceAndTruth]

And women are NOT to teach, except other women.

TITUS 2
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Female pastors and teachers, or those attempting to take authority within churches, are IN VIOLATION of Scripture. So we already have a problem here.

And yet God made DEBORAH a JUDGE when men did not step up to responsibility.
Prescilla along with Aquila corrected Paul.

Personally I would never sit under the teaching of a woman who called herself a "Pastor", but I know women who could put most men to shame in knowledge of the scriptures, even some pastors.

 

[Nehemiah6]

And yet God made DEBORAH a JUDGE when men did not step up to responsibility.

But Deborah was NOT a teacher, and bringing her up in this context is totally irrelevant.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

But Deborah was NOT a teacher, and bringing her up in this context is totally irrelevant.

You probably think all women are irrelevant.

 

[maxwel]

In theory what you have posted makes sense. But then reality kicks in: I am shocked when I read about a denomination and it talks about the founder of it (or founders).

So now human personality enters the picture (cult of personality maybe?), If you ask me who founded the Church, I would immediately say Jesus Christ 2k+ years, and with the Holy Spirit too all under the Father.

Some human founding the church? almost sacrilegious. So it starts... human systems, human teams, human decisions, etc. and they want to call that Jesus' Church? not quite.

"I am shocked when I read about a denomination and it talks about the founder of it."
"Some human founding the church? almost sacrilegious."


This is a non-issue; it is well-intended, but it's a well-intended straw man argument.
Denominational names constitute nothing more extraordinary than a bunch of humans just dealing with ordinary, practical matters.

1. In the 1st century, in the book of Acts, there were already groups of Christians with differing views on non-essential doctrines.

2. This is not new, it's not weird, it's right in the Bible, and sometimes in the Bible it was perfectly fine.
(Sometimes it was fine because the issues were so small, and other times it was fine because the divisions between groups actually accelerated the spread of the gospel.)

3. If, after 2 millennia, we have many groups differing on non-essentials, they NEED to be distinguished, and distinguished by NAME, for simple practicality... they NEED different names so we can tell them apart or discuss them intelligently.

4. There is nothing odd about naming a group of doctrinal adherents after an early proponent of that doctrine... again, this is just simple practicality. They have to be called SOMETHING or they can't be distinguished from other groups.

5. All Christian denominations know their foundation is Christ, and their Lord is Christ... there is nothing sacrilegious about giving a denomination some particular title to distinguish it from other denominations. This is just being practical.

6. If tomorrow you took all the names off all the denominations, by the end of the day people would label all of them again with brand new labels - different denominations have different views, and therefore it is simply a PRACTICAL and NECESSARY MATTER that we distinguish them from each other.

7. Founders: No one believes the founder of their denomination claimed to be the founder of "the church."
A. No founder of any denomination has ever claimed to have "founded the church."
B. I also don't know of any denominational founder who even CHOSE to put his own name on the group, it's always done by others - often by detractors.

Conclusion:
1. Making a fuss about denominational names is really a non-issue.
2. No founders of denominations have claimed to be "founders of the church", and I don't think any of them even chose to put their own name on their group.
3. Denominations NEED a label of some kind, as they need to be distinguished from each other for sheer practicality.
4. Differences about non-essential doctrines were already appearing in the books of Acts, and often accomplished great providential ends... so this whole issue is nothing new, shocking, or even problematic.

As Christians, we want to address anything that seems odd or unbiblical, and that's a proper intention... but not everything which at first seems odd is genuinely a problem.

...

 

[Nehemiah6]

You probably think all women are irrelevant.

No. But they are irrelevant when it comes to church leadership, and preaching and teaching within the assembly. And this is according to Scripture.

 

[Embankment]

From the book of Mark

People of note who recognized Jesus as the Messiah without doubt.
Even the 12 doubted Jesus.

Women with flow of Blood

Woman with daughter that had an unclean spirit


The poor widow recognized by Jesus as showing true faith by giving all.

Women who anointed Jesus head

Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene to tell others of his resurrection.

The Bible says We can be taught from females if we would only listen.

 

[Hamilton]

"I am shocked when I read about a denomination and it talks about the founder of it."
"Some human founding the church? almost sacrilegious."


This is a non-issue; it is well-intended, but it's a well-intended straw man argument.
Denominational names constitute nothing more extraordinary than a bunch of humans just dealing with ordinary, practical matters.

1. In the 1st century, in the book of Acts, there were already groups of Christians with differing views on non-essential doctrines.

2. This is not new, it's not weird, it's right in the Bible, and sometimes in the Bible it was perfectly fine.
(Sometimes it was fine because the issues were so small, and other times it was fine because the divisions between groups actually accelerated the spread of the gospel.)

3. If, after 2 millennia, we have many groups differing on non-essentials, they NEED to be distinguished, and distinguished by NAME, for simple practicality... they NEED different names so we can tell them apart or discuss them intelligently.

4. There is nothing odd about naming a group of doctrinal adherents after an early proponent of that doctrine... again, this is just simple practicality. They have to be called SOMETHING or they can't be distinguished from other groups.

5. All Christian denominations know their foundation is Christ, and their Lord is Christ... there is nothing sacrilegious about giving a denomination some particular title to distinguish it from other denominations. This is just being practical.

6. If tomorrow you took all the names off all the denominations, by the end of the day people would label all of them again with brand new labels - different denominations have different views, and therefore it is simply a PRACTICAL and NECESSARY MATTER that we distinguish them from each other.

7. Founders: No one believes the founder of their denomination claimed to be the founder of "the church."
A. No founder of any denomination has ever claimed to have "founded the church."
B. I also don't know of any denominational founder who even CHOSE to put his own name on the group, it's always done by others - often by detractors.

Conclusion:
1. Making a fuss about denominational names is really a non-issue.
2. No founders of denominations have claimed to be "founders of the church", and I don't think any of them even chose to put their own name on their group.
3. Denominations NEED a label of some kind, as they need to be distinguished from each other for sheer practicality.
4. Differences about non-essential doctrines were already appearing in the books of Acts, and often accomplished great providential ends... so this whole issue is nothing new, shocking, or even problematic.

As Christians, we want to address anything that seems odd or unbiblical, and that's a proper intention... but not everything which at first seems odd is genuinely a problem.

...

Interesting maxwel, thanks for sharing.

While what you describe is what ideally should be, in real life, is not the norm but the exception.

Most groups do identify a person (s) as founders of the church (maybe referring to the first building of the denomination), and it just happens that many times because of a particular interpretation of what is considered a key element in the particular religious context.

Not only that, but the attributes, perceived qualities, etc. of the founder (s), are tacitly encouraged to be emulated by all in the new formed group (or at least by the leadership).

Just a rough example (me not being a historical expert): Calvin...

Did he want a reformation of the Church (usually done from the inside), or did he want something new and totally different?

So on he goes with his humanistic approach (not modern type): ad fontes. And all in that new tradition follow that route. What they sometimes forget, is that Religious leaders in Jesus' times were master blaster Hebrew language experts that knew Scripture left and right pat, and also master blasters legalistic rule followers, etc.

Yet they totally missed it: Scholasticism of original languages without the Holy Spirit, does not serve well.
Outward conformance with prescriptions is what Jesus' charge was: without the love of God in the heart and the weightier matters of the law, all that is useless.

Stephen the deacon said it well: "You as your fathers always resist the Holy Spirit" [rough paraphrase] and I add: and it is in Him (H.S.) where it is at.

Scholasticism has been accused of promoting a "heresy of the heart": they take the map of the terrain (Bible, confessions, creeds, etc.) and put it above the terrain itself: God's true reality (which is ultimate) .

A man of God was near a river. He experienced the visit of an heavenly being, who gave him a message. Some bystanders just heard a loud noise and got scared and fled away.

Who had the right perception of the event? the man of God of course, and why was he able to perceive right? because of the Holy Spirit in his life of course.

So moving in the dimension of the Holy Spirit is key to be able to understand, and act as per God's will related to our partícula context.

Yet Calvin pushed cessationism of higher gifts of the Holy Spirit, and a whole bunch of people followed. To me is like idolatry of a sincerely mistaken person, but that replicates a wrong worldview.

Heresy of the heart may lead to many other problems, like the partake or malicious intention of terminating with innocent life (can you spell Servetus?), and supposedly in name of what? man invented orthodoxy?

Any creature with some sense in them, knows that the only fully orthodox being in the Universe is God, and anyone else has but a poor contextual understanding of His reality and His message in the Bible.

Now I write this as a non expert that likes to analyze and observe, the best conjecture given the available data, and do so for further research, reflection and comment, not to polemicize.

 

[maxwel]

Interesting maxwel, thanks for sharing.

While what you describe is what ideally should be, in real life, is not the norm but the exception.

Most groups do identify a person (s) as founders of the church (maybe referring to the first building of the denomination), and it just happens that many times because of a particular interpretation of what is considered a key element in the particular religious context.

Not only that, but the attributes, perceived qualities, etc. of the founder (s), are tacitly encouraged to be emulated by all in the new formed group (or at least by the leadership).

Just a rough example (me not being a historical expert): Calvin...

Did he want a reformation of the Church (usually done from the inside), or did he want something new and totally different?

So on he goes with his humanistic approach (not modern type): ad fontes. And all in that new tradition follow that route. What they sometimes forget, is that Religious leaders in Jesus' times were master blaster Hebrew language experts that knew Scripture left and right pat, and also master blasters legalistic rule followers, etc.

Yet they totally missed it: Scholasticism of original languages without the Holy Spirit, does not serve well.
Outward conformance with prescriptions is what Jesus' charge was: without the love of God in the heart and the weightier matters of the law, all that is useless.

Stephen the deacon said it well: "You as your fathers always resist the Holy Spirit" [rough paraphrase] and I add: and it is in Him (H.S.) where it is at.

Scholasticism has been accused of promoting a "heresy of the heart": they take the map of the terrain (Bible, confessions, creeds, etc.) and put it above the terrain itself: God's true reality (which is ultimate) .

A man of God was near a river. He experienced the visit of an heavenly being, who gave him a message. Some bystanders just heard a loud noise and got scared and fled away.

Who had the right perception of the event? the man of God of course, and why was he able to perceive right? because of the Holy Spirit in his life of course.

So moving in the dimension of the Holy Spirit is key to be able to understand, and act as per God's will related to our partícula context.

Yet Calvin pushed cessationism of higher gifts of the Holy Spirit, and a whole bunch of people followed. To me is like idolatry of a sincerely mistaken person, but that replicates a wrong worldview.

Heresy of the heart may lead to many other problems, like the partake or malicious intention of terminating with innocent life (can you spell Servetus?), and supposedly in name of what? man invented orthodoxy?

Any creature with some sense in them, knows that the only fully orthodox being in the Universe is God, and anyone else has but a poor contextual understanding of His reality and His message in the Bible.

Now I write this as a non expert that likes to analyze and observe, the best conjecture given the available data, and do so for further research, reflection and comment, not to polemicize.

I think what I stated reflects reality very accurately...
if you consider only what I explicitly stated.

Your rebuttal actually veers off into different (though related) issues which I never addressed.

Thanks for responding so politely.

...

 

[MattforJesus]

Introduction
In the spirit of our overly tolerant, anything goes society, we tend to look on confrontation as something to be avoided at all cost., but the Bible's instructions on how to deal with those who teach and practice false doctrine in the church are very explicit.

**link removed**

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

2Ti 3:4 lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Some people say they cannot abstain from sin, and sin does not affect their relationship with God, but if they hate sin, and do not want sin, by the Spirit they can abstain from sin, so why do they say that.

They have a form of godliness, but deny being led of the Spirit, and believe they are right with God despite holding unto sin, which they will hold unto sin for they say they cannot abstain from sin.

The Bible says turn away from such people.

1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The love of money is the root of all evil for it neglects the poor and needy, which many people believe in the prosperity Gospel, and that God blesses with money, and material things, for their wants, above their needs, and they enjoy the world as the world enjoys it, in money, and material things, and worldly entertainment.

And there are millions of people who claim Christ who do this, which the Bible says if they preach that withdraw yourselves from them.

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

No. But they are irrelevant when it comes to church leadership, and preaching and teaching within the assembly. And this is according to Scripture.

yes, never disagreed with that scripture but you calling women IRRELEVANT is insulting to women. I'm sure you could come up with a better word to describe objection to women assuming leadership roles. Irrelevant is a perfectly good word, but still..........

 

[Hamilton]

I think what I stated reflects reality very accurately...
if you consider only what I explicitly stated.

Your rebuttal actually veers off into different (though related) issues which I never addressed.

Thanks for responding so politely.

...

Do not get me wrong maxwel, I think what you wrote is very illustrative, but seldom are break ups in groups due to non essentials.

The splits are precisely because what groups consider very essential.

To be clear, I think Calvin is important, has much to teach us, but it looks like some people do not see the big picture here:

Jesus died for us (not Calvin), we are to be Christlike (not Calvinlike), Jesus came to baptize us with the Holy Spirit (not teach us original language exegesis [although is very important]), Augustine was the first to suggest cessationism, and he had to take it back because of the amount of miracles happening in the place he gathered with other believers to worship.

Calvin seems did not get that take back from Augustine. And kept pushing cessationism.

Magdalene had to have 7 unclean spirits expelled from her before she could become a disciple, the Bible tells us that in end times there were going to be people worse than her, so what is the Kingdom of God about? the finger of God expelling unclean spirits so that persons can be free to truly hold on to Christ.

This is the heavy stuff that divides, if all were non-essential, there would even not be break ups.

I am polite because I respect you, and because the fruit of the Holy Spirit has to show in us.

I am not pushing for any denomination in particular because I think most have good things to offer. But I do encourage for all to acknowledge God's reality, the Kingdom of God is His finger doing wonders (Holy Spirit, and His gifts to us), they can continue in their denomination, but do not deny the supernatural.

God's natural reality is supernatural to us because we are living in a fallen one. His reality is perfect. When He visits us then supernatural things happen (the imperfect gets fixed) because of His love for us His adopted children.

Both scholasticism (fine rational function), and Holy Spirit realm experience are needed (Paul was a perfect example of the mix).

Kind regards.

 

[YDo]

I'm arriving in this discussion when people are discussing what they have posted as their own thoughts. Churinga , the link in your discussion starter post was removed making it impossible to respond from the perspective of having read it. Do you have a link that would be approved and pertains to your original question?