 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
bitterlily
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Diane wrote: | | What I'm trying to say is that it seems to me that the teachings of most pastors/ministers in the church emphasize works of the believer (for blessings/salvation) rather than emphasizing Jesus's latter revelation to Paul (you will do greater works after Me...He said) who preached first comes faith/belief by God's choosing and by His grace.....then flows the works from love. |
IMHO pastors/ministers in the church emphasize a lot of things that they shouldn't!!! And neglect a lot of things that they shouldn't!!! For example, they emphasize the 10% tithe of the OT and neglect the free-will offering of the NT and the redistribution amongst the believers of those offerings:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that any of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 4:32-35
AND DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE UNTO EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS HE HAD NEED!!!!!!
Note that the Shadow of Pentecost in the OT (a.k.a. Feast of Weeks) mentions a Free-will offering:
And you shall keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD your God with a tribute of a freewill offering of your hand, which you shall give unto the LORD your God, according as the LORD your God has blessed you: Deuteronomy 16:10
I'm not entirely certain that this free-will offering foreshadows the generosity shown by grace-filled believers in Acts 4:32-35. But even if it doesn't, I can't see how churches can deny the fact that these verses in Acts describe a free-will offering and not an obligatory 10% tithe.
Do you know of any churches who follow this example? Coz I don't! 
| Quote: | | I'm seeing us (believers) as clay in the Potter's Hand. Can the pot say to the Potter - why did you make me like this? He is the treasure in earthen vessels. For we are His handiwork. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | The following are some of the differences that I'm seeing in a possible explanation of two gospels: |
The more I look at these lists Di the more I am confused and a little troubled!  It honestly seems like the person who created these 2 lists, started with a preconceived notion that the Bible teaches 2 gospels and has then randomly selected Scriptures to support his view. I honestly think these 2 lists are reconcilable but it may take us a few posts to do it.
When I first started this study I had intended on writing several posts but after I finished the first one my mind went totally blank.  And I've been waiting ever since for some inspiration to come but it hasn't. Well not through me anyway!  So I'm happy if you are, to work with these lists coz I reckon there are some shadows in them. Here are some of my thoughts on the first 3:
| Quote: | Peter called in Israel (Mt. 4:18)
Paul called outside Israel (Acts 9:3) |
Note that Peter (John & others) were unlearned men sent to the Israelites:
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. Acts 4:13
While Paul was a learned man (Pharisee) sent to the Gentiles. Personally I think there was great wisdom in why God ordained it to be like this. For example, notice how in the above verses they were all learned men marveling at 2 unlearned men and as a result they concluded that their wisdom had come through their association with Jesus:
And it came to pass on the next day, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have you done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, You rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, Acts 4:5-8
What a powerful witness to the Learned!
Paul on the other hand, an ex-Pharisee leaves his highly regarded seat amongst his peers to proclaim the Good News of Salvation to the Gentiles he once had nothing to do with.
What a powerful witness to the unlearned!
It is also understandable imo that the following situation occurred and concluded with Paul having to confront Peter:
But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed. For before certain men came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And the other Jews joined likewise with him; so that Barnabas also was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:11-16
I think it is understandable why Peter fell into this hypocrisy having been so accustomed to being taught by the circumcision rather than teaching them.
Imagine growing up in a church all your life and then being sent by God to be your pastor's teacher! 
I think it would be comforting to have an ex-pastor of the same church remind you of your duties to God to teach your pastor. This is the same way that I look at this situation between Paul and Peter. Paul was used to being a teacher; Peter wasn't and was in need of Paul's encouragement.
| Quote: | Proclaimed among Israelites (Js. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1)
Proclaimed among the nations (Eph. 3:8) |
Note that Jesus was reported as saying:
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles(nations), and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she cries after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:23-24
Note that although Jesus told his 12 disciples to only preach the gospel to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He showed them by example with the Canaanite Woman (and others) that He would graft many Gentiles into the Olive Tree (Romans 11:16-36). Peter's job was to assist the Lord in grafting in the natural branches (ISRAEL) that had been broken off while Paul's job was to assist the Lord in grafting in the wild branches (GENTILES).
_________________
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:37-38
As a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters. Son 2:2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JB
Lion King
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 1036
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bitterlily,
It seems as if, most ministers and Church leaders are indoctrinated by the Church rather than taught by the Spirit. I have no problem with that being a starting point for Pastors but, they have a responsibility to their flock to teach in Spirit and in Truth. In other words, they must not stay there. Often times they do. Unfortunately it leaves many people with a false sense of security. We need to pray that God would raise up leaders among the people that are filled with the Holy Spirit so that we can be led accurately.
As far as the tithe is concerned, that is Old Testament. But, if the truth be known, much more is required of us under Grace than to be under than law. In the Old Testament God called us to give ten percent, in the New Testament God called us to give all. The New Testament in no way gets off the financial hook. With out generous giving, there is no missions. With out generous giving there is no Ministry. With out giving there is no Pastor and teacher who has the time or the energy to devote to Ministry after working all day to support a family.
The emerging Church really falls short of the Biblical mandates.
May God bless you in your struggle for truth.
Always remember the words of Paul. Do not grow weary in well doing for in due time you will reap if you faint not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3368
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Di wrote: | | I would just like to reply to Mojo's comment about puppets. I'm seeing us (believers) as clay in the Potter's Hand. Can the pot say to the Potter - why did you make me like this? He is the treasure in earthen vessels. For we are His handiwork. |
Personally, I think there are a few scriptures that are highly misunderstood and this is one of them. While it is true that God is the potter and can do whatever he wants with the pot, **is** it true that He does do whatever he wants without reason?
Are the vessels made for glory or destruction randomly pulled out of a hat?
Eze 14:23 And they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord GOD.
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Lam 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off for ever:
Lam 3:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
Lam 3:33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
Lam 3:34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,
Lam 3:35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,
Lam 3:36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.
Job 34:23 For he will not lay upon man more [than right]; that he should enter into judgment with God.
Job 34:26 He striketh them as wicked men in the open sight of others;
Job 34:27 Because they turned back from him, and would not consider any of his ways:
To which Paul addresses that in Romans
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
etc.
Isa 64:7 And [there is] none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.
Isa 64:8 ¶ But now, O LORD, thou [art] our father; we [are] the clay, and thou our potter; and we all [are] the work of thy hand.
Is Isaiah saying the work of the Lord's hands was to make us iniquitious through no fault of our own? Why would the Lord do such a thing? Does the potter set out to intentionally make a broken pot? What would be the point?
So to take that scripture without the mountains of other evidence which shows that God does not do whatever he wants, whenever he wants **without** cause, is misleading.
Isa 1:18 ¶ Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Isa 1:19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
Isa 1:20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it].
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bitterlily
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Mo,
| MoJo wrote: | | Is Isaiah saying the work of the Lord's hands was to make us iniquitious through no fault of our own? Why would the Lord do such a thing? Does the potter set out to intentionally make a broken pot? What would be the point? |
I agree with the point you're making and I think this is the same mistake that is made in relation to Esau and Jacob in these verses:
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calls;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. Romans 9:11-16
Doctrine is often established on these verses without taking others into consideration. For example:
Thus says the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom (Esau), and for four, I will not turn away punishment; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever: Amos 1:11
Looking diligently lest any man fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any immoral, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Hebrews 12:15-17
To suggest that Esau was immoral because God made him that way is not accurate:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of HIS OWN LUST, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:13-17
My personal view on this is that all of humanity would be Esau if God hadn't purposed to show mercy and grace. I see this reflected in these verses:
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Genesis 6:5-8
How is it that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord but no one else in his time did?
Do you think that the scripture says in vain, The spirit that dwells in us lusts to envy? But he gives more grace. Therefore he says, God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. James 4:5-8
Or despise you the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? Romans 2:4
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved by fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Hebrews 11:6-7
Love Lily
_________________
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:37-38
As a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters. Son 2:2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2837
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Diane, the evil heart of Man is shown in that he just can’t give up the temptation of trying to claim some kind of participation in his own salvation. Even if it devolves from becoming saved by doing works into keeping his salvation by doing works or even “proving” his salvation by doing works (even re-defining what “works” means in order to keep his own ego involved).
| Diane wrote: | | Hmmmm......this is something for me to look into. Thanks. |
Well there is the whole James thread I started, along with the older thread “Jesus Paul and the Law” over in Bible Debate, if you’ve not read them yet. I think the entire debate between Faith and Works is directly exemplified in the dispute between Paul and James, and only the hopeless try to reconcile these two out of some misplaced loyalty to the Catholic Bishop who devised the final canon in 362 AD.
| Diane wrote: | | My point is that church teachings over emphasize what "you" must do rather than what God has already done through Christ. Which, imo, squelches Christ's finished work on the cross and sanctification by the power of the Holy Spirit which overshadows the good things to come (the OP). |
EXACTLY what Luther said. EXACTLY.
| Diane wrote: | | To my mind, James' fabrication, as you have informed us, for the most part has been accepted by organized religion over Paul's gospel of grace. |
Which is why the epistle was so EAGERLY accepted into the Catholic Church when they organized the canon of the New Testament.
Most non-Catholics do not realize just how radical Luther’s reformation was. Under Catholic theology Grace covers ONLY what one cannot achieve through good works to get into heaven. Good works take you only so far, and Grace makes up for the rest. “Faith” to the Catholic means “THE Faith” which is a statement of all the things a good Catholic must do. THE Faith is comprised of baptism, of confession, of partaking in communion – etc. By Catholic definition, The Faith IS the sacraments of the Church.
So, by Grace are ye saved through Faith means, by God’s Grace he makes up for what you cannot achieve ALONE by your good works through providing the sacraments in which you must participate.
You are saved by Grace through The Faith (i.e. the sacraments).
And from the Catholic definitional framework, they are quite right (that is if you accept their definitions). Luther came to understand that Catholic definitions were wrong, and “Faith” did not mean participation in the Sacraments.
Luther concluded that any good works you do for getting into heaven were by definition selfish, and hence could not qualify as good works. This literally FRIED the Catholic theologian’s brain.
| Diane wrote: | | ...isn't Paul the only one who drew from the OT scriptures concerning the Potter and the clay? |
I’m not sure where you’re going with this one, but on occasion I’ve heard this analogy used to justify God needing to break the heart of the believer time and again, as the bowl or jug would need to be smashed down on the potter’s wheel when a flaw develops. All I can think is that if the potter has to continually re-smash down the clay, then he isn’t a very good potter.
| Diane wrote: | | Yehu wrote: | | Seriously do I NEED to go any further? |
This is possible. |
I meant do I need to go any further to deal with the nonsense about two different plans of salvation for Jew and Gentile.
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2837
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bitterlily wrote: | | AND DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE UNTO EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS HE HAD NEED!!!!!! |
Bitterlily,
I hate to disappoint, but such socialist distribution was done out of irrational emotional exuberance, rather than out of command by the Holy Ghost, and such institutionalized policy bankrupted the church in Jerusalem which is why Paul had to “rob his churches” to send funds to Jerusalem.
1Co 16:1-3 KJV Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. (2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
This was also later addressed by:
2Th 3:10-12 KJV For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (11) For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. (12) Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Luke was just recording what had been done. He wasn’t trying to teach what should be done.
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bitterlily
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Yehu,
| Yehushuan wrote: | | I hate to disappoint, but such socialist distribution was done out of irrational emotional exuberance, rather than out of command by the Holy Ghost... |
May I ask what you base this assertion on?
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Luke was just recording what had been done. He wasn’t trying to teach what should be done. |
True! And he recorded that these offerings were the result of Great Grace being upon them all, not irrational emotional exuberance.
| Quote: | | ...such institutionalized policy bankrupted the church in Jerusalem which is why Paul had to “rob his churches” to send funds to Jerusalem. |
Again, can you tell me what you base this on? Also, how can free-will offerings be classified as an institutionalized policy? It would no longer be free-will would it? Or are you referring to the distribution? And by institutionalized do you mean instituted by the Apostles or someone else? Coz as far as I can tell the distribution policy was instituted by the Apostles:
And in these days, the disciples multiplying, there came a murmuring of the Hellenists at the Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily ministration, and the twelve, having called near the multitude of the disciples, said, `It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables; look out, therefore, brethren, seven men of you who are well testified of, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may set over this necessity, and we to prayer, and to the ministration of the word, will give ourselves continually.' And the thing was pleasing before all the multitude, and they did choose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they did set before the apostles, and they, having prayed, laid on them their hands. Acts 6:1-6 YLT
Also note in the verse you quoted from 1Co 16:1-3 KJV it says:
| Quote: | | ...as God hath prospered him... |
Sounds similar to the free-will offering of Pentecost that I mentioned earlier. Don't you think?:
And you shall keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD your God with a tribute of a freewill offering of your hand, which you shall give unto the LORD your God, according as the LORD your God has blessed you: Deuteronomy 16:10
| Yehushuan wrote: | This was also later addressed by:
2Th 3:10-12 KJV For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (11) For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. (12) Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. |
I don't see how this has anything to do with these offerings or the distribution of them other than the fact that some may have been tempted to live off the generosity of others when they were very capable of working and supporting themselves as well as making a contribution to others who had a legitimate need for it.
Kind Regards
Lily
_________________
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:37-38
As a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters. Son 2:2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2837
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bitterlily wrote: | | True! And he recorded that these offerings were the result of Great Grace being upon them all, not irrational emotional exuberance. |
And just where is this written?
| bitterlily wrote: | | Yehushuan wrote: | | I hate to disappoint, but such socialist distribution was done out of irrational emotional exuberance, rather than out of command by the Holy Ghost... |
May I ask what you base this assertion on? |
The fact that such socialism was not instituted within the churches of Paul. There is nothing in Paul’s epistles to support or promote the behaviour described in Acts 2:44, 45.
And you keep pronouncing that such is to be of one’s FREE WILL yet bemoan that this is not commonly practiced? If such IS of free will, then no one has any right to express complaint when such isn’t done. I’m just as free to NOT do so, without judgement. You can’t have it both ways, that such behaviour is supposed to be exhibited in the church, yet declare that it doesn’t matter one way or the other since it's "free will."
| bitterlily wrote: | | Also, how can free-will offerings be classified as an institutionalized policy? |
Because Paul directed it to be done. That’s what institutionalized policy means. That the person in charge of the institution sets a policy directing something to be done.
| bitterlily wrote: | | as far as I can tell the distribution policy was instituted by the Apostles: |
If you read more closely, the Apostles were trying to NOT get involved with making such policy. By chapter six the realized their mistake of irrational exuberance and were desperate to extricate themselves from trying to run a commune. You read right past it:
“It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables”
Implementing such socialism is directly described as “having left the word of God.”
| bitterlily wrote: | | I don't see how this has anything to do with these offerings or the distribution.. |
That’s because you have a cherished doctrine and don’t want to see the connection. The irrational exuberance in Acts 2 describes a community where all the money that everyone makes is put into a common pot from which then the needs of everybody are paid for. This is communism by perfect definition. Yet Paul wrote that each one should “eat their own bread.” This is a command that stands in direct opposition to holding everything in common as is described in Acts 2:44
Yehu
BTW the scriptural support for “free will offering” is best established by Acts 5:4. Ananias got swept up in the irrational exuberance of communism and paid the price for exercising a measure of conservative wisdom.
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bitterlily
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | bitterlily wrote: | | True! And he recorded that these offerings were the result of Great Grace being upon them all, not irrational emotional exuberance. |
And just where is this written? |
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that any of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 4:31-35
| Yehushuan wrote: | | The fact that such socialism was not instituted within the churches of Paul. |
I had to look up what socialism means coz I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to things like that. 
And from what I can tell, based on the wikipedia's definition, socialism is not the correct label for what I have been saying. So let me just clarify:
| wikipedia wrote: | | Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community |
Does socialism give people the choice to contribute their property for distribution or is it enforced upon them by the community? If socialism is the latter then this is not an accurate label for what I am describing. A prime example of this in Scripture involves the story of Ananias and Saphira:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also knowing it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? and after it was sold, was it not in your own power? why have you conceived this thing in your heart? you have not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and died: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. Acts 5:1-5
| Quote: | | There is nothing in Paul’s epistles to support or promote the behaviour described in Acts 2:44, 45. |
But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it has pleased (G2106) them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints who are at Jerusalem. It has pleased (G2106) them greatly; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in material things. Romans 15:25-27
| Quote: | G2106
εὐδοκέω
eudokeō
Thayer Definition:
1) it seems good to one, is one’s good pleasure
1a) think it good, choose, determine, decide
1b) to do willingly
1c) to be ready to, to prefer, choose rather
2) to be well pleased with, take pleasure in, to be favourably inclined towards one |
| Yehushuan wrote: | | And you keep pronouncing that such is to be of one’s FREE WILL yet bemoan that this is not commonly practiced? |
Bemoan? Had to look that word up too and if I am bemoaning over anything (which I don't think I am) it would not be the lack of Free Will offerings for God knows their are plenty of cheerful givers in the Church. But it would be the absolute lack of distribution of these offerings among the poor of the flock by the elders and pastors. And instead use it to remodel their church (building) or start some new business venture while many of their own poor are struggling to survive while being expected to pay a 10% tithe or face excommunication! I understand that this may not be the experience for all but it was the experience for my mum! I think you're right! I am bemoaning this behaviour by church leaders.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | If such IS of free will, then no one has any right to express complaint when such isn’t done. I’m just as free to NOT do so, without judgement. You can’t have it both ways, that such behaviour is supposed to be exhibited in the church, yet declare that it doesn’t matter one way or the other since it's "free will." |
No complaints about the offerings here! Just the distribution! And please don't think that it's coz I have hopes of receiving a hand out. I am a cheerful giver not a taker and even if churches did start distributing it's offerings amongst it's members I wouldn't qualify coz I'm not a member of one. 
| Yehushuan wrote: | | bitterlily wrote: | | Also, how can free-will offerings be classified as an institutionalized policy? |
Because Paul directed it to be done. That’s what institutionalized policy means. That the person in charge of the institution sets a policy directing something to be done. |
Sorry, I think I had the wrong idea about what an institutionalized policy means. I thought it meant:
"You must give a free-will offering and that's final!!!" 
| Yehushuan wrote: | | bitterlily wrote: | | as far as I can tell the distribution policy was instituted by the Apostles: |
If you read more closely, the Apostles were trying to NOT get involved with making such policy. By chapter six the realized their mistake of irrational exuberance and were desperate to extricate themselves from trying to run a commune. You read right past it:
“It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables” |
No I didn't miss this Yehu and note that this policy is in reference to the DISTRIBUTION not the offerings. The Apostles were not discouraging people from giving but rather stating that they should not leave the word of God to DISTRIBUTE these offerings to those in need. So they appointed 7 men to do it instead. Someone's gotta do it brother! Even in churches today, someone DISTRIBUTES the offerings (or should I say tithes?).
| Yehushuan wrote: | | bitterlily wrote: | | I don't see how this has anything to do with these offerings or the distribution.. |
That’s because you have a cherished doctrine and don’t want to see the connection. |
Nothing is more cherished by me than the truth so don't give up on me too quickly there brother! And if you think about it, I have nothing to gain by holding to it?
(Or do I?) 
Just Kidding!
I'll give up anything for the truth I'm just not sure you have presented it to me...(yet?)
| Quote: | | The irrational exuberance in Acts 2 describes a community where all the money that everyone makes is put into a common pot from which then the needs of everybody are paid for. This is communism by perfect definition. |
Again, please refer to the story of Ananias and Sapphira!:
While it remained, was it not your own? and after it was sold, was it not in your own power?...Acts 5:4
No communism here!
Kind Regards
Lily
_________________
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:37-38
As a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters. Son 2:2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2837
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bitterlily, Surely you don’t expect me to believe that you are ignorant of peer pressure?
Act 4:32 KJV And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
You think you can participate in a movement of irrational exuberance where NONE say that “the things which he possessed was his own,” and YOU’RE going to say, well that’s really mine?
Pardon my broad usage of socialism, perhaps communism ("commonism"?) would be better, but in that the Apostles were pushed into making policy, we more likely have a Biblical form of totalitarianism.
In any event the behaviour of the new believers as described in 4:32 is markedly different than Peter’s view in 5:4 (which I had already mentioned BTW).
I have been in a number of churches where the leadership is not necessarily in touch with how their congregants behave or believe. So on the one hand we have Peter acknowledging that private ownership of money is ok (5:4), but on the other hand we have Luke recording that the multitude believed otherwise and sought to be of one heart that nothing one possessed was his own.
This is a “disconnect.”
Yehu
(I’ll have to write more later, since I’ve run out of time. Sorry  )
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bitterlily
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Bitterlily, Surely you don’t expect me to believe that you are ignorant of peer pressure? |
Not at all brother! Peer pressure is a very real and powerful temptation for the strongest of people and I would certainly make note of it if that's what Luke recorded in Acts, but he didn't! Instead He wrote:
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with BOLDNESS. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that any of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 4:31-35
Note that prior to His crucifixion, Jesus had said to His disciples:
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry you in the city of Jerusalem, until you are endued with power from on high. Luke 24:49
This was the power that transformed Peter from a person proned to peer pressure to a bold and brave proclaimer of the Gospel. Although he did eventually succumb to his old man's weakness in Galatians (2:11-14) and needed a good telling off by Paul to break the peer pressure Peter was feeling from those of the circumcision. Anythings a hard habit to break when you've been doing it all your life.
| Quote: | | You think you can participate in a movement of irrational exuberance where NONE say that “the things which he possessed was his own,” and YOU’RE going to say, well that’s really mine? |
No! I agree with you that peer pressure would be a big problem if indeed it was irrational exuberance by those involved but I honestly don't believe it was. All the verses surrounding this event (imho) testify that it was a work of the Holy Spirit! The only ones who might be worthy of the charge of irrational exuberance is Ananias and Sapphira and look what happened to them as a result. I doubt very much after their deaths that anyone else would be so quick to engage in this type of behaviour. But lets for a moment look a little closer at this story. As far as I can tell, their crime was not that they gave only some of their land but that they wanted to give the impression that they were giving all of it when they weren't. And because of this Peter charged them with LYING to the Holy Spirit! For Peter to have known this He must have been shown by divine revelation OR told by someone who knew the deal. This does not sound like peer pressure to me but rather a desire to get glory for being more generous than they really were.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | (I’ll have to write more later, since I’ve run out of time. Sorry ) |
Sorry I've gotta run now too but I'll write you more later.
Love Lily
_________________
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:37-38
As a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters. Son 2:2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimD
Bear Cub
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 627
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Yehu said: So on the one hand we have Peter acknowledging that private ownership of money is ok (5:4), but on the other hand we have Luke recording that the multitude believed otherwise and sought to be of one heart that nothing one possessed was his own.
This is a “disconnect.” |
Or, could it be that the Holy Spirit was alive and well in all of this and the only disconnect is in your head.
The very same thing happens in anyones heart when by the Holy Spirit they are moved to realize that nothing they own is really theirs and respond to the need of another.
_________________
Anyone can point out a scripture here and there and prove anything they want to believe, but good theology is understanding the message of the gospel as a whole. Sincerely, JimD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2837
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well JimD, who could be surprised that you are so arrogant to disagree with Peter, placing your understanding above his, and then pawn such off as something in my head.
| JimD wrote: | | …moved to realize that nothing they own is really theirs and respond to the need of another. |
| But Peter wrote: | | Act 5:4 KJV Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. |
Son, the disconnect isn’t in my brain.
Darth Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bitterlily
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 398
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Pardon my broad usage of socialism, perhaps communism ("commonism"?) would be better, but in that the Apostles were pushed into making policy, we more likely have a Biblical form of totalitarianism. |
Totalitarianism??? Not even close brother!
You keep saying that the Apostles were pushed into making policy and lets for a moment assume that you are right. What was the policy regarding? Distribution of Donations (offerings)? Note that if there was something wrong about the giving of these offerings surely the Apostles would not have created a policy that encouraged their distribution. Instead they would have discouraged people from making such donations in the first place, wouldn't they? But we don't see this and nowhere is it recorded in Scripture that they discouraged such generosity.
| Quote: | | In any event the behaviour of the new believers as described in 4:32 is markedly different than Peter’s view in 5:4 (which I had already mentioned BTW). |
How so? Peter said:
While it remained, was it not your own? and after it was sold, was it not in your own power?...
Is it not possible that Peter's statement here was just as applicable to the 4:32 believers? That while it remained it was their own and after they sold it, it was in their power BUT they chose (by the Grace of God) to relinquish their ownership rights and distribute their property amongst their brethren. IOW nobody forced them!!! They did it out of their own free will!!! I don't understand what is so hard to believe about this?
| Quote: | | I have been in a number of churches where the leadership is not necessarily in touch with how their congregants behave or believe. So on the one hand we have Peter acknowledging that private ownership of money is ok (5:4), but on the other hand we have Luke recording that the multitude believed otherwise and sought to be of one heart that nothing one possessed was his own. |
I think we call it Charity brother!! The right to private ownership also means the right to give it away if one chooses to do so (although the reciever has to pay tax these days). The 4:32 believers exercised this right while they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and great Grace was upon them all!!!
| Quote: | | This is a “disconnect.” |
A disconnect from what brother? Certainly not the Holy Spirit or the Grace of God! The only disconnection I see here is between believers and their need to accumulate wealth and that takes Faith (imho)!
Love Lily
_________________
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:37-38
As a lily among thorns, So is my love among the daughters. Son 2:2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2837
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bitterlily wrote: | | … if there was something wrong about the giving of these offerings surely the Apostles would not have created a policy that encouraged their distribution. Instead they would have discouraged people from making such donations in the first place, wouldn't they? |
This presumes that everything the apostles did or thought was right, doesn’t it?
Yet even after Peter had a vision about the gentiles, Paul records that men sent from James changed his mind, and Peter had to be rebuked.
In Acts 15 Peter declares that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, but James succeeds in having the elders create a policy for Gentiles only.
(Starting to get the picture?)
The disconnect is between the multitude that believed NOTHING that one possessed was his own, and Peter who specifically declared otherwise.
At this point I highly suspect that you have no experience in running a church, nor dealing with peer pressure on a large scale (say 3,000). So I readily admit that you’ll cleave to your own understanding until at some point you find yourself in the middle of the same kind of irrational exuberance of which I speak.
God bless,
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
